05/09/2016 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 05/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow.


With me are Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor


of the London Evening Standard and Susie Boniface,


The Financial Times leads with upbeat economic figures,


which the government says mean Britain can negotiate Brexit


The Metro's front page is dedicated to the scandal-hit


The Daily Telegraph goes with the news that the first wave


The Guardian brings us the news that prosecutions for violence


towards women and girls has reached record high levels.


The Daily Telegraph goes with the news that the first wave


of doctors' strike has been called off.


The Daily Express leads with Brexit, and a warning from the former


UKIP leader Nigel Farage that he will hold the government


to account if it tries to row back on the commitment to leave the EU.


The Times front-page features the actress Renee Zellweger at the


premiere of the latest bridges -- Bridget Jones film.


Let us start with David Telegraph and the top line of David Davis, the


Minister for Brexit, writing off the UK 's future the single market. He


says it is very improbable that the UK will remain a member of the


single market. Susie, thoughts? It is very probable he will get a


spanking from Theresa May when she gets back because she has been very


careful not to say whether in or out of the single market. She is leading


a country into negotiations break said she doesn't want all of her


cards on the table but she has one of her ministers say to stuff the


single market and throw it out the window. It is not only helpful and I


think he would get a telling off. We have had a whole day or Brexit


broadcasting and I am sure you have been glued to the TV. Martin, we had


Theresa May earlier today saying that the points-based immigration


system may not be introduced. How does that fit with what David Davis


appears to be saying here? I think it does sit with it because she is


talking about controlling immigration in some shape or form


and what David Davis is saying is that as the European Union various


leaders have made clear, we can't have the single market and no free


movement, they are not prepared to trade on that, so David Davis is


saying that we need to have some control over immigration policy so


we are unlikely to be able to restrict free movement while


retaining access to the single market in the way we have now.


Theresa May is talking about the mechanism with which to control


immigration and she says with a points-based system you don't get


control over the numbers that you have people who qualify so you would


have something akin to what we already have, which is a Visa system


for shortage occupations unskilled labour so that is where this all


fits. I don't think you would get into too much trouble because your


spelling out the logic of the position. The government... There is


no logic to the position! The panellist has made it clear her


priority is to deliver our control over immigration said the logic of


that is that you will be unlikely to have access to parts of Europe under


trade agreements and there will be a specific and as yet undefined


steel... You are Theresa May and you are running the country, you want


people to not say anything too stupid at the moment because we're


only a couple of months in and you need to maintain some kind of


access, whatever that is, to millions of customers, 500 million


people that all of our businesses want to trade with and we want them


to trade with us so she needs things to be open as possible but Davis is


shutting something down already, so I think he will be in some serious


trouble. Martin, he is not stupid? I don't think you're stupid, I think


everything is very unclear at the moment, quite clearly! At the moment


there will be a trade-off between free movement or a restriction on


free movement and access to the single market as it exists now but


it does not mean to say we can't specify deals on financial services


and so on which allow free access potentially or some kind of deal.


There is another Brexit related story in the Financial Times, the


front page, which is also David Davis hailing the robust state of


the economy after the Brexit vote and we had a series of bits of data


in the last two months or so which have shown are going up and down,


and this month it is up. It has been contradictory, but whatever you say


about Brexit, leave or remain, whether you think we have not had


world for three so everything they have said is wrong or you think that


there wasn't a crash so everything is OK, the issue on all of it is


yet. We haven't had any of these things yet. The things we were


promised or threatened haven't happened yet, it is only been two


months you can't judge the robustness of an economy eight


weeks. You have to look back over 50 years' time and look back and see


whether we did better or worse whether we could the other way. I


agree with you on that but actually what is true is that George Osborne


was saying there had to be an emergency budget within a week of


the vote and that some people were saying that the whole thing was


going to be an absolute catastrophe from day one and you would already


see investment decline in so one and it is quite true that on the figures


since the vote, they have been relatively positive and consumer


confidence and spending has been pretty good after the initial dip,


but as you quite rightly say, it is a short-term thing we need to see


what the longer term effects are, but the worst warnings have not been


realised. Nor have the best ones, the best promises haven't manifested


yet. Well, they can't because the best ones can't. Nothing can happen


until we leave the EU. Some people were saying it was going to be a


very big short-term hit in the first place, never mind the longer term


affect so I think that aspect of it hasn't happened and that is what


this story is talking about. Clearly where the economy goes in the medium


and the longer term is a different issue and it is all to play for,


quite clearly. Theresa May herself has said in China that they could be


difficult times ahead in the economy. Some of that is nothing to


do with Brexit, some of it is factors that were existing before


this which are doubts about China and a hole in the budget from George


Osborne 's last budget, the financial hole they're needed


plugging and was unplugged, so there were certain things


that were already problematic about the economy, strong though it


appeared to be on the surface, that can still come back and hit off


anyway, never mind the impact of Brexit. Brexit makes things more


complex. There is an extra degree of complexity on top of everything and


one of the things that has happened today, which is not in the paper


today, but in David Davis 's speech, he was asked about financial


passports, the business of London financial services trading with the


EU. His answer was no detail at all. It is ridiculously complicated and


he actually said it was straightforward but very complex,


which I think tells you everything you need to know about how Brexit


and David Davis works. We will park that and return to which week upon


week upon week. We will look at the Guardian which has a headline about


violent crimes against women hitting a record high. They have an


interview with the direct republic because -- prosecutions and looking


at the role of social media. When you see that headline and the strap


underneath, that bit about social media being used to humiliate, the


immediate assumption would be this is people on Twitter complaining


about people being mean to them but when you drill down into the story


there have been, for example, nearly 13,000 cases of stalking and


harassment in 2015 and 16 and 70% of those involved cases of domestic


abuse. This is not like some of us all get on social media all the with


someone sending a tweet saying they don't like your face or you are a


silly cow. This is people who know the person in question and are


setting up fake profiles and posting revenge porn being prosecuted for it


and harassing and stalking their exes and partners and mothers of


their children and this is a new means of doing it and it is making


it worse than the figures are going up. Interestingly there are a lot of


guilty pleas because they are banks to write some when they get caught


out, if anyone at home is thinking of posting revenge porn, it is on


your phone or computable and traceable to your address, you can't


wriggle out of it, you definitely did it. On the one hand it is


terrible that there is a massive increase in these cases of violence


and harassment but on the other hand it is great that we can catch people


when they are done it. The positive news about this and we ran a front


page on our -- ran a story on our front page today about the rapes and


murders in violent crimes related to domestic abuse, but the good thing


about it is that the figures are horrendous, obviously, but more


people are coming forward, which is why to an extent there are more


cases coming to court because more people at the competence to come


forward and police and prosecutors don't get it right every single time


by any means but on the other hand they do take it a lot more seriously


and they are more effective at delivering results in these cases


than they perhaps once were and they are also responding, as you say


here, to some of the evolving techniques that people using social


media and so on to harass people. For example, when people have


historically was stalking, it would be someone following someone on the


street, their ex-boyfriend following their former girlfriend, but now you


take that straight into their own by continuing on social media and there


is no sanctuary from it. Someone can leave an abusive partner, and it can


be men as well as women, they can leave a partner and perhaps even


managed to get a bed in one of the increasingly scarce refuges that are


available to them, thank you to the coalition for getting rid of them,


and once they are there, even though they aren't in physical contact with


the person who abuse them, they still have them in the life and they


can't escape them because they set up fake profiles and send tweets on


Facebook their friends. It is a modern problem, the pervasiveness of


social media that they can reach into your private sphere. Let us


move into a story that the Guardian and the Telegraph have about the


doctor striping called off next week. A big chink appearing between


the BMA and the junior doctors themselves? I think so, and I think


it is a doubt within the medical profession, there is a split across


the medical profession, as to whether this particular first


strike, and indeed the length of strikes they are talking about,


these five-day strikes, would be counter-productive and actually harm


patients, and the fact is that if you are cancelling five days of


operations and so on by definition patients will be armed and in this


particular case, obviously the doctors, it appears that the junior


doctors themselves, some of the doctors themselves are not confident


that they can go on strike and other people will cover for them in a way


that will protect patients so the whole thing has been postponed a


lease for the first strike and then we have to seem really what happens


after that. I suspect it could be that the whole thing crumbles


because they might lose public support if they go down that road. I


don't think the issue is public support, the issue with support for


the doctors in the BMA. The problem is initially they had in the same


place and they were all against the seven-day contract which dealt me --


Jeremy Hunt wanted to bring in and then there were compromises and the


BMA said they should accept it but the doctor said it was still a


rubbish deal that would affect patient safety so they parted ways a


bit but then the BMA has changed its views now and it is trying to use a


ballot from last year about strike action to maintain five days of


strikes at a time but most doctors think strike action might be just


about acceptable but to do it five days will cause harm they can't do


that is doctors. The chairman of the BMA was agreeing that the deal which


the BMA agreed at arbitration previously was actually a good deal


and because there was a vote against it by the junior doctors, which is


fair enough if they want to vote against it, but the person who is


now leading this was saying that the deal on offer was a good one and


acceptable. The separation is between the people at the head of


the BMA and the doctors but I think most members of the public, if they


ask the medical opinion from Jeremy Hunt or Doctor would go with the


doctor. I am not so sure about that. Not on the medical opinion, but as


to whether they should have a five-day strike or not, I'm not


sure. I think that is a danger for them. Allow to get to stop. That is


it for The Papers tonight. Don't forget the front pages


are all on the BBC News website, where you can read a detailed review


of the papers. It's all there for you


at bbc.co.uk/papers. Each night's edition of The Papers


is posted there shortly Headlines coming up in a few


minutes. Good evening. There's a humid and


sticky feel to the weather outside across many parts of the country and


it will remain that way for the next couple of days. We have clear spells


in the cloud and this was the sunset earlier on in North Ayrshire, by




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