22/02/2017 The Papers

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

With me are the journalist Sean Dilley and The Guardian

The Daily Mail has said that RAF drone strikes have taken out British

jet -- jihadists. The Metro's main story

is the killing of Helen Bailey by her fiancee Ian Stewart,

and asks if he killed The Telegraph leads on the story

of the British suicide bomber Ronald Fiddler,

who blew himself up in a bombing near Mosul, and asks whether UK

terror payouts went to the so-called The Guardian goes with the

appointment of Cressida Dick, and Helen Bailey who was found dead

alongside her dog. The I also features Cressida Dick's

appointment and says she is already being criticised

over her involvement And the Times has said that the data

kingdom is wasting hundreds of millions subsidising power stations,

burning pallets that do more harm to the environment than what they

replace. The Express says a new jab

could stop millions of people developing Type 2 diabetes and also

speculates on whether And this is also the daily mirror.

Also featuring that photograph of Cheryl. You do wonder... And a

single mum has also won ?14 million. Good on her. One story dominating.

That is terrorism. The question on the front page of the Daily

Telegraph. Did UK terror pay outs go to Isil? Indeed. What happened at

Iraq and thereafter. The money that was paid to this man is something

that is going to be talked about for days. Newspapers are going to take a

different tact, different angle. The Daily Telegraph looking at the money

that was paid to him, and wondering if some of that was actually used to

fund the activities of Isil. Other newspapers, my one included want to

know why that was made. I think these are issues that are going to

run in tandem. It is easy to say no. We know so much more about this

particular character. But certainly are feeling, rulings that some of

those from Guantanamo Bay were innocent. Shakily radicalised, lost

their way. This is an example, I am afraid, and I cannot help being

controversial and no doubt we're going to get some abuse on Twitter

later but ultimately if somebody is not charged over criminal offence

they cannot be convicted. Yes, National Security Agency and I think

some measures could be taken that may or may not be ones that we would

agree with day to day but ultimately if somebody has been badly treated

on a circumstance that is what the courts rule. It is like seeing the

Hugh and I wood badly interfaced appearance fees and go and do some

illegal activity. It is nonsense. The idea of monitoring how he was

going to spend the money, that is a secondary point. Why give him so

much money in the first place. What were they trying to hide? I think

people are good to look at why that payment was made. He was deemed to

be innocent. Actually deemed to be for security. He was monitored.

Nobody believed. It was a blemish. What it said was that they did not

want to go to court, and have the intelligence operation and the

mechanics of the intelligence operation discussed in open court. I

smell a rat. The intelligence operations have been discussed in

court cases, you have got ways of doing that with Camara hearings.

This would not be the first time. The fact it was felt that in this

case that could not be done, and instead they had to give him so much

money, I think that tells you that they did not want to discuss what

was done. Allegations about extraordinary renditions. It is a

different point to what he did with the money. They should have watched

him more closely. Legitimate argument. But the idea about what he

was doing with his money, moot point. What are you doing with

yours? Tony Blair's government lobbied for the release of

Guantanamo Bay despite never regarding him as innocent. Something

that Jack Straw has admitted. Again, why have they given him

compensation? The argument was about the rule of law. Suspicions. Nothing

proven about him. The detention at Guantanamo should not have happened.

And they made that argument on the basis of the process. It is easy for

us to see. We know what he has done after blowing himself up. Perhaps he

was a terrorist all along. But he was living in Manchester for ten

years. Tony Blair did not pay compensation. He has actually said

that, but he has been out of power for ten years. The politics of years

gone past, we have heard nothing and suddenly it is interesting that

every single time something being discussed, we get more of Tony

Blair. Connie suspicious but why is that? We will wait and see. Time

will tell. The Metro. This is going to upset many commuters. It is an

awful story. Did he kill his first wife? Referring to Ian Stewart.

Killing Helen Bailey. The back story is that she was her first husband

after a freak accident, she became lonely and went on to social media,

talking to various people and he was one of them. Striking up a

relationship. Seemed to be terribly happy with him and suddenly appears

that all of the time he was planning to get rid of her and get her money.

She killed her. Has it has just got so many elements that people are

going to be interested in. Her celebrity, but also the sense of

Midsummer models. She was planning the wedding, he was planning the

murder. Facebook brought them together. So many interesting

strands. But on the human level it is just a terribly sad story. And

also looking into the death of his first wife. Going to re-examine

that. Very sad. We can move to the Guardian. A lot of newspapers

covering Cressida Dick, becoming the first woman to run the Metropolitan

Police. I know that you were on Twitter. A lot of people upset that

we keep mentioning that she is a woman. As the Guardian points out,

she is a constable. Why is that such a big deal? If you are treating

this, stop before you tweet. It is the first thing that a woman has

been in charge of the Metropolitan Police. In the same way that Hillary

Clinton would have been the first female president of the United

States. Get over it. It is. It is not unique there. Woman are not very

represented at the top as well as other groups. It is historic. People

have pointed out that President Obama was the first black man, to be

president of the united states. I wonder if people who tweet things

like why are you mentioning if she is a woman, they have an issue that

they are not wanting to admit to. It is clearly about equality. Not

making such a big deal of this. It is a big deal. If you think about

the organisation, policing has been a very male dominated, macho thing.

The Metropolitan Police have had issues in the past, about treating

female officers. And if they can get through the ranks, get a fair deal.

So to have a woman in charge of that organisation is a significant

advance. And when we have the stories it is important to stop,

this is a big thing. Celebrate. Cressida Dick, nobody can deny the

fact she has had an illustrious career. She rose through the ranks.

I think she was Chief Superintendent at the time of the Jean Charles

shooting. I am not sure. It could have been a promotion afterwards.

But she was known as one of the gold commanders and was widely criticised

for saying stop him. That was controversial because you have got

so many interpretations of that. Very a marmite figure. Much some

people loved her when she was in charge of Operation Trident, gun

crime. By the same token, that expression, the rate man for the job

can no longer apply. But looking to the future, a lot of hope that she

can reform the Metropolitan Police, and tackle terrorism. Make not just

London but the United Kingdom safer, and tackle racism. Absolutely.

Nobody can look at the appointment and say it has been gun crime. --

tokenism. She has done very significant things at Scotland Yard.

Operation Trident, gun crime. Also counterterrorism units. She does

have a big job because obviously the budget is going to be an important

thing straightaway. The government is keen to keep the pot string

state. But the Metropolitan Police have so many responsibilities, she

has got to have the political nous to deal with that, while having

credibility to keep the officers on her side. She is also continued ten

a day to do a job. And we're not talking about cigarettes. The Times.

A bigger bowl. Fruit and vegetables. How much do you eat? On none. Some,

three. Sundays, but I am not going to have ten bananas. I would be in

even worse shape. Ten grapes? That would be easy. Ten melons! Ten

portions, scientists have said. Anybody wanting maximum protection

against heart disease, cancer and early death should eat 800 grams.

Double the government advice. It is difficult because they change the

advice every so often. But we do need to think about what we eat. You

think about the obesity crisis that we have. You eat several times a

day, and if you exchange something fattening, is that a problem? They

have sinned do not eat things like bottle. They change things.

Recently, but is apparently fine. Then it is sugar. You have been

reading too many of the stories. And the Daily Telegraph. Marmalade could

be toast. Worried that we're not exposing our children to an offer

that. National scandal. It said that young people are rejecting

marmalade. No! Chocolate spread. Peanut butter. One percent aged

under 28. Six out of ten, aged over 65. They have just as people and a

sorry. If you have a really racy story on page number three, it was

known as the marmalade dropper! Many thanks for taking us through that.

We're going to do that again, the second round. Even more Twitter

conversations. We will see you in a bit. That is it. We are going to be

back later. You can see the front pages online, on the BBC News

website. Seven days a week on the website. Thank you. We'll see you

again in one