hello. we'll be taking a look at tomorrow morning's papers in a moment. when i say we, i'm talking about henry mance and lucy beresford. first, the headlines: sources close to prince andrew have told the bbc he stands by his decision to be questioned on newsnight about his links to a convicted paedophile. now lawyers call upon him to give evidence. whether a person is a prince or a pauper, if anyone has evidence or information that might be relevant to an investigation of a criminal case, that person should provide it. british business hits out at both the main parties over policies

on immigration and nationalisation. clashes in hong kong as protestors inside the polytechnic university set fire to its main entrance as police attempt to take the building. and the man whose lens helped define the 1960s — the photographer terry o'neill — has died. hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. with me are henry mance, chief features writer at the ft, and the broadcaster and psychotherapist, lucy beresford. many of tomorrow's front pages are already in. we start with the times, which is leading with prince andrew's newsnight interview, saying the prince is insisting that it was "the right thing to do" despite the widespread backlash.

meanwhile, the mail says he does have some regrets in that he didn't show enough sympathy for the victims of convicted sex offenderjeffrey epstein. the mirror leads with the reaction from a former royal protection officer who said the duke's interview "beggars belief". the sun says that prince andrew has made his "craziest claim yet" — that his interview was a success! and the financial times features a dramatic photograph of the latest escalation of violence in hong kong. here, a police vehicle has been set on fire after protesters threw petrol bombs onto the bridge leading to hong kong polytechnic university. 0k. to hong kong polytechnic university. let's start off prince 0k. let's start off with our chat. prince andrew and the times, standing by his interview.”

prince andrew and the times, standing by his interview. i think if his interview went really well, you wouldn't have to make a case it was the right thing to do. this interview that aired on newsnight on saturday night didn't go that well. although everyone closed him was taken aback by his lack of remorse, it seemed, like his tone deafness, et cetera, they think that at least everything's out there, that he's got his side across, and he has had a long time to speak about his version of events. he was apparently so version of events. he was apparently so pleased about how it went that he gave the crew of newsnight a tour around buckingham palace afterwards. so in his mind he wasn't tripped up by questions, it wasn't a harsh interrogation. it wasn't edited wrongly, none of that stuff. so he's happy. lucy, the article basically says he insisting it was the right thing to do. maybe he didn't do it correctly? the most extraordinary thing is if it were the right thing

to do, it would be on the front page of all of these newspapers, it wouldn't be photo bombing the general election. there is a general election but everyone is talking about this interview because it didn't go well. we didn't set the rates own, it left lots of questions unanswered. —— right tone. and if the people around him think it was good, that it would be a good idea to see him in an unvarnished way without any pr spin or any pr seen to it, then they have really misjudged the mood, because i think i'll anybody wanted was to hear him say that the improvised with the women who were bringing these cases —— empathised, and jeffrey epstein was in prison, let's not forget there were illegal things that happen. so expressing empathy was perhaps all that was required. and ina programme perhaps all that was required. and in a programme of an hour's duration, that didn't happen. same subject, let's turn to the guardian.

sorry, the times. is queen losing hergrip on sorry, the times. is queen losing her grip on the firm? do you think there is a slight misunderstanding of ‘the firm'? we have moved on a light. well, certainly the way pr is done within various households is different. there is a comment in the times where they talk about these different individual silos, so you have these different courts, really, you've got the queen, clarence house with prince charles, the duke and duchess of cambridge, andy duke and duchess of cambridge, andy duke and duchess of cambridge, andy duke and duchess of sussex. they are creating their own pr stories for themselves and maybe some of those stories compete against each other. what you haven't got, because you've got a much bigger pool of people, is you haven't got one person who is completely in charge. and what this

article states is that there was a time when that was the case. there was one major person overseeing everything. now that person has been slowly edged out, it seems everything else is up for grabs. and perhaps nobody knows what everyone else is doing. this interview has classed with a couple of other royal engagements during the week stop when harry and meghan either interview a couple of weeks ago to tom bradbury, that was felt to class with prince charles being overseas. so the different courts are now getting different messages are at different times, competing with each other, and it is probably not a good look. let's turn to the guardian, henry. and, apologised to epstein‘s victims now stop when you are told to apologise, it doesn't quite work? where does this story go next? into this interview we haven't heard much aboutjeffrey this interview we haven't heard much about jeffrey epstein and this interview we haven't heard much

aboutjeffrey epstein and the court case around the potential allegations around prince andrew. what's really interesting is he appears to have given fodder and encouragement to those lawyers representing victims of epstein who wa nt representing victims of epstein who want the full version of facts come out. so the fact that andrew's gone out. so the fact that andrew's gone out there are not made a great show of himself, not one many people over to his cause, that encourages those lawyers. in the interview he said if push came to shove he would co—operate with the fbi in the states. you can be sure those victims' lawyers will want to hold him to that claim. i think prince andrew said he would have to go through his own lawyers here, but what is our tv that you are willing to go, it looks like you have something to hide if you don't. and in the mail, prince andrew says he regrets not expressing sympathy to victims. with your background as a

psychotherapist, what would that have done? i feel, psychotherapist, what would that have done? ifeel, given psychotherapist, what would that have done? i feel, given the interview was on saturday, broadcast oi'i interview was on saturday, broadcast on saturday, there were certain aspects of it that would lead to beforehand aspects of it that would lead to before hand and now aspects of it that would lead to beforehand and now this is only come out in monday's papers. you could argue it was too little too late. but i think if one could argue you are getting a lot of incoming negativity about something that you and your heart believed was the right thing to do, you may very well resist that. you may think, well, i don't want to just fall into line with what everyone else is because i feel absolutely convinced in the path that i took. and certainly the team around him are also saying, as other papers have suggested, they think it was a really good thing that he did interview in the way that he did interview in the way that he did with no sort of spin. but i do think it is telling that it

may be has begun to permeate, these criticisms, the ground swell of so many people, it's notjust one side or the other, that maybe he feels that was the one thing that was missing from the interview. and if he does have empathy for these women, why would you not say that? 0k. let's turn to the times. let's go back to the times. here we are talking politics. borisjohnson, a series of tax breaks for businesses? we've been talking about parties wanting to spend more and more on the nhs and other public services. and in labour's case, nationalising things. this is the other side of the equation, the tories saying they are going to bring in tax cuts worth up are going to bring in tax cuts worth up to £1 billion by 2023. and, i think this is an attempt by boris johnson to hear that wrist with businesses that has opened up over brexit but also the cavalier language he has used around business organisations like the cba cbi ——

cbi. the problem is $1 billion is not a whole lot for big businesses. but if he really wants to change the balance for businesses, then it is about — or individuals, it is about changing the thresholds at which tax is charged. you might want to freeze fuel duty for the length of parliament, those things cost several billion, and the government has pledged so much in spending it doesn't have the room to do that. so this is quite a small move in the overall context. psychologically, it isn't necessarily about the numbers, it's about the impact that these numbers have, this kind of initiative will have. and fundamentally, he is saying two things here. one is, he wants to give a hand to small businesses and his recognising through the

reduction or review of business rates, he hopes to encourage businesses to grow. and if you grow your small business, you employ more people and you inject more income into the economy. therefore you grow the economy. under mentally this is about boosting the economy. but he is meant to be sang tomorrow in this speech that he recognises that brexit wasn't something that big businesses would have voted for —— fundamentally this is about boosting the economy. those taking up line, saying i recognise this isn't the way you would have voted for it but this is the way we're going to do it andl this is the way we're going to do it and i am going to provide you with clarity certainty. i.e., not what jeremy corbyn is suggesting with more delay. his big argument is i hear you, i know you didn't vote for this, but support me because what i am going to give you is clarity. 0k. let's turn back to the guardian.

scientists attack the tories' environmental record. why is this important? extreme weather over the last couple of years has really made an impact on people's opinion on climate change. it's not something thatis climate change. it's not something that is going to happen in 20 years from now, it's fires in california and floods in yorkshire and derbyshire. it is quickly rising up voters' lists of priorities. michael gove, environmental secretary and people since, as said they are very committed to bringing that carbon emissions to zero. they are talking about tree planting, they have been talking about electric cars. but what scientists are saying to the guardian is, look at the record of the tory government was that it hasn't been good enough to getting down air pollution which is above legal limits, water quality also not meeting legal standards. and look at the funding for the bodies that are meant to protect the environment such as national england, the environment agency, that has fallen away. so one of the advisers from

2017 that he would only give the tory government three or four out of ten for its environmental record. so think that is quite a challenge for borisjohnson, who seems to have an interest in the environment and wa nts to interest in the environment and wants to rebrand the party say you can go both blue and green. that ta kes can go both blue and green. that takes us nicely, lucy, onto the front page of the independent. takes us nicely, lucy, onto the front page of the independentm was rather an extraordinary revelation, this. iwas was rather an extraordinary revelation, this. i was talking about this before. in 2016 when zac goldsmith was campaigning to be mayor of london, he was about as green as it gets, but the voters weren't actually that interested. andy you spoke to them and said what are you really interested in? the things he wanted to talk about didn't feature in the top ten. three years on didn't feature in the top ten. three years on we are now in a very different situation where actually 2996 different situation where actually 29% of 18-24 different situation where actually 29% of 18—24 —year—olds are really interested in green issues, pollution and actually, more than one in five voters mention the

environment is something they are really concerned about in this coming election. i would like to know when this was done, when this survey was know when this was done, when this survey was done in the sense of hasn't been in the last week when people have had these to mulch was floods in the north? is it that thing that has brought it to the forefront of people's mines? 0r thing that has brought it to the forefront of people's mines? or is it something else that we have made that mental shift for. —— people's minds and this is a scene from hong kong, the bridge leading to the polytechnic university. the months of tensions have now broken out into open hostilities. we had a 70—year—old man killed this week, and if you're on the protesters' side is the army, the chinese army will become involved to support the hong kong police in this note really violates the principles on which hong kong's semi autonomy will with china is based. so really quite distressing scenes in hong kong,

potentially, the major financial capital... the figures have gone down. hong kong is going into recession because of this. there is not some small—scale set of incidents like riots on 0xford, this is the entire city, the authorities are warning, coming close to collapse. weekly, anything you want to add to that? so much of this is about the psychology. if you are at about the psychology. if you are at a financial centre, everything is about trust and perception and this is not a good look, unfortunately. i'm pleased the protesters are still persevering, but in terms of the economy, if very damaging. lucy be resfo rd , economy, if very damaging. lucy beresford, henry manns, thank you. and if you stay with us on bbc news, we are the latest from hong kong with that siege at the university continuing —— to henry mance. but for now, that is the end of the papers. don't forget you can see the front pages of the papers online on the bbc news website. it's all there for you seven days a week at bbc.co.uk/papers.