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.
Browse content similar to 24/11/2016. 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
With me are Rosamund Urwin, columnist at the London Evening
Standard, and political journalist Sean Dilley.
Tomorrow's front pages, starting with...
Years" is the Metro's headline on the Autumn Statement.
It says inflation will "wipe out wages growth" and quotes analysts
saying it's the worst wages squeeze since World War II.
The Guardian says the squeeze will be the longest in 70 years
and repeats the warning from the Institute for
Fiscal Studies that the effect of Britain leaving the EU will keep
wages below 2008 levels for at least five years.
The Mail's headline is, "Who are they trying to kid?"
It says top economists are accused of Brexit doom-mongering.
Paris terror attackers funded by UK benefits
is the headline in the Telegraph, which reports the trial
The Times reports that failures by the Metropolitan Police
have left "young children at risk of abuse".
A senior policing source tells the paper that "this is the most
damning review in the history of Her Majesty's Inspectorate
It has gathered pace of its own, this inquiry of sexual abuse in the
football. Two more players linked to Newcastle supposed to come out
tomorrow. The fear is we are only just seen the beginning of it.
Absolutely. Here we have got another player, not named, who has contacted
police and making allegations of abuse. It does feel as though we are
seeing a domino effect where people who have not felt able to speak out
suddenly feel that they have to come forward. You think the stigma they
felt they faced for all these years, but at least people are now speaking
out about it. The thing that surprises me is that in a number of
these cases, they are talking about two paedophiles who were convicted.
There was an opportunity for them to come forward and say he abused them.
They only have the confidence to do it do it because someone else came
out and told his story. We look at all the hysterical allegations of
abuse and many institutions have been shown to be fact. We have a
very macho industry here where you have premiership footballers
potentially, possibly billions of pounds at stake, they do not want to
play that aspect of their life out, and it is one of those industries
where do you cool a business or whatever where things are dealt with
in the locker room not the front pages of the paper. Does it surprise
you that we have not had a statement from Crewe Alexandra in particular?
We have heard from one victim today who was part of the historical case
involving this coach and he said they have had 18 years and today
they are saying, we need to consider what we are hearing. It is not a
great look. I think they need to make a statement. They have had all
this time. It is not as though they have had two days, they have had all
these years. But there is a line here is that the number of players
to contact the union is in double figures. So we are talking about
something that seems really quite wide-ranging. Potentially bigger
than Jimmy Savile? It is almost hand on heart is a service. If anybody is
watching now, footballer or anything else, you should not be afraid to
speak out because now more than any other time in the past, people will
listen to you. Unless there is some reason not to, you will be believed
and it will be investigated properly. This absolutely could be
bigger than Jimmy Savile because these people had access to
vulnerable young children who wanted to play the ball. Well, we'll be
investigated properly? The front story on the times, young children
at risk of abuse. This is an investigation looking at historical
cases and saying the Met are not doing a good job. This is utterly
damning. They say three quarters of child protection abuse cases are
poorly handled by the Met police. One of the issues it raises here is
that the force has been more focused on burglary and vehicle theft. Those
things are important but are they as important as child protection? I
would argue absolutely not. And they have only taken a sample of cases
here. We need to hear from the Met whether they think that is fair. But
38 had to be referred for further investigation because they
represented a continued risk the child or children. But a couple of
points need to be made here. Police officers feel it has been
politicised with regards to Tom Winsor, who went on to do a
wide-ranging review of police performance. They feel they have
been openly critical. Last year, H Aussie put out a report saying
firearms holders were likely to be involved in mass shootings and
failures. Ultimately, when you have cuts up to 40%, yes, when somebody
makes these allegations, they need to be investigated, when your house
get burgled, it needs to be investigated. Frankly, the police is
not something you save money on. There is one thing in this story as
well. They picked up two cases and in one of them, officers had wrongly
close the case of the 13-year-old girl believed to be sexually active
with an older man, and did not speak to the child. I think there is an
attitude thing we need to address here. There was a belief that these
were girls who were certain kind of girl. We really have to address
that. If we want people to come forward, they have got to know they
will not be dismissed like that. But you were about resources. No, but
this is politics. Ultimately, the theory is that politics is separate
from policing but the reality is different and you can look back to
when the former Prime Minister David Cameron, for reasons we can
understand, wanted resources put into the investigation of Madeleine
McCann. He had told the Met commissioner to investigate. That
became a massive political issue because theoretically, they are
supposed to be separate. Ultimately, we do not just want a chiropody once
we can see things being investigated. They need to be
properly investigated. Burglaries, car thefts, child protection, all of
it. Trouble is, when you look at the rest of the front pages, there is
not much money around. They talk about borrowing going up. Most
notably, the pay of the lowest paid in the country. The Guardian is not
cheery reading for anyone struggling. Such an all encompassing
phrase, jams. Who are the? Lots of people think they are the jams, even
without... The people who actually applies to, probably a much smaller
group. It is the ISS to say that actually, every household will be
?1000 worse off a year. So even if you are not a jam, I don't know, a
scone or something, people who cannot pay the electricity bill, but
?1000, how many families and households can afford to lose that?
One of the things we are likely to see is rising costs. I thought this
immediately after the EU referendum and I panic bought meat, which
proved to be rather fruitless! But I suppose people will feel those costs
on things like food and electricity. They are. The pressure on sterling.
They will simply see that the bill go up and that is really bad. It
will happen. I travel around the continent a bit and bizarrely...
People said they would not like the British because a Brexit but it has
not been my experience. I was in Romania at the weekend, normally 100
Romanian lei, it is ?105. As it gets more expensive the people, they will
side with Tony Blair, who is saying, we must stop Brexit. Will they know
to attach those two things? I don't know that people think, we will
associated enough to think that. I personally would but, will they
listen to Tony Blair? He is arguing, we need to persuade the public
somehow. Maybe there is some sort of dossier. To persuade the public that
there has been a vote but if we are negotiating on freedom of movement,
access to the single market and how much we are maybe the public of
which we are all members will say, hang on the second, what is the
point of leaving? Will not some people be frustrated? The Telegraph
has the same story. He says he could've held a referendum on the
Lisbon Treaty in 2005 but said he would be likely to lose if he had.
He said, I might lose so will not give you an option on Europe. It is
said we live in a Parliamentary democracy. But at some point, as
David Cameron said, that people needed and wanted a vote on Europe
and that is what they want. So why is Tony Blair weighing in to try and
stop it? It was the seventh most important issue in the last
election. I do not remember is getting a referendum on the top six.
And then of course, not only that, it was fairly low down people's
pecking order but why did Cameron do it? To protect his own party. And it
has worked. We have seen Prime Minister after Prime Minister. It
was a self-inflicted headache on the EU because he mentioned it very
early on but that will be the legacy he has got. Top of the times,
another former Prime Minister weighing in, John Major, who was a
big voice for Remain. The tyranny of the majority must not set Brexit
turns. He is agreeing with Parliamentary democracy there. He is
also saying there is a credible case for a second referendum and
interesting to see Blair and major in such apparent agreement. They all
agree on Europe. One could argue they agree because they have a
deeper insight into this than many of us. His other point here, which
is a fair one, is, why should the 48% also not have a say? The idea or
they should have no say at all is rather ridiculous. Imagine how you
would feel if you were an American voter. 100,000 votes in three states
split Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, you took all three states.
They are now having a recount England's quantum. It is on the
basis they say they could be Russian hackers or whatever. The hackers
said they would attack various systems. It is a machine voting
rather than paper voting. That is the basis of the challenge. But of
course, Mitch and has not declared still and whether we think it is
fair or unfair, a lot of people think, 2 million votes... 126
million people voted in the election. Does that not reflect
everything around the world? How divided we are as a world? And also
we could quite easily have a different conversation here about
America's first female President. Funnily enough, the consensus of
many of the swing voters is, any other candidate potentially, any
other woman, would have beaten Donald Trump. We are out of time. I
wish we could go on. 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 seven days
a week at bbc.co.uk/papers and you can see us there too
with each night's edition of The Papers being posted
on the page shortly I want to bring you one line of news
that is coming in from the Reuters news agency. Police say there is an