12/02/2017 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 12/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Cullen, on the novel for young readers, we come apart, which they


roped together. Hello and welcome to our look ahead


to what the the papers will be With me are Caroline Frost,


entertainment editor at The Huffington Post UK,


and Tony Grew, Alongside a picture of the Duke


and Duchess of Cambridge arriving at the Baftas the Telegraph quotes


the Justice Secretary Liz Truss as saying "wicked" offenders


won't be released early in order The Express says there's fury


at a new bid to wreck Theresa May's Brexit Bill when it


goes through the House of Lords. "We all need tasers to fight


terror" is the Metro's headline following a survey


of Metropolitan Police officers suggesting two in three believe


the stun guns should be carried And alongside a picture of Emma


Stone who has taken the best actress Oscar at the Baftas:


The Guardian reports that whistle blowers face a full frontal attack


Let's begin. The Daily Telegraph, forget jail numbers, criminals will


do time, who is saying this and what is it about? This is a preview of


the speech that Liz Truss the Justice Secretary will give tomorrow


in which she is going to say in her view wicked criminals, I'm not sure


how she will define those, will spend longer behind bars. There has


always been some controversy about the fact that people get released


early as a matter of form, and that is to do with the problems we have


in the prison system, which is why I'm surprised that she is saying


she's going to be keeping people in prison longer, considering that the


prison system that she oversees is in crisis, with overcrowding under


her watch. While the Tory Right may be interested in this idea that we


will go back to a hanged and flog Tory approach to law and order, I'm


not sure that the prison system itself, it can't operate under its


current capacity, so I'm not sure where these people will be spending


their longer services. Using the word wicked, we seem to be in an era


where politicians start selling some strange things straightaway. It's


like a fairy tale. The idea of someone being innately wicked seems


to chime quite badly with the idea that they are also talking about


early interventions, nipping things in the bud, cutting things off at


the pass. Wicked is something that is totally corruptible from birth


and never to be changed, and that doesn't chime with anything I


understand. And it marks a change from David Cameron's Government's


approach to these issues, rehabilitation and preventing people


from becoming offenders, some would argue, me among them, should be the


focus of the Government's activities. Tough on the causes of


crime. Exactly, one of the most famous slogans from 20 years ago.


Liz Truss is saying that the 140% increase in sex offenders going to


prison, so she's talking specifically about people being


convicted of sex offences. And they talking about a rebuke to Labour, if


that is what it is, which called for the prison population to be halved


from 85,000 to 42,000 as it was in 1890. Was that the pledge? That was


always going to be unrealistic. I would have thought so. A lot of


squaring the circle is going on from both parties. But two decade old


tough on the causes of crime, to try to keep the country feeling safe,


feeling that justice is being satisfied while dealing with the


social problems that are behind so many crimes. As we know, Labour did


struggle with that. Michael Gove made big promises, it is always


wonder when he is not seen as the hardest hitting of the politicians


these problems. Good luck if they think they can do it with this new


approach, but I can't see it happening. He talked pretty tough,


too. He didn't get much done, he wasn't in post for long. But why has


the prison publishing gone up from 42,000 in 1990 to 85,000? Has the


country become more wicked? Word of the night! Or are we locking up


people who should be locked up? Let's move on. Daily Express. It has


another line in stories apart from the weather and the usual royal


things. They do talk a lot about Brexit here. Let's explain what


they're talking about. Furious at new bid to wreck Huw exit. Who is


threatening to wreck it and why? This is the senior house, the House


of Lords, and we know that Mrs May of Lords, and we know that Mrs May


got a surprising mandate, surprisingly large. I do about Tony


with his knowledge of the corridors of power. So, really it should be


full team ahead, both parties have replied and perhaps Mr Corbyn has


taken even more flak than he normally does because of the way his


party agreed with so many of the terms, no amendments, lots of


promises to fight on every corner, but it is going through. And of


course we know that there is a stumbling block, there is the House


of Lords, and now the Daily Express, I think they try to conjure up some


early fear, some early intervention so that everybody is on alert to the


Lords. There have even been implicit threat that if they try to stop this


they will show their relevance, is that right? The ultimate thread that


the Government is under the impression it has is that it will


abolish the House of Lords, considering that Parliamentary


parties have been making that promise for more than a century, and


it still carries on. The Express even have a logo saying get us out


of the EU. So next Monday, when the Lords comeback, of course they will


put down those amendments to the Bill in the winner Tim beast did.


The bill left the Commons on amended which weakens their position


considerably. I suspect they will try and amend it, but I suspect they


would significantly frustrated. Remind us how the Lords is composed.


A quick reading of that and you think that this conservative


Government faces to River Calder is from too many other parties in the


Lords. Is that right? What are the numbers? When David Cameron became


Prime Minister in 2015, he was the first Tory Prime Minister ever not


to have an in-built majority in the House of Lords because the


hereditary peers had been removed. The Government needs to work with


crossbenchers, they are more than 100, they are not affiliated to any


party. They are some of the experts... Experts are very out of


fashion! They are not in the House of Lords. The Commons voted to


remain, the conversation is not now about whether we vote to Remain or


Leave, it is about how the Government goes about triggering


article 50. I did six they will significantly frustrate the process.


We talked about the extremely long history of people saying they want


to abolish the House of Lords, and also coming back to the idea that


they might actually stuff it full of their own supporters, the


Government. But that is totally improbable, surely? Given that David


Cameron created hundreds of peers and took a reputational hit for it,


I don't think Theresa May will have an appetite for that, but


threatening peers is like threatening judges, they don't care,


they will just do their job. Caroline, the Financial Times,


bringing us back to very much rather alarming things that happen in the


world. North Korea has been up to it again, a missile has gone up, and


President Trump, what I found fascinating about this story is that


President Trump is hosting the Japanese Prime Minister, they are


playing golf at the President's hideaway in Florida, and then this


happened. The timing not accidental, obviously. No, of course. We think


they are playing golf, but no press have been allowed to witness


President Trump's swing. There was one picture. The president put that


on his Instagram account, it wasn't a press photo. Meanwhile, North


Korea have taken the initiative and launched another missile into the


Sea of Japan with all sorts of promises about upscaling their


capacity. But basically, North Korea are doing what they have been doing


over the last few decades, saying that they have got the power, this


is a little bit more evidence. I think it is as you say no excuse


that President Trump is entertaining the Japanese premier as this is


happening, and it is a case of putting him on the spot. A little


bit of mini Brickman ship in the first few weeks of his


administration, and we know that -- brinkmanship in the first weeks of


his administration, and we know that he things that things are terrible


or awesome or sad or failing. Or wicked? !


This is the first genuine grown-up test of his presidency and how he


chooses to respond. And he did respond in a grown-up way by saying


that we stand behind our allies. He didn't condemn the launch itself,


some may think that is an omission, but he did say, we are with you,


Japan, South Korea. I'm just grateful he hasn't started a nuclear


war already, so the fact that his response didn't involve him treating


abuse at the North Korean premier is probably a good sign. This is a


major challenge now, whoever is in the White House, it doesn't matter


how they conduct themselves, they have to face this issue. It is a


major ongoing problem, and the issue with North Korea is there is only


one country that has any leveraged with them and that is China, and


they are also neighbours in the South China Sea attending to


establish new land bases and islands with military bases, so this is a


difficult balance and I hope President Trump is aware of how


subtle the gradations of diplomacy can be. An interesting detail in


here, he said he committed himself to the great ally, Japan, the remark


that raised eyebrows in South Korea because he didn't mention South


Korea as a great ally. This is complicated stuff and I hope he


treads lightly or we could end with a much more situation than the one


we have now which is a rogue state missiles around. Indeed. Let's move


on. Tony let's go with the Metro having this story about this big


survey of what police officers actually thought about guns, tasered


and so on. Is this the result of that? It is, and that is what I find


it really interesting about this particular story, as you rightly


said, the Police Federation, the trade union for police officers,


they had a conversation about whether a knobbly should be armed,


and they asked their members and found that most of them believe that


they should have Taser is, but that only one in four thinks that all


police officers should carry guns. This is an important issue, we are


one of the few countries in the world where police officers do not


routinely carry firearms, and I think that is why we have so few


incidents of police officers being killed by firearms. In any other


country, your first option should you have a gun is to shoot the


police officer, but that is one of the strength that we have in our


policing. We are rare in that we have a sense of community policing,


the police are not separate from the community, they police by consent.


It is good to see that the vast majority still don't want weapons. I


thought that one in for thinking they should carry guns actually is


quite an advance on a few years ago. Yes, I think so, and I can remember


as a child travelling to Europe for the first time in Singh policeman


with guns and feeling quite horrified and realising we grew up


in different circumstances. Circumstances have changed. This


does seem to be a compromise of sorts, at least that we are not


going down the full firearms route, a Taser is not a nice thing to be on


the receiving end of, but the fatalities that we have experienced


in the US on both sides. Heavily armed cops on every corner. The


Baftas, you were there this evening! I wasn't in the front row, I need to


stress. We are always keen to talk to people who were there. The Daily


Telegraph has a picture on the front page of people who are not actors


are tall, but they stole the limelight on the red carpet, I


think, Prince William and lovely Kate. It is a revelation when you


are there on the sidelines and you get these a list is and their


Oscar-winning Sam Baird Golden Globe winners, and they are so used to


hoovering up the attention, and people do give them the right kind


of attention, and then the Royals turn up, and there are only two


stars in town suddenly. Is really bizarre. You feel the change? There


is electricity and attention, the service was delayed because they


were delayed in their car, we have to macro superstars. And Tony I must


ask you about the dress she was wearing. No, perhaps I won't! We saw


some very skimpy dresses tonight, but that was a nice one. We have


another lady, and we talked about this earlier, beaming in minus three


Celsius was naked shoulder flesh, give everyone an Oscar as far as I'm


concerned. I wasn't smiling, and I had a hot water bottle up my coat!


Thank you both very much indeed. That's it for The Papers


for this hour. 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


Download Subtitles