28/01/2017 The Papers

Hello, this is BBC News with me, Reeta Chakrabarti.

We'll be taking a look at tomorrow morning's papers in a moment,

CHANTING: No hate, no fear - Muslims are welcome here!

Demonstrations are taking place at New York's JFK Airport,

where travellers have been detained following Donald Trump's latest

executive orders which ban people from seven mainly Muslim countries

On a trade visit to Turkey, Theresa May refused to join others

voicing concern at President Trump's measures, which have also suspended

Well, the United States is responsible for the United States'

policy on refugees, and the United Kingdom is

responsible for the United Kingdom's policy on refugees.

The president has also being holding phone calls with world leaders.

In his conversation with President Putin,

the two reportedly spoke of strengthening trade ties,

though there was no mention of easing sanctions imposed

on Russia following the Ukraine conflict.

And stars from around the world have been paying tribute

to the actor Sir John Hurt, who has died at the age of 77.

Star of stage, TV and film, he was best known for roles

in The Elephant Man, Alien and Harry Potter.

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

With me are Martin Bentham, home affairs editor

at the Evening Standard, and the journalist and

A quick look, before that, at some of tomorrow's front

The Observer, which leads with Global Fury in reaction

to Donald Trump's immigration ban preventing people from seven

mainly Muslim countries from entering the United States.

The Express says Prince William and Harry are to unveil a statue

of Princess Diana in the grounds of Kensington Palace to mark

The Daily Mail reports that NHS doctors have been advised not

to call pregnant women "mothers" because it might offend

The Telegraph leads with comments from the Northern Ireland Secretary,

James Brokenshire, who tells the paper the system

for investigating murders committed during the Troubles

Let's begin. Let's start with the story that is an ongoing story that

we will be speaking about for days and weeks to come, I think.

President Trump's ban on migrants and on refugees. Global Fury,

Martin. And I think that sums up the reaction by and large? Yes,

obviously lots and lots of denunciation of this policy which

clearly is rather distasteful, and I think misguided as well. Quite where

it goes from here, it will go on for days and days, and obviously the

policy is meant to last for 90 days, a part of that 120 days, for

refugees, and possibly longer than that. Clearly there will be

developments in the coming days in terms of potential challengers. I

expect clarification actually from the US administration about green

card holders, some of the big corporations like Google and

Facebook already expressing concern about some of their employees who I

am sure generally speaking the US government would like to still see

in the country and so on, being affected, because there will be all

sorts of unforeseen consequences, family members and so on. So, yes,

this will continue for a long time. Clearly it has an awful lot of

attacks because it is clearly discriminatory against a group,

certain groups, people, and seems to be based on no real evidence, to be

frank. The Observer, Rachel, speaks about several cases... Yazidi woman

who fled an IS massacre in Iraq in 2014 being stopped from boarding a

flight in Baghdad after waiting for months to be reunited with her

husband already in the US. Presumably these stories will

multiply in the next few days. To be clear, these measures... It is

absolutely cruel, and absolute cruelty, and it has caused chaos and

heartbreak. Some half a million people in the last decade from those

countries on the list have been given green cards in the US. They

have lives in the US, they have families, jobs, houses. They might

happen to be overseas at this time and are now wondering whether they

can go home to their lives, families, everything. It is

unimaginable, the horror and despair that would cause those people, so of

course it has been condemned. Although, interestingly, not by

Theresa May. Even though it has now transpired it is going to affect

British citizens who either have dual nationality or where it seems

just been born in one of those countries is enough, so it is

absolutely despicable and craven of our Prime Minister, I think, do not

speak out against something that is very clearly racial discrimination

and is now affecting British citizens as well. Martin, did

Theresa May have an alternative in terms of the way she should have

addressed this? She was asked about her attitude to President Trump 's

palsy, and she simply said the US and the UK has separate policies --

Trump's policy. I think in general countries do not Express opinions

about the country's domestic policies, that is the general

principle. Obviously when they become extreme and a portent it can

be an exception. I think she will have to speak not least in

Parliament on Monday, she comes to give a statement about the visit

with President Trump I suspect this shall be raised then -- when they

become extreme and abhorrent. For British people affected by this, she

will potentially speak about that. I think she has made a decision that

she cannot every time she appears be questioned about the latest Trump

policy, no doubt there are going to be more of those. There is no way

that kind of calculation can hold. She should never have bound her feet

so closely with him to begin with. The Observer is to be commended, I

think, for putting this comment on its front page. Interestingly, it is

the only one with the story on the front page. The US president in his

first week has proved he is like nothing that has gone before. He is

ignorant, prejudiced and vicious in a way that no American leader has

been. I think that is the point. It is a very extreme situation. This is

not a normal president. This is quite blatantly racial

discrimination. Sorry, religious discrimination. And we saw it coming

down the line... I will bring Martin in quickly. I think she was right to

go and meet him because unfortunately we have to work with

what is there in the White House and there is no point shouting from the

sidelines, so I can understand why she went. Obviously it is a

problematic position to do so in one sense because it is high risk and

that risk will continue. I think in terms of the papers actually the

reason for that is that some papers will make a political decision not

to do it, perhaps, and others will simply think that story has been all

over the broadcast news today, we want to give our readers something

different that will make them pick up the paper tomorrow. That might be

the right or wrong decision but I am sure the Mail on Sunday, for

example, has a very good story, and I am sure... You think it was

commercially rather than politically driven? In some cases I think it

will be commercial rather than political. Let me stop that for a

moment and turn to another Donald Trump story on the front page of the

Sunday Express. Officials feel there could be a diplomatic row when

President Trump comes on his state visit later this year between him

and the Royal family. An intriguing story, actually, when you look at

the details. The clashes there might be between him and various members

of the family... He will probably turn up and be a complete poodle, in

fact, because he will be delighted to be in that environment. But you

are right, with some of the detail... The top line of that you

would think, obviously Prince Charles being a committed

environmentalist, President Trump being a climate change denier, that

is the sort of top line of the potential clash, but there is more

to it than that. Prince Harry, who apparently had a close relationship

or was... Had close bond the former first Lady Michelle Obama, is weary

of President Trump, who once bragged he would have had sex with President

Diana -- Princess Diana, apparently. And obviously you will not take

kindly to the fact President Trump tweeted about Kate being

photographed topless, in unsavoury terms, William will not be happy

about that. Interesting things in the next. It will be interesting to

see who does meet him when he comes. I suspect when they meet there will

not be any great clashes because they all know there roles, and

although Trump can be very maverick, clearly, I think he will behave

himself in front of the Royal family. But whilst Prince Charles

has refused to meet the Chinese on numerous occasions in the past, and

whether Princes Harry and Prince William decide they have numerous

other things to do and cannot be there... That might be... And what

President Trump can be persuaded to say on Twitter afterwards as well,

because there is protocol that you do not report on what is being said

during Royal conversations. Someone will have to just take his phone

away. Let's return to the Observer, potential for a grassroots Labour

revolt over Brexit. This organised by a grassroots group? It is

basically saying the MPs... Some people have resigned from the Shadow

Cabinet since Jeremy Corbyn posed his three line whip saying members

had to vote triggering Article 50, that there is grassroots group of

members supporting that stands of people saying they cannot vote for

Brexit, and I suppose the interesting there is that Corbyn has

always been sustained, not by the parliamentary party, but by his

support at the grassroots level, so there is a suggestion, only a very

vague suggestion, that that might change or be changing a little as a

result of this Article 50 three line whip. Whether it comes down to that,

I don't know, or whether it is something that blows over in two

weeks' time when the vote goes through, and I suspect that is more

likely to be the case, that it will be a temporary problem, because most

of the grassroots still seem to support his brand of Labour

politics. Rachel, what do you make of it? It is a horrible situation

for the Labour Party, because as you say given the composition of their

voters and their base, and Labour cannot really be seen to be

thwarting a democratic vote to leave, but I think, and this is

possibly where the readership has not been clear -- leadership. It now

has a lot of space to negotiate the kind of Brexit we are going to have,

which is after all the job of Parliament and not just the

Government, and I think maybe it has not been forceful enough about what

its red lines are in that regard, and had it been, it might have not

alienate it its base in the way this piece suggests. I am not sure they

have much ability to negotiate and dictate the terms. I am not sure

this debate on Article 50, this bill, will lead to that in reality.

It might not this particular bill, but the next two years... I will cut

you both off for the next stories. Front page of the Mail, very strange

story coming quite left-field compared to the others. Doctors have

been told not to call pregnant patients mothers. How can that be?

Because some of them might be men. Sorry, women who are changing.

Transgender. Women who are transgender. But this comes from the

BMA, according to the Mail. This, talking about what is on the front

page, great story. Do not call pregnant women and mothers, it seems

absolutely crazy, and of course you can understand the logic, not

wanting to offend or upset if it were too upset somebody in that

situation, but the likelihood of that, I think, is minuscule, I would

have thought. Maybe I am wrong. Guest... It just seems to be, the

Mail obviously, just being nonsensical, really, their take on

it. It is a shame. Gone off on what they call the relentless march of

transgender political correctness and they have had a go at the

traffic lights in central London which I have to say I really like,

they always make me smile in Trafalgar Square, this assortment of

gay, lesbian and transgender symbols and couples. Quite confusing trying

to work out what they mean. Sadiq Khan's bid to show how open and a

diverse and tolerant Londoners. There is nothing wrong with that,

all a good thing in general. I think when you try to pretend that the

9.9% of people who in this case are going to be mothers, women and so on

-- Corbyn. It is quite a hard one to explain. Thank you very much. We

will have another one through. Thank you, Martin and Rachel -

you'll both be back at 11:30 for another look at the stories

making the news tomorrow.