:00:00. > :00:00.the hunt for a Victorian serial killer in the British thriller. We
:00:00. > :00:00.get James King's take on this and the rest of the week's cinema
:00:07. > :00:17.releases in the Film Review. Hello and welcome to our look ahead
:00:18. > :00:21.to what the papers will be With me are the Parliamentary
:00:22. > :00:24.journalist Tony Grew and the entertainment
:00:25. > :00:25.journalist Caroline Frost. Tomorrow's front pages:
:00:26. > :00:27.The Financial Times writes that Donald Trump has opened
:00:28. > :00:33.the door to military action following the latest nuclear weapons
:00:34. > :00:36.test by North Korea. The i also leads with the bomb test,
:00:37. > :00:41.in which the US secretary of defence warns of possible annihilation
:00:42. > :00:46.options in response. Your move, Mr Trump,
:00:47. > :00:48.is the headline across the Metro, as it shows a photo
:00:49. > :00:51.of the North Korean leader shortly The Times says Mr Trump has
:00:52. > :00:59.threatened to sever trade ties with any country that deals
:01:00. > :01:02.with North Korea, including China. According to the Telegraph,
:01:03. > :01:07.there is growing concern in Europe that Mr Trump is considering
:01:08. > :01:10.unilateral action, as the UN Security Council is
:01:11. > :01:13.due to meet tomorrow. The Guardian leads with
:01:14. > :01:15.an unpublished official report which says families who have lost
:01:16. > :01:18.loved ones in police custody are being failed by authorities,
:01:19. > :01:21.and calls for reform to the system. And the Daily Mail headlines that
:01:22. > :01:24.households who overfill their bins could face a fine of up to ?2,500
:01:25. > :01:28.and a criminal conviction, as councils try to push recycling
:01:29. > :01:56.and cut collections. Let's began. -- begin. We will start
:01:57. > :02:02.off with the Guardian, and the big story is North Korea. So the front
:02:03. > :02:08.page of the Guardian, escalating the nuclear crisis is the way they are
:02:09. > :02:12.labelling that picture. Yes, I mean, it is obviously a very worrying set
:02:13. > :02:15.of circumstances. Although there hasn't been any independent
:02:16. > :02:19.verification, it looks very likely that North Korea has detonated a
:02:20. > :02:23.bomb in a nuclear tests, the first test they had carried out since
:02:24. > :02:27.President Trump came into office and the sixth since 2006. Now, if they
:02:28. > :02:31.have a nuclear capability, and they have recently demonstrated that they
:02:32. > :02:35.have the ability to fire long-range missiles, certainly as far as Japan
:02:36. > :02:39.and beyond, then this is an existential threat to the United
:02:40. > :02:47.States, and indeed, two other actors in the region. The disturbing thing
:02:48. > :02:51.is that the sanctions regimes which have been in place for a long time
:02:52. > :02:54.don't appear to be working. North Korea is still pushing forward with
:02:55. > :03:00.its ambitions to become a nuclear armed state. It concerns me that
:03:01. > :03:06.Donald Trump is leaving at this moment, because his approach is
:03:07. > :03:10.different to the coolheaded approach we might expect from the leader of
:03:11. > :03:14.the free world. I talked about the missile test. He is talking about
:03:15. > :03:18.fire and fury, and I was looking at that in thinking that is not how
:03:19. > :03:22.this is supposed to work. A more junior State Department official
:03:23. > :03:26.should be responding to that. Not the president of the United States.
:03:27. > :03:30.He just escalated this to the top of the agenda. I can't help thinking of
:03:31. > :03:34.this is North Korea escalating Ms Moore, pushing and pushing it to see
:03:35. > :03:38.what happens next. And on the subject of sanctions, I can't
:03:39. > :03:41.remember who it was, but I think there was a national leader who was
:03:42. > :03:49.saying that we need to implement the sanctions that have already been
:03:50. > :03:54.proved. Some people will be surprised, saying why agree to these
:03:55. > :04:00.sanctions and not implement them? And because we know very little
:04:01. > :04:03.about the motivation of the North Korean leaders, we could argue it is
:04:04. > :04:07.the sanctions causing them to go down this avenue. They are thinking
:04:08. > :04:12.the world is pressing in on us on trade channel, and we need to show
:04:13. > :04:18.our might somehow. It is like bouncy castle, squeeze them here and they
:04:19. > :04:23.will try to emerge mightier here. Economic sanctions do not seem to be
:04:24. > :04:27.working. They are not pulling back. As you say, Donald Trump's hefty
:04:28. > :04:31.tweets don't seem to be doing much either. I feel like we have been
:04:32. > :04:35.back into a corner. We can just desperately hope that a lot of back
:04:36. > :04:38.channels are being opened that we are not being informed about. And
:04:39. > :04:42.certainly South Korea wants dialogue. They don't want to go down
:04:43. > :04:47.this military Road, and they are the ones coming Donald Trump down,
:04:48. > :04:51.saying we don't want this. And that is the point. Quite apart from this
:04:52. > :04:55.focus on their nuclear capabilities, North Korea is a heavily armed state
:04:56. > :05:00.with a significant amount of conventional weapons and hardware.
:05:01. > :05:04.It is a huge threat. We talk about the threat to Guam or the idea that
:05:05. > :05:08.they might be able to get a nuclear device as far as the western coast
:05:09. > :05:11.of the United States, but the people in the immediate firing line from
:05:12. > :05:16.those conventional weapons are South Korea, especially the capital. If I
:05:17. > :05:20.was a South Korea, I wouldn't be particularly comforted by the fact
:05:21. > :05:27.that Donald Trump seems to be the United States' response. Talking
:05:28. > :05:31.about the US response, if we turn to the Telegraph, the US warning it is
:05:32. > :05:38.ready to annihilate North Korea. You mentioned this H-bomb tests, and
:05:39. > :05:50.basically one of the steps into obtaining a missile head that has a
:05:51. > :05:54.nuclear weapon on it is miniaturising. You wonder if they
:05:55. > :06:02.have done it. This is a big step, and the US saying they are ready to
:06:03. > :06:06.annihilate North Korea. This latest test has been estimated as ten times
:06:07. > :06:10.more powerful than the most recent ones. So the threats, if it is
:06:11. > :06:14.existent, as you say it has not been independently verified, is
:06:15. > :06:20.exponentially growing at quite a rate. And what we have in parallel
:06:21. > :06:23.is the US using rhetoric that is exponentially more threatening. So
:06:24. > :06:28.words like annihilation, fire and fury. These are meaningless words.
:06:29. > :06:34.These are words that you shout out when nothing is at risk, but so much
:06:35. > :06:39.is at risk, that I absolutely agree with Tony. I don't think that this
:06:40. > :06:42.can be put in the hands of the tweets, by anybody, let alone
:06:43. > :06:50.somebody who we know it is very spontaneous. And they are escalating
:06:51. > :06:55.again. Just in terms of rhetoric and language. You are now escalating the
:06:56. > :06:59.situation. How will we be escalated? What we should be aiming for is
:07:00. > :07:03.de-escalation. Containing one North Korea is trying to do in terms of
:07:04. > :07:08.its nuclear programme. And the only people that appear to have an
:07:09. > :07:12.influence on this are China. But for the president of the United States,
:07:13. > :07:15.or for any other administration official, to even claim that they
:07:16. > :07:19.might cut off trade links with China, because China trades with
:07:20. > :07:23.North Korea, is fantasy. And it is part of the unreality of the
:07:24. > :07:27.situation we're in. That you have the president of the United States
:07:28. > :07:32.saying I am willing to put ?400 billion worth of trade at risk. No
:07:33. > :07:35.president should be in that position. And you mentioned that
:07:36. > :07:41.ultimately what we look for is regime change, but the Qin dynasty
:07:42. > :07:45.is a whole other can of worms. Their whole agenda is to maintain the
:07:46. > :07:50.status quo, to maintain the dynasty at all cost. That is the only thing
:07:51. > :07:55.we know about North Korea, that if there is one agenda which is a known
:07:56. > :07:59.fact, it is that. They have no interest in, in any way,
:08:00. > :08:03.participating in something that will bring them down. And as a population
:08:04. > :08:08.they are a lot more prepared for war than the Americans are. They are in
:08:09. > :08:15.a constant state of alert. It reminds me, do you remember after
:08:16. > :08:22.9/11, George Bush was a little bit Old Testament, hell hath no fury,
:08:23. > :08:27.and it was Laura Bush, who happen to be his wife, and there was a
:08:28. > :08:30.de-escalation. It will be interesting to see somebody in the
:08:31. > :08:37.White House has a conversation overnight. I think Tillerson, but
:08:38. > :08:43.there are suggestions he could resign. And in the Times, Theresa
:08:44. > :08:51.May reigns in rebels with a fear of reshuffle. Will it happen? I don't
:08:52. > :08:59.know. Come on! After the Parliamentary recess, there has been
:09:00. > :09:03.a lot of threats throughout the weekend, Tory whips apparently
:09:04. > :09:07.telling Tory MPs that if they try to amend the legislation in any way
:09:08. > :09:13.they are ushering in a Jeremy Corbyn government. For a woman who called
:09:14. > :09:16.an election early, lost the majority, took the brave step of
:09:17. > :09:20.running a personality -based election around the candidate who
:09:21. > :09:27.doesn't have a personality, she has come out with what some people call
:09:28. > :09:30.chutzpah. She is talking about her strength and how the Prime Minister
:09:31. > :09:34.has the ability to hire. They are hinting Boris Johnson could be
:09:35. > :09:43.demoted from Foreign Secretary. I am certainly impressed with her
:09:44. > :09:47.optimism, and with the suggestion she thinks she has this power with
:09:48. > :09:51.the party. Theresa May is only prime minister because her backbenchers
:09:52. > :09:55.can't see a better option, and she is only prime minister because she
:09:56. > :09:59.has had to do a deal with a minor Northern Ireland party, and stump up
:10:00. > :10:04.money just to stabilise the government for two years. So the
:10:05. > :10:08.idea that this a Prime Minister who will sack Boris Johnson, or indeed
:10:09. > :10:11.that there are people who could be promoted, shows the ridiculousness
:10:12. > :10:18.of the situation the Conservative Party finds itself in. Putting that
:10:19. > :10:21.on the front page of the Times as a serious intention. There are people
:10:22. > :10:26.who have just been elected as chair of select committees. Who would give
:10:27. > :10:29.up such an important role in Parliament to become a junior
:10:30. > :10:33.minister for paperclips. Very little of this story I understand, if I am
:10:34. > :10:38.being honest. Have you been following the rise and rise of Jacob
:10:39. > :10:45.Rees-Mogg? Every era seems to throw up somebody. We had the Boris years,
:10:46. > :10:55.the fluffy charm, and Jacob Rees-Mogg I would argue is taking
:10:56. > :11:03.that position. It has left room for Jacob Rees-Mogg to flourish. In the
:11:04. > :11:07.Mirror, I thought this opt out system was already in place, because
:11:08. > :11:12.we have been talking about it for a long time, haven't we? It is in
:11:13. > :11:15.place in Wales and is about to come in in Scotland, and it is quite
:11:16. > :11:22.common in European countries, but not here. Basically, in England, you
:11:23. > :11:30.have two opt in, as I am sure people are aware, you have to opt in for
:11:31. > :11:39.organ donation. And the Labour MP, in the Mirror, putting pressure on
:11:40. > :11:43.the government to train change that, so that in the event of their death,
:11:44. > :11:48.the organs will be available for transplant. I don't know, what do
:11:49. > :11:52.you think about it? I think it is one of those things that I think it
:11:53. > :11:56.is a very wise system. Just because it is the sort of question that
:11:57. > :12:01.nobody wants to be asked ever, particular in a very traumatic
:12:02. > :12:05.circumstances. We have anecdotal evidence and huge research that
:12:06. > :12:09.people do feel better at a time of otherwise desperate despair and
:12:10. > :12:17.sadness, that this has happened. Do you have a card? Yes, I have a card.
:12:18. > :12:22.Would you assume your family would say yes? I think so. Of all the
:12:23. > :12:29.family is the research, they found that 177 people said they weren't
:12:30. > :12:37.sure what they their families wanted. At some arbitrary time in
:12:38. > :12:40.your life, you signup to it, and there are many subjects British
:12:41. > :12:47.people don't like to discuss. And maybe the day you leave school, when
:12:48. > :12:52.you are not worried about it. The Daily Mail, that scares me. There
:12:53. > :12:57.are certain times of the year when, you know, you do put a lot of
:12:58. > :13:06.rubbish in your bin. Do they clink? In that blue bin. It is so unlike
:13:07. > :13:10.the Daily Mail. It is obviously a rare miss from them that they have
:13:11. > :13:17.managed to wind people up. This will wind people up as it will give
:13:18. > :13:20.councils, and many are angry about their bin collections to begin with,
:13:21. > :13:24.the fact they are forced to go through all these hoops, in the name
:13:25. > :13:31.of recycling and green targets, not that I disapprove of those, but this
:13:32. > :13:38.will be another puritans, and the fascinating thing about this is that
:13:39. > :13:42.terminal convictions. People get a criminal conviction for overfilling
:13:43. > :13:47.their bin. Singapore style, isn't it? And putting your bin out early
:13:48. > :13:51.or late is on the list of offences. I spent some time studying in
:13:52. > :13:55.Switzerland and I thought I was being very efficient, I put my bin
:13:56. > :14:01.out a day early and was charged about ?70 for that. And I took it on
:14:02. > :14:06.the chin. It is quite common in some European countries, they have really
:14:07. > :14:09.strict rules. They are much more regimented societies than Britain
:14:10. > :14:19.has been up until now. Obviously things might be... A criminal
:14:20. > :14:23.conviction, Caroline. I don't want to be too old lady, but some things
:14:24. > :14:29.could be considered criminal, dropping a piece of litter, you see
:14:30. > :14:33.people leaving sofas, at what point do you realise you lived in a nice
:14:34. > :14:37.community and it no longer is nice? Are not suggesting we go all the way
:14:38. > :14:45.to Singapore, and fine people for dropping a sweet wrapper, but make a
:14:46. > :14:50.point. And fly tipping needs a lot of resources and is a much bigger
:14:51. > :14:54.problem. I would think they would want to put these two things
:14:55. > :15:06.together. And you are both excited about this. You like a bit of bling,
:15:07. > :15:10.do you, Tony? I think it is nice to see people who we might have assumed
:15:11. > :15:14.were no longer with us, but Donald Sutherland certainly lived on the
:15:15. > :15:20.wild side. I didn't know who that was until you said that. It is good
:15:21. > :15:27.to see him still mobile. I find it interesting, because this Film
:15:28. > :15:31.Festival is a brilliant showcase, including for some British films. It
:15:32. > :15:35.has a real boost to its profile because it won an award. This is
:15:36. > :15:40.part of the momentum building for awards season, which will come early
:15:41. > :15:45.2018. What I am enjoying about the Film Festival this year, we have
:15:46. > :15:49.Dame Helen as a brilliant and radiant as ever, a couple of days
:15:50. > :15:54.ago we had Robert Redford and Jane Fonda, and it is great to see a real
:15:55. > :16:01.veteran, top Hollywood stars on the red carpet, and there is a hunger
:16:02. > :16:04.for them. Forget what you say about the youth market, they can have
:16:05. > :16:06.their super heroes, this is the quality stuff. We have run out of
:16:07. > :16:10.time. Thank you, Tony Grew
:16:11. > :16:14.and Caroline Frost. Coming up next,
:16:15. > :16:20.it is The Film Review.