02/02/2018 The Papers

Hello, and welcome to our look ahead

to what the papers will be bringing

us tomorrow. With ask, is Tim

Stanley, and Suzy Boniface. Many

tomorrow's front pages are already

in. The news that the US Congress

released a memo has made many of the

front pages, but it did meet the

front page of the Financial Times.

That story also gets a brief mention

on the front of the Guardian, but

the paper's top story is a closer

look too much of the processed foods

that we eat. The Telegraph leads on

Government plans for heterosexual

couples to be offered civil

partnerships, which are currently

only available to insects couples.

The paper also celebrates the land

reunion of the Spice Girls. The

Mirror claims Amy MAC -- AMD

waiting... The number of prostate

cancer deaths overtook the number of

breast cancer deaths in women for

the first time. The paper is

suggesting that more money needs to

be spent on tackling Bostick cancer.

The Times lead on plans for a

crackdown on Russian oligarchs, who

will be forced to spend their luxury

lifestyle in this country. So, no

real consensus on which one story is

topping the front pages, but plenty

of different services that the

weekend. -- subjects. Let's start

with the FT, which is the one paper

which has picked up on this memo

that has been seizing the headlines

this evening. Tim, I know that you

have read it, what you make of it?

What you make of what the FDA have

said?

This is contradicted, buckle

up. We all know that there is a

investigation going on into the top

campaign's links with Russia. That

is the background. The Republicans,

in an effort to fight back

politically, have released a memo

which charges that the FBI's seeking

of a wire tap on an important member

of the Trump campaign, they say that

when a sword that wiretap, they

didn't make certain important thing

is clear. So, they didn't make clear

where the allegations were coming

from, they didn't make it clear

solution as they put it with the

Democrats. In other words, the

Republicans are trying to undermine

the FBI's investigation, or at least

trying to give the impression that

there was political, and media

buyers in the FBI's investigation of

the Trump campaign. Frankly, the

memo doesn't change very much. There

are other investigations going on

off top's campaign, and there are

some allegations which members of

the campaign have already admitted

to. For instance, we know that there

was a meeting between the Russians

and Donald Trump Jr. It doesn't

change any of that. What it does do,

it politically, is it gives Donald

Trump a weapon, something that will

mobilise his supporters, saying that

I have evidence, that this was not

just about finding out the truth

between me and Russia, this was

about using the Democrats using the

services to get at me.

What a

tangle.

It slurs and slurs. There is

the Christopher steel dossier, to

discredit time. They are using at as

a basis for an investigation,

without pointing out that many part

of that dossier have been verified

and known to be true. The fact that

this particular investigation was

started before the stud dossier was

even Britain, 2013. -- even written.

It is just a way that Donald Trump

can distract his normal technique of

AIDS dead cat on the table. What is

interesting, is that if you are a

Trump supporter, it confirms -- a

dead cat on the table. When that

dossier was first released and

published online, you said it was

disgraceful. It was unverified, it

was unproven. And here we are, the

President of the United States,

publishing a similarly unproven

memo, which doesn't prove anything

at all. He is saying that it is

shocking and shameful, as though it

is definitely true. It is more

madness. It is another thing... You

know, how mad has he got to be

before anybody would actually change

their opinion about in one way or

the other? An I agree with a lot of

that. I did entirely agree on

whether or not that memo shows is

significant.

It is significant if it

turns out that the Democrats

financed some of the staff which was

then used as the justification...

Only if that dossier was true. If

the facts are correct, it doesn't

matter who paid for it.

One thing

that is for certain, is that this is

a row that is going to continue...

In the pursuit of justice, if you

drop procedure, it doesn't matter if

you are guilty, or not. If yorkers

should choose no rights have been

violated, they have been violated.

-- if your constitutional rights.

Exactly. It is because the FBI are

going so Katherine dotting every tea

and -- -- going so carefully and

causing every tea and dotting every

eye.

Let's just look at the Daily

Telegraph. Biggest marriage is

shake-up in 200 years.

Yes, you may

or member when I was a very young

child, the new Labour Government

introduced the partnerships

legislation, which allowed gay

people to get a civil partnership.

At the time, it was argued that this

would be extended to her to

sections, as well. So that you could

get sisters, getting married, or

whatever, so that they would get the

same inheritance rights, host of

like that. And then, you have got

gay marriage, and every thing moved

on. Now, what is happening is that

the Government is looking at

introducing those rights to get a...

You have a civil partnership for

acceptance, too. This is a genuinely

egalitarian move, those who are

arguing for it, would say. Urn

the

quality? Importance that? Will it

make a huge Hibiscus

probably not.

The claim that it is the biggest

shake-up in 200 years, I would claim

that is hyperbole. Although it is

the claim that it is the change of a

state -based marriage as opposed to

a church -based marriage, P was the

get married, who was get divorced,

and your marriage are still the

life. Not signing the register, at

the time, but... These are the first

shake-ups to the way that we

register marriages. Since 1837, and

many people would argue that life

has changed, people have changed,

and of course we could change

things, since 1837.

This is only

going to effect a relatively small

number of heterosexual couples who

want this option of a civil

partnership. Don't want to go

through the whole business of having

a religious ceremony. Plenty of

people get married in a registry

office.

Yes, exactly. I struggle to

see the difference. What a

marriages, is a state's recognition

of the union. If you need to do so

union, you need to have the

proceedings of a state involved in

order to separate it and dissolve

it. It is just another way of the

state saying, we will control your

relationship in some respect.

The

conservative counter argument, of

course, is that this is part of a

long move, an arc toward undermining

what marriage was. 15 years ago,

which was MPB union of a man and a

woman. The evidence still suggests

that marriages last longer, and

better for children. There was

research done which found that one

in five couples who were cohabiting,

were no longer living together by

the time their child had reached the

age of three, versus one in 20, in

couples where they are married.

There is an observable difference in

getting married and having a civil

partnership, and it seems that

getting married lasts longer. The

conservative argument would be that

if you incredible partnership, you

will encourage the further dilation

of traditional marriage.

That have a

look at the e-mail, it has been very

taken... The second headline in a

row on this revelation about the

increasing incidences of prostate

cancer in men. The mail seems to be

seizing on this to say, let's have

some more funding to look into this.

Yes, and it is drawing a lot of

comparisons with rest cancer, which

is not quite reasonable, because

while there are some aggressive

prostate cancers, there are many

which are not aggressive. Because,

they will get it when they are 75,

serving as will carry them off

before the prostate Cancer manages

to do any damage. So, the argument

here, is because there are roughly

11,000 deaths from breast cancer and

prostate cancer, and the rate of

mortality for both is dropping. We

are curing people with both, it's

just that we are curing people with

breast cancer figure, that we are

with prostate cancer. They are

saying that we should spend more

money on the prostate cancer. They

are not suggesting where the money

should come from. It has got to come

from somewhere other than the NHS,

and I think the issue may be men not

reporting symptoms which means that

they would get their prostate

screening tests on their GP.

Problems with your knitting, and

other issues which should mean that

they should go and see their GP. Men

should be doing that and getting

diagnosed, sooner.

It is interesting

that at the moment, there doesn't

seem to be a national programme of

greening for prostate cancer, where

as of course, breast cancer women of

-- women of is that major invited to

go for one.

Men are also living

longer, and the longer you live, the

more likely you are to get it. Right

now, it is essentially elective, if

you wanted over the age of 50, you

can go on request, you can get it.

But, I do think it is true, that

there is a lot of cultural awareness

and discussion of breast cancer.

There isn't so much of prostate. I

am not saying it is a fight between

the two. I'm just saying that

perhaps then used to be among men,

and when it comes to men's health,

greater conversation.

Women are a

little bit more comfortable to

talking about boobs.

I'm not asking

for directions.

I just wonder

whether we should move on on that

note, and wonder if there's any

connection the Guardian's front

page. This is about eating processed

food. As a victim Richard thing that

we are all now taken up by this

healthy living campaigns, but

apparently we are all eating

processed food.

The Guardian has

done a surprising front page,

reported that over half of the food

that we eat is ultra processed. If

you think about the fact that milk

comes out of cows, and the process

to bump cheese. And then, it is

older processed to put the cheese

with the butter on a jacket potato.

Resisting it more than once is not

necessarily mean a bad thing. This

survey, is comparing surveys from

different countries carried out at

different times, using different

methodologies. So, it is not

scientific, there is no real basis

in fact. It seems to have been led

by a university in Brazil, and it

complains about people using

processed foods, but we don't want

to do without custard creams, do we?

Well, apparently, we are all eating

salty snacks, she agrees Syria's,

industrial made -- sugary cereals.

Industrial made bread.

There is an

advert above it for pumpernickel ice

creams. It looks delicious. That

sounds processed. We are ahead of

Europeans. If there is anything in

it, I suspect it comes down to not

enough people cook with fresh

ingredients. I know that I don't. I

am probably something like 90%

processed foods. A lot of us did

have the time.

It is extremely that

the Guardian expends those strange

juxtaposition of Ottalenghi, who has

all of these incredible recipes, and

all the different ingredients.

Nigella MAC I don't have time for

that. I ain't eating that.

Celebrity

recipes is one of my personal

bugbears. You can look at the

recipe, or and it will contain at

least three ingredients that you

never heard of. I bet you any money,

no one in Britain, this weekend, are

prepared to state a kidney on this,

-- I'm prepared to stake a kidney on

this, is going to make pumpernickel

ice cream. Nobody. No one. If we

were doing newspaper recipes

anywhere as an television... If we

as she did, this is why we make a

reasonable cheese sandwich. This is

how you make a pot of tea, I think

people like Tim would have more

education about how to cook from

fresh, how to cook from scratch, how

to do a roast chicken.

Delia got in

a lot of trouble when she started

trying to tell us how to boil an.

You are not supposed to eat the

Telegraph.

There is a bit of

politics that into the front page.

That is talking about how three of

the leading Brexiteers any cabinet

are apparently going to come

out and,... I thought Theresa May

had said that we would not have one.

The idea is that we are going for a

bespoke trade deal. The problem is

not so much of what we end up with,

it is the Government's ability to be

clear about it -- inability to be

clear about it. It is astonishing

that we are still having this

conversation, 18 months after the

referendum. A year after Theresa May

became leader. People are still

raising questions like we going to

be in the customs union a customs

union, are we going to have Canada

plus, plus, plus, plus. To be fair

to Theresa May, everything just got

to do, she has gotten them navigate

through that tiny majority, and

you've got to get the EU to agree to

whatever she's asking for, it is

extraordinary.

She's not doing

anything about Brexit, she is

literally having to sought out and

play off Remainers and hard

Brexiteers, and try and keep them

all roughly in shape. The same thing

would be happening in the

Conservative Party of shadow

majority of 134. This is how the

Tories have been of this rating

themselves for 40 years and they are

carrying on doing it now. We are

known having any sort of Brexit,

then we were on the day the

referendum.

Now, we will very

briefly touched on the other big

picture, here. The Spice Girls back

together, is this going to be a

powerful new demonstration of girl

power?

Well know, because they are

not girls.

That was the phrase at

the time. I didn't mean that.

I

know. They are getting 50 million in

order to not sing, because they are

going to be having a TV show, and

releasing their old hits. I am happy

to bathe and not to sing. I'm

absolutely delighted about that.

Tim, you will be delighted to see

the Spice Girls? Sylla and very

lighted to spice up my life. Puzzle,

it is unusual is it not for a woman

scooped a like this, and secondly,

from what I can remember, they were

the last band that sang songs that

had catchy cheese.

You have not

heard of Take That

this was the 90s.

I was about three when they were in

the charts.

Out of it for the

papers, tonight. Don't forget, you

can seek the papers online. If you

mist the programme any ring, you can

watch it later. My thanks to Tim

Stanley, and now it is time for the

weather with Philip.