of the afternoon. little bits and pieces of rain of —— on and off. double figures in the south, still a little and off. double figures in the south, still a little on the cold side. on tuesday, that milbury reaches northern part of the country. there will be rain with that. look at these temperatures. it has been a while since we saw this high. on wednesday, perhaps a little bit of rain. overall, in between it is not looking bad at hello, this is bbc news with me, reeta chakra barti. we'll be taking a look at tomorrow

morning's papers in a moment, but first the headlines at 10:30pm: chanting: no hate, no fear - muslims are welcome here! demonstrations are taking place at new york'sjfk airport, where travellers have been detained following donald trump's latest executive orders which ban people from seven mainly muslim countries from entering the us. on a trade visit to turkey, theresa may refused to join others voicing concern at president trump's measures, which have also suspended entry to the us for refugees. well, the united states is responsible for the united states‘ policy on refugees, and the united kingdom is responsible for the united kingdom's policy on refugees. the president has also being holding phone calls with world leaders. in his conversation with president putin, the two reportedly spoke of strengthening trade ties, though there was no mention of easing sanctions imposed on russia following the ukraine conflict. and stars from around the world have been paying tribute

to the actor sirjohn hurt, who has died at the age of 77. star of stage, tv and film, he was best known for roles in the elephant man, alien and harry potter. hello, and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. with me are martin bentham, home affairs editor at the evening standard, and the journalist and broadcaster rachel shabi. a quick look, before that, at some of tomorrow's front pages, starting with... the observer, which leads with global fury in reaction to donald trump's immigration ban preventing people from seven mainly muslim countries from entering the united states. the express says prince william and harry are to unveil a statue of princess diana in the grounds of kensington palace to mark the 20th anniversary of her death. the daily mail reports that nhs doctors have been advised not to call pregnant women "mothers" because it might offend transgender people.

the telegraph leads with comments from the northern ireland secretary, james brokenshire, who tells the paper the system for investigating murders committed during the troubles "is not working." let's begin. let's start with the story that is an ongoing story that we will be speaking about for days and weeks to come, i think. president trump's ban on migrants and on refugees. global fury, martin. and i think that sums up the reaction by and large? yes, obviously lots and lots of denunciation of this policy which clearly is rather distasteful, and i think misguided as well. quite where it goes from here, it will go on for days and days, and obviously the policy is meant to last for 90 days,

a part of that 120 days, for refugees, and possibly longer than that. clearly there will be developments in the coming days in terms of potential challengers. i expect clarification actually from the us administration about green ca rd the us administration about green card holders, some of the big corporations like google and facebook already expressing concern about some of their employees who i am sure generally speaking the us government would like to still see in the country and so on, being affected, because there will be all sorts of unforeseen consequences, family members and so on. so, yes, this will continue for a long time. clearly it has an awful lot of attacks because it is clearly discriminatory against a group, certain groups, people, and seems to be based on no real evidence, to be frank. the observer, rachel, speaks about several cases... yazidi woman who fled an is massacre in iraq in

2014 being stopped from boarding a flight 2014 being stopped from boarding a flight in baghdad after waiting for months to be reunited with her husband already in the us. presumably these stories will multiply in the next few days. to be clear, these measures... it is absolutely cruel, and absolute cruelty, and it has caused chaos and heartbreak. some half a million people in the last decade from those countries on the list have been given green cards in the us. they have lives in the us, they have families, jobs, houses. they might happen to be overseas at this time and are now wondering whether they can go home to their lives, families, everything. it is unimaginable, the horror and despair that would cause those people, so of course it has been condemned. although, interestingly, not by theresa may. even though it has now transpired it is going to affect british citizens who either have

dual nationality or where it seems just been born in one of those countries is enough, so it is absolutely despicable and craven of our prime minister, i think, do not speak out against something that is very clearly racial discrimination and is now affecting british citizens as well. martin, did theresa may have an alternative in terms of the way she should have addressed this? she was asked about her attitude to president trump ‘s palsy, and she simply said the us and the uk has separate policies —— trump's policy. i think in general countries do not express opinions about the country's domestic policies, that is the general principle. obviously when they become extreme and a portent it can become extreme and a portent it can be an exception. i think she will have to speak not least in parliament on monday, she comes to

give a statement about the visit with president trump i suspect this shall be raised then —— when they become extreme and abhorrent. for british people affected by this, she will potentially speak about that. i think she has made a decision that she cannot every time she appears be questioned about the latest trump policy, no doubt there are going to be more of those. there is no way that kind of calculation can hold. she should never have bound her feet so she should never have bound her feet so closely with him to begin with. the observer is to be commended, i think, for putting this comment on its front page. interestingly, it is the only one with the story on the front page. the us president in his first week has proved he is like nothing that has gone before. he is ignorant, prejudiced and vicious in a way that no american leader has been. i think that is the point. it

isa very been. i think that is the point. it is a very extreme situation. this is not a normal president. this is quite blatantly racial discrimination. sorry, religious discrimination. sorry, religious discrimination. and we saw it coming down the line... i will bring martin in quickly. i think she was right to go and meet him because u nfortu nately we have go and meet him because unfortunately we have to work with what is there in the white house and there is no point shouting from the sidelines, so i can understand why she went. obviously it is a problematic position to do so in one sense because it is high risk and that risk will continue. i think in terms of the papers actually the reason for that is that some papers will make a political decision not to do it, perhaps, and others will simply think that story has been all over the broadcast news today, we wa nt to over the broadcast news today, we want to give our readers something different that will make them pick up different that will make them pick up the different that will make them pick he paper different that will make them pick up the paper tomorrow. that might be the right or wrong decision but i am sure the mail on sunday, for example, has a very good story, and iam sure... example, has a very good story, and i am sure... you think it was commercially rather than politically

driven? in some cases i think it will be commercial rather than political. let me stop that for a moment and turn to another donald trump story on the front page of the sunday express. officials feel there could be a diplomatic row when president trump comes on his state visit later this year between him and the royal family. visit later this year between him and the royalfamily. an intriguing story, actually, when you look at the details. the clashes there might be between him and various members of the family... be between him and various members of the family. .. he will probably turn up and be a complete poodle, in fa ct, turn up and be a complete poodle, in fact, because he will be delighted to be in that environment. but you are right, with some of the detail... the top line of that you would think, obviously prince charles being a committed environmentalist, president trump being a climate change denier, that is the sort of top line of the potential clash, but there is more to it than that. prince harry, who apparently had a close relationship or was. . . apparently had a close relationship

or was... had close bond the former first lady michelle obama, is weary of president trump, who once bragged he would have had sex with president diana —— princess diana, apparently. and obviously you will not take kindly to the fact president trump tweeted about kate being photographed topless, in unsavoury terms, william will not be happy about that. interesting things in the next. it will be interesting to see who does meet him when he comes. i suspect when they meet there will not be any great clashes because they all know there roles, and although trump can be very maverick, clearly, i think he will behave himself in front of the royal family. but whilst prince charles has refused to meet the chinese on numerous occasions in the past, and whether princes harry and prince william decide they have numerous other things to do and cannot be there... that might be... and what

president trump can be persuaded to say on twitter afterwards as well, because there is protocol that you do not report on what is being said during royal conversations. someone will have to just take his phone away. let's return to the observer, potential for a grassroots labour revolt over brexit. this organised bya revolt over brexit. this organised by a grassroots group? it is basically saying the mps... some people have resigned from the shadow cabinet since jeremy corbyn posed his three line whip saying members had to vote triggering article 50, that there is grassroots group of members supporting that stands of people saying they cannot vote for brexit, and i suppose the interesting there is that corbyn has a lwa ys interesting there is that corbyn has always been sustained, not by the parliamentary party, but by his support at the grassroots level, so

there is a suggestion, only a very vague suggestion, that that might change or be changing a little as a result of this article 50 three line whip. whether it comes down to that, i don't know, or whether it is something that blows over in two weeks' time when the vote goes through, and i suspect that is more likely to be the case, that it will bea likely to be the case, that it will be a temporary problem, because most of the grassroots still seem to support his brand of labour politics. rachel, what do you make of it? it is a horrible situation for the labour party, because as you say given the composition of their vote rs say given the composition of their voters and their base, and labour cannot really be seen to be thwarting a democratic vote to leave, but i think, and this is possibly where the readership has not been clear —— leadership. it now

has a lot of space to negotiate the kind of brexit we are going to have, which is after all the job of parliament and not just the government, and i think maybe it has not been forceful enough about what its red lines are in that regard, and had it been, it might have not alienate it its base in the way this piece suggests. i am not sure they have much ability to negotiate and dictate the terms. i am not sure this debate on article 50, this bill, will lead to that in reality. it might not this particular bill, but the next two years...|j it might not this particular bill, but the next two years... i will cut you both off for the next stories. front page of the mail, very strange story coming quite left—field compared to the others. doctors have been told not to call pregnant patients mothers. how can that be? because some of them might be men.

sorry, women who are changing. transgender. women who are transgender. but this comes from the bma, according to the mail. this, talking about what is on the front page, great story. do not call pregnant women and mothers, it seems absolutely crazy, and of course you can understand the logic, not wanting to offend or upset if it we re wanting to offend or upset if it were too upset somebody in that situation, but the likelihood of that, i think, situation, but the likelihood of that, ithink, is minuscule, iwould have thought. maybe i am wrong. guest... itjust seems to be, the mail obviously, just being nonsensical, really, their take on it. it is a shame. gone off on what they call the relentless march of transgender political correctness and they have had a go at the traffic lights in central london

which i have to say i really like, they always make me smile in trafalgar square, this assortment of 95v, trafalgar square, this assortment of gay, lesbian and transgender symbols and couples. quite confusing trying to work out what they mean. sadiq khan's bid to show how open and a diverse and tolerant londoners. there is nothing wrong with that, all a good thing in general. i think when you try to pretend that the 9.9% of people who in this case are going to be mothers, women and so on —— corbyn. going to be mothers, women and so on -- corbyn. it is quite a hard one to explain. thank you very much. we will have another one through. that's it for the papers this hour. thank you, martin and rachel — you'll both be back at 11:30 for another look at the stories making the news tomorrow. coming up next — reporters.