18/01/2016 The Papers


No need to wait until tomorrow morning 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 18/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



play in the Six Nations campaign after being cited for making contact


with an opponent's eyes. That is in 15 minutes. -- Andy Murray's


first-round match. Hello, and welcome to our look


ahead to what the papers With me are are Deborah Haynes,


who's defence editor with the Times, and Torcuil Crichton,


who's the political editor The Financial Times leads with


the news that trade union bosses are warning ministers that Chinese


steel imports are, in their words, leading British mills to


the brink of "catastrophe". The Metro leads with a


story we've been covering today - the suggestion that some Muslim


women who fail to learn English The picture there is


of the actress Amy Schumer, who suffered a broken shoe heel


at the Critics' Choice Awards. The Express headline


heralds the death of what it calls 'gold-plated' final


salary pensions with the prediction that nearly every


fund will be axed by next year. The photo on the right is


of Tuppence Middleton - one of the stars of


the BBC's new drama, War And Peace. The i's headline


reads, "Fury as Student Grants are Axed" - it talks of "controversial"


new laws passed without a full The Guardian leads


with the story that the boss of the NHS in England is calling


for a political consensus on how to the story that the Prime Minister


would back a ban on Muslim women wearing a veil in schools, courts


and other British institutions. Their cover picture shows


singer/songwriter Don McLean of American Pie fame, who has been


arrested and charged Let's begin our look at the papers.


Let's begin with the Times. An interesting front-page headline,


women charged more on sex as Thai street. Deborah will have strong


views, but tell us what it is about -- on the high street. It has been


staring us in the face for years. We have accepted it, and it is the way


companies and shops charge women well for the same product, and this


Times story by the consumer affairs editor, has brilliant examples. If


you want to buy a scooter for a child in pink, it will cost ?5 more.


For a pair of jeans for a man, but if you buy them for a woman, they


cost more. It is the same material. You want a razor in pink, it will be


46% extra. There is one bizarre exception, whose' parents for some


bizarre reason cost less then goes' parents -- snick. -- 's secular. We


have known about it but we have accepted it. We have not realise the


huge disparities. They are shocking figures. It is so weird, because it


is embarrassing to admit, but I have always bought men's races. --


raises. Just because it is cheaper. I thought maybe the reason women's


razors were more expensive is because they were in with something,


but actually it is just that they are pink -- infused. An interesting


story of something that has stayed us in the face for ages. The Times


have analysed hundreds of products and, with these startling results.


You have the reactions. The woman leading the committee in the Commons


for women's equality is calling it unacceptable, and there is a


suggestion retail bosses could be called before Parliament to justify


this discrepancy tween men on whom are pricing. -- men and women's. We


are 40 years on from equal pay but we know it is the gender pay still.


Something as simple as spending money, you have to pay more if you


are a female. There was an example of boys' pants being expensive, but


they were examples of girls' costing more. It applies online as well.


That will be an interesting investigation. Deborah, start us on


the Daily Telegraph. They talk about David Cameron whacking a Muslim veil


then -- backing. They have been clever picking up on comments that


everyone else didn't really think about too much this morning, that


the Prime Minister made on the Today programme where he says it could be


possible for schools, courts, hospitals, border checks, those


sorts of places, for women who have chosen to wear a veil to not be able


to wear them, but people should have a right to choose what they want to


read. He is not advocating Draconian systems like in France and Belgium


-- what they want to wear. But this will probably if night that debate


which has been long-running anyway. -- ignite. There is a whole package


of measures such as the issue to deal with making Muslim women speak


English, which has been controversial today. Apparently


there will be other measures that will be announced. It is all aimed


at stopping people from being radicalised and joining is an


extent. An interesting point -- Islamic State. What is the


connection? Getting people to speak English when they beat in the UK,


that sounds sensible if a touch not practical. But going beyond that,


that is different. Cameron did go beyond that today. There is enough


meat in what he said about English lessons going one step you want. --


beyond. Baroness Warsi called a lazy connection by saying that if a woman


is here for 2.5 years and does not learn English, they can to -- be


deported. And then British Muslims are being radicalised and deported


into terrorism. That was today's story. The Telegraph have picked up


on other comments made about the veil and how he would want it in


certain circumstances like courts, council buildings perhaps where


people are meeting where the public overlaps with the private, he would


like to see the veil banned. It happens in France, Bolton and other


bases in Europe -- Belgium. It feeds into that whole wider debate about


multiculturalism and the liberation of women. Telling people what to


wear. Tolerance is the British byword, and this does not seem very


tolerant. Let's go to the Financial Times. I think it is your turn. It


is our main news tonight, Chinese steel imports pushed mills to bring


catastrophe. We are talking about Port Talbot being mothballed. This


is a difficult and miserable thing for a lot of people. Devastating


news. Widely expected where they were stacking steel in the car park


because they could not sell it. About 1000 people using their jobs


in Port Talbot and other plants across Britain. But from the grim


news of the job losses, what is to come? China, which has been blamed


for this lot of steel on the world market, is now trying to go for what


is called market economy status with the World Trade Organisation. That


means an economy where people buy and sell under state subsidy. We


know China has not, and there have been warnings that this will cost


Europeans millions of jobs and pounds in lost production because we


will be flooded with Chinese goods. If people think this is blue-collar


jobs, it is not. You will see paralegal, accountancy, professional


jobs to the some extent any growth of China will carry on. But


globalisation is unstoppable. People say the government should intervene,


but to do what? One of our commentators said tonight about an


overvalued currency. We cannot have any influence on that. At least the


government don't want to have any influence over that. While everyone


is bashing China over steel, the government has been all out on the


offensive to woo Chinese investment to the UK, and with regard to the


recognition from the WTO, bridging is supporting that. -- Britain. EU


states are divided over whether they want to support China getting this


economy status, but Britain is in favour, which shows that Housing act


you have. It is a complex picture. -- balancing. I think David Cameron


was going to tackle the Chinese leadership over steel, but we have


not seen much evidence of that. Let's move on. The Sun, one big


story, crackshot probed by crackpots. What is this about? This


is another interesting example of a British soldier being chased through


the courts potentially to do with actions on the battlefield. In this


case, the British sniper is being probed for killing an Iraqi who is


about to via a grenade because he did not shout a warning. That seems


ludicrous. Why would you shout a warning if you are going to kill


someone? The whole point of being a sniper is you are not seen. And you


are in a wall sign. If you shout, it allows people to your position. --


war zone. Top Army witch-hunt, it says, and there is a sense that


certain law firms are chasing after an persecuting soldiers for actions


they did during the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. Iraq is especially


in the spotlight because of this Iraqi historic allegations tribunal


looking at about 1500 allegations relating to almost 300 soldiers who


have been questioned in relation to this. There is a suggestion that


charges could be bought against them. We have had the investigation


into the incident where there are incidents where soldiers have


misbehaved, but the idea that it is on a industrial scale does seem a


bit suspicious. Or that every shot has to be investigated legally


afterwards. It has an effect on the ability of commanders of Britain to


wage war. There is a real concern that if you... There are lots of


laws that legislate war anyway, any idea that you can add extra millions


through human rights legislation really restricts the abilities of


commanders to give conduct -- conduct battle. And Friends United.


No more friends need reuniting says the Daily Telegraph. It is gone. It


seems innovative and amazing, and it did what you said on the tin. You


put your details in and classmates or people you never wanted to hear


from again come up. Why did it die? It was overtaken by Facebook. And


other social websites that were available. Did you use it with lack


I did, actually. I put in my old school and all of these people


popped up. It was years ago, then Facebook came along and you were at


United, so you don't need to be reunited. It is interesting. This


article talks about how it was blamed for thousands of divorces. It


reignited millions of friendships as well. That is it for this hour.


Thank you for joining us. Coming up next, it is time for the sport.


Hello and welcome to Sportsday, I'm Anjana Gadgil.


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

Download Subtitles