28/04/2017 The Papers

the nuclear threat that North Korea may pose. We will bring you more

details later. We hope to speak to our correspondent in Washington at

11 o'clock. Hello and welcome to our look ahead

to what the Papers will be With me are Kevin Schofield, Editor

of Politics Home and Alex Deane, Tomorrow's front pages,

starting with... 'Cover-up let rogue surgeon play

God' is the Telegraph's headline after the conviction of Ian

Paterson. The Mirror calls Paterson,

the butcher surgeon, suggesting at least a thousand women

could have affected. Meanwhile, the Mail asks why did

the NHS fail to stop him. The paper also has

an exclusive interview Sergeant Alexander Blackman,

known as Marine A, who left The FT leads on the figures showing

the UK economy grew by less than was expected in the first three

months of this year. The Independent online

focuses on Donald Trump We will start with this case

regarding the breast surgeon Ian Paterson. It is in so many of The

Papers as you might expect. Here is how the meal is reporting it. I'd

had the NHS go to stop the Butcher surgeon? You could have me as many

as 1000 women. There was a man who was one of the patients in this case

in Nottingham. It is a staggering story when you think that doctors,

we are told, are taught to do no harm. Of course, they should seek to

do no harm, but surgery often involves doing what would otherwise

be sold, or even grievous bodily harm in order to do better for the

patient on the table in front of you. If a body of your fellow

surgeons thinks that what you do is write, or is at least justifiable,

then there is emerging of terror that allows people to continue to do

what they do. It is very difficult actually in law to prove that

someone did something not just wrong, but to the criminal standard

where they are qualified as a doctor where they are qualified as a doctor

and they are conducting an operation on a cable and I think that is why,

especially with someone who has a forceful personality and has an

ability to convince people around him that he is seeking to do the

wrong, but this wrong. There are two wrong, but this wrong. There are two

things permitted from out of this. The first is that no one is

infallible and surgeons should be challenged just like the rest of us

and the second, which might be a mundane point, but is behind your

introduction, this is not just a woman's issue and if one good thing

can come of this is that men often face this kind of breast cancer

tissue, or just issue and should be no more shy about than women. Some

of these women, obviously in a very fond of state. The patients, we

should say. They are desperate to be curate, desperate to be helped. You

take the advice you are given. If you put yourself in the position of

these per women, they are sitting on the other side of the table having

been given this terrific news, the worst news you can get and you are

naturally inclined, I would suggest, to believe the surgeon, qualified

and experienced, you have got to take at his word. If you're unable

to trust someone in that position then who can you trust? Imagine that

someone is in that kind of position and genuinely believes that he or

she is doing the right thing when he or she is not. It is very difficult

to prove to the criminal standard that they meant to do harm in that

situation. The Daily Express said the cancer doctor played God. We do

not know why he was motivated to do this, that is some suggestion it

could have been financial. He maintains that the operations were

justified and he did nothing wrong. While we can do is speculate. One of

the things he was doing was seeking to preserve a position of power. He

was seeking to preserve a cleavage whilst removing the north part of

breasts, but seeking to prefers an upper part which, luckily, turned

cancerous itself. Even the thing he thought he was doing that was right

seemed to be dangerous to the patient, even though he was

conducting what was apparently unnecessary operations. He was asked

many times by his managers to stop doing that and wouldn't and carried

on. The question is, how did it continue, ordered the NHS feel to

stop them? If he was being wound up by his superiors on numerous

occasions flickering out these unnecessary procedures, why was he

allowed to continue practising? The daily Mirror says he had 1000

victims, a case which involved under 20 patients, but there are many more

are waiting to see the outcome. For the conditions we have spoken to,

they have said the checks and balances and the safeguards are so

much different now compared to when he was doing his operations. These

cases did back sometime. As you rightly applied, it would be crazy

to try a case involving hundreds of victims. You choose certain sets of

victims, were alerted victims, and he tried the case on those specific

examples. It seems to me that, even if the system has moved on from them

and these historic cases have a different kind of circumstances now

to the ones carried out now, we can still learn something from a culture

that allows someone to carry out operations which, on the face of it,

seem unnecessary, but positively harmful to the patients concerned.

Let's move on. We will be the opposition said Tim Farren, leader

of the Liberal Democrats. If you look at page seven, it talks about

his hopes, particularly in Scotland, for their success in the forthcoming

general election. I cannot find anything he says we will be the

opposition though, can you? It is an eye-catching headline. It is quite a

bold claim, but I think the closest he comes, when he read the story

inside is I want to be the Leader of the Opposition Verstappen is

slightly different. That is an understandable ambition for any

party of opposition, even one with only nine MPs, but I guess it is

looking at the state of the Labour Party, looking at the opinion polls

and saying, we could get increased representation. The idea they would

be timid opposition is pretty fanciful. Labour is going to be done

and the Liberal Democrats will go up, but that does not equal the

Liberal Democrats being the party of opposition. My advice to Tim Farren

would be to keep your head down. I mean it to be patronising. Every

time his personality has emerged on his party brand, but that is his

views on sexuality, or is broader political and social views, he has

proved less attractive than his party brand. That is why keep your

head down. I don't just minutes patronisingly to him, though it is,

but I think, furthermore... He ought, properly, to look to the

political tide, which is broadly in his favour. He has had a big

increase in donations and membership. If you get more than 22

MPs he will begin on, but that will not above the Labour Party. If there

is anything like this in his rhetoric, he should turn it down.

The point is that, even the Labour Party for, if it is in line with the

fallen, it would be significant. But reflects well on the liberal

Democrats. That was tied up with Jeremy Corbyn, so the tide may not

go in Tim Farren's flavour for long. If there is nothing I could in this

story, he should not be so hubristic.

Let's look at the Telegraph. Germany admitted austerity would destroy

Greece says Arafat is. This is the German finance minister suggesting

that he would not have agreed to the deal that Greece had to take. The

Telegraph has got an interview and extracts from Yanis Varoufakis's

memoir, in which it turns out he was secretly recording conversations

when he was great finance minister when Greece was at risk of tumbling

out of the Euro and had to accept very harsh austerity measures in

return for a bailout and he said that the German finance minister

admitted at the time privately, not for public discussion, that if I was

you I would not sign this day because this is all about national

pride as much as I think that you are being asked to sell your country

down the river. It is quite an amazing story. It backs up what a

lot of people were saying that Greece were made an example of and

it shows, the point the Telegraph were making, it shows how Germany

will perhaps behave during the Brexit discussions when push comes

to shove. They will be holding the whip and as far as the EU are

concerned. Germany did make an example of Greece, but on the other

hand, they should never have allowed the Greeks in in the first place. In

an easy and economic environment, the Greeks should have been able to

come out, the value and they can't because they are in a common

currency that is not governed by economics, it is governed by

politics and that's what this revelation shows. The Financial

Times. Speaking of Brexit, we cannot go through a review without it. Work

the talk. They pressured for smooth Brexit for Japanese groups. What a

seeming like smooth Brexit? It implies the need for a transitional

arrangement to lessen uncertainty, Japan really has three major kinds

of interest in the UK. The first is financial. There are Japanese banks.

The second is automotive. There are many examples of that. It is

manufacturing broadly. All of them want a sense that they can't be here

in the short to medium term without any real uncertainty. They want not

just the two years that we will presumably be negotiating with the

European partners, but they want a sense they will be transitional

agreements and arrangements of difficulty on the two years they can

have certainty about factories and their presence. Whether that be

passport for financial institutions or tariffs imposed on manufacturing.

That is not just down to Theresa May, the smoothness of how it

happens, there are 27 other countries involved. As the promised

said last night in Leeds, the other 27 will be ganging up against us

because it is not in their interest to give us everything we want. There

will have to be give and take. If we decided to be awkward, it takes two

to tango. If I decide who's in the wrong direction it would be real. It

is not an unreasonable perspective to take. It is a surprise and one

from a nation whose diplomacy and the 20th century and onwards has

been small target. Let's look at the front of the Independent. Trump's

first 100 days. This is a fabulous photograph of him sitting at the

desk of the Oval office, which the Independent has always been good at.

As he delivered on his promises? He thinks he has and has been speaking

to the national rifle Association. They were big supporters of him. His

100 days have flown in, it has to be said. For a guy who accuses the

media of fake news, which is one of the most horrible terms that have

ever entered the political lexicon, for him to say that his first 100

days have been a success is fake news. That is not, by any stretch of

the imagination, his first 100 days have not been a success. His

successors -- his supporters think he has been a success. If you judge

it by the economic performance of the United States, there was

widespread speculate in the Trump won the election the economy would

thank. Instead, after an afternoon of fluctuation on the market, the US

economy picked up significantly after Trump won last year and has

continued to perform well subscribed to that. He was handed a pretty good

economic situation. You can only look at the time frame he has been

in. The economy was growing at an atomic comment on when he took over.

It had been a remarkable turnaround if he turned around. I was quite at

a different point, which is one of the qualities this president has

shown, which might surprise people, is his ability to change his mind.

He said it was obsolete. Even without the minister and as you

convince them otherwise. He said he would pull out of Nafta, the

Mexicans and the Canadians made strong representations to him and

he, admitted it via a tweet, which might not be presidential, but he

indicated he was willing to reconsider his position. I think it

is a strong thing to be able to say I was wrong about something and I

think that is something that, in leadership, we undervalue. Shelby D

sports story? There is a mass of boxing match in Wembley tomorrow

night. Klitschko versus Joshua. One is 47, 41, the other is 27 and they

are both very big man. I would not want to take a punch from either of

them. Klitschko, he is a class act. It is an unpopular view in Britain.

Joshua is a national hero, Olympic gold medallist. He is to stone

heavier than his normal fighting with and as Lennox Lewis who fought

his last fight a lot heavier against Klitschko's elder brother would

point out, that is a strange position to go into a fight. My

instinct is Klitschko will screw them. I hope not. Of course I cheer

for the Brit, but my instinct is Klitschko is a classy act, a

Conservative boxer who can stand off. All the pressure is on Joshua.

Support Joshua but have a fiver on Klitschko. It is a golden era for

Bush boxing for the first time in 20 years. You will be watching? I will

be watching, definitely. Don't forget you can see the front

pages of the papers online It's all there for you,

seven days a week at bbc.c.uk forward slash papers and if you miss

the programme any evening you can