:00:13. > :00:15.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be
:00:16. > :00:21.With me are Jim Waterson, who's the political editor
:00:22. > :00:27.And the public appointments adviser Jacqui Francis.
:00:28. > :00:29.Decently giving up their Sunday evening!
:00:30. > :00:33.The cover of the FT features a stark warning
:00:34. > :00:40.from President Trump over North Korea.
:00:41. > :00:42.The Telegraph also carries the President's comments
:00:43. > :00:44.on its front page, ahead of his first meeting
:00:45. > :00:52.The I focuses on the row over comments made by Michael Howard
:00:53. > :00:57.The same story is on the front page of the Metro, with the paper
:00:58. > :00:59.highlighting the former Tory leader's claim the Prime Minister
:01:00. > :01:04.would even consider war to keep the territory.
:01:05. > :01:07.The Express says 20-minute walk a day could save your life,
:01:08. > :01:09.following a report by the British Heart Foundation that
:01:10. > :01:11.three quarters of heart patients take no exercise at all.
:01:12. > :01:14.Donald Trump's warning to the Chinese is the Times' lead
:01:15. > :01:16.tomorrow, with the President saying he would take unilateral action
:01:17. > :01:21.if necessary to halt Kim Jong-un's nuclear programme.
:01:22. > :01:25.The Daily Mirror carries a photo of the daughter of Tracey Wilkinson,
:01:26. > :01:27.visiting the scene where her mother was stabbed to death
:01:28. > :01:35.alongside her brother Pierce in Stourbridge last week.
:01:36. > :01:45.We have to start with Gibraltar. Tonight of all nights. Fighting talk
:01:46. > :01:51.on Gibraltar. The Defence Secretary insisting the UK will defend the
:01:52. > :01:54.Rock all the way and Lord Howard comparing Theresa May potentially to
:01:55. > :02:00.Margaret Thatcher should it come to it. He did not quite mention war,
:02:01. > :02:06.did he? I think he's said this has been mentioned and that obviously
:02:07. > :02:10.Theresa May will strongly defend and support Gibraltar. For some reason
:02:11. > :02:17.it was translated into Margaret Thatcher and possibly tanks and
:02:18. > :02:21.invasion. I am not sure how that happened and I am sure Theresa May
:02:22. > :02:26.is pleased he is incommunicado as she works out how to roll back from
:02:27. > :02:34.the idea that we will invade Gibraltar. The direct comparison was
:02:35. > :02:38.made? A former Conservative leader Michael Howard was doing the rounds
:02:39. > :02:45.on the shows this morning and said comments to the effect of, we were
:02:46. > :02:51.willing to defend the Falklands and would be willing to do the same
:02:52. > :02:57.again. We are not going to war with Spain. They are a Nato member. We
:02:58. > :03:04.would have to defend them against ourselves if we did. We would tie
:03:05. > :03:09.ourselves in not. You have someone like Michael Howard willing to talk
:03:10. > :03:13.this language and willing to say we will use military force to defend
:03:14. > :03:18.our landed interests. It gives you an insight into the mindset of the
:03:19. > :03:23.people coming up with this. And maybe the people they appeal to,
:03:24. > :03:28.that kind of talk would have a residence, even if it is only
:03:29. > :03:33.metaphorical. Absolutely and what happened for some people, when they
:03:34. > :03:39.heard about the letter sent, it was civilised, like, we will do this and
:03:40. > :03:44.that and will negotiate and was not as hardliners some individuals
:03:45. > :03:52.wanted, I think so Michael Howard, saying this is what we want to hear.
:03:53. > :03:56.How one is this? It is one thing to appeal to the constituency you think
:03:57. > :04:00.it will resonate with but another thing to start the negotiations.
:04:01. > :04:07.Lord Howard will not be part of it. It comes back to the latter invoking
:04:08. > :04:11.Article 50, it did not have a mention of Gibraltar, which
:04:12. > :04:15.surprised some EU officials and Spanish diplomat saw the opportunity
:04:16. > :04:21.and put in a line on the response letter. It is a misalignment of the
:04:22. > :04:26.two letters, which may be as simple as someone forgot to put on line in
:04:27. > :04:31.one letter when it was drafted in Downing Street, but we end up four
:04:32. > :04:36.days later with talk on the front pages we might have an armed
:04:37. > :04:41.conflict. That will not happen. It is all about the language and
:04:42. > :04:50.mentality we can learn from this. The Telegraph newspaper is connected
:04:51. > :04:55.to Brexit as well, Spain buoying Scottish Nationalists as the row
:04:56. > :04:59.over Gibraltar intensifies, saying Spain has abandoned plans to stop at
:05:00. > :05:05.independent Scotland, should Scotland achieve that, from joining
:05:06. > :05:10.the EU. There have been concerns from some Scottish interests that
:05:11. > :05:13.Spain would not want to see an independent Scotland act ceding to
:05:14. > :05:20.the EU because it might give Catalonia ideas. This might be more
:05:21. > :05:25.important of the two Brexit stories tomorrow. This gives Scotland and
:05:26. > :05:30.Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a free pass on a key issue in the past,
:05:31. > :05:36.with the argument being if you declared independence, before the UK
:05:37. > :05:42.left the EU, you would not be able to get in the club. This clears a
:05:43. > :05:48.major hurdle for Scottish nationalism. It makes life easier to
:05:49. > :05:53.make the case it would not leave them outside the EU. This is another
:05:54. > :05:58.front on which tensions will be raised between Madrid and London. I
:05:59. > :06:03.am sure everybody is wondering, is this a quid pro quo for something
:06:04. > :06:11.else Spain feels aggrieved about, for example the idea of security
:06:12. > :06:17.arrangements and sharing details. If you want to play that card, OK, we
:06:18. > :06:22.will play this card, saying we will not say anything about Scotland if
:06:23. > :06:28.they want to join. I wonder behind the scenes what messages have got
:06:29. > :06:33.mixed up that people are saying things like this. It is a lot of
:06:34. > :06:37.sabre rattling before the negotiations. You wonder if there
:06:38. > :06:44.will be temperate language when they negotiate. Of course. This is people
:06:45. > :06:49.setting out their stall. Going in and waiting to see what everyone
:06:50. > :06:52.comes back with. On Scotland getting independence and getting in the EU,
:06:53. > :07:02.there has been a change of thinking from Spain on this. Staying with the
:07:03. > :07:07.Telegraph, police warn they'll changes will help release criminals.
:07:08. > :07:13.Can you outline this. Broadly speaking the story is that police
:07:14. > :07:18.will have to charge offenders, alleged offenders, within 20 days or
:07:19. > :07:23.release them from prison. There have been cases particularly around long
:07:24. > :07:30.crime investigations into historic child abuse and also stuff about
:07:31. > :07:33.journalists with phone hacking where people were kept on bail months and
:07:34. > :07:40.years and never charged but also having their name besmirched and
:07:41. > :07:44.unable to work. The issue is is it more fair to people let off
:07:45. > :07:49.eventually without charge? Or is there a risk you end up letting off
:07:50. > :07:54.people who are guilty because the police have not within a month found
:07:55. > :08:05.the evidence. The College of Policing think it is the latter and
:08:06. > :08:11.dangerous. They give the example of the Soham murders. They say it takes
:08:12. > :08:15.longer than people think. It is not like CSI, you tap into a computer
:08:16. > :08:21.and it tells you information. You wonder if it will mean that people
:08:22. > :08:27.are arrested over and again. It is possible. Some of the journalists
:08:28. > :08:33.cases, close to our industry, use or careers ruined with no charge, then
:08:34. > :08:37.reading across into other cases not as well reported, there must be
:08:38. > :08:41.people whose lives have been ruined because the police have not got
:08:42. > :08:47.round to finding evidence so it seems a fair balance. The Financial
:08:48. > :08:53.Times, telling us it has an exclusive interview with President
:08:54. > :08:57.Trump. If China is not going to solve North Korea, he says, we will.
:08:58. > :09:07.That headline is on the front pages tonight. Clearly cross about the way
:09:08. > :09:11.North Korea is behaving. China is one of North Korea's few allies, but
:09:12. > :09:20.we do not know what sorting North Korea means. No, he is saying if
:09:21. > :09:26.they don't, we will. As you said, slightly worrying, because I wonder
:09:27. > :09:29.when things are not going well domestically, sometimes leaders
:09:30. > :09:35.think, let's look abroad and see what we can do. A pre-emptive
:09:36. > :09:40.strike, I presume, is one of the things they are thinking about or
:09:41. > :09:45.covert operations in North Korea. But who would want to go there?
:09:46. > :09:50.Sabre rattling is one thing but if you say that to North Korea, they
:09:51. > :09:56.might easily call your bluff. He is said arranged that man it might be
:09:57. > :10:01.something he decides to do. The missile tests have caused such
:10:02. > :10:07.tensions on the Korean peninsula, as well. It is not a complete joke of a
:10:08. > :10:13.nation, they have the ability to fire missiles along way. It is on
:10:14. > :10:18.the back of comments by the Obama administration, it is not just in
:10:19. > :10:22.Donald Trump's heads. What might be something Donald Trump came up with
:10:23. > :10:28.on the spot that if China does not do anything, we will wade in.
:10:29. > :10:32.Sometimes politicians go into interviews with a single line they
:10:33. > :10:36.want to put across. If you read the transcript of this interview it gets
:10:37. > :10:41.the feeling of they said, what will you do if they do not back down?
:10:42. > :10:48.Well, I will wade in on my own. Which is worrying if that is how
:10:49. > :10:53.policy is made. Perhaps he just wanted to answer the question.
:10:54. > :10:57.Terrifying if that is coming about. Setting out his stall before he
:10:58. > :11:01.meets the Chinese premier? He is meeting him the first time this
:11:02. > :11:06.week. It is part of what he is trying to do. I worry if in the
:11:07. > :11:14.Pentagon they say, sorry, what? Did somebody mention, get your boots on,
:11:15. > :11:19.we are off somewhere. Perhaps he is trying to say he has put pressure on
:11:20. > :11:26.the Chinese before he meets them. There could be sanctions. China has
:11:27. > :11:30.failed to step in. In South Korea they have a political crisis and are
:11:31. > :11:35.less willing to act tough. It is basically down to Mr Trump to work
:11:36. > :11:40.out what he wants to do. This will not bounce China into doing
:11:41. > :11:45.anything. They will do something if they want to do it but him having an
:11:46. > :11:48.exclusive and they are reading the Financial Times of thinking of
:11:49. > :11:54.course, Donald, we will do what you want us to do. Send them a note and
:11:55. > :12:04.saying, please stop doing that? We can look at the Times newspaper and
:12:05. > :12:10.aired a -- air disaster fears over a poor standard of English among
:12:11. > :12:14.foreign pilots, meaning perhaps communication in the skies when
:12:15. > :12:21.things get tricky is not as clear as it might be. It is worrying that
:12:22. > :12:26.this is more than once before we have had pilots... I understood they
:12:27. > :12:29.double-check and speak carefully in a particular language to ensure if
:12:30. > :12:35.they do not understand they asked them to repeat it but one assumes if
:12:36. > :12:38.you are a pilot, you have the same standard in terms of communication,
:12:39. > :12:45.no matter what country you are from. You would have thought. This implies
:12:46. > :12:50.not. There is a case where a pilot has gone on the wrong way without
:12:51. > :12:54.being clearance which the air traffic controller thought the pilot
:12:55. > :12:59.did not necessarily understand instructions. The main concern is
:13:00. > :13:04.pilots based overseas are in some way getting around, all being guided
:13:05. > :13:09.through the language tests. They can fly the plane, the issue is whether
:13:10. > :13:13.they understand what local controllers are telling them. Shall
:13:14. > :13:20.we finish with the Express. They love a health story. We are being
:13:21. > :13:27.told to walk. Obviously not enough doing it. A daily walk, experts tell
:13:28. > :13:33.20 million lazy Britons to get more exercise. That always goes down
:13:34. > :13:38.well, to be called a couch potato! The point is simple. The British
:13:39. > :13:43.Heart Foundation are concerned patients they see do not do any
:13:44. > :13:49.exercise. This front page could have been run at any point and probably
:13:50. > :13:54.has been over the last 50 years. It says if you keep walking you will
:13:55. > :13:58.get fit. If you keep eating healthy food you maybe will have a healthier
:13:59. > :14:03.life. The moment this breakthrough is the moment the Express will go
:14:04. > :14:10.out of business. Maybe we need is the Express to remind us. It says in
:14:11. > :14:17.some regions, the figure is as high as 97% of people being physically
:14:18. > :14:23.inactive. There are lots of ways we are told we can change that. It is
:14:24. > :14:28.difficult to acquire new habits and easy to acquire bad ones. Take the
:14:29. > :14:35.stairs, get off the bus they stop earlier. But the real thing is the
:14:36. > :14:39.cost of 1.2 billion to the NHS and increasingly we are told we have to
:14:40. > :14:46.take care of our own health because some of the things we do cost the
:14:47. > :14:52.NHS so much more. This idea we should do more exercise. 20 minutes,
:14:53. > :14:58.of daily walking, which I'm sure we all do already? We are doing our
:14:59. > :15:00.bit. I certainly do. That is because I have a dog and she insists upon
:15:01. > :15:19.it. We will be back at 11:30pm. You can
:15:20. > :15:24.also see all the front pages online on the BBC News website. We will be
:15:25. > :15:27.back in 42 minutes with Jim and Jacqui.