08/04/2016 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 08/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Look at the clock- we are early! Before anybody starts to complain.


With me are the executive director of the Huffington Post,


James Martin, and the political correspondent for the


I have to tell them when we get it right because they tell us when we


get it wrong! The i's top story is more fall out


from the Panama Papers summed by its headline,


"PM Faces Inquiry Over Shares The Guardian carries the same story


with the headline, Cameron's trust problem.


The Independent says UK officials were routinely ignored as they tried


The Daily Telegraph, in an exclusive, says


the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has discovered


he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill's last


private secretary after taking a DNA test.


The Daily Mail claims that patients are paying up to 41 pence a minute


to book GP appointments despite an NHS ban on premium phone


The Times reports British weapons are secretly being sold


The Express says 160,000 people have signed a petition in protest


And the Mirror claims three members of England's 1966 World Cup winning


As oppose you would expect on the Friday of the Panama Papers week,


that is what we will be looking at. No skip tonight. The i says the


Prime Minister faces enquirer in shares over offshore trust -- no


surprises tonight. But a lot of papers have chosen not to lead with


this tonight. What is that all about? We wondered whether there was


Panama that geek and we had to actually scratch around a bit,


didn't we, Rowena, to find it -- Panama fatigue. Certainly not the


same prominence as the rest of the front pages and I wonder whether


David Cameron's team number ten ands are doing any fist pump and thinking


they have written this one out. From a journalistic point of view,


Rowena, mode of work that has gone into this -- read in this one out.


Digging around for months to find these revelations. Going it off the


boil might be handy but from a journalistic point of view, quite


depressing? It has been an extraordinary week of coverage from


The Guardian and Hundred other organisations around the world that


broke the story. It is a brief period of respite today for number


ten because only the i and Guardian have led on it but I just do not


think it is the end of the story by any means. Cameron will have to


release his tax returns in the next couple of days. Downing Street has


said as much. It will go back six years so they will probably have


some interesting nuggets and there are still a lot of outstanding


questions. What has changed. In 2012 David Cameron said he would come out


and publish his tax return? There is this massive issue of confidential


to the Hogan Nobuyuki he can just publish it and how will that happen?


Will be leaked into the Sunday papers? -- confidentiality so how is


it he can just. After saying there are all these confidentiality issues


over releasing a tax return, now he can do it? I agree. I think at the


time number ten were saying they were happy to publish, to think


about doing it, if other senior politicians were doing it as well,


and in fact the actual story about David Cameron's father, Ian Cameron,


and his offshore investment fund, was written by the -- about by their


Guardian in 2012 but Downing St shot that down by saying it was a private


matter. The reason the story is gaining traction now is because of


the global element to it. Other newspapers, other media


organisations, everyone has been chasing it all week and the pressure


on Cameron has just got too much. Publishing the tax returns is a way


of trying to draw a line under it. The other point the i makes here is


that the Prime Minister's personal approval ratings have fallen below


Jeremy and's for the first time. How have they managed it this week?


There is no suggestion there was any tax dodge going on, that this dollar


denominated shares trading fund that his father held in Panama, it was


not due to pay any tax in Panama because it is a non-tax jurisdiction


and any tax due to be paid was paid by David Cameron back when he sold


those shares... There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing, it is


just about how it appears to the public? It is a really good point


because potentially if number ten had handled this better we would not


be speaking about it today anyway. It would not have lasted for the


full five days but after four days of statements, or five days of four


statements, I should say, then the fifth one, it looked like he was


just calling these down and they were getting hit back over his head


for six, and then he had four in the end that were not going to do the


job for the lobby, where they -- bowling was just -- Cameron was just


bowling them down. To quote him, he it said Mrs Cameron and the children


will not benefit in future. That obviously opened the door, didn't


it? Have they benefited in the past. How they thought they would get that


past journalss without them thinking, hang on, that excludes


everything before, you know, Cameron became prime. All of those


statements, as they were sort of drip fed to us, they were all true?


That is true and to an extent this has become a story about a public


relations mess, but in a way I think Downing Street will be quite pleased


about that, the fire and fury has turned on to the way they have


handled it, and that distracts from the kind of underlying questions


that there are around, you know, we are not saying anything illegal has


been done by any means but morally David Cameron took that decision to


invest in an offshore fund that was not paying tax in Britain. That is


the root of the story. But when you sell them you pay tax where you are


resident? Yes, but it is a choice you make. What do you do with your


money? Let's look at the Guardian. Even if there is no wrongdoing,


Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are now saying there is a trust issue


and that is his problem. The statement to Parliament, new queries


posed about offshore fund, Prime Minister accused of half-truths and


misleading the public. It took five weeks and five -- sorry, five days,


and as you say it would have been much simpler to just say, yes, and


let's move on. Jeremy Corbyn seems to have taken the position that


Number Ten are doing a great job messing it up by themselves. I am


not going to say much at all, he is thinking. After the revelations last


night, how long it took, for him to say he did actually hold a stake in


this country, it took 12 hours for Jeremy Corbyn to come out and say


anything at all. When he first came out this morning, he was very gruff,


he pushed away journals's and who was simply trying to ask him a


question you would have thought he would have been keen to answer given


it was his chance to really stick the boot in the David Cameron. It


eggs the question, who has had a good Panama crisis? -- it begs the


question. Wonder whether Jeremy Corbyn, by not saying much at all,


has put in southern stronger position than? The polls today were


very bad for David Cameron and good for Jeremy Corbyn comparatively and


it is a question of liking that person, rather than, you know, the


question of confidence and leadership. I would be interested to


see what the metrics are on, you know, whether it has damaged the


view of David Cameron as a competent authority figure. That is true. It


is not just about whether you like that person but about whether you


trust them, and after five days of weasel words statements, it cannot


have helped that. People who already may have had doing an issue with


David Cameron and his supported tough background, anything he sees


now is going to be seen as a cover-up exercise, isn't it? And it


plays into the images to image the Conservatives have desperately been


trying to shed for so long about being privileged -- please enter the


image. And while Cameron is trying to lead the Remain campaign as we


head towards the EU referendum, trying to fend off the Brexiteers as


they are known. 160,000 people rejecting the pro-EU leaflet. Raises


the question of whether anyone actually reads leaflets anywhere to


back any mayor, Ken of a retro way of doing things. They must work.


Political parties spend a huge of money on them so they must be


something of study into them being incredibly effective but I imagine


they will be lining a few recycling bins over the next week or so. I


have just moved house and my recycling is a nightmare. I do not


know which one to put this one end! And whether I will find it anyway,


with the amount of leaflets through my door. Rowena, you were saying 34p


for a leaflet? I think that is right. It still causes a huge amount


of outrage and upset amongst the Brexit campaigners who are calling


it a propaganda blitz by the Government and the Richard not be


spending taxpayers' money, with different views on this issue, to


put one side of the cross -- and that they should not be spending. In


the Express story, 160,000 people have rejected the pro-EU leaflet.


They are sending a 27 million. In total, so 160,000 people rejecting


them, you know, it is not exactly a huge sum. Do we even know who this


petition is by? Is it supposed to spark a debate in Parliament if it


reaches over hundred thousand, on the parliamentary website? Samak I


think so. There are calls for a fast track debate about it given the


urgency of these leaflets going output is in -- yes, I think so. It


is all part of the pressure building amongst the campaigns that want to


leave the EU to try to get Cameron... The money is already


spent now. Yes, nothing you can do. There is a campaign, isn't there, to


get people to send them back to number ten, so one wonders whether


the primer Minister's recycling bin will be extra full. Just a pause for


a second, Duncan is asking why I am not wearing glasses tonight because


I am the odd one out. Specs appeal! I could be. I am about the same size


will do not see very well so I have my contact lenses in. Let's look at


the Daily Mail. How GPs are cashing in on patient one calls. What are


they doing? Interesting story. It is about whether GP practices are


exploding a loophole in the law which lets people, if they want, pay


a little extra and have their appointment fast tracked. If you do


not want to pay, you can stay on hold for as long apparently as it


takes for you to book that appointment, but if you want to get


fast tracked, you can call one of these premium rate phone lines. If


you spend ten minutes waiting or speaking to somebody on this premium


rate phone line, this 0844 number, ten minutes would cost you around ?4


and if it is a fast-track service one wonders whether a call would


take ten minutes to begin with. You know, there is a bigger issue here,


isn't there? Most GP practices are out of date in terms of


appointments. You cannot just in most practices book something


online, for a double. You cannot tweak your GP practice and say, do


you have 1:30pm available? -- Tweet. But people still have that option


perhaps being able to stay on hold. Or get the money? It seems


outrageous to me. I think every body should have access to their GP


within minutes and just collar number and get to the reception --


who gets the money? And all these services are under a huge amount of


financial pressure and this is a sign of it. Even if you can get


through, they don't necessarily have an appointment for you for three


weeks. That is potentially the bigger issue and not to bring it


back to that leaflet, but the point was made on question Time, wasn't


it, last night, that perhaps that ?9 million could have been better spent


helping junior doctors, for example. I just think it create a two tier


system where some people, and the other point is that some people


might not even notice. You are feeling really unwell, you have a


screaming child in the background with something or other and you call


the first number on the website. Given the choice between streamline,


fast tracking and not, most people will fast-track, even if they cannot


quite hear the fine print being told to them in the background. The


capital Times. British guns sold secretly to terrorists on Facebook.


-- let's look at the Times. Rather an open way of doing it? I have not


liked on my Facebook account anything to do with firearms in


Libya, thankfully, but I think this fascinating for a number of reasons.


Some of the guns for cell here, ex-World War II guns, they could


have been left behind by British soldiers, after World War II. These


are not exactly the sort of firearms you will necessarily start a war


with. But if they still work they are still deadly? Absolutely and


there is a serious price on these. Submachineguns at about ?500, that


is serious money. But these handguns, that apparently date back


to the Second World War, they were also discovered. There is not a


price in pounds but something like 20 Libyan dinar. One wonders whether


this is just a sign of The Times. For a lot of people Facebook is the


Internet. Terrorists indicated on Facebook, should we be surprised


people are selling firearms and Abbey National? It's the wider


problem with dangerous weapons sold on Internet -- people are selling


firearms there. Knives available on Amazon and that kind of thing, those


questions? Forget about the laws on the UK being able to do anything.


There is no my chance. If we cannot get our legal system to keep up with


this pack... I think the Libyans have more on the plate than how to


regulate this book. Think you are right. Should we move on. -- keep up


with Facebook. This exclusive. My secret father, next to Justin Welby,


the Archbishop of Canterbury. DNA tests reveals the Archbishop of


Canterbury's astonishing past. His father, Rowena, was not the man he


believed it was until very recently to be his father. It is not often


there is a line on a story saying it is astonishing, with a story that


really is astonishing. When we saw this weekend of scoffed, didn't we?


Then when we read it with it it was really interesting. It is amazing.


Charles Moore, best known as the biographer of irony stature, and he


has been slipping away and found some evidence that he thought --


best known as the biographer of Baroness Thatcher. He found that he


served Downing Street during his retirement, so what the Telegraph


did is go to Justin Welby and asking questions about his parentage and


his responses were amazing. He said, let's clear this up, and he took a


paternity test. Something from this that is truly incredible. You would


expect somebody who just found out their father, and you know he still


refers to his father as his father, that they might not exactly be


terribly impressed by the whole thing but some of these quotes are


amazing. He said, I was not in any way upset. I remain not upset. How


could you not be upset? He is not your traditional Archbishop, you


know, 11 years working in the oil industry, he comes from a different


background, you know. He has had other things in his life that have


cost him distress. For a double, he lost one of his children in 1983,


for example. Perhaps this is not the biggest crisis Justin Welby has ever


faced. We have a statement from the Archbishop which is really beautiful


actually. If you get a chance to read it in its entirety it is


certainly worth doing so. He says that it is only in the last month he


discovered his biographical bat-mac biological father is not who he


thought and he goes onto say that both of his parents had alcohol


problems and that as a result his early life was messy -- his


biological father. He said he's proud of the fact his mother has


been free of alcohol for a long time and that as far as they were able


his parents and very much his grandmother brought him up. He says,


my own experience is typical of many people, to be the child in a with


difficulties, with substance abuse and other things far too normal. He


is very realistic about it and in recognising that, you know, this


happens to a lot of people. Yes, this is not what we like to be


speaking about tonight. We expected to be speaking about Ian Cameron,


that father, but instead it is about the secret father of the Archbishop.


Is there not an issue for the church here? Is there any church law here


that potentially could... There might have been... Climax and


fascinating detail. Lambeth Palace was given cause to check Canon Law


-- there is some fascinating detail. Luckily, for Justin Welby, a


little-known change in the law dating back to the 50 black means it


saved his post. -- back to the 50s. He will not change his name. He is


Justin Welby and as he said, I am just, servant of Jesus Christ.


Nothing has changed as far as he's concerned. That is it for the


Papers. An extraordinary story to finish. And Rowena, thank you both.


-- Don't forget all the front pages are online on the BBC News website


where you can read a detailed review of the papers.


It's all there for you - 7 days a week at bb.co.uk/papers


with each night's edition of The Papers being posted


on the page shortly after we've finished.


coming up next, some headlines for you, after the


Download Subtitles