13/01/2016 The Papers

We will hear from him and we will bring you the latest from the

Masters snooker, all in Sportsday in 15 minutes after the papers.

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

With me are Isabel Hardman, Assistant Editor at the Spectator

and Jim Waterson, Deputy Editor at Buzzfeed.

Time now for a reminder of some of the front pages.

The Telegraph front page has the Conservative leader of the House

of Commons, Chris Grayling, saying the European Union

in its current state is disastrous for Britain.

The Financial Times reports that employers may now have the right

to read workers' personal emails and messages,

following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

It describes it as a landmark ruling giving full access

The i says the first genetically-modified embryos

could be created in Britain within weeks, in what it says

The Guardian has conducted a survey indicating Jeremy Corbyn enjoys

overwhelming support among the Labour Party's grass roots.

It also has news of some interesting gifts presented to the Royal Family,

including a marzipan model of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.

The Mirror tells us that David Bowie has been cremated without any

ceremony, even for family and friends.

The paper says he made clear before his death that he didn't want

The Scottish Daily Record has the story of David and Carol Martin,

So, good to have you back with me. Let's begin. Isabel, you can take us

first to the Times and their lead story is about the fact you are

going to have to move into your school playground if you want to

have a place. This is really interesting, 90 primary schools are

refusing to accept pupils living 300 metres away and one school has

shrunk its catchment area to 92 metres according to a survey. It's

really interesting, middle-class parents living near the most

desirable schools to secure places for their children have forced local

authorities to shrink their catchment areas. It's unfair to

blame middle-class parents for wanting the best thing for their

children, but those parents who can't afford to pay school fees to

get into the best state schools, under the system that has existed

for years, are lumped with the school they are given for their

children when every parent wants the best for their child, it's just what

they can afford. The state school system shouldn't be set up to cater

for those who can move to a desirable neighbourhood. Essentially

you are paying school fees but you are doing it through another means.

House prices. This all comes down to this point, the Local Government

Association talking about the burden and the cost of providing these

extra places needed. We have too many children and not enough spaces.

Yes. That doesn't mean those schools have to be bad. There's lots of ways

to look at it. It shouldn't be a case of pupils being terrified.

People need another choice. Jim, why we are talking about it, staying

with the Times -- while. Petrol may soon be cheaper than water. The

price of Brent crude going below $30 a bowl -- $30 a barrel. If petrol is

86p a litre then it is cheaper than water... I'm not sure what water

they are drinking or what they are thinking of. It's a nice idea, the

idea that it has gone that cheap that we can discard it in a bottle

or something like that. It is great for us. Everyone in the UK who has a

car feels a bit wealthier. It's terrible for countries relying on

oil revenue, which includes a lot of places with teetering economies in

the Middle East where we would prefer them to be stable with lots

of income. It raises many issues. In Scotland, then you have Scottish

independence, due in a few months if the "yes" vote would have gone

through, what with the finances have been like if the oil price is like

it is. What were you going to say? If it is cheaper than water then you

could shower in oil. We were talking about what kind of oil, does it have

fairy dust or do you have to go to special springs to get it? Vets have

a look at the Guardian, their lead story is about support for Jeremy

Corbyn -- let's. This is a survey they have done from 632

constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales. It's really interesting,

even though the opinion polls for Labour in the General Electric

aren't great, Labour members are pretty keen on what Jeremy Corbyn is

doing -- General electorate. MPs are saying they come back from their

local constituencies and they are being told they have done a great

job, they are saying that the press and the MPs are being very mean to

Jeremy Corbyn. Even if the press are biased to Labour, it is one of the

facts of life that the party needs to deal with. Entail it works out

how to deal with that and the electorate's suspicions of its

leaders then they won't get into power -- until. They have more

complaints for the comments about Jeremy Corbyn underperforming rather

than voting to bomb Isis in Syria. The action is less important than

criticising their leader. Why are they constantly undermining him?

Membership has almost doubled in the general election. These members are

flooding back in. They are old members coming back in that

understand the way Labour works. This isn't naive people, these are

people who left because of the Iraq war and they want to get the party

back to where they feel it should be. The problem for anti-Corbyn

Labour MPs, of which there are many, is how to convince the members that

things will be better in 2020. That was his unique selling point, a new

kind of politics, they have to convince them of that. That will be

a long-term project because the members don't trust the MPs, they

trust Jeremy Corbyn. Fascinating. The Mail have that story we have

been talking about, the European Court of Human Rights. Looking at an

old case of someone who lost their job because he was apparently using

personal e-mail when he shouldn't have been. Talk us through this,

people will be worried potentially. He set up a Yahoo messenger account,

the equivalent of Facebook or WhatsApp, some sort of messaging

service. Fissette it up for work but was using it for private use -- he

set. When his company checked whether he was doing his job

properly, they went through his private messages and use them as

evidence he wasn't using his job properly because there were 40 pages

of messaging his fiance and his brother. That was in 2007. Finally

we have a ruling almost a decade later that they were OK to do this.

It's not that they are going to jump straight into your personal e-mail,

but if you're logged in on a personal computer using an account

then there is a certainly wait to which they have access. The Mail

have a wise quote from an employment law specialist on the front page,

saying the safest course of action from employees is avoiding using

these platforms because who knows whether your boss is watching. If

you don't want your employer to see it, don't send it on your work phone

or computer. But what about if you have your own smartphone app and you

are on work's time but it is your device and you might want to send an

e-mail. You keep it in your pocket and you never let your boss know

that you have got it and you will be OK. Text in the loo, or something

like that. Put it under the table or something like that. There is a

point where you are entitled to a private life even at work, so you

need some access to be in touch with people on private issues, but where

are the boundaries? I think with most bosses, as long as you are

sensible and you don't leave too many breadcrumbs that they could

follow to find the trail then you are probably all right. Don't do too

much of your online shopping or anything like that there. You

wouldn't want to work for a boss going through stuff like that. But

in some firms, trade unions would be very worried like this, especially

workers on low paid, on exploitative contracts. This is the kind of thing

an unscrupulous boss could do to someone less powerful -- Lope. I

thought the most telling item here is legal experts warn staff should

now assume all their online activity is monitored. The safest approach,

as you say, is be discreet and don't think they can't have a look. Let's

have a look at the i. A picture of a baby with his cute chunky thighs.

Quite a serious ethical question here because of a ruling that is

about to be made one way or the other about whether genetically

modified embryos could be created in Britain. The current law is that the

embryos aren't allowed to live beyond 14 days. But this piece says

the research has accepted that the research could one day lead to the

birth of the first GM babies should the existing ban be lifted. It's

really interesting about how much control we are going to allow people

over how what type of baby they could have. You can ask people

questions, do you want scientists coming up with embryos in a

laboratory? No. Do you want a family making sure they don't pass on

Huntington's? Absolutely. They are the same thing. Which framing do you

like on a slightly contentious issue. Looking at the coverage of

IVF babies, it was all wide-eyed and, what is this? Test-tube babies.

Even this coverage here, it says a small step for GM babies. This

initial decision is about whether the embryo can be genetically

modified to look at the very early stages of the development of the

embryo, especially looking at why women miscarry, so there's no

suggestion of these being implanted, but it opens ethical questions about

what could happen further down the line. To the Telegraph. This is

Chris Grayling, who has been talking perhaps not hugely surprisingly

about his views on the possibility of a Grexit. If we are looking at a

referendum on EU membership in the summer or early autumn then

ministers have to start positioning and those that want to be on the

leave site have to start signalling they want to do this. Chris Grayling

is the first to jump -- leave side. We can't criticise too much because

we haven't got a deal yet. We are all pretending that David Cameron

could come out for leave, although we know he won't. Tentatively he has

to say in this potential situation I would probably said we should go

against the EU. I think Chris Grayling is not necessarily at the

core of the cabinet right now. I think he was sort of sidelined in

the last reshuffle to become Leader of the House of Commons from Justice

Secretary. It's interesting, the Telegraph piece covering his article

says his article today is carefully worded, and it has not come as a

surprise to number ten. He's not exploding in the media, he's being

very careful, but he has long made noises about leaving the EU and he

was one of the key figures to get David Cameron to suspend collective

responsibility when the renegotiation finishes. On the front

page he writes, even if David Cameron doesn't get the vote how he

wants it, he wouldn't have to resign. He says it is wrong that he

would have to resign according to David Cameron. Gently done. We know

where that is going. Isabel, end us on this rather lovely news on the

front of the Daily Record, ?33 million for David and Carol Martin.

I love the fact the paper has two pictures of them looking really

shocked and surprised and happy. When you see these stories you

always think about what you would do with the money and what their life

must be like, they always talk about small things because they haven't

grasped what they have won. Champagne flutes and a new pair of

shoes. They will probably buy a few homes but now it is the shoes. We

are all tantalised by these life changing amounts of money. In an

area hit by the floods, and the journalists said Will you give

anything to the victims of the floods, and they said maybe. The Sun

are saying they are going to give their fortune away. It must be

awkward if you have already committed to saying something like

that. They just want their holiday, doesn't mean they are bad people.

The question about them changing, they said it might change what they

will do but not them as people. It might change the people around them

more than them. You wouldn't fear losing your job because you could

pay your mortgage for the rest of your life. Fear of not having a pay

cheque is probably quite a big thing for most. A psychologist earlier

said it could be deeply demotivating not to have to work again but I

could cope for a while. ?33 million? Why not? Many thanks to both of you.

Coming up next it's time for Sportsday