:00:00. > :00:00.Are very personal tale of love in the romantic comedy The Big Six.
:00:00. > :00:00.Find out what James King mate of this and the other releases this
:00:00. > :00:12.week in The Film Review. Hello and welcome to our look ahead
:00:13. > :00:16.to what the the papers will be With me are Nigel Nelson, Political
:00:17. > :00:19.Editor of the Sunday Mirror, and political commentator Jo
:00:20. > :00:33.Phillips. Al polite tourists reviewers, so
:00:34. > :00:35.Twitter tells us! You may disagree. I left my knuckle duster that home.
:00:36. > :00:37.To be polished! Let's take a look at
:00:38. > :00:47.tomorrow's front pages. The Observer leads with Donald
:00:48. > :00:48.Trump's decision to sack his chief of staff.
:00:49. > :00:50.The Telegraph leads with an ally of Boris Johnson attacking
:00:51. > :00:54.The Sunday Times has a report on the lives of teenage British
:00:55. > :00:57.girls who run away to join so-called Islamic State.
:00:58. > :01:00.The Mail says that Princess Diana's brother has called on Channel 4 not
:01:01. > :01:02.to broadcast her video diaries, which are due to air next week.
:01:03. > :01:04.The Express also focuses on Princess Diana, claiming
:01:05. > :01:13.the Princess asked the Queen for help about her marriage.
:01:14. > :01:19.That story also makes the Daily Star's FrontPage.
:01:20. > :01:28.That's where we'll begin as reported in the Mail on Sunday, don't show
:01:29. > :01:32.Diana Love tapes on TV pleads the earl, asking more demanding that
:01:33. > :01:36.Channel 4 acts what are called bombshell videos. Why are they so
:01:37. > :01:42.sensitive? Diana in fact gave them to a voice coach and the idea was
:01:43. > :01:45.these were never meant to appear. They seem to go through a peculiar
:01:46. > :01:51.route after that where they end up in a number of places, the BBC
:01:52. > :01:59.seemed to get the. And decided not to broadcast. And decided it would
:02:00. > :02:01.not upset the Royal family by broadcasting them. They then go
:02:02. > :02:08.through a circuitous route and end up with Channel 4, who plan to come
:02:09. > :02:11.out with Diana in her own words next Sunday, that's the idea, and what
:02:12. > :02:17.they say is she apparently was terribly candid with her voice
:02:18. > :02:21.coach, where although this wasn't meant to be broadcast, she did talk
:02:22. > :02:26.about Prince Charles, talked about Camilla being his mistress at the
:02:27. > :02:38.time, talks about a lot of private matters. Quite clearly Earl Spencer
:02:39. > :02:40.would be hugely upset for these to be made public, and of course so
:02:41. > :02:43.would William and Harry. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be made
:02:44. > :02:50.public. Should they, Jo? I would say... We know there is nothing new
:02:51. > :02:54.in the clips here that we don't already know, she was desperately
:02:55. > :03:00.unhappy, three of them in the marriage. There is an insinuation
:03:01. > :03:04.that this boy coach session was before she did the explosive
:03:05. > :03:09.Panorama interview, but as far as we can tell this was a private session
:03:10. > :03:13.with a voice coach. Therefore it is private and like Nigel Lamb curious
:03:14. > :03:18.to know how they ended up at Channel 4 if the BBC bought them, but I have
:03:19. > :03:25.read here but apparently they were broadcast on the American network
:03:26. > :03:28.NBC in 2004 and described them as a ghoulish striptease and that the
:03:29. > :03:39.people involved were no better than grave-robbers. But there is an odd
:03:40. > :03:42.question about who owns them. You said she gave them to him, you don't
:03:43. > :03:51.know that. I don't. Not that I'm casting aspersions! I don't know
:03:52. > :03:58.that but he got them. The issue, really, is going to be a real battle
:03:59. > :04:06.during the week. I don't think it's public interest? Isn't it? I think
:04:07. > :04:13.at a certain level your private life is always public interest. Private
:04:14. > :04:16.citizen and public person don't have the same levels of privacy. Would
:04:17. > :04:24.you broadcast interviews with a doctor or therapist? I wouldn't do
:04:25. > :04:28.that? Why? Because medical information has to be confidential.
:04:29. > :04:32.I wouldn't broadcast staff overheard where she was talking to a
:04:33. > :04:37.pre-cyber, for instance. Something like this is not privileged the same
:04:38. > :04:43.way. But she and he would assume it to be a private session. We don't
:04:44. > :04:48.know what he thought. He's bought... She didn't want to broadcast at the
:04:49. > :04:54.time. It seems an odd thing to talk about her private life in the way
:04:55. > :05:04.she did. Except when she was doing it for the Panorama interview. She
:05:05. > :05:07.was doing it with a voice coach, but I do think this is part of history.
:05:08. > :05:10.She was the person we have been hugely interested in, and overall, I
:05:11. > :05:14.think there is a genuine public interest for showing what she was
:05:15. > :05:19.like. We had a programme during the week where William and Harry, a
:05:20. > :05:23.fantastic programme, talking about their mum, and what a fantastic
:05:24. > :05:28.person she was. I do think we ought to see a more rounded, picture,
:05:29. > :05:32.though, and so both sides. We know this, there is nothing new in this.
:05:33. > :05:44.We don't know until we see the tapes. And also given that Princes
:05:45. > :05:46.William and Harry have done so much to raise awareness of mental health
:05:47. > :05:49.issues. They have done a great job. She was clearly in a great state of
:05:50. > :05:54.mental trauma. You can't just present one side of Diana, the
:05:55. > :05:58.mother in their case, and in a sense a sanitised version of her. Once you
:05:59. > :06:05.put that out and say that is public interest, surely the dark side of
:06:06. > :06:12.Diana is public interest as well. We will have to disagree on that! That,
:06:13. > :06:18.folks, is how you disagree! LAUGHTER . The Sunday Telegraph, policy ally
:06:19. > :06:23.attacks Hammond Brexit plan, transition must be no more than two
:06:24. > :06:28.years says Foreign Secretary's economic guru. Who worked with Boris
:06:29. > :06:33.when he was Mayor of London, and it is interesting if you are interested
:06:34. > :06:38.in these things, which of course we are fascinated by, various misses me
:06:39. > :06:45.on her walking holiday, gone away to lie down in a darkened room. --
:06:46. > :06:49.there is misses me on holiday. Chancellor appearing to speak some
:06:50. > :06:54.sense to a lot of quarters about a slower transition phase so we don't
:06:55. > :07:01.have the cliff edge Brexit, and now we have not Boris, he is maintaining
:07:02. > :07:08.his tight lipped nature, but Mr Lyons, one assumes speaking with his
:07:09. > :07:15.boss's blessing. We can't assume that! I think in politics you can,
:07:16. > :07:20.actually. He is basically saying this is ridiculous, what Philip
:07:21. > :07:24.Hammond says is crazy, and the warnings of the cliff edge are
:07:25. > :07:29.nonsense and he is comparing it to warnings about the millennium bug
:07:30. > :07:33.that would bring all our computers into disrepair. Is this code for, we
:07:34. > :07:44.are worried that if it takes that long Brexit will crash and burn?
:07:45. > :07:47.Partly I am sure that is true. First of all I am not convinced Boris
:07:48. > :07:49.thinks these things. He has been the other side of the world this week
:07:50. > :07:52.with wonderful pictures of shaking hands with robots in Japan and so on
:07:53. > :07:56.and reports have come back which seem contradictory, this is not
:07:57. > :08:02.unusual with Boris, but I don't quite know what he thinks and which
:08:03. > :08:07.is why it would go too far to say that Mr Lyons speaks on his behalf.
:08:08. > :08:11.What seems to be happening this week is that Philip Hammond is getting
:08:12. > :08:17.his way, and it just feels like plain common sense. We will not get
:08:18. > :08:24.this complex negotiation completed by March 29 2019, so transition
:08:25. > :08:30.period is going to happen. Thank you. LAUGHTER. So polite, we could
:08:31. > :08:40.do Songs of Praise, couldn't we? Where is the tea set an extant?! We
:08:41. > :08:49.are going back to the 50s! After you, may I say! The Sunday Times,
:08:50. > :08:54.life of teenage girls in Isis Britain, and stripped passports for
:08:55. > :08:57.jihadists, let's deal with the passports first, this is because of
:08:58. > :09:04.concerns that the so-called caliphate is imploding. Exactly. We
:09:05. > :09:08.now know the 150 so-called jihadists have been stripped of their
:09:09. > :09:13.passports. Some of this has been known but not publicised, but I
:09:14. > :09:18.think because there is a concern that nothing is happening, so these
:09:19. > :09:22.are people who have gone, they are banned from returning to Britain so
:09:23. > :09:27.in effect are stateless without British citizenship. Where they go
:09:28. > :09:30.and what happens afterwards remains to be seen. But at the same time the
:09:31. > :09:34.Home Office I think is under pressure because last week it
:09:35. > :09:39.confirmed only six terrorist suspects in Britain are subject to
:09:40. > :09:44.the terrorist prevention measures, so I think there is genuine public
:09:45. > :09:49.concern that on the one hand we hear the police and security services
:09:50. > :09:53.thwarting a certain number of attacks or incidents, but then you
:09:54. > :09:58.say, are you using these powers? They are trying to get the word out.
:09:59. > :10:03.They are not stateless, to humbly disagree with you. That would be
:10:04. > :10:07.illegal. They had dual nationals so they have somewhere to go in the
:10:08. > :10:13.sense of their other nationality, but the more passports we take away,
:10:14. > :10:19.the better it is for this country they don't come back. At the moment
:10:20. > :10:24.we are talking about 23,000 jihadists in Britain, we don't want
:10:25. > :10:30.another 850 from Syria and Iraq. Another picture of a woman, a young
:10:31. > :10:34.woman who escaped from Raqqa, where she had been living with her husband
:10:35. > :10:41.was fighting for Isis and talks about meeting the other girls who
:10:42. > :10:45.left Britain to join Isis. Indeed. She met some Muslim schoolgirls who
:10:46. > :10:51.vanished from their homes to marry Isis fighters and claims to have the
:10:52. > :10:54.notorious white widow over there, and says this enclave in Raqqa is
:10:55. > :10:59.known as Little Britain because there are so many British brides who
:11:00. > :11:05.have gone there. A fascinating piece, maybe we'll will talk about
:11:06. > :11:08.it later. Acid laws in the Independent, government relaxes laws
:11:09. > :11:13.against advice and campaigners saying this may have made acid
:11:14. > :11:19.attacks more likely. It could well have done. It is perfectly true that
:11:20. > :11:22.they did make the regulations easier, and Amber Rudd is now trying
:11:23. > :11:27.to correct the balance to make regulations more difficult again, so
:11:28. > :11:31.broadly what was happening was a lot of acids were covered under the
:11:32. > :11:37.Poison Acts and you couldn't get them without either a licence, so if
:11:38. > :11:40.you wanted a strong acid, the shop needed a licence and you needed a
:11:41. > :11:50.licence to buy it, for something weaker there was a reporting
:11:51. > :11:55.contingent on it, which meant... Is this selling rather than buying? The
:11:56. > :12:00.retailer would have to tell the police if there was any suspicion
:12:01. > :12:06.about what was going on. Amber Rudd is tightening this up again. As a
:12:07. > :12:12.result of the acid attacks. Exactly, but as we have seen with weapons
:12:13. > :12:16.available on the Internet and often seized by the police, I imagine
:12:17. > :12:24.those doing these atrocious attacks will easily find another way to buy
:12:25. > :12:31.it. You could be right. But it is worth tightening it up in shops. And
:12:32. > :12:36.also it was hugely opposed by doctors and the authorities at the
:12:37. > :12:43.time. Back page of the Mail on Sunday, five years ago we were... I
:12:44. > :12:48.know! Having a lovely time in London 2012, but London's shocking drug
:12:49. > :12:56.date, how many people used banned substances. It is appalling, the
:12:57. > :13:01.Mail on Sunday reveals that out of 156 track and field finalists 87 had
:13:02. > :13:06.previously committed a doping violation or have since done so,
:13:07. > :13:11.about 13%. That is really appalling to all the people who were clean who
:13:12. > :13:16.competed through their own sweat and effort and hard work and perhaps who
:13:17. > :13:21.lost out on a medal to a cheat. There is no doubt that the doping
:13:22. > :13:29.scandal throughout sport is awful, and of course this comes just a week
:13:30. > :13:32.before we get the World Championships, the athletics World
:13:33. > :13:37.Championships here. And spectators as well, you wonder who you are
:13:38. > :13:42.watching, who is genuinely... That is right. As you both know I know
:13:43. > :13:46.nothing about sport, but however it seems to me we are coming to the
:13:47. > :13:50.point where everybody should be tested, and it seems you need a
:13:51. > :13:58.screening system to stop people doping before they start competing.
:13:59. > :14:04.Back to the Sunday Times, Let Them Eat Pheasants says beefy Botham. You
:14:05. > :14:11.know who this man is even though you can't stand sport. Don't you two
:14:12. > :14:19.gang up! Famous cricketer. Well done, you see? Famous for what?
:14:20. > :14:27.Cricket! We'll let that one path. He has the new idea to help food banks
:14:28. > :14:33.out. This might upset hunters, but to put pheasants, because he shoots
:14:34. > :14:39.a lot of them, in food banks so they can use them, and they would be in
:14:40. > :14:46.pies or minces. The country food trust. It seems to be not a bad
:14:47. > :14:50.idea. If you have a surfeit of food somewhere, food banks are desperate
:14:51. > :14:56.for it, why not send in there? And it is good quality food, anyone who
:14:57. > :15:01.lives in the country, there is a lot of food for free. I speak as a woman
:15:02. > :15:06.who waded through plums this morning after strong gales in Kent! It is
:15:07. > :15:12.good quality stuff, no one says they have to pluck them. We are not going
:15:13. > :15:14.down that road, plucking pheasants, thank you! That was risky, wasn't
:15:15. > :15:15.it? Thank you, Nigel Nelson
:15:16. > :15:19.and Jo Phillips, - you'll both be back at 11:30
:15:20. > :15:23.for another look at the stories Coming up next, it's
:15:24. > :15:34.The Film Review.