13/01/2016 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 13/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles