28/01/2017 The Papers

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

owl.