Episode 14 Sunday Morning Live

On today's programme: Sam Allardyce claims entrapment by journalists

caused him to lose his job as England manager.

The first baby with three parents thanks to advanced medicine

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the Church has not done enough

to counter anti-Semitism in the past.

What can be done to tackle it in the future?

And actress Michelle Collins tells Nikki Bedi why a play about wartime

refugees has a resonance with today's migrant crisis.

People need to know the consequences of what happens to people and the

trauma it can cause. And separation from your parents.

Our panel is here, ready for the off and so is Tommy

Good morning. Now that Naga's hair from last night is no longer

trending on Twitter, we can move onto other subject matter is, if

that OK! You can get in touch on Facebook and Twitter.

Don't forget to use the hashtag #bbcsml.

Standard geographic charges from landlines and mobiles

Texts will be charged at your standard message rate.

Email us at [email protected].

And if you do get in touch, please don't forget to include your name.

Absolutely. We like to know the names of our viewers.

Max Mosley is the former head of Formula 1 and a privacy campaigner.

Edwina Currie is a former Conservative Cabinet minister.

Lord Digby Jones is a crossbench peer in the House of Lords.

And Chris Davies is a former sports writer for the Telegraph

and committee member of the Football Writers' Association.

Instead of sitting on the England manager's bench, Sam Allardyce

is sitting on a deckchair this week after being caught in

Big Sam stepped down after being captured on a secret

camera appearing to advise a group of supposed businessmen

about getting round Football Association transfer rules.

He accepted it was an error of judgment but was clearly unhappy

about the way his international career has been booted

into the stands, saying entrapment has won.

Allardyce's spectacular fall from grace follows another high

profile newspaper hidden camera operation that showed the then

chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz

So did they both deserve to be exposed in this way

or is this form of journalism just plain sensationalism?

First Tommy, who's been doing some of his own digging.

It's me, Tommy. But you wouldn't know because I am undercover with my

secret camera in Leeds to see what the famously straight talking people

of Yorkshire think about journalistic sting operations. What

are we doing? It looks like me and you are a massive giveaway. They are

going to know. Can we just do it normally? I think it is pretty

immoral, to be fair. It should be more broadcast to the public. I

don't think it is right. I think it's fine as long as the truth comes

out. I don't care how it is done as long as the truth comes out. They

will do anything for the story, the newspapers, but two wrongs don't

make it right. It is hard because you don't know whether liners. When

you are a role model it is important to be as transparent as you can be.

-- you don't know where the line is. Do journalists have a responsibility

to tell us what celebrities are up to? Yes, that is what they are paid

for, to tell the truth and let the public know. To an extent. It

depends what the story is. If they are splitting somebody who is doing

something wrong, then yes, but if it is fabricating things for the

newspaper, that is wrong. What do you think about sting operations?

Sam Allardyce said entrapment had won but I think that is arrogance

because the public deserved to know about it, without a doubt. If you

are going to live your life in front of the cameras, you have got to deal

with everything that comes with it. Don't we have a right to know?

Figureheads in the public eye, we need to know what they are like. Not

at all. It is their personal life. They might not be doing well for

people who look up to them but we don't need to know that. They are

doing their job and what happens behind closed doors has nothing to

do with us. Wide array of use from the streets of Leeds. What does the

panel think? We are asking whether journalistic stings are cool. It is

good to establish the rules journalists have got to adhere to

when carrying out this investigation, Chris. Entrapment is

against the law. We cannot coerce somebody to commit an act they would

not otherwise have committed. There are no actual rules just guidelines.

This is I to professional journalists say if you are going on

an underground sting like this there should be some information. You

cannot go on a fishing information. If you have got word of a drug

smuggling ring, paedophile ring, something against the law, that is

5-star journalism. It is interesting that the Football Association have

never charged a high profile manager for homophobic and racist text

messages that he said, because they said he had a reasonable right to

privacy. There was a very high ranking football administrator who

sent a sexist email. He was not charged because they said he had a

reasonable right to privacy. Sam Allardyce had no idea he was being

filmed. That is the whole point, isn't it? Yes, he was careless, but

he wasn't breaking any laws and secondly, didn't he have a

reasonable right to privacy? Throwing the question out there.

Lord Digby Jones, should he have lost his job? Probably thought they

did the! Do I want my national football team run by a bloke that

stupid? -- probably through stupidity! I understand he did

actually say about the money side of it subject to FAA approval. He said

he wouldn't agree to it without the consent of the FA and no deal was

struck. But the fact that he is in the role that he is in, a role

model, a leader, all those words, to start mouthing off about the Duke of

Cambridge and his predecessor in the job, that sort of thing clearly

isn't in any way illegal or anything else, but it is stupid. Is that

reason enough to lose your job? For that? I wouldn't. What annoys me

about it all is who is going to pay for all of this again? The poor fans

industry, and the people on the vox pop there, they are paying through

the nose at the grounds, paying the Sky as BT subscriptions, being

priced out of the game and all of this money will be to pay this man

?1 million to sit on a deck chair because he has been stupid. But does

all of that mean he deserved to be done? You are absolutely right. If

there was due reason to think that he had been at it in some way, yes.

If there wasn't reason to think he had been at it, then no. Edwina, Sam

Allardyce has said he was the victim of entrapment. Yes, but two wrongs

don't make a right. His behaviour, what he was being encouraged to talk

about, and which he willingly talked about, was wrong in footballing

terms, I understand, and the fans would not have been happy about it

and it would have been against FA rules. If you are a senior guy in

the FA, you have got to behave yourself. Entrapment is not a

comfortable thing to be involved in by any means, but they don't cancel

each other out. He was wrong to say what he said. It goes with the

territory. If you are a public figure of any kind. It is not a

question of being illegal or not. It is a question of the rules of the

organisation you are in or the public perception of the

organisation you are in. That is why Keith Vaz finds himself accused not

breaking the law but of hypocrisy. Because he is in public life? Not

just that but because he has been the chairman of the Home Affairs

Select Committee, and that means you take a view on all sorts of these

issues and he has been very upfront in taking a view. If that is the

view you take, and then you are clearly caught doing something

completely different, it questions your integrity. OK, so when it comes

to Sam Allardyce and Keith Vaz, we are talking about their roles and

what they have spoken about in relation to their jobs. Max Mosley,

you won a privacy case against the News of the World when it exposed

intimate details of your private life. What is your take on this? I

think first of all it is a nonstory because the ?400,000, he quite

clearly said he had to check that with his employer, and the other

thing he is accused of, is saying how to get around the rules but it

depends on context. If you think rules are stupid, and apparently he

thinks the third party ownership rule is stupid, you are perfectly

entitled to say it is stupid and this is how you can get round it. It

was a nonstory first of all, and secondly what the journalists did,

was effectively make fraudulent misrepresentations to him. They

pretended to be something they were not. He could actually sue them for

fraudulent misrepresentation. I think it is quite wrong to your

somebody into saying something when it was clearly a fishing expedition.

They did not extract from him any information which would justify a

story of that kind. Chris, what are the rules for the journalists? You

have explained the rules journalists have got to adhere to. The editor,

what would he or she have been saying to the journalists, if Max is

saying this is a fishing expedition and entrapment? The journalists were

never named, interestingly. It was by the investigations team in the

Daily Telegraph, which is unusual. The editor would not have given any

guidelines. This is the story we have got, they would have said. I

respect what you have said but where is the line in the sand where we can

reasonably expect to let our guard down and talk to people? The answer

is there isn't one! There is a distinction. Max is here to

demonstrate it. What you do in your private life, if it has no bearing

whatever on whatever your job is, that is your private life and you

can prove that and that is upheld in court. With due respect to you for

doing it like that. But if what you are caught doing, whether it is by

sting or entrapment or whatever, if what you are caught doing directly

contradicts what you say in your public life, then you are in

trouble. Sam wasn't contradicting anything he does in his public life.

And in contrast, the boss of Lloyds bank, if you weeks ago, he had been

in Singapore, maybe Hong Kong, with somebody who wasn't his wife. That's

his business, exactly. We can all have a view on whether that is right

or wrong but Lloyds bank stuck with him. That doesn't go with being CEO

of a major multinational bank and everybody can have an opinion but

they stuck with him. But should the FA have made your point? These guys

entrapped this man, we are standing by him. That is an interesting

point. Lloyds bank stuck with their man and the FA didn't, regardless of

how it came to public knowledge. A different pattern of behaviour. They

are not equivalent. Different patterns of behaviour entirely. What

is the difference? What Sam Allardyce was talking about, it's

totally appertains to the job he was doing. If you are the head of the

FA, you are supposed to uphold its rules. I see that. I completely

disagree. The FA should have stuck by him. One of the fundamental rules

if you are running a big sports association is to stick by your

officials unless they do something wrong. If they do something wrong,

you fire them immediately, and if they don't, you stand up for them

and the FA should have stood up for him and encouraged him to sue the

Telegraph ought to seek because he could sue for it.

-- for deceit. You have been the victim of a sting so what goes

through your mind? We are different. What went through my mind was that I

would sue them because they have done something that they have no

right to do and they have told lies and I would sue them. Its reaction

is to go to Spain, which is sensible, but in this situation,

attack immediately. That is the way I approach it. If you are in public

life, like Keith Vaz, a minister, an MP, the head of the bank, the head

of the sports association, your automatic thought is to behave, be

whiter than white. You are under obligation to behave as well as

possible. I was never a Cabinet minister. I apologise. Margaret

Thatcher never had any female Cabinet ministers but I have given

up correcting that because it is trivial and a long time ago. But you

have got to behave as well as possible and that goes with the

territory. The number of time I have said to aspiring parliamentary

candidates, are you serious about being an MP? Get rid of that

Facebook page, take down the photographs of you falling over

drunk. Behave better. Why? Because the public expects it of you. Have

you never let your guard down? Frequently! I have had after-dinner

drinks with Sam Allardyce and football writers, and believe it or

not football writers respect privacy. Dan has told us a lot more,

worse if you like. -- Sam. But he realised he was talking to friends

and he knew that. Surely at a dinner party you can't just say, nice

weather we are having lately. You don't know who is wired or

taping it. When I arrived at the CBI I was told on day one, never think

anything is off the record. Even if the person says to you, this is off

the record, it will not be. To be fair, over the last 16 or 17 years

of being in public life, I have found that a lot of journalists

respect off the record, actually. But the problem is that you don't

know who else is listening. It is not the person you are talking to,

it is somebody else. Especially in public places. My wife always says

it is not the person you are talking to, what about the other table over

there? To be fair to journalists, lots of them respect off the record.

I had a lot of off the record conversations when I was doing

motorsport at the top level. Without it, good journalists would lose an

awful lot of information. They rely on off the record conversations. You

knew the journalists you could and could not trust, those of the record

conversations were very important both to get your point across and

for them to understand. The particular problem for Allardyce

has been that there has been such concern and sport about cheating and

corruption, rules are established, often quite new, about the rules

about transfer, for example, to try to keep the whole sport clean and to

respect the wishes of the people watching and paying for it.

I wonder if that is reflected in the FA's decision to not stand by him?

As I understand it, one newspaper said he will get ?1 million out of

this, in terms of his payoff. There will be rules according to Lott. I

guess he would have been given half an hour to talk to his lawyer first,

and the lawyer would have said, if you are going, there will be a deal,

you will not say anything, the FA will not say horrible things about

you and there is excellent at those pounds changing hands. Open and

legitimate in terms of the settlement. But that is one reason

he has gone to Spain. -- the FA will not say arable things and that will

be a certain amount of hundreds of thousands of pounds changing hands.

Let's find out what the audience has been saying. I think this will star

of opinions. Tommy? Not much sympathy for Big

Sam, people are saying that things are necessary but not necessarily

moral. Not much sympathy there, Chris?

There is not. I think the downfall of Sam is that he was perceived to

be greedy by negotiating a ?400,000 fee to go to Singapore and Hong Kong

to speak. I have to reiterate, that deal was never struck. He was

talking about a contract that never existed with two people who, in

effect, did not exist. He said I will not do anything until I run it

past the FA. Everybody in life tries to maximise their earnings. Other

football managers and footballers have contracts here, there and

everywhere. We seem to want the England manager to be a cross

between the Pope and Mother Teresa, it is unreasonable. It is not

unreasonable. He was being paid 3 million quid a year to behave

himself. And be a responsible person. He did not misbehave, he had

a private conversation with people he thought were in a private circle.

I have said things in private that I would hate to see in public. Nothing

wrong with them but they would be harassing. Is it not the duty,

because we are coming to the end of this discussion, of newspapers and

journalists to hold people to account in public life? 100%, yes,

but they should not use fraudulent means, lies, deception and secret

cameras when people do not know they are being filmed and think they are

in a private situation. They should not do that, when they do, they

should be held to account in court. But the end justifies the means if

there is something that is criminal or something major.

Bear in mind all the others who have been attacked by the same Sting, who

said, no way, we will not do this. Every time is a story about members

of Parliament or former ministers getting caught accepting money for

whatever, the ones that don't get published for all the others that

the newspaper approach you said, absolutely no way. If they had asked

if he would take a bribe to do all sorts of different things, they did

not asking that. That is the question they should have asked and

I am sure the answer would have been no. Chris, this is the way of the

world and newspapers will continue doing this? Yes, and they will bring

down people like Lord treason, the chairman of the football

Association, who was basically a Parliamentary blogger -- with a

Parliamentary blogger talking about referees being bribed, she sold it

to a newspaper. It was just a man's chat in private, so he thought.

Every time I meet somebody I will check them for a while. I think we

should let journalists pick the England manager next time excavation

that is another discussion. Thank you for your comments, please keep

them coming in. Still to come on

Sunday Morning Live. Harris J, who's been called

the Muslim Justin Bieber, Still to come on Sunday Morning

Live: Harris J, who's been called the Muslim Justin Bieber,

is here to show us why his American doctors have helped create

the world's first baby through a controversial three parent

method, using a new technique to prevent the mother passing

on a hereditary disease. Meanwhile, the Nuffield Council

on Bioethics this week warned about the possible impact on society

of the spread of gene editing, and said this research needs

urgent ethical scrutiny. The baby that is being brought to

world attention is now five months old. His faces blurred because his

parents, from Jordan, wants to remain anonymous. He was born using

a procedure overseen by American doctors in Mexico, because there are

no roars there to prevent it. The nucleus of the mother's egg was

removed, leaving behind faulty DNA and structures known as

mitochondria. It was put into a second woman's egg, containing only

healthy mitochondria, which was fertilised. The embryo had the key

genes and a minute amount of DNA from the donor.

Student Rachel from Manchester knows all too well the anguish that

hereditary disease can cause. My family discovered we had a

history of mitochondrial disease when my aunt passed away. We never

knew why, but you had multiple miscarriages and stillbirths. It was

absolutely devastating. It led to my mother than having to be tested, she

was found to be a carrier. Although Rachel does not know her

personal future, she recognises the breakthrough.

For me, I would be happy to foster, I would be happy to adopt. But it is

also about having bad choice, having that option, about living without

the fear of passing on such a cruel disease -- it is about having that

choice. Three-person IVF is legal in the UK

but is not being done yet. A team in Newcastle is close to applying for a

licence using a slightly different technique to that one in Mexico. It

is not creating designer babies, it is not a slippery slope, it is not

about a Frankenstein fear. What this is is about eliminating disease. For

me, it is far less ethical to have a potential treatment to cure a

disease, to mitigate suffering and to not use it than any of the

concerns that have been voiced. So is this new scientific

breakthrough the key Or is it an interference

with nature that will give us Is biomedical science

going too far? We are joined now by

Sarah Norcross, head of the Progress Education Trust,

and Dr Helen Watt, senior researcher Frankie very much. -- thank you very

much. Also joining us from our Nottingham

studio is Dr Jagbir Jhutti-Johal, Welcome. First, Sarah, how should we

respond to the report that a three parent baby has been born? This baby

has been born in Mexico, we were sort of expecting the first baby to

be born in the UK because we have actively legislated to permit this

to happen here. In Mexico there is no legislation or regulation around

this. The doctor who has done this has only published an abstract about

his work, so the details about how it has gone about are sketchy at the

moment. Hopefully all is as it seems and this is a really good news

story. You are very positive about this. Helen, what causes for concern

about in terms of ethical biomedical advancements? Several, really. We

have to look at how this baby was achieved. Obviously, any birth is

wonderful, but this baby had four MBO siblings, one of whom died

early, three of whom got deselected, so we are talking about quality

control. At what stage? At a very early stage... When you say

something like that, are we talking about foetuses... We are talking

about embryos, but we all began as embryos. We have to be honest about

what is involved. And not airbrush the woman who provided an egg to

create this baby. She is very much a second biological mother. We already

know with surrogacy you can have more than one biological mother,

even though it is argued they have no genetic connection, this woman

has some genetic connection and is providing all of the egg apart from

the nuclear DNA. We need to know about her, what she paid to do this,

why did she do this? Is it right to produce new human beings with more

than one biological mother? We heard from Rachel in the film a little

earlier. She spoke about her condition and say she does not want

to mess with science, she does not want to have super humans, she just

wants to be able to have a child that is free of a hereditary

condition. That is a very natural thing to want. But I would like more

focus on existing human beings who have these conditions. There is some

very interesting ways being developed for treating this very

condition. The couple were worried about this condition. We should

focus on patients who need treatment, rather than manufacturing

babies by this very novel way. It is not a normal way of conception.

Edwina, you were a minister of health, we got that bit right,

didn't we? You are aware about how the public reacts and is concerned

with technological and biological advancements. What is your view? We

talked about it in great detail in the 1980s, I am sure Digby will

remember, when this science became possibility. We debated this in the

House of Commons on a free vote, many others spoke to constituents to

find out what they felt. The feeling I conveyed back to the House of

Commons was that, actually, if the science is available, we should do

it in the United Kingdom, under UK law, we should make it possible in

the National Health Service so people can have it without having to

pay for it, and we should monitor it very carefully, setting up clear

ethical rules. That is the way we have done it in the UK for over 30

years, I think, to great acclaim. It enabled us to have the sort of

scientists in Britain who are able to do this very well, and with very

broad public support. Three cheers for the Brits,

actually. If you do transparently, you can regulate it. Unlike the

Mexican... Sketchy was the word you use. It is open and transparent

here, and regulated. There is a feeling of, yes, let's go to the

frontiers of science and let the Brits do that but, at the same time,

it is done with a hawk eye from legislation. The point is that there

is a massive difference, this is where regulation comes in, a huge

difference... I don't agree with you, if someone says I have a

genetic flaw in the bloodline, I want children but why am I bringing

them into the world if I know this will be a problem? That is different

to I would like Juan that is blonde, blue-eyed, to win the World Cup and

be a star of University Challenge, can I have that DNA? There is a

massive difference. There was a difference, but quality control is

quality control. We see this deselection of embryos treated very

much more like products not human lives. That is a concern. What we

are likely to do in this country is a worse kind of mitochondrial

replacement where you combine two embryos, killing them in the

process, to create a third. I don't think the UK should be complacent.

We have a regulator, but it is very permissive. Let's bring in Dr Jagbir

Jhutti-Johal from the University of Birmingham, you have listened very

patiently. You have considered the ethical issues around biomedical

advancements? It is a complex topic, firstly, and

when we think about it from a religious perspective, the dynamics

get even more conjugated. Looking at it from a Sikh perspective, there is

no consensus yet on whether this is acceptable or not. But we would take

our understanding and interpret the teachings from our holy book and

guru. It is interesting that two viewpoints will come out in the

discussion. One is the acceptability of such advancements. Have they

occurred as a result of God's will? And these advancements and

treatments alleviate pain and suffering. But then we also have

another side to the question. If these advancements are being used

for inappropriate use, as was mentioned earlier, DNA for cosmetic

babies, this type of child. So viewpoints vary. We do have a view

that the embryo is a living being. As soon as conception takes place, a

living being is formed. So for us the destruction of the embryos is an

issue. That is a concern. We also understand that this sometimes has

got to be done to alleviate further pain and suffering. How much should

medical advancements take into consideration the religious opinions

and religious thought? Well, scientists and researchers and

doctors don't work in a vacuum free from religion or their own moral

principles. They're probably have different views themselves about

what works they should do and where they should go with this. I want to

respond to something that Helen said really. These embryos are not being

treated as products. Parents are going there wanting to have a

healthy baby. They are not looking for a perfect baby. They just want a

happy, normal family. What we consider to be normal. And they are

making very difficult decisions about what they do. Maybe they don't

have any embryos that are free from disease and that is a problem for

them. There is no compulsion in this. There have been countries and

environments in the past, in the 1930s, where there was compulsion

where people that were regarded as defective were done away with and we

are million miles away from that. People are coming into this

environment, making choices, taking into account the religious and

ethical issues concerned, and they are well aware of the problem is

that the doctor here has mentioned, that it involves some kind of

destruction. Sometimes they make different choices. One of the ways

to avoid having these repeated genetic problems, don't marry your

cousin. This can happen in many communities. Yes, but that is an

extreme. I work with cancer charities and the genetic line on

certain cancers is there. A lot of pain and suffering goes on in this

world because of the genetic defect that causes a mutated cancer. But

you are so right in saying it is not compulsory. Nobody is saying you

will. What I do want however in a globalised economy, a globalised

medical world, I don't want to be in a position where people in this

country say they are going to do this anyway and they are going to

Mexico. I would rather it was I am going to do this anyway and I am

going to Britain. That is the point. Whatever the regulation, there will

always be people who don't meet the requirement and could go

elsewhere. We have got to set a standard here. Of course but I would

rather have a standard set in a legal, open, transparent way, rather

than forcing people to go to other jurisdictions to do it, which it

would be. What our viewers saying because this has generated a lot of

opinion? There is concern about the slippery slope.

They want to see that monitoring is done. OK. Your reaction to the

comments? I totally agree with those comments. If we were to use the Sikh

teachings of God's will, we could say these medical developments that

have occurred have occurred as a result of God's will, wanting to

alleviate pain and suffering within society, so it is within God's

divine plan. Sarah, you were nodding to the reactions then. People

sympathetic to science helping wannabe parents. Absolutely. I

recognised one of the names of the people who have tweeted in, who has

lost members of the family to mitochondrial disease. It will not

bring them back but it will help other families avoid the loss and

suffering and surely that must be what people want. Edwina referred to

the 80s. Do you remember when you were health minister? I think you

did this rightly, but do you remember Dolly the sheep and all of

that? I remember reading articles that within ten years we would be

breeding a super-team of footballers or something. We have got to get

this into context. What the government and all parties have done

over many years in this country is to do it incrementally. You have got

to do it with public support. The tweets and responses their show

quite strong public support for doing something good with science.

Final word, Helen? Nobody is opposed to the ethical use of technology but

it has got to respect human life and parenthood. We are fragmenting

motherhood this way, before the baby is even born. We have got to be

honest about what we are doing. Just because something is chosen by

parents, we should be encouraging children to be accepted

unconditionally. That is very easy to say. When you know you are

pregnant with a child that you know will be seriously disabled or will

have a life-threatening, painful, life limiting illness, I can't make

that choice for that family. When they know that the next one has got

exactly the same chance of that happening, I can't make that choice.

And actually it is very hard. I wouldn't force anybody to have a

disabled child. What about a disabled human being who already

exists? And not producing new human beings who we are already planning

to quality control? I have to end it there. So sorry. Thank you for your

comments as well. Thank you to the doctor for joining us. Time to

change gear and take a trip to the theatre.

Michelle Collins is a well-known face on British television,

having graced the cobbles of Albert Square in EastEnders

as Cindy Beale, and pulled pints behind the bar of the Rovers' Return

in Coronation Street as Stella Price.

But her latest venture is on the stage at the Chickenshed

Theatre in London in the play Kindertransport, which is based

on the mission to bring Jewish refugee children to Britain

Nikki Bedi went to talk to Michelle about that and her earlier career.

I said where are my children? I've just been to the house and there is

nobody there. Where are they? They are safe. They are with Cathy. It is

an atlas I was given at 21, one of the few things that was saved in the

fire. Thanks, it is lovely. Right, come on. A lot to get through. So

not one but two of the UK's biggest soap operas. First of all

EastEnders, than Coronation Street. Might we go for a hat-trick? Could

there be a third? I don't think so. I think two is quite enough. It is

great being in a soap, it is fantastic, but I suppose for me it

is not the be all and end all. I like to be versatile. I don't want

to get trapped into one corner really. If we go back in time a

little bit too when you are trying to get into drama schools, that was

a struggle, wasn't it? Yes. I did a two the drama course after school

with the aim of auditioning to drama school. And I've tried for 11 or 12.

It isn't cheap to apply and I got turned down by every single one.

What got you through that? I had a real hunger. Having come from a

privileged sort of background, none of my family in the industry, I just

knew I really wanted to do it and I say to young people today, you have

got to have that feeling inside, that hunger. I was quite a shy

person and I think acting is cathartic for me, which I think it

is for a lot of people. I know there was a period when you were touring

with some incredible people in a band and then that fell apart. From

what I understand, you then hit a crisis point. You had no control

over your life so you were controlling your eating and you had

disordered eating. Yes, I have talked about that and I think it is

important to talk about that. I felt a feeling of rejection and a bit of

failure. We blame ourselves, don't we? Yes, I stopped eating really. It

was the only way I could control myself. I went to a job interview

and the casting director rang up my agent and asked if there was

something wrong with me. That gave me a real kick up the... Whatever! I

decided to get it under control. For me it was keeping fit, going to the

gym, so taking control but in a much healthier way. Do you feel like

somebody is watching over you and taking care of you? I do. I don't

particularly like to talk about religion. I went to Sunday school as

a child. My next-door neighbours were lovely and took us to church

and my mother had a lying on a Sunday morning. She won't mind me

saying that! We went to the Baptist church over the road and we went

camping with the church and I met some lovely friends. But I didn't

carry on going to judge. I am not a believer but I do believe... I

suppose I believe somebody is up there and looking over you. You can

have them framed and stuck on the wall for all I care. It is Ian I

believe, not you. I want to know what he has been going around

saying. Playing Cindy Beale really changed your life. It was an

absolutely massive show in those days. Overnight, you are getting fan

mail. It is bizarre. You are in people's living rooms, 18 million,

20 million people are watching you on TV. The public took hold of Cindy

Beale and just loved her. To me she was a very complex character. They

said she was a man eater, this and that, but people still loved her

character and I don't know why. People love a bad girl. I hate to

think what she will do to you. Stephen isn't your son. I can't lie

to you any more. You are not Stephen's father. Ian! We are

sitting on the stage and a very warm lights at the Chicken shed Theatre

because you are starring in a production of goods transport. A lot

of people will be familiar with that movement of Jewish children to the

UK all those years ago. Tell us about the play and why you wanted to

be in it so much. It is set in the past and the present and there are a

lot of parallels. I play a woman called Evelyn now in her 50s who

came over to England from Hamburg at the age of nine, just before the

war. Her parents had packed her off. It is fictitious but it is based

loosely on events and people Diane Samuels met. Essentially it is about

the holocaust and what happened when the children were sent over and how

horrific it was. It is really about separation and mother - daughter

relationships. What about being German? Germany spat me out and

England took the inn. I love this place, the language, the

countryside, the buildings, the sense of humour. Even the food. This

is an important player in the times we are living in. People need to

know what went on. They need to know the consequences of what happens to

people and the trauma it can cause, and separation from your parents.

How tragic that can be. The UK took in how many Jewish children? 10,000?

Something like that. There is a stark contrast between the way as a

country we dealt with refugees back then. My grandfather was a refugee

from Antwerp. I don't think we think enough about it and we are not doing

enough about it. I don't know the solution, I really don't, but we

can't just sit back and let it happen. Is your daughter going to

come and see the play? I hope so. Do you get nervous? Dead nervous,

all the time. I am nervous but sort of excited about it. May you go from

strength to strength, Michelle Collins. Thank you. Nice to meet you

after all this time. And you. Michelle Collins - we wish her luck

with Kindertransport. Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish

New Year begins today. Hopefully it will be better

than the last 12 months in which recorded anti-Semitic

incidents went up by 11% in the UK. Meanwhile, the Archbishop

of Canterbury says Christians need to be deeply repentant

about anti-Semitism In an essay for the Holocaust

Educational Trust, Justin Welby calls on all faith groups to be

honest in exposing what he calls We are joined now by Imam at

Leeds Mosque and interfaith advisor Qari Asim and Deesha Chadha,

who is a council member of Faiths Forum of London

and the Hindu Forum of Britain. Edwina, I will start with you. Your

reaction to Justin Welby's essay. I will have to correct you again. Ross

Fisher and is tomorrow, it is the Muslim New Year today. -- Rosh

Hashanah is tomorrow. Justin Welby's comments are terribly

platitudinous. All this stuff about there are good Jews, yes, and how

the Christian faith has been at fault, yes, then he talks about

meeting the Chief Rabbi. I was left feeling, and...? There was an

emptiness about it, which is a shame. Different religions over the

years have had a bad history with Judaism. What would be wonderful

would be a recognition, first of all, that Christ chose, if this is

your belief, too, is a member of the Jewish community, he was born Jew

and born and brought up in this community. He had a bar mitzvah, the

whole setup. That is recognised by Islam. It is not recognised by

Christianity. There were Christian groups that are recognised and

valued Judaism and the old Testament because that was the background to

the start of Christian at -- Christianity. But modern

Christianity does not... I am very pleased he has done this, not only

is anti-Semitism disgusting, even more disgusting is the denial that

goes on by people that don't think they are. There has been

anti-Judaism, firstly because of their religion in the Middle Ages,

then because of their race all the way up to 1945, now it tends to

centre around Israel. There has always been a cause to be

anti-Jewish. If we acknowledge that anti-Semitism is really insidious in

our free society, and it is that disgusting. Because after they

finish with the Jews, they will come after you and me, believe me. It

ain't stopping there. That really worries me. They will come after you

guys. I am a lapsed Anglican Brummie, I don't have a dog in this

fight in terms of you guys, but if we don't stamp on this and

acknowledge the disgust that it is, they will be after you and me next.

For that, I'd applaud him. You said this is happening already? The

Archbishop was my comments are very courageous and timely, I think it is

moving on, the deep-rooted prejudices about each other's

faiths, political opportunism and racial tensions fuelled times by

politicians and certain parts of the media. If you compound that,

post-Brexit, what is happening with that, people are expressing their

deep-rooted prejudices about each other openly, and I think the Brexit

vote has legitimised some of those concerns about people from different

communities. In terms of anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hatred,

religious hatred towards faith minorities, it needs to be

challenged and debated openly. What is your view, Deesha Chadha? When

Edwina said that, it opened the dialogue, but so what? With

something like interface work it moves very slowly. You are

negotiating between your faith, those of other peoples, their

relationship with one another as well. That dialogue is a stepping

stone, it is a very slow process, but what I really applaud him for is

putting it out there, putting it on the table and saying that we have to

go further and question ourselves in terms of our own profiles, what we

believe, what are prejudices are, and try to work together to resolve

it. Sorry, Digby. Edwina, it is a start?

Getting the conversation going, as Digby said earlier? He has not been

the first person to start this... Here's the Archbishop of Canterbury.

He is the arch... Dare I say that? I am suspicious of people who write

the right things but are not... Why is it slow process? After 9/11 we

were living in Surrey, it happened on Tuesday, on the Friday we were

invited to the mosque, and we went to. And by week, my husband was a

counsellor, the mayor. We went. We stood shoulder to shoulder to say

that maybe the people who did this terrible atrocity were Muslims, but

we are all together. We weaken society as a whole if we allow or

condone racism and prejudice. Anti-Semitism is a disease on us

all. What I would love to see right now, using this as a springboard,

your faith on the streets more saying, not in my name. I really

would. I don't see much of it. That is the issue. I would really like

Tabak composition of the record. Muslims are saying at all the way

from the muftis of Egypt to other parts of the Muslim world, and in

this country demands are saying it but it is not being heard, or

perhaps it is not on our screens -- and in this country imans are saying

it. You need to demonstrate with placards, that is how you get on

telly. We are moving away from protest to engagement. The other one

I want, and it is especially the Labour Party, there are some amazing

histories of good quality Jews in the Labour Party over the decades.

Why are they letting it happen? It is no good Corbyn saying, I deplore

this, it is disgusting. I think he means it, that is not the point.

They have had to suspend some Momentum woman a couple of days ago

because of comments she made. You don't just have this stamp it out

but you have to publicly go there, I learned a long time ago, don't

listen to what people say, watch what they do. Deesha Chadha? Is

loose the politicians are acknowledging that there is a

problem. -- at least the politicians are. Labour has taken a soft

approach, it is like, we have this report in writing, we are saying it

is not acceptable and this is how people in the party should behave.

They hate America so they go anti-American, anti-Israel,

anti-Jewish. He has to get called in saying that America is fine, Israel

is OK. They are confusing a latent prejudice about something secular...

Digby, I want to move this conversation. Jeremy Corbyn said at

the Labour Party conference, let me be absolutely clear, anti-Semitism

is an evil. So he should do something.

Tommy? Everyone agrees that everybody has the right to live

without prejudice, some people say they don't want to accept the blame

for previous generations. Thank you very much, Tommy. I

Edwina, I saw it. Briefly... Steam out of the is. It is not a question

of guilt, it is a question of responsibility. That includes

identifying those saying anti-Semitic stuff and confronting

it. You had to confront it. Communities need to come together to

have a deeper understanding of each other's faiths, but also each other

as communities. We need to have hawkish vision and responsibility,

civic responsibility, as well as politicians and media owning up.

Deesha Chadha? It is beyond anti-Semitism, and now affects other

communities and religious organisations. The thing I want to

say is that people feel affected, they need to report these incidents.

That is incredibly important. Digby? I think programmes like this

happen, and it is good. This is where it starts. It now needs to go

out, to call it what it is. Take it to the awful people doing this,

whatever their religion or party. I never thought he would have this

wonderful country of ours, this tyrant place where people have come

over centuries because we have these values, I never thought in 2016 we

would need this conversation -- this wonderful country about this, this

tyrant place. We have to be vigilant, if we let this out of the

bottle again we will be back in 1939 before we know where we are. Thank

you for your thoughts and comments. That's just about all

from us for today, Tomorrow is the start

of the Islamic New Year and to mark # Every time that

I need you by my side # Every time I lose my way

in life # You're my circle of life,

compass and guide # And it's me you're depending on

tables finally turn # I'll always be there,

like you've been there # I swear, I swear

me closer, I'll be right over # It don't matter where

I am # I'll always care for you,

go anywhere for you # I swear, ooh

I'll be right over # And your feelings hit a wall

when I just don't want to talk # The love you've raised

inside this family # Everything that I do

is to make you proud # I just want to say

it, and say it loud # You're my heat when I'm

cold # The place I call

home, and always will be # I promise anytime you call me

I'll be there for you, for you # I'll always be there,

like you've been there # I swear, I swear

I'll be right over # It don't matter where

I am # I'll always care for you,

go anywhere for you