08/04/2016 The Papers

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