:00:00. > :00:00.81-year-old woman has been shot dead at a care home in Essex and a
:00:00. > :00:17.relative, also a resident, has been arrested on suspicion of murder.
:00:18. > :00:24.Welcome to our look ahead at what the papers will bring us tomorrow.
:00:25. > :00:27.With me Martin Bentham, home affairs editor for the London Evening
:00:28. > :00:32.Standard, and the broadcaster Petrie Hoskin. We are going to start with
:00:33. > :00:37.the flooding in northern England which features on a number of
:00:38. > :00:41.tomorrow's front pages, with the Guardian saying the cost of the
:00:42. > :00:46.floods could top ?5 billion. The Telegraph is eight photograph of an
:00:47. > :00:50.RAF Chinook flying past York Minster as it helps with the efforts to
:00:51. > :00:54.repair the flood defences. The main stories about a planned change to
:00:55. > :00:58.stamp duty on second homes which critics have dubbed a tax on
:00:59. > :01:02.marriage. The Financial Times reports that 10,000 homes are built
:01:03. > :01:06.on flood plains every year and says David Cameron is coming under fire
:01:07. > :01:10.with accusations of a north-south divide and flood prevention. The
:01:11. > :01:14.Daily Mail has an image of a woman cleaning the window in a wine bar in
:01:15. > :01:18.York, as floodwaters washed against the side. The main story is about
:01:19. > :01:25.the fatal shooting of an elderly woman in a care home. That story is
:01:26. > :01:31.also on the front of the Sun. The Daily Express also chooses to lead
:01:32. > :01:34.with the shooting in Essex. The Independent focuses on politics,
:01:35. > :01:40.saying Jeremy Corbyn has challenged David Cameron to take part in an
:01:41. > :01:44.annual TV debate. The Times returns to the flooding, reporting that
:01:45. > :01:50.uninsured victims face a ?1 billion bill. The flooding is the place to
:01:51. > :01:54.start. Let's start with the Guardian, flood victims face ruin as
:01:55. > :01:59.the bill reaches 5 billion. Presumably these people for some
:02:00. > :02:03.reason don't have insurance. Insurance policies, a lot of people
:02:04. > :02:06.are finding in their insurance policies that in the small print,
:02:07. > :02:11.and they would argue it is therefore they didn't read it, but it will say
:02:12. > :02:15.something like, if you are so many feet or yards or half a mile away
:02:16. > :02:21.from a river or a lake, you are not insured. I was thinking, I'm not far
:02:22. > :02:24.from the Thames and I haven't checked to see if there is something
:02:25. > :02:28.in my policy. I think we all need to look at our policies and make sure
:02:29. > :02:32.we are covered. The companies will say, I'm sorry, you are not covered.
:02:33. > :02:37.Should the government paid the bill if the homeowner didn't check their
:02:38. > :02:44.policy? That will be the next question. I've got the Regents canal
:02:45. > :02:50.at the back of my garden. Check your policy. It might well be there. I
:02:51. > :02:57.will. ?5 billion is a lot. I think it will be higher. The government
:02:58. > :03:02.probably would feel it should step in, wouldn't it? That is the overall
:03:03. > :03:06.damage, some of which is insured, and ?1 billion is supposed to be
:03:07. > :03:11.not. The basic point is that it is an enormous amount of economic
:03:12. > :03:14.damage that has been caused, and personal misery, but also from an
:03:15. > :03:18.economic point of view the argue about how much to spend on flood
:03:19. > :03:23.defences, it obviously expects -- suggests that the events show that
:03:24. > :03:32.defences are inaccurate and if there are any arguments about this then it
:03:33. > :03:36.should be value for money to do this. If the government ends up
:03:37. > :03:40.picking up a lot of the bill... We are talking now about the immediate
:03:41. > :03:44.damage. There are businesses that will never be running again, people
:03:45. > :03:48.whose livelihoods will not be the same. It will take at least a year
:03:49. > :03:52.for people to get their homes and businesses back into any sort of
:03:53. > :04:02.semblance of Liverpool or workable condition. It is a huge cost. --
:04:03. > :04:05.Liverpool. We have seen with York, for example, some of the
:04:06. > :04:08.Communications in York city centre have broken down and people haven't
:04:09. > :04:14.been able to use cash machines, which seems a shambles to be frank.
:04:15. > :04:17.We need again, when we are looking at how to protect against these
:04:18. > :04:23.events in future, which it appears there is likely to be more, things
:04:24. > :04:27.have to be resilient. We can't have flood defences which don't work when
:04:28. > :04:32.floods happen, and you can't have electronics and communications which
:04:33. > :04:37.break down... The whole of civil society disappearing because of
:04:38. > :04:42.flooding. That increases the damage. If you can maintain your businesses
:04:43. > :04:47.and keep trading... But if you are knocked out because of something
:04:48. > :04:50.foreseeable to an extent... The Environment Agency is saying that
:04:51. > :04:54.flood defences need a complete rethink. If we go to the front of
:04:55. > :05:02.the Financial Times, figures show that 10,000 homes are built on flood
:05:03. > :05:07.plains every year, so the latest figures on these, 2013-14, 10,000
:05:08. > :05:11.homes were built on flood plains. Despite the fact that we know that
:05:12. > :05:17.more extreme weather events are going to become the norm. One of
:05:18. > :05:22.your report earlier and was showing that in 2007 there were floods, a
:05:23. > :05:29.great debate about that, and there have been subsequent ones. 2011,
:05:30. > :05:34.2012... You hear these debates every time. With places like York, it is a
:05:35. > :05:39.historic city and those houses will always be in a perilous situation.
:05:40. > :05:43.But building and putting your new properties in the line of fire, so
:05:44. > :05:48.to speak, seems to be an obscenity, but it keeps happening. This is not
:05:49. > :05:52.a new revelation, that there is a risk with flood plains. It has been
:05:53. > :06:01.talked about for at least a decade, more than that, that it is a problem
:06:02. > :06:06.to do that. Why is this continuing? Is it one in 14 homes? It seems to
:06:07. > :06:12.be insanity that planning permission is given, and it is probably if it
:06:13. > :06:18.is out of town and it will be bigger states presumably built on flood
:06:19. > :06:22.plains, not just one or two. There may be pressure on housing but there
:06:23. > :06:27.has to be a more intelligent way of doing this. How can they build a
:06:28. > :06:31.property on a flood plain, which is there so that water runs off? That
:06:32. > :06:37.is what it is therefore. It's supposed to take it and you are
:06:38. > :06:40.building houses! It would be good to look at the regulations and whether
:06:41. > :06:45.local authorities are able to resist the power of the developers to force
:06:46. > :06:50.it through. It could be that they are not. They have to make it
:06:51. > :06:55.illegal. It has to be like the green belt, where you can't build. There
:06:56. > :06:58.is no excuse. There is no point building houses on a flood plain and
:06:59. > :07:01.then paying millions of pounds for defences to defend homes you
:07:02. > :07:07.shouldn't have built there. It doesn't make sense. One would assume
:07:08. > :07:14.that insurance premiums are much higher if you are on a flood plain
:07:15. > :07:16.anyway. If you know you are. Building in extra cost for the
:07:17. > :07:21.people buying them in the first place, it seems bizarre. The Daily
:07:22. > :07:29.Telegraph, the Scottish edition, Scotland warned over severe weather.
:07:30. > :07:34.The suggestion is that it could well... I mean, the southern bit of
:07:35. > :07:38.Scotland, across the border, just across, has been badly hit over the
:07:39. > :07:47.past few days, but there is a suggestion it isn't quite as bad as
:07:48. > :07:51.it has been over the border. I was talking on my radio show over the
:07:52. > :07:54.weekend and there were calls from the border saying, look, it is bad
:07:55. > :08:00.but we don't feel anywhere near the pain being felt further south from
:08:01. > :08:03.where they were. There have to be warnings, and at least there are
:08:04. > :08:10.warnings, and at least their sandbags and preparation being made.
:08:11. > :08:15.Hopefully, there will be less of a surprise factor with Scotland, if it
:08:16. > :08:19.does get that bad. The bigger concern is that, of course, this is
:08:20. > :08:23.a Scottish edition so they are talking to their readers, but the
:08:24. > :08:27.bigger concern is the existing places that have been hit that have
:08:28. > :08:32.saturated ground. They are the ones who will be most in the firing line
:08:33. > :08:38.when bad weather hits in the next couple of days. Some bloke called
:08:39. > :08:45.Frank will be wondering over. Astonishing photo, with that chin.
:08:46. > :08:49.It says it all. We are going to go to the Independent, an interesting
:08:50. > :08:54.story. Corbyn challenges Cameron Stewart annual TV debate. The Labour
:08:55. > :09:00.leader once a state of the nation debate, taking its cue from a recent
:09:01. > :09:05.election. It would be well worth seeing. People would like it. We
:09:06. > :09:12.would all like to see it. I am not sure Mr Cameron would like it. That
:09:13. > :09:16.is the drawback. Nothing to win from that. David Cameron and his team
:09:17. > :09:21.didn't want a debate before the last election, let alone every single
:09:22. > :09:27.year. He has so much to lose. There is no point. The question would also
:09:28. > :09:32.be, in theory, he might not mind a one-to-one, the problem with the
:09:33. > :09:35.televised debates in the election was exactly who was going to
:09:36. > :09:39.participate, so you probably wouldn't be able to have a
:09:40. > :09:44.one-to-one debate, well maybe, but that would be a drawback, and he
:09:45. > :09:49.would probably repeat himself. It would be another string of people, a
:09:50. > :09:55.massive row of people. One-to-one, he has more to lose than to gain. I
:09:56. > :09:58.wonder if Jeremy Corbyn is going to e-mail questions to get people to
:09:59. > :10:03.write his speeches for him. Questions for the debate. If it
:10:04. > :10:07.happens, it would be good, because these things are good to engage the
:10:08. > :10:12.public. People can watch it and make up their own minds. They complain
:10:13. > :10:17.about how we present things to them, so people can see directly out their
:10:18. > :10:23.politicians... I don't think they believe what they say anyway. There
:10:24. > :10:27.is that problem of credibility. I think it would be boring, but there
:10:28. > :10:31.you go. If you are doing it every year, what are they trying to
:10:32. > :10:35.achieve? Please, concentrate on politics and being politicians and
:10:36. > :10:40.doing the job that we pay you to do, to get on with the job of either
:10:41. > :10:45.fighting the power that is being the power that is and getting things
:10:46. > :10:50.like, I don't know, flood defences, let's sort out actual work was then
:10:51. > :10:58.-- rather than worrying about public appearances. I'm bored of it. Let's
:10:59. > :11:03.go back to the Guardian. Martin, Japan issued an apology over sex
:11:04. > :11:09.slaves to Korea. One of those nasty, horrible episodes left over from the
:11:10. > :11:15.Second World War. 200,000 women it is estimated, Korean women, were
:11:16. > :11:20.basically made to work as sex slaves in brothels for the Japanese army. A
:11:21. > :11:23.horrible thing that happened in the war and some victims are still
:11:24. > :11:30.alive, as some of your reports were showing. The Japanese have made this
:11:31. > :11:34.donation as a gesture, an initial gesture. They were asked to do it by
:11:35. > :11:39.this year, they got in there just in time. The Japanese have been pretty
:11:40. > :11:42.poor at apologising for various things they did during the war. I
:11:43. > :11:49.suppose we should give them credit for making a step in the right
:11:50. > :11:54.direction on this. Yeah. You can't row back from what happened. These
:11:55. > :11:58.women are 80 or 90 and the Japanese are going to give some money that
:11:59. > :12:01.will compensate hopefully in some way for the psychological torture
:12:02. > :12:06.and horror, but for me this reminds me that women are still used today
:12:07. > :12:10.as sex slaves and victims of rape in war. I spent time in Bosnia and
:12:11. > :12:17.there were rape camps there. This is a reminder, still, of the plight
:12:18. > :12:22.that women face, today, in this world as the victims of war. They
:12:23. > :12:26.face this kind of brutality now. This is a good reminder to all of
:12:27. > :12:32.us, actually, that women are suffering all around the world.
:12:33. > :12:36.Sexual violence is a weapon of war. Always has been and I'm afraid it
:12:37. > :12:40.always will be. It is taking place in many parts of the world in
:12:41. > :12:47.complex. The Daily Telegraph, stamp duty change is being seen by some as
:12:48. > :12:51.a tax on marriage. Explain this. This is very iniquitous. It is
:12:52. > :12:58.saying that the new levy on having a second home, the new stamp duty, is,
:12:59. > :13:02.if you are an unmarried couple, you can each buy a home before you have
:13:03. > :13:06.to pay and, if one of few buys a second home in your name, you would
:13:07. > :13:13.have to pay it, but the two of you can each own one whereas, if you
:13:14. > :13:17.marry, a man who has a house already, a woman marries him who
:13:18. > :13:21.hasn't got a house, she then can't buy another property without having
:13:22. > :13:28.to pay this extra stamp duty. She is then treated as, in effect, in tax
:13:29. > :13:33.purposes, his chattel, or whatever. It works the other way round, but it
:13:34. > :13:36.is the principle of independent taxation, which is what women
:13:37. > :13:40.particularly fought for is one of the fundamental changes in sex
:13:41. > :13:45.equality, is being undermined by this. It is relating to marriage in
:13:46. > :13:49.this case because it is saying, if you are married, you are counted as
:13:50. > :13:56.two people, and it does seem to be wrong that you are discriminated
:13:57. > :14:00.against in the tax system. It is a real Telegraph story, because I am
:14:01. > :14:04.wondering how many couples struggle with who is going to buy their
:14:05. > :14:08.second property. I don't know how many people that will affect. It is
:14:09. > :14:13.also if you are buying a property for your child foster don't look at
:14:14. > :14:21.me, Simon, it's not happening! You would have the same thing. Stamp
:14:22. > :14:27.duty change, a tax on marriage. It should be on some marriage, a tiny
:14:28. > :14:31.proportion of marriages. A tiny proportion of Telegraph readers'
:14:32. > :14:36.marriages. We will end it there. You will be back in about an hour, I
:14:37. > :14:40.hope, looking at some more of the stories behind the headlines. Stay
:14:41. > :14:54.with us on BBC news. Much more coming up but now it is Sportsday.
:14:55. > :14:57.United draw a blank against Chelsea as it finshed goalless