28/01/2017 The Papers


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/01/2017. 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 Martin Bentham - home affairs Editor


at the Evening Standard - and the journalist and broadcaster,


A quick look at some of tomorrow's front pages,


The Observer leads with what it calls the "global fury" in reaction


to Donald Trump's immigration ban preventing people from seven mainly


Muslim countries from entering the United States.


The Sunday Times says there's a diplomatic rift


between President Trump and the Prince of Wales


over their views on climate change, which the paper says could disrupt


the president's state visit to the UK in June.


The Sunday Express says Prince William and Harry


are to unveil a statue of Princess Diana in the grounds


of Kensington Palace - to mark the 20th anniversary


The Mail on Sunday reports that NHS doctors have been


advised in guidelines from the BMA not to call pregnant women "mothers"


because it might offend transgender people.


And The Sunday Telegraph leads with comments


from the Northern Ireland Secretary, James Brokenshire, who tells


the paper the system for investigating murders committed


So, let's begin and let's start with the story that has just dominated


the day. President Trump's ban on migrants and refugees and the


Observer talks about global jury which probably sums it up? Martin?


It's fairly accurate. Especially in those countries that are affected by


it but also across various parts of Europe, there has been widespread


condemnation. Not by every single European leader, by any means. But


there has been a lot of criticism of this policy. Donald Trump seems to


be facing it all down and I suspect there may have to be some


clarifications and concessions towards people with green cards and


people with family. They have been concerns being raised by companies


like Google about their staff in the USA. It's clearly divisive,


abhorrent, and actually completely counter-productive, I would have


thought. If you talk about trying to prevent extremists coming into the


country, there is no evidence this policy will help but it may make it


worse by fuelling grievances in Islamic parts of the world and maybe


creating a greater problem rather than a lesser problem. You make the


point that not everybody has condemned this policy. In this


headline, to reason they refused to condemn this move. She will be


judged very harshly for that. This is one of those moments. It is


religious discrimination, clear and simple. It is an extreme measure


from a president who is not in any sense a normal president. The


Observer described him as ignorant, vicious, as no other American


President has been. This is one of the times where you would expect the


leader of the UK would reflect traditional use. I don't think this


is a reflection of our traditions. Donald Trump was not liked by the


UK. People with green cards people who have been there for ten years,


who have lives, families, homes, jobs, are suddenly wondering whether


they can go back home to their families and to their lives. It's


absolutely abhorrent. It is cruelty, a despicable thing to do. Theresa


May will be judged for not standing up to that and not taking a line


against it. Martin, to reason they was in a difficult position, though.


It was 24 hours since she had been shoulder to shoulder with President


Trump, talking trade I'm not sure if your correct is completely, Rachel.


I do think British people will be in favour of this ban. I'm quite sure


they would be but the question for to reason they as the actual Prime


Minister of of our country is what is likely to be the most effective


way of having a positive influence, if you can have one, on Donald


Trump. It may turn out to be a futile exercise and obviously her


whole strategy is to try to have good relationship with him, to try


to that actually the roughest possible edges are smoothed off him


and try to direct him in some kind of way, in a better direction, than


otherwise he might go. That is her strategy. I think, in one sense,


sounding off from the sidelines isn't going to be very helpful.


That's her calculation. I did it that's necessarily unwired,


actually. --I don't think it's necessarily -- unwise. This is


looking at a potential diplomatic car crash. This is apparently coming


from the President's team of sources. Intriguing in its health.


They have warned that it will be counter-productive to have the


Prince of way all is meat Trump. -- intriguing in its self. -- the


Prince of way -- Wales. The quotes coming out from President Trump,


they want all the pomp, the with William and Kate, all to go


seamlessly. One of the risk factors is Charles. The White House is


wanting to dictate protocol and usually it would be Buckingham


Palace. We are anticipating the row but this is a fascinating scenario.


Suggesting here that Prince Charles would want to meet him. We were


discussing in the earlier review that maybe Prince Charles might have


said he didn't want to get involved with meeting President Trump. He has


refused to meet the Chinese, for example, overheat their treatment of


Tibet. -- over their treatment. This is suggesting that Trump wants the


pomp and circumstance and not to have any clash whatsoever. What will


actually happen if they do meet and if other royal members who also meet


him and may also have things they don't like about Donald Trump. It


will be a fascinating thing which unfortunately we may not ever hear


about. Unless he tweets about it. Let's move on to the Sunday express.


A story on page six. Do about his policy, he took phone calls from


various leaders including Putin. The express is that reporting on this 15


minutes on the phone with Putin. There have been questions


surrounding Trump's relationship with Russia and the degree to


whether Russia had an influence on Trump and the election campaign. It


seems the top line coming out of this conversation was to do with


dealing with Islamic State. Trump has been talking about rousing a


coalition of the willing, again. It will be a departure for the US.


While the US and Russia have both been involved in Syria, Russia has


been on the side of Bashar al-Assad and the only Corporation between


Russia and the US has been about not getting in each other's way over


targets. It wasn't clear that Russia was ever going after Islamic State


to begin with and seemed to be hitting more civilians and people


not involved with Islamic State. This goes back to what we were


talking about with Theresa May. Of course, Trump has been making


friendly noises about Vladimir Putin, talking about using


sanctions. There is a lot of fear in the Baltic states about Russian


aggression. Of course, if Trump gets very close to Putin, we want to stop


that, really. We want to be making sure that he goes in with his eyes


open when he is dealing with Britain and he doesn't get seduced by this


idea of some great new friendships and so on. Again, if you look back


at the overall political dynamics of things. Theresa May, for example,


will be thinking about exactly this. Who will Trump be friendly with? If


everybody else is denouncing him, he may end up big friendly with the


people that are most unwilling... We're the trouble with that


configuration is it assumes you can bring about reform inside the tent


when there is a fire inside the tent. Lets me bring you back to the


Times. A follow-up from a big story a couple of weeks ago about the


Trident nuclear deterrent. The previous story had been about a test


in which the Trident had gone off in the wrong direction. The follow up


this week? There has been 1.4 billion, which seems a lot of money,


on repairing the system of the Trident missiles. You got the full


story here. I don't pick it says here over what period that money had


been spent at clearly they will have been a need to update some of the


guidance systems on it because it is quite an old missile. On the other


hand, it plays into what was a good story that Sunday Times had last


week about the misfiring. It should not have been concealed. It was made


to sound as though it wasn't an isolated incident. There have been


potentially ongoing issues. I think it's good that the Sunday Times is


the sticking with this investigation because it does raise questions,


primarily over the secrecy of the government around this and why it


didn't disclose this information last year and whether it didn't


disclose the information because it was ahead of a vote on Trident


renewal. These are questions that haven't really been addressed yet,


have they? Let's move away from politics for a moment and go to the


front page of the Mail on Sunday. An extraordinary headline. Don't call


pregnant patient mothers. Why? Why not? It is quite confusing but it's


basically because there is a risk of offending a transgender person who


is about to give birth. I E a woman who is changing sex to a man but has


still got the worm and therefore is able to become pregnant -- pregnant


and so on. It is apparently put out guidelines saying that mothers to be


should be referred to as pregnant people instead which seems


absolutely nonsensical given that there must be one or two people at


the very most that are likely to be in that situation and whether they


would be offended or not by being called a pregnant mother as opposed


to a pregnant person. It seems unlikely. Anyway... What you think


of this story, Rachel? Unconvinced? I'm not convinced that it would


cause offence. I think, Gino, if you are in that situation, presumably


the focus is the pregnancy. -- you know. It's hard to imagine that a


pregnant person would take offence. There we will leave it. Thank you


both very much indeed. That is it for the papers their sour. Thank you


to Martin and to Rachel. Coming up next is the film are a few -- this




Download Subtitles