11/12/2015 The Papers


No need to wait to see what's in the papers - tune in for a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



from the short list for the 2015 BBC Sports Personality of the Year.


That is all in Sportsday in 15 minutes, first here is The Papers.


Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be


With me are Neil Midgley, from Forbes.com, and Laura Hughes,


who's a political correspondent at the Daily Telegraph.


The Independent's front page has a picture of an illuminated


Eiffel Tower in Paris where negotiators are said to be


close to an "historic deal" on climate change.


The Times says households are paying "extortionate" charges to Britain's


energy networks for routine jobs such as moving meters.


The FT looks at the Chinese investor caught up in the anti-corruption


drive in China, where the private sector is increasingly nervous


The Mail says millions of investors are to be forced to file tax returns


The Express says a new blood test could predict arthritis years


The Mirror reports on the schoolboy who died after falling under a bus


And the Guardian says phone-hacking victims are expected to demand


a review of the Crown Prosecution Service's decision to cease pursuing


Let us get to grips with some of this. There is not one top story. We


will start with climate change and what has been happening in Paris,


but as they go to print the still just on the verge of a historic


deal. I will believe it when I see it. There is still some time to go.


The deadline for some agreement has been put back, it was supposed to


happen today but now tomorrow, and as you were saying and as The


Independent says, there is talk of this target of only a 1.5 degrees


increase in global temperatures due to man-made climate change, as the


scientists would say. Whether that will be agreed or there will be


weasel words. I have heard reports that will be weasel words around to


degrees at the final tally should be as far under two degrees as


possible. The devil with these big international agreements is in the


detail on what individual countries will promise to do to cut their own


emissions and what mechanisms there will be to make sure that they stick


to those promises. Neither of those counts, from what was reported today


by the BBC and others, did not seem to be any clear idea of what sticks


the individual countries were going to give away to get beaten with. Do


you think this will end in a tight agreement? You have America who are


pushing on China to adhere to a single way of measuring. China says


that they measure it in a different way and that is where the conflict


is. The cell and China and America are involved so it is a big deal. It


is a step forward but people tend to find ways to wiggle out. I have not


been following this in detail but what I did not hear today in the


reports is anything about population control and it seems to me


common-sense, and there is a documentary film called ten Billion


that talks about the possibility that the world population will reach


out within our lifetimes. Clearly the more people that there are the


more carbon emissions there will be because there will be a certain


amount of carbon emissions per head. It seems to be that without grasping


that particularly unpleasant metal, this could turn out... It is


interesting because with the flooding someone came out and said


that it could be a result of global warming. It is a big story for us


this week. It focuses the mind and a feeling that I've had from our


correspondence led by up in speaking to today is that there is that says


that this time we are ready to grasp the nettle because we are realising


it is now or never. Is that rose tinted or do you think the vibe is


better this time? I think it is and I think this week will have made


people look at the story because it has affected them, they have been


kicked out of their homes because of that potentially, and there are


senior ministers... Not to minimise what happened in Cumbria, that is a


relatively small proportion of the UK population. When the polling data


comes back about whether people are prepared to pay extra at the petrol


pump or in the supermarket for climate change commitments and lower


carbon emissions, people said no. They want BT or cells to pick it up


-- BP or shell to pick it up. It will be interesting to see what


comes out. At the bottom of The Independent and in The Guardian we


have the phone hacking story. This is the decision by the Director of


Public Prosecutions not to pursue certain prosecutions and it is


proving pretty controversial for some of the victims who were hoping


to see this through to the end. Other we know that illegal things


are going on she says there is not sufficient evidence for big


corporate charges and a lot of the victims are now saying they are


going to challenge the single back to the court that it is not enough.


This has been going on for years and Andy Coulson and others have gone


down. The cost of this whole thing is now ?40 million. The newspapers


are giving different figures but it is a lot of money. There is some


public appetite and Hugh Grant is going to come out to speak about


this. How much more do we want this to go one? It is a story that I


sensed the public got tired off quite quickly after the Milly Dowler


revelations came out in July 2000 and 11. People were appalled and


rightly so and there were more revelations during the levels


report. We might get part two of the Levenson report. And the terms of


reference, there is provision for a second part to take place after the


criminal investigation by the police into phone hacking specifically. If


that judicial requiring was to take place, -- judicial inquiry, he would


be able to call witnesses from e-mail grip. -- from the Miller


group. They are not saying that phone hacking did not happen at The


Mirror, they have paid out, they appeared civil damages to people


saying that they know they have to phone. The Crown Prosecution Service


is saying that they do not have enough evidence against any


individual journalists. They were licking at full call data from


different phones within the office, they did not know which journalists


had made which calls on which days. These were office phones. That is


something rather Crown Prosecution Service before it brings a criminal


prosecution has to be really sure it has another evidence. People are


often frustrated by that because they know that there was bad


software was going on, but it is the detail that has to stand up in court


which is something different. That aside I have been 154 arrests but


only 45 convictions. That is nearly ?1 million of public money. There


was a lot of talk about deregulation of the press. Do you think people


were interested in hearing about how the press were going to be regulated


or do you think that was being tired old these to this. It's about Milly


Dowler, people did not want to get involved in the nitty-gritty? Is not


in the nitty-gritty and I think that is the basic principle of the free


press and that is what most people recognise and realise and want. All


these disgusting things came out which most journalists would agree


when appropriate. It has never really been a Tory issue, regulating


the press. David Cameron was never keen on it and he has always said


that the pressure be free and it should regulate itself. It was an Ed


Miliband issue and he was very keen on making a big song and dance about


the fact that he had taken on Rupert Murdoch was the first party leader


to do so, but now that the Tories do not have the drag of the Liberal


Democrats and coalition as they did before, dragging them towards a more


interventionist regulation of the press, I think that is probably a


dead letter for them. We will stay with The Guardian and a story that


keeps giving. Donald Trump is on the front page again. The story just


keeps going and today Hillary Clinton came out and said that he is


just not funny any more. It has gone too far. The reaction from


politicians has been interesting. George Osborne stood in for David


Cameron at Prime Minister's Questions are quite a few MPs said


that he should be banned from the country because the things that he


had been saying is hate speech. George Osborne argued that you have


to give these people are boys about you challenge them and argue against


them and welcome them here. The BBC is Boris Johnson who said that he


should not be allowed in the country. There's a conflict about


what people believe but the story is extraordinary and the petition is


just... It is Bjorn 400,000 now. I figured has 500,000 signatures now.


I'm not sure that he would want to come because clearly it is not safe


to walk on the streets here. There are parts of London you can go into.


Could he become the president of the United States and because he is such


a wealthy man and has been bankrolling his campaign for the


Republican nomination, unlike Hillary Clinton, he does not have to


go out to big donors and get a coalition of the willing to fund the


campaign, he can say whatever he likes. That can go down very well.


People have been patented Nigel Farage and I think that is unfair.


Where the comparison holds some water is that Nigel Farage before


the last election and during the last parliament was the maverick


politician in Britain and he was the one who supposedly said what the


ordinary man was thinking. She wasn't hateful in the way that


Donald Trump has been. He didn't get anywhere, but the American system is


different and if you have enough money you can buy your way quite a


long way down the track and getting the Republican nomination is


different from winning the presidency, because the nomination


is largely decided by the Republican base of evangelical and Christians.


The American electorate hopefully will take a different view. The


Times is talking about thousands being caught up in an energy price


rip-off. This is the watchdog looking at what we're being charged


to a meter. What is most bizarre is the difference in price. On one side


of the road you can be quoted ?5,400 and then something completely


different on the other side of the road. I think it is an interesting


story and the danger is that people are turning to a legal suppliers of


the servers to might not move the meter in a safe way. This is very


dangerous. Energy companies are not very popular with the company 's


cop-mac public. What I didn't realise is that there are ten


different companies who own the networks that bring the electricity


and gas to our houses, as opposed to the National Grid which is the


backbone of the system which is owned by one company. You have the


National Grid and then his distribution companies and then the


retail energy companies, from whom you buy a relative city and who are


using these networks to distribute it. It is fiendishly complicated.


Only a privatised, national monopoly could come up with such a difficult


to regulate system with so many different moving parts and it is not


a surprise that the energy regulator doesn't seem to have been able to


keep up with it. We were going to look at the FT in China but we don't


have time although we will come back to it in the next hour, a story


about a Chinese tycoon who seems to have found themselves in trouble


over anti-corruption. We will talk about this and some of the other


stories. That is all from


The Papers this hour. They will be back with me at 11.30pm


for another look at the stories


Download Subtitles