26/03/2017 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 26/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Life on Mars. In the sci-fi horror film Life is all what it seems? Mark


Kermode will fill us in on The Film Review.


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


With me are Caroline Frost, entertainment editor


of the Huffington Post and parliamentary reporter


The Metro leads with the Home Secretary putting pressure


on internet companies over access to encrypted messages in the wake


The Guardian quotes opposition politicians, who say that


Amber Rudd's demand is unrealistic and disproportionate.


The Telegraph's also covering that story and says Amber Rudd is furious


that the attacker's whatsapp messages are being kept secret.


One of the main stories in the FT is the police clampdown


on anti-corruption protests in Russia.


The Express says that millions of families are facing


major council tax increases from next month.


The Times says Britain risks signing worthless


trade deals because ministers are failing to recognise


The Mirror's lead features the missing girl


Madeline McCann as a former detective claims someone


The paper says David Cameron's Downing Street was part of a cover


We'll look at some of the different coverage of this issue over WhatsApp


and why you can or shouldn't be able to access messages sent on that


platform after what Amber Rudd said today. Rudd unrealistic says the


Guardian to allow access to WhatsApp, the Home Secretary refuses


to rule out an encryption law after the attack but she wants to appeal


to the companies to do the right thing and inshore messages can be


accessed. Yes, which as you can imagine is her preferred option


because if they can that means you don't need all that legislation. The


problem is one of their unique brands is their privacy, they are


boastful about the fact users around the world can send these very


private messages, and in this day and age when we can look into all


corners of the Internet, and there's all this chat and spin about state


intrusion, it's a big deal for them. Obviously this need for security has


come along and many people would think it beats it in this day and


age when our personal safety is at risk. She is hoping very much that


they will do the right thing and the problem is, as we touched on


earlier, is whether they can. One of the things is they say it is


encrypted at either end and the chances are, even their own in-house


technicians can't access those messages, so it's case of people


being prepared to access bones and what you. Critics have said is there


a need for this and the practicalities of imposing it on a


global scale. The concern is if you provide a backdoor way to access


these messages, anybody could do it if you have the know-how, whether


your intentions are good or bad. Absolutely. In the UK if the


government said in the UK you can't use end to end encryption or it has


to be designed with a back door so security services can access it,


there's the problem that other actors may want to do that and


there's the problem of what that says internationally. It's the


British government you can trust us, we are a good government, we're not


a bad government. I have some sympathy with why WhatsApp sticks to


its opinions but there's a stronger argument for some of the issues


around and Publication than this one, WhatsApp are reducing to hand


over these messages -- around Google. I would argue why we have


become so attached to an app that didn't exist over three or four


years ago and people are thinking they need industrial level


encryption to their mates about where they are meeting for the pub.


I'm not sure that is necessary. Whether you gain these extra


privacies by accident or design, once you've got then, many people


will say you shouldn't have to give them up. Winning them back over


becomes a big deal. Maybe that's the case and maybe 30 years ago we will


look at the Wild West we allow the Internet to become, and we have


allowed it to become an open market with little regulation and control.


Perhaps people will look at the start of the social media age and


look at the way we didn't regulate it as absurd. We know many


politicians have said the market will dictate everything. It could be


in this day and age post trauma, people feel strongly enough to be


hunting down an equivalent WhatsApp mechanism that doesn't have this


encryption. If there's a boy boycott them WhatsApp will have to do


something. Markets don't make decisions about this. Companies are


making announcements about their business model and our government is


saying can you talk to us, instead of saying we are going to legislate


and close down your business and fine you. The Sun is campaigning on


this. That is the Sun's view, the headline implies it is, it may not


be, it may be paraphrasing what the security services have been saying.


They can't decode encrypted messages, though, going back to the


initial point. Maybe I have misunderstood the technology, maybe


WhatsApp are lying saying their technicians can't access these


messages or see other people's messages. They haven't done this to


create a hiding place. They've developed something and said it's


nothing to do with us what it is used for, if people send messages as


terrorists. I understand that but as time goes on it becomes more


intolerable. You hear two things from these companies, one is it has


nothing to do with us, we just provide the platform, that is


unacceptable. Then they say we believe in the first Amendment, and


my response is you're in the UK, not the US. The issue with WhatsApp,


they are not a publisher like YouTube or Google. They are device,


they are an app, they are thing, we use it merrily because we can do


group messages and phone calls and send snaps. It has made life easy.


It makes you wonder, a wise friend always says to me, if you can't work


out what the product is, you are the product and I have been happily


using WhatsApp for a long time and it makes you wonder, who am I


helping? It is very new to me, you just pick up the phone! On the Sun,


defiant daughter revealed, daughter revealed, the daughter of Khalid


Masood, whose name is Tegan, who defied his orders it says. I don't


want to break any journalistic competences but when it says


something has emerged that means it was in the Sunday Times yesterday.


If you want to know about it it is all there. Looking in the Times,


ices uses terror attack to sign up YouTube recruits, Google fails to


stop deluge of propaganda videos -- Isis. What is the evidence that


recruitment has taken place despite just the videos -- and not just the


videos? The hundreds of foreign fighters in Syria is the evidence.


The government in terms of legislation is on a stronger footing


here. These tech companies will say they believe in freedom of speech,


very nice, but in this case you are a publisher, we are all journalists,


if we published hard-core pornography in a newspaper the


police would come looking. There are regulations around standards and the


government needs to assert itself now. They had to cajole and persuade


these companies to take trial sex abuse images off their platforms,


they had to be convinced of that. I think the government needs to be a


lot harsher with Facebook... Sorry, with Google over YouTube and say if


you don't start shutting this down, we will start shutting you down and


the issue is these companies have vast revenues, they don't want to


pay to regulate their own content. It would be time consuming and a


difficult thing to do. They don't want to do it so they say first


Amendment rights, nothing to do with us. Mark Zuckerberg has used the


same argument because of the delay in regulation in the Facebook world.


Brexit negotiators and risk rushing into harmful trade deals in the


Times. Steve Wilcock from the School of economics, the LSE, helping civil


servants get ready for these investigations. He is really saying


that this idea of no deal is better than a bad deal, a great soundbite


but Theresa May is taking issue with that. He is taking issue with that.


It's interesting what he is saying about trade deals, what the


government is saying, as soon as we leave the EU we will be able to do


quick trade deals with the US, China, Australia and the. He is


warning against the political expediency saying we can get this


done in two years or 18 months will produce bad trade deals -- and New


Zealand. Trade deals take as long as they take. The government is keen to


give off the impression that as soon as we leave trade deals will be done


across the piece and he is warning it could be more complex and you


need to be more wary and ring into a trade negotiation with the Trump


White House and the big factor is time -- entering into. When you look


at the trade deals the WTO has been involved in, they go for years. I


think they are not looking at the size of the EU. We have talked about


how it has been fractured by the UK removing itself, but it remains an


enormous trading mechanism. People will say we will be fine, and it


just seems to me as though the message is Brexit will work at any


cost and we will make anything... It can't be seen to fail. If we're


going to leave the EU we have to make Brexit work one way or another.


Saying a bad deal is better than no deal, I understand why she says it


and she says it because her predecessor David Cameron went into


European negotiations saying it would be tough, and he came back


with nothing, that's why we had a referendum and he lost because he


came at it from a position of weakness and not having the vision


to say we will leave if we don't get what we want. We should be willing


them to get good deals quickly. Of course we should. He is warning that


you should do trade deals within a set period because it is politically


expedient for you, you should recognise they are more complex than


that and if it takes three years rather than two years, it will be


better. I think he is saying country above party again. Looking at the


Telegraph, GPs failing women, say MPs. According to this article


nearly half of women need to visit their GP ten times before being


diagnosed with common gynaecological complaints. This is slightly odd


because we get invitations at various ages to go for all sorts of


checks and tests. I also think that a lot of these conditions that have


been referred to are outsourced to different screening centres. I'm not


sure if that has somehow been lost in the small print but actually a


lot of women are catered for elsewhere. But these big is alone


are pretty shocking. Anecdotally, I'm not sure if any of my friends


would stand for ten visits before they get told it's maybe not in your


head. -- these figures. Some women reported feeling they were going mad


after being told there was nothing wrong despite years of painful


symptoms. As I would say, if it was a man it would be slightly fewer


visits. Although, sometimes it has been argued services for men's


health has not been as well advertised and funded as those for


women. Men are much less likely to see a doctor, women seek reassurance


from doctors more than men and that can lead to serious health problems.


As a man, I am really shocked by this and it's another reminder to me


of the million ways in which women are treated differently in our


society, the million ways they can be discriminated against and it's


really good the APPG on women's health, a parliamentary group that


has produced the best, the sort of group 20 years ago Tory MPs would


have laughed at as people like Harriet Harman pushed forward these


agendas, it's now so prominent they can be on the front page of the


Telegraph and the work they are doing is taken seriously because it


is serious. And it is cross-party? It is. A surprise because so many


women are GPs. It's not like it's an old men's club in the centre of


London. So little time when you get in to see a GP, the clock is


ticking! I don't know whether I have anything to say about this next


story. Not that I need to! The Daily Mail, Harry, Prince Harry, and his


American actress girlfriend, Meghan, are setting up home together.


Discuss. That's interesting! Is it? They are going to be moving into


Kensington Palace, reports claim, which is reasonably significant in


terms of whether they will actually get together. I would have been


surprised if the Royal family would have thought a divorced American


actress would have been an appropriate consort for someone


already quite close to the throne in terms of in-line for the throne but


change and the Queen has changed with them. Prince Harry is not going


to be king, is he crazy I have been watching the series about the Royal


House of Windsor. If he sets up home with his girlfriend, we know that


William and Kate set up house, it was very lovely in the Welsh privacy


of Anglesey. We know that Edward did. Anything but another royal


divorce, anything. We will wait and see, we wish them well whatever they


choose. That's the papers for tonight. Caroline and Tony, lovely


to see you. As always, thank you very much. Coming up next, The Film




Download Subtitles