24/11/2016 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 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




Download Subtitles