onto a long—range missile. mr president, will you attack north korea 7 we'll see. following a meeting with president trump, the us defence secretary said any threat to the us or its allies would be met with a massive military response. the brexit secretary has accused the eu of making itself look silly by insisting talks aren't making progress. the eu's chief negotiator, michel barnier, said british people needed to understand what leaving the single market meant. the united nations refugee agency says 73,000 rohingya muslims have now fled to bangladesh to escape violence in myanmar. bill nighy please an inspector on the hunt for a victorian serial killer in the british thriller. we getjames killer in the british thriller. we get james king's take killer in the british thriller. we getjames 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 bringing us tomorrow. 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, mrtrump, is the headline across the metro, as it shows a photo of the north korean leader shortly after the test. 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 the guardian leads with an unpublished official report which says families who have lost loved ones in police custody are being failed by authorities, and calls for reform to the system.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 ina 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 a nuclear capability, and they have recently demonstrated that 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. hejust 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 tweets don't seem to be doing much either. ifeel like we have been back into a corner. we canjust 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 isa 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, oi’ the president of the united states, orfor any other 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 pa rt 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 isa 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 fa ct, 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 co nsta nt than the americans are. they are in a constant state of alert. it reminds me, do you rememberafter 9/11, george bush was a little bit 0ld 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, white house has a conversation overnight. ithink 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?” 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 borisjohnson has the ability to hire. they are hinting boris johnson could has the ability to hire. they are hinting borisjohnson 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 moneyjust to northern ireland party, and stump up money just to stabilise northern ireland party, and stump up moneyjust to stabilise the government for two years. so the idea that this a prime minister who will sack borisjohnson,

idea that this a prime minister who will sack boris johnson, or idea that this a prime minister who will sack borisjohnson, 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 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? following the rise and rise of jacob rees-mogg? every era seems to throw up 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. 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 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 isa very 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, 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 oi’ 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. 0bviously 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 wa nt to 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