Browse content similar to 21/02/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
Hello and welcome to our look ahead
to what the the papers will be | 0:00:14 | 0:00:18 | |
bringing us tomorrow. | 0:00:18 | 0:00:20 | |
With me are Rachel Shabi, journalist | 0:00:20 | 0:00:25 | |
and broadcaster, and Laura Perrins,
co-editor of The Conservative | 0:00:25 | 0:00:27 | |
Woman website. | 0:00:27 | 0:00:28 | |
Many of tomorrow's front
pages are already in. | 0:00:28 | 0:00:31 | |
The Metro says police forces | 0:00:31 | 0:00:33 | |
could face fresh legal action
by victims of serious crime over | 0:00:33 | 0:00:36 | |
bungled investigations,
following the John Worboys ruling. | 0:00:36 | 0:00:43 | |
The i has the same story,
which is summed up in its headline: | 0:00:43 | 0:00:47 | |
"Landmark victory
for crime victims". | 0:00:47 | 0:00:57 | |
The Mirror claims Worboys
received £166,000 in legal | 0:00:59 | 0:01:01 | |
aid to defend his sex crimes. | 0:01:01 | 0:01:03 | |
The Telegraph reports that
Theresa May faces a backlash | 0:01:03 | 0:01:05 | |
because senior ministers claim
the Cabinet didn't sign off | 0:01:05 | 0:01:07 | |
on a Brexit strategy that
would limit free trade deals. | 0:01:07 | 0:01:12 | |
The Guardian carries a photo
of students marching in Florida, | 0:01:12 | 0:01:14 | |
calling for tighter gun control
after last week's school shooting. | 0:01:14 | 0:01:20 | |
More people should get pills
to combat depression, | 0:01:20 | 0:01:21 | |
is the lead in The Times. | 0:01:21 | 0:01:26 | |
The Financial Times claims
Unilever could move its HQ | 0:01:26 | 0:01:28 | |
from Britain to the Netherlands. | 0:01:28 | 0:01:31 | |
And finally, The Express
says an arctic storm | 0:01:31 | 0:01:33 | |
is heading for the UK. | 0:01:33 | 0:01:38 | |
So, the Worboys case, and pills
for depression share the headlines | 0:01:38 | 0:01:42 | |
on many of the front pages, so let's
look at them in more detail. | 0:01:42 | 0:01:47 | |
Let's start with the Warboys case,
in the metro, the headline, the Met | 0:01:47 | 0:01:54 | |
must pay for the failure to nail
Warboys. This is the case of the | 0:01:54 | 0:01:58 | |
black cab driver, John Warboys, won,
the two victims of his have won a | 0:01:58 | 0:02:06 | |
law case against the Metropolitan
Police after officers failed to take | 0:02:06 | 0:02:08 | |
action after they reported what
happened to them. Laura, if you can | 0:02:08 | 0:02:13 | |
kick as off, according to the metro,
landmark ruling opens door for other | 0:02:13 | 0:02:18 | |
crime victims to sue the police.
What are the implications? They | 0:02:18 | 0:02:23 | |
could be significant, but I don't
think there will be a huge rush of | 0:02:23 | 0:02:26 | |
cases to begin with. It is a very
big case, the Supreme Court | 0:02:26 | 0:02:32 | |
upholding a decision by the High
Court that the police could be | 0:02:32 | 0:02:35 | |
liable under article three of the
Human Rights Act under the European | 0:02:35 | 0:02:41 | |
Convention of human rights, as
opposed to a negligence claim, which | 0:02:41 | 0:02:45 | |
traditionally they would lose. So
instead under article three if you | 0:02:45 | 0:02:49 | |
can show in cases of serious crime
that there was a failure of | 0:02:49 | 0:02:54 | |
investigation alone, and not just a
systematic failure, but you have to | 0:02:54 | 0:02:59 | |
have a serious failure, also where
the crime was sufficiently serious, | 0:02:59 | 0:03:06 | |
then that could lead to a
compensation claim. But I think the | 0:03:06 | 0:03:13 | |
test is quite high. You have to have
a serious crime, there has to be a | 0:03:13 | 0:03:20 | |
sufficiently serious breakdown in
the investigation for you to even | 0:03:20 | 0:03:22 | |
consider a compensation claim
against the police. In the case of | 0:03:22 | 0:03:29 | |
Warboys, they made significant
mistakes early on in the | 0:03:29 | 0:03:32 | |
investigation. Has a serious crime
actually been defined yet? I don't | 0:03:32 | 0:03:37 | |
think it has, has it? No, but in
this case you can see why these two | 0:03:37 | 0:03:42 | |
women were successful at the Supreme
Court, after the High Court ruled | 0:03:42 | 0:03:47 | |
they were entitled to compensation,
and that was taken to the Supreme | 0:03:47 | 0:03:51 | |
Court. Obviously something has gone
wrong when someone is thought to | 0:03:51 | 0:03:59 | |
have carried out over 100 such
attacks and is not caught. Obviously | 0:03:59 | 0:04:04 | |
something has gone wrong with the
investigation. So I do think that | 0:04:04 | 0:04:11 | |
this landmark ruling is to be
welcomed if it makes those | 0:04:11 | 0:04:14 | |
investigations more rigorous, and
means that less people have to go | 0:04:14 | 0:04:18 | |
through this before arrests and
proceedings are taken. John Warboys | 0:04:18 | 0:04:25 | |
is also on the front of the Daily
Mirror. The headline says black cab | 0:04:25 | 0:04:31 | |
rapist given £166,000 in legal aid.
I presume he hasn't been given this | 0:04:31 | 0:04:36 | |
personally, this presumably is going
to his lawyers. A headline designed | 0:04:36 | 0:04:42 | |
to in rage, but there is a legal aid
system in this country, and as the | 0:04:42 | 0:04:47 | |
decision by the parole board, which
is a different aspect of this | 0:04:47 | 0:04:52 | |
Warboys case, it has been judicially
reviewed not by the government but | 0:04:52 | 0:04:58 | |
by two of his victims who I believe
have had to crowdfund for their | 0:04:58 | 0:05:04 | |
legal fees. John Warboys was
entitled to legal representation in | 0:05:04 | 0:05:10 | |
that judicial review and somehow the
Mirror have calculated it at | 0:05:10 | 0:05:17 | |
166,000, which seems like a lot, but
it is not going to him personally, | 0:05:17 | 0:05:21 | |
it is going to his lawyers forced up
I would be interested to see how | 0:05:21 | 0:05:24 | |
they come up -- came upon that
number. We shall see post of let's | 0:05:24 | 0:05:30 | |
move on to the Financial Times and
economic news, borrowing and | 0:05:30 | 0:05:36 | |
productivity figures spark double
windfall for the Treasury. This is | 0:05:36 | 0:05:40 | |
that government borrowing was less
than expected but there has been a | 0:05:40 | 0:05:43 | |
rise in productivity. The FT is
reporting this as good news and a | 0:05:43 | 0:05:49 | |
windfall for the Treasury, though it
might not necessarily show up in the | 0:05:49 | 0:05:55 | |
forthcoming budget. They might
decide to stash it, you know, save | 0:05:55 | 0:05:58 | |
it for a rainy day. But they are
reporting productivity has increased | 0:05:58 | 0:06:04 | |
by 0.9%, which is the strongest six
months since before the crash. | 0:06:04 | 0:06:09 | |
Obviously that is great news but in
context it is not amazing. 0.9% is | 0:06:09 | 0:06:15 | |
not amazing. Britain's recovery is
still the slowest in the G-7 country | 0:06:15 | 0:06:21 | |
since 2008, and low productivity is
of course keeping wages down as | 0:06:21 | 0:06:25 | |
well. Productivity should be around
2%. During the 90s it was at 5%. So | 0:06:25 | 0:06:31 | |
it is not great news, and you might
also argue, and some economists do, | 0:06:31 | 0:06:36 | |
that the two things are linked, the
fact the government is not spending | 0:06:36 | 0:06:39 | |
is what is keeping our recovery so
slow and so slow, because you need | 0:06:39 | 0:06:44 | |
for the government needs to invest
in infrastructure, in major building | 0:06:44 | 0:06:51 | |
products, in order to stimulate the
economy and get it out of the slump | 0:06:51 | 0:06:55 | |
it is currently in, and that is
affecting semi people. And Laura, | 0:06:55 | 0:07:01 | |
unemployment has gone up as well
hasn't it? It has gone up slightly. | 0:07:01 | 0:07:08 | |
It is true that productivity is a
big issue in the economy first no | 0:07:08 | 0:07:11 | |
one can quite put their finger on
why it has been so stubbornly low. | 0:07:11 | 0:07:16 | |
Of course investing in
infrastructure is one way, but that | 0:07:16 | 0:07:19 | |
of course will mean further
borrowing, and public borrowing is | 0:07:19 | 0:07:23 | |
at least down. Of course another way
would be to cut taxes, and then | 0:07:23 | 0:07:28 | |
employers would invest in there and
please because it is the please | 0:07:28 | 0:07:31 | |
themselves, it is how much they can
produce, that is what drives | 0:07:31 | 0:07:34 | |
productivity. So that is the other
way of looking at it, if you cut | 0:07:34 | 0:07:40 | |
taxes, that can drive productivity.
Except it never does because | 0:07:40 | 0:07:45 | |
trickle-down economics is not a
thing. It doesn't work. That's not | 0:07:45 | 0:07:51 | |
true, but anyway. We will agree to
disagree, because I am sure we can | 0:07:51 | 0:07:55 | |
all agree on Brexit. The headline,
backlash at Theresa May's plan for | 0:07:55 | 0:08:01 | |
Brexit transition. This says
ministers claim cabinet never signed | 0:08:01 | 0:08:04 | |
off on the strategy that could limit
free trade deals. This was the | 0:08:04 | 0:08:08 | |
strategy I think that was leaked
earlier this morning and then | 0:08:08 | 0:08:11 | |
finally published about five o'clock
this afternoon. This is about | 0:08:11 | 0:08:18 | |
Theresa May's plan for transition
which some ministers are annoyed | 0:08:18 | 0:08:20 | |
about because they say they never
signed off on it. It is really hard | 0:08:20 | 0:08:23 | |
to figure out why this would have
happened. I mean, all this week, all | 0:08:23 | 0:08:28 | |
we have heard is about this road to
Brexit, you know, which has been... | 0:08:28 | 0:08:35 | |
Rocky. Otherwise described as a road
to nowhere. We have had these big | 0:08:35 | 0:08:40 | |
speeches from the Brexit related
ministers, this much trumpeted big | 0:08:40 | 0:08:44 | |
meeting of Cabinet, tomorrow and
eight hour-long awayday in which | 0:08:44 | 0:08:49 | |
they finally, a year and a half
later, tell us what they actually | 0:08:49 | 0:08:53 | |
want from Brexit. And so maybe this
over the transition, maybe it just | 0:08:53 | 0:09:00 | |
got sort of lost in the detail,
maybe it fell down the back of the | 0:09:00 | 0:09:03 | |
sofa, maybe they just thought that
actually we don't need to agree | 0:09:03 | 0:09:07 | |
anything on a transition deal,
because by definition a transition | 0:09:07 | 0:09:11 | |
deal is static, nothing changes. If
it changes then you have another | 0:09:11 | 0:09:14 | |
deal that you have to renegotiate
for the transition period and what | 0:09:14 | 0:09:17 | |
will be the point of that. So it is
hard to figure out. Unfortunately | 0:09:17 | 0:09:24 | |
they have to still agree on how long
the transition will be and how the | 0:09:24 | 0:09:27 | |
rights in that period will be
affected. For instance, a big | 0:09:27 | 0:09:31 | |
sticking point is whether free
movement would continue or whether | 0:09:31 | 0:09:33 | |
it would end, and also the second
issue after that would be canned the | 0:09:33 | 0:09:38 | |
European Court of Justice to
arbitrate on it? It is difficult to | 0:09:38 | 0:09:42 | |
come to an agreement on a transition
deal, it will be even more difficult | 0:09:42 | 0:09:45 | |
to come to an agreement on what
Brexit will actually look like. | 0:09:45 | 0:09:48 | |
There is no doubt there is clearly a
split within the party, and tomorrow | 0:09:48 | 0:09:53 | |
at Chequers seems to be the day that
Theresa May thinks she can sort of | 0:09:53 | 0:09:58 | |
nail Jell-o to the wall. That might
be quite difficult but Jacob | 0:09:58 | 0:10:02 | |
Rees-Mogg of course has a piece in
the Telegraph, quoted here, saying | 0:10:02 | 0:10:07 | |
the current document would lead to
Brexit in name only and was a | 0:10:07 | 0:10:13 | |
perversion of democracy. He says it
has been disowned by ministers as | 0:10:13 | 0:10:16 | |
not representing government policy.
He is the leading Brexiteer who | 0:10:16 | 0:10:24 | |
wants a much cleaner Brexit than
perhaps is on offer. I think things | 0:10:24 | 0:10:27 | |
will stay pretty difficult for
Theresa May at the moment. The clock | 0:10:27 | 0:10:33 | |
is ticking so just want to make
mention of the photograph of the | 0:10:33 | 0:10:35 | |
Telegraph, which is the first lady
of farming, this is the first female | 0:10:35 | 0:10:40 | |
president of the National farmers
union in over 100 years. Yes, | 0:10:40 | 0:10:49 | |
welcome to the 21st century,
comrades at the National farmers | 0:10:49 | 0:10:52 | |
union! This is a very pleasing
picture, I have to say, on this grey | 0:10:52 | 0:10:55 | |
day, this very green grass and blue
sky picture, it is a relief. Ivan | 0:10:55 | 0:11:05 | |
know if that Segway is well or not
well at all into The Times. More | 0:11:05 | 0:11:10 | |
people should get pills to beat
depression. Laura, I think some | 0:11:10 | 0:11:17 | |
people could be surprised by this
headline, but doctors are told, | 0:11:17 | 0:11:22 | |
according to The Times, that
millions of sufferers would benefit. | 0:11:22 | 0:11:26 | |
They have run the study, I am in no
position to second-guess. A global | 0:11:26 | 0:11:32 | |
study led by researchers at Oxford
University, saying that some of | 0:11:32 | 0:11:38 | |
these prescriptions for
antidepressants are affected. And I | 0:11:38 | 0:11:41 | |
think the case might be that general
practitioners are still cautious, in | 0:11:41 | 0:11:45 | |
terms of prescribing
antidepressants, and there may well | 0:11:45 | 0:11:49 | |
be people who would benefit from it
who are currently not receiving that | 0:11:49 | 0:11:54 | |
prescription. If it helps them, and
the trials are there to back it up, | 0:11:54 | 0:11:59 | |
then this is something they should
be prescribed. Rachel, you are | 0:11:59 | 0:12:03 | |
nodding. Yes, what this report has
noted is that there is still an | 0:12:03 | 0:12:11 | |
ideological resistance, it describes
it as, to antidepressants. This idea | 0:12:11 | 0:12:14 | |
that you should not take medicine
for issues related to mental health, | 0:12:14 | 0:12:20 | |
which is a lingering stigma that
means that people are not | 0:12:20 | 0:12:24 | |
necessarily getting the treatment
that they need. Apparently only one | 0:12:24 | 0:12:27 | |
in six of those diagnosed with | 0:12:27 | 0:12:33 | |
depression are taking the
medication. I am being screamed at | 0:12:33 | 0:12:36 | |
in my ever we have to leave it
there, which is a real shame because | 0:12:36 | 0:12:39 | |
eventually interesting talking to
you both. Thank you, you can see the | 0:12:39 | 0:12:46 | |
front pages of the papers on the BBC
news website. If you miss the | 0:12:46 | 0:12:56 | |
programme any evening you can watch
it later on the BBC iPlayer. Thank | 0:12:56 | 0:12:59 | |
you Rachel and Laura, sorry to cut
you short, always too much to talk | 0:12:59 | 0:13:03 | |
and never enough time. | 0:13:03 | 0:13:05 |