19/09/2016 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 19/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


With me are Rob Merrick, Deputy Political Editor


of the Independent, and broadcaster Natalie Haynes.


Let's have a look at the front pages. We are going to start with


the Times, reporting that NHS doctors will be required to register


income from private work. The Financial Times focuses on Germany,


where Angela Merkel has expressed regret over the refugee policy. Her


party suffered defeat in regional elections. The Metro leads with the


conviction of Christopher Halliwell for the murder of a woman. The


Express says that Theresa May has rejected the idea that a good trade


deal with the EU is impossible without free movement of people. The


Guardian leads with the catch of the prime suspect for the New York bomb


attack. The Telegraph has the same, saying that police are investigating


whether the suspect was involved in other Islamist plots. The Mirror as


the story about an illegal puppy farm where the owners made ?100,000


but kept the animals in squalid conditions. The Mail says that GPs


surgeries will offer consultations via WebCam in an attempt to reduce


waiting times. We start in America, a New York bomb's Islamist links,


front page of the Telegraph. 29 injured, amazingly nobody killed


over the weekend in a series of what the police are now saying were


coordinated attacks. Yes, and more by luck than judgment for some of


the bounds -- bombs that they found didn't go off, this one which did go


off was in a dumpster. And then an enormous number of questions. The


first, most urgent one, who is it and can we catch them, is now


answered, it appears, but the endless questions that produces, who


were his contacts, are there other people, they seem to have suggested


there isn't a cell he is part of in the New York area, so there's that.


Five of his relatives have been stopped and questioned. He appears


to have gone to and from Afghanistan. It is being roundly


politicised, as you'd expect, by Donald Trump and in rebuttal, by


Hillary Clinton. This all plays into the US election campaign. The


authorities suggesting that these Islamist links, as a result of him


going over to Pakistan, Afghanistan, not necessarily linking up with


anyone else who may be involved in this specific plot in the States.


That's right, as soon as you have considered the people who mercifully


were not killed, that were injured, you immediately think about the US


elections only six or seven weeks away. Donald Trump is quick out of


the traps. He immediately launches what is a very familiar rant we have


heard many times, if only he was president and he was tough and they


didn't have a week immigration policy that he alleges that this


sort of thing wouldn't happen. When we read about the prime suspect,


it's a familiar tale. He's an American citizen, who in a fried


chicken restaurant and loves cars. That is what the people interviewed


today were apparently saying. His previous clashes with the law have


the bane -- have been about noise disruption. He could have been


radicalise, but the suspicion of them is that people are seizing on


because of radical Islam to almost give themselves a cause in their own


lives to carry out some sort of dramatic, headline grabbing act


rather than having a history of radical Islam. The first week of


that leaves you in that direction. Perhaps there are other suspects,


the Telegraph suggests one person would need outside assistance to


make aid bombs but elsewhere there are quotes that there is nobody


connected with it and no terror cell. The fact is, you can get


fertiliser and a timing device, you can get nails and all of these


things off a shelf in Walmart. Yes. And loads of guns! That's another


matter. Yes, but the numbers are not super convincing in terms of, you


know, in order to make bombs in the US, where so many things we would


consider to be weapons of war are readily available, it seems


impossible to suggest that could be so. Back here, the Times, doctors


told to review all income from private work. It is to expose


conflicts of interest. A long time ago, before the junior doctors


dispute, which feels like it's been going on for years, they were trying


to enforce a new contract on the consultants. I think I'm right to


say that they broke away from that attempt. This reminds us that at


some point they have to go back to consultants and try and impose a new


contract on them. That might be tougher, because the consultants are


at the top of the tree and presumably have more power, but I


suspect they might have less public sympathy. We think about the fact


that they may not be available on weekends and they are probably on


the golf course, that's the stereotype. This story suggesting


they will be forced to expose private earnings. It says that about


half of 46,000 consultants carried out private work. There don't seem


to be any figures for how much they might earn. A figure from a decade


ago of 30 4000. If they are forced to reveal private earnings, they


will oppose it fiercely, I'm sure. The chairman of consultants saying


here it will be used for political reasons. The reason would be to try


and shame the consultants into doing more NHS work. On the face of it, it


seems fair enough, doesn't it, if there is a potential conflict of


interest? You should have to declare that, surely? The conflict of


interest seems to be at one extreme, an ugly suggestion that perhaps,


let's say, a not very ethical doctor might allow is waiting list to


extent on the NHS because then he would get more private patient.


Given that the average earnings of these consultants are ?112,000 per


year, call me extremely naive, but that seems to be quite a whack of


money. Seems like perhaps a very small number of not very nice people


might then go, perhaps I can also do this to my financial advantage. You


would assume that the conflict of interest was relatively rare. And


that we were trying to think before we came in of other jobs where you


have to declare if you have another income, other than being a


politician, because then the conflict of interest would be over


it. I don't think you have to declare it if you are a teacher and


do private tutoring. Nobody as far as I know is that, you know those


teachers who deliberately teach badly to an exam so they can get


extra tutoring money... It is to shame consultants into doing this


other NHS work. Using junior doctors to sweep up. They are trying to


force junior doctors into working longer hours and the same must refer


to consultants. The Guardian, attempt at peace deal, as key labour


vote nears. Mr Corbyn is going to win, but the point is, will he be


able to get back the majority of the Parliamentary party? Sigh and people


lots desperate lots of people might wonder why this subject is so


important because with Labour so far away from power it doesn't feel very


important. The reason it is important, I think, is that, if


Corbyn agrees and the NEC vote in elections to the Shadow Cabinet, it


would provide a reasonable justification for some of the big


names who quit over the summer to come back, on different terms, that


they had been elected rather than chosen by the leader. Perhaps there


is still going to be a showdown meeting tomorrow. This story


suggests perhaps a peace deal is in the offing and it won't quite be the


showdown with expected and perhaps there will be a deal under which the


Shadow Cabinet, or some of it is elected, with the proviso that if


they then Mr Hague and are seen to be undermining Corbyn, that he would


have power to remove them. -- if they then misbehaves. Perhaps this


just postpones the inevitable. Jeremy Corbyn knows that, if he is


to have any success at all, at least at PMQs, he needs the mob behind


him, baying and screaming and shouting and backing him to be held.


Yes, as opposed to giving him the baleful eye. Saying nothing. He


needs them as much as they might need a job in the Shadow Cabinet. I


think that's true. It doesn't always seem that he thinks that. There's a


lot of talk about the membership. It seems that certainly his rhetorical


choice is to say, basically, I have the support of hundreds of thousands


of people and it sort of doesn't matter what a bunch of people who


happen to work in the same building as me think. Perhaps that is true,


but it doesn't look like it is true from the outside. From the outside,


it looks like a backstabbing mess. I think they probably do need each


other. Is that there are enough to say? He need some of them, purely


from a numerical point of view. He runs the Queen 's official


opposition. They need to scrutinise legislation, to hold government to


account. Purely for that reason, he needs more people. If he is to be


able to claim that he can somehow bring Labour back together, he has


to to persuade some of the big names to come back, and this might be a


way of doing it, at least in the short term. This is all for you,


algorithms. I love them! Humans can beat algorithms by relying on gut


reading. This focuses on 18 hedge funds and edges, not a statistically


significant sample. I would imagine there are more than that in the


world. -- 18 hedge funds managers. It turns out that gut instinct is a


more reliable indication of trading them algorithms. And so it's


interesting, I suppose. It's not, as I say, authoritative, not least


because I would guess that people who don't have very good gut


instincts have long since lost their job, having lost their hedge funds


hundreds of million pounds in a matter of seconds. Wood George W


bush famously said that he uses his got to make decisions. That went


well! Your gut tells you good things, doesn't it? This story


introduces a flat in the -- a fascinating new word which I've


never heard, the ability to sense the state of 1's own body and


apparently count your own heartbeat without holding your pulse. I know


that my number of heartbeat went up when I was asked to talk about his


story involving algorithms. Eye of the tiger, that's what happened to


me. It appears to be good news for hedge fund traders, that they can


convince people they are better than algorithms and still received


obscene bonuses. Finally, the Brownlee brothers, what a story,


brotherly love, one helping the other over the finish line. I almost


can't talk about this without crying. In a minute, when my


mascara... I can barely talk about it. In which Alistair Brownlee


defend his Olympic gold and we watch Jonny, who won silver at Rio and had


won bronze at London, we watched him be outstripped by his brother. We


were all going, well, the World Series and it will be fine. Alistair


couldn't win the World Series, because he missed races at the


start, so it was Jonny's for the losing and he was in the lead but it


was so hot and he overheated and he got disorientated. To see his


brother just stop, he came and picked him up and dragged him over


the line. People have said, he should have left him because he


would have got help quicker, but I'm not sure that is true. He was on a


stretcher about the second after crossing the finishing line. My


favourite bit is where Alistair is basically carrying his brother and


he basically pushes them over so he gets there first. A girl could cry


about this. We would all do this for our brother, wouldn't we must remark


my brother is heavier than me! I have got a big brother and I can't


imagine I would do that. Surely the greatest satisfaction comes from


beating your own... It doesn't feel like sport! You are head of the


Parliamentary football team as well. Here it comes.


Don't forget, all the front pages are on the BBC News


website, where you can read a detailed review of the papers.


It's all there for you seven days a week at bbc.co.uk/papers.


with each night's edition of The Papers being posted


on the page shortly after we've finished.


Thank you, Rob Merrick and Natalie Haynes.


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