03/09/2017 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 03/09/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



the hunt for a Victorian serial killer in the British thriller. We


get James King's take on this and the rest of the week's cinema


releases in the Film Review. Hello and welcome to our look ahead


to what the papers will be With me are the Parliamentary


journalist Tony Grew and the entertainment


journalist Caroline Frost. Tomorrow's front pages:


The Financial Times writes that Donald Trump has opened


the door to military action following the latest nuclear weapons


test by North Korea. The i also leads with the bomb test,


in which the US secretary of defence warns of possible annihilation


options in response. Your move, Mr Trump,


is the headline across the Metro, as it shows a photo


of the North Korean leader shortly The Times says Mr Trump has


threatened to sever trade ties with any country that deals


with North Korea, including China. According to the Telegraph,


there is growing concern in Europe that Mr Trump is considering


unilateral action, as the UN Security Council is


due to meet tomorrow. The Guardian leads with


an unpublished official report which says families who have lost


loved ones in police custody are being failed by authorities,


and calls for reform to the system. And the Daily Mail headlines that


households who overfill their bins could face a fine of up to ?2,500


and a criminal conviction, as councils try to push recycling


and cut collections. Let's began. -- begin. We will start


off with the Guardian, and the big story is North Korea. So the front


page of the Guardian, escalating the nuclear crisis is the way they are


labelling that picture. Yes, I mean, it is obviously a very worrying set


of circumstances. Although there hasn't been any independent


verification, it looks very likely that North Korea has detonated a


bomb in a nuclear tests, the first test they had carried out since


President Trump came into office and the sixth since 2006. Now, if they


have a nuclear capability, and they have recently demonstrated that they


have the ability to fire long-range missiles, certainly as far as Japan


and beyond, then this is an existential threat to the United


States, and indeed, two other actors in the region. The disturbing thing


is that the sanctions regimes which have been in place for a long time


don't appear to be working. North Korea is still pushing forward with


its ambitions to become a nuclear armed state. It concerns me that


Donald Trump is leaving at this moment, because his approach is


different to the coolheaded approach we might expect from the leader of


the free world. I talked about the missile test. He is talking about


fire and fury, and I was looking at that in thinking that is not how


this is supposed to work. A more junior State Department official


should be responding to that. Not the president of the United States.


He just escalated this to the top of the agenda. I can't help thinking of


this is North Korea escalating Ms Moore, pushing and pushing it to see


what happens next. And on the subject of sanctions, I can't


remember who it was, but I think there was a national leader who was


saying that we need to implement the sanctions that have already been


proved. Some people will be surprised, saying why agree to these


sanctions and not implement them? And because we know very little


about the motivation of the North Korean leaders, we could argue it is


the sanctions causing them to go down this avenue. They are thinking


the world is pressing in on us on trade channel, and we need to show


our might somehow. It is like bouncy castle, squeeze them here and they


will try to emerge mightier here. Economic sanctions do not seem to be


working. They are not pulling back. As you say, Donald Trump's hefty


tweets don't seem to be doing much either. I feel like we have been


back into a corner. We can just desperately hope that a lot of back


channels are being opened that we are not being informed about. And


certainly South Korea wants dialogue. They don't want to go down


this military Road, and they are the ones coming Donald Trump down,


saying we don't want this. And that is the point. Quite apart from this


focus on their nuclear capabilities, North Korea is a heavily armed state


with a significant amount of conventional weapons and hardware.


It is a huge threat. We talk about the threat to Guam or the idea that


they might be able to get a nuclear device as far as the western coast


of the United States, but the people in the immediate firing line from


those conventional weapons are South Korea, especially the capital. If I


was a South Korea, I wouldn't be particularly comforted by the fact


that Donald Trump seems to be the United States' response. Talking


about the US response, if we turn to the Telegraph, the US warning it is


ready to annihilate North Korea. You mentioned this H-bomb tests, and


basically one of the steps into obtaining a missile head that has a


nuclear weapon on it is miniaturising. You wonder if they


have done it. This is a big step, and the US saying they are ready to


annihilate North Korea. This latest test has been estimated as ten times


more powerful than the most recent ones. So the threats, if it is


existent, as you say it has not been independently verified, is


exponentially growing at quite a rate. And what we have in parallel


is the US using rhetoric that is exponentially more threatening. So


words like annihilation, fire and fury. These are meaningless words.


These are words that you shout out when nothing is at risk, but so much


is at risk, that I absolutely agree with Tony. I don't think that this


can be put in the hands of the tweets, by anybody, let alone


somebody who we know it is very spontaneous. And they are escalating


again. Just in terms of rhetoric and language. You are now escalating the


situation. How will we be escalated? What we should be aiming for is


de-escalation. Containing one North Korea is trying to do in terms of


its nuclear programme. And the only people that appear to have an


influence on this are China. But for the president of the United States,


or for any other administration official, to even claim that they


might cut off trade links with China, because China trades with


North Korea, is fantasy. And it is part of the unreality of the


situation we're in. That you have the president of the United States


saying I am willing to put ?400 billion worth of trade at risk. No


president should be in that position. And you mentioned that


ultimately what we look for is regime change, but the Qin dynasty


is a whole other can of worms. Their whole agenda is to maintain the


status quo, to maintain the dynasty at all cost. That is the only thing


we know about North Korea, that if there is one agenda which is a known


fact, it is that. They have no interest in, in any way,


participating in something that will bring them down. And as a population


they are a lot more prepared for war than the Americans are. They are in


a constant state of alert. It reminds me, do you remember after


9/11, George Bush was a little bit Old Testament, hell hath no fury,


and it was Laura Bush, who happen to be his wife, and there was a


de-escalation. It will be interesting to see somebody in the


White House has a conversation overnight. I think Tillerson, but


there are suggestions he could resign. And in the Times, Theresa


May reigns in rebels with a fear of reshuffle. Will it happen? I don't


know. Come on! After the Parliamentary recess, there has been


a lot of threats throughout the weekend, Tory whips apparently


telling Tory MPs that if they try to amend the legislation in any way


they are ushering in a Jeremy Corbyn government. For a woman who called


an election early, lost the majority, took the brave step of


running a personality -based election around the candidate who


doesn't have a personality, she has come out with what some people call


chutzpah. She is talking about her strength and how the Prime Minister


has the ability to hire. They are hinting Boris Johnson could be


demoted from Foreign Secretary. I am certainly impressed with her


optimism, and with the suggestion she thinks she has this power with


the party. Theresa May is only prime minister because her backbenchers


can't see a better option, and she is only prime minister because she


has had to do a deal with a minor Northern Ireland party, and stump up


money just to stabilise the government for two years. So the


idea that this a Prime Minister who will sack Boris Johnson, or indeed


that there are people who could be promoted, shows the ridiculousness


of the situation the Conservative Party finds itself in. Putting that


on the front page of the Times as a serious intention. There are people


who have just been elected as chair of select committees. Who would give


up such an important role in Parliament to become a junior


minister for paperclips. Very little of this story I understand, if I am


being honest. Have you been following the rise and rise of Jacob


Rees-Mogg? Every era seems to throw up somebody. We had the Boris years,


the fluffy charm, and Jacob Rees-Mogg I would argue is taking


that position. It has left room for Jacob Rees-Mogg to flourish. In the


Mirror, I thought this opt out system was already in place, because


we have been talking about it for a long time, haven't we? It is in


place in Wales and is about to come in in Scotland, and it is quite


common in European countries, but not here. Basically, in England, you


have two opt in, as I am sure people are aware, you have to opt in for


organ donation. And the Labour MP, in the Mirror, putting pressure on


the government to train change that, so that in the event of their death,


the organs will be available for transplant. I don't know, what do


you think about it? I think it is one of those things that I think it


is a very wise system. Just because it is the sort of question that


nobody wants to be asked ever, particular in a very traumatic


circumstances. We have anecdotal evidence and huge research that


people do feel better at a time of otherwise desperate despair and


sadness, that this has happened. Do you have a card? Yes, I have a card.


Would you assume your family would say yes? I think so. Of all the


family is the research, they found that 177 people said they weren't


sure what they their families wanted. At some arbitrary time in


your life, you signup to it, and there are many subjects British


people don't like to discuss. And maybe the day you leave school, when


you are not worried about it. The Daily Mail, that scares me. There


are certain times of the year when, you know, you do put a lot of


rubbish in your bin. Do they clink? In that blue bin. It is so unlike


the Daily Mail. It is obviously a rare miss from them that they have


managed to wind people up. This will wind people up as it will give


councils, and many are angry about their bin collections to begin with,


the fact they are forced to go through all these hoops, in the name


of recycling and green targets, not that I disapprove of those, but this


will be another puritans, and the fascinating thing about this is that


terminal convictions. People get a criminal conviction for overfilling


their bin. Singapore style, isn't it? And putting your bin out early


or late is on the list of offences. I spent some time studying in


Switzerland and I thought I was being very efficient, I put my bin


out a day early and was charged about ?70 for that. And I took it on


the chin. It is quite common in some European countries, they have really


strict rules. They are much more regimented societies than Britain


has been up until now. Obviously things might be... A criminal


conviction, Caroline. I don't want to be too old lady, but some things


could be considered criminal, dropping a piece of litter, you see


people leaving sofas, at what point do you realise you lived in a nice


community and it no longer is nice? Are not suggesting we go all the way


to Singapore, and fine people for dropping a sweet wrapper, but make a


point. And fly tipping needs a lot of resources and is a much bigger


problem. I would think they would want to put these two things


together. And you are both excited about this. You like a bit of bling,


do you, Tony? I think it is nice to see people who we might have assumed


were no longer with us, but Donald Sutherland certainly lived on the


wild side. I didn't know who that was until you said that. It is good


to see him still mobile. I find it interesting, because this Film


Festival is a brilliant showcase, including for some British films. It


has a real boost to its profile because it won an award. This is


part of the momentum building for awards season, which will come early


2018. What I am enjoying about the Film Festival this year, we have


Dame Helen as a brilliant and radiant as ever, a couple of days


ago we had Robert Redford and Jane Fonda, and it is great to see a real


veteran, top Hollywood stars on the red carpet, and there is a hunger


for them. Forget what you say about the youth market, they can have


their super heroes, this is the quality stuff. We have run out of


time. Thank you, Tony Grew


and Caroline Frost. Coming up next,


it is The Film Review.


Download Subtitles