Episode 17 Sunday Morning Live

With the so-called Jungle in Calais set for destruction

by French authorities, more young migrants

We ask is it racist to want tougher checks on them?

The army wants to recruit more soldiers,

but a charity says they shouldn't be signing up 16-year-olds.

wouldn't say I am old enough to join the army because I am not that

responsible. It might be a good way to steer people into a job.

Newspaper criticism of a TV reporter wearing a hijab while covering

a terror incident is free speech, says a watchdog.

Is the press entitled to be offensive?

And former teenage heart-throb Donny Osmond tells Nikki Bedi how it

I didn't do anything but everybody rejected me after loving me for so

many years. It is just excruciatingly painful, emotionally,

because you walk around and you are thinking what are they saying about

me? Our panel is here,

and so is Tommy Sandhu, who'll be We love you to get involved with the

show. That is the people at home covered.

The panel is your responsibility. Thank you. I will take that with

great grace! Esther Rantzen is a

broadcaster and campaigner. James Delingpole is

a columnist and novelist. Myriam Francois-Cerrah

is a journalist Myriam Francois-Cerrah

and Neil Wallis is a former deputy Young migrants arrived

in Britain this week from the so-called Jungle camp

near Calais as part of a resettlement programme

for unaccompanied minors. They have been welcomed by some but

also welcomed with a storm of controversy.

How young are they was the main question being asked.

A Tory MP was branded a racist for asking for dental

checks to prove age, and sports presenter Gary Lineker

kicked off a social media frenzy by saying the reaction

to the new arrivals was hideously racist.

We'll hear what our guests think about this issue in a moment.

First let's hear what's happening at the camp in Calais today

from Simon Jones, who joins us live now.

Good morning. Good morning. These are the dying days of the Jungle.

Absolutely squalid conditions here. Rats, mud, and if you look over

there, you can see some of the building is just falling apart. It

is thought this is home to at unaccompanied children. Do Jackson

helps to support the migrants here. How worried are you with the

bulldozers about to come in? We are really worried, particularly about

the children. Everybody here is vulnerable and fleeing from

something. You wouldn't live in these conditions unless you had to.

The children in particular, a lot of them are still here and we are

desperately worried about getting them out over the next week. It is

proving controversial and taking a long time. Why is that? I think we

started too late. It was only the last week that we

saw children getting out. In particular under the Dublin

agreement, children with strong links to the UK, being allowed to

get out, that has been slow, ten or 20 a day, which is not enough to

handle the 1000 children hear properly. Yesterday we saw children

without links to the UK being started to be sent over but that was

just 50 and we just hope they all get out this week. What do you say

to people who say that these children with no links to the UK

should be looked after by France? I don't mind whether France or the UK

looks after them but what is important if they get looked after

because they are incredibly vulnerable. You have seen the

conditions here. This is no place for a child. Whether they are of 16,

17, 18, 19, it is no place for people of that age. They don't know

how to handle it and they don't know how to handle themselves. Thank you.

Charities will be giving out via today saying it is really time to

leave but there is a big question over where children will go in the

long term. Thank you. Some people have called

the reaction to the migrants It is certainly obvious that

dehumanising language has been used when it comes to migrants and

refugees. People coming from war-torn zones, very vulnerable

individuals, in this case children. We have heard of marauding hordes,

swarms, and a serious columnist at The Sun talking about cockroaches.

When you are looking at a situation of violence, you need a language of

dehumanisation to proceed at, which we are seeing. Combine that with the

fact the UK is only willing to take in 20,000 Syrian refugees over five

years, that is approximately 4000 people to a population of 65 million

in this country, so not exactly a country that seems very welcoming to

refugees. The case specifically of child refugees, David Davies, the MP

who talked about dental checks, he is not exactly a paediatrician who

knows the best means to ascertain the age of a child. I think it is

right that we should determine the age of children coming into the UK,

not least for their own welfare, because then we can determine if

they need foster care, what level of education that can be inserted into,

what support network they can be given when they arrive, but it is

not for an MP who has no idea how to determine this to call for it. And

we had the response of the royal college of Paediatricians, who said

dental checks are not the most effective way of doing this because

there are three to five years leeway either side. But when an MP is

talking about dental checks, that is very different to an expert saying

this is the best way to determine the age of children. Was it right to

talk about dental checks? We can talk about the rights and wrongs and

how many refugees and migrants Britain should take in every year

but this is a separate issue. You have got people pretending to be

children to bypass the immigration system, to cheat it in other words.

They lie about their age. They destroy their passports. Some people

coming in pretending to be children, we can't be sure because their body

has done the proper checks, but they are estimated to be as old as the

G8. They will dental -- as old as 38. The issue is seriously flawed.

The problem is that if people pretend to be children and social

services have got to accept them as children, then we have got men

children, grown-ups being imposed on local schools, having to be looked

after by foster parents, who should be looking after real children. And

also they have a corrupting effect on the real children that they share

a home with. If you are 25-year-old man, you will be more sexually

sophisticated, more into booze, and it is not good for the children who

have got to live with them. Interesting assumptions being made

there. I see recoiling at those comments. You are right. That is a

hypothesis that is monster rising people. What interests me most about

this, you know the dubs amendment? He is an interesting man. I did a

piece about a man called Sir Nicholas Winton, who was responsible

for getting the only Jewish children who survived the holocaust in Prague

out into British families, and one of those children was Lord Dubbs and

I am thrilled that Winton's humanity survives in our desire to look after

these children. I was talking to somebody who runs a charity in the

circle Jungle in Calais yesterday. She told me about her concerns about

them when they come to this country. They will be alone, some of the

children that came over from the holocaust were not necessarily very

well treated. We have got to keep a duty of care. I am not interested in

the mythology about people with stubbled cheeks having sexual

majority. I think that is my asthma in your brain, James. -- miasma.

There is a subtle difference between what happened in 1938 in Germany

went to was children who were certainly going to death camps were

rescued by Britain, which is to our eternal credit. It is different when

grown-ups are coming to Calais to cheat the immigration system. France

is not Nazi Germany, it is not a war zone. What about Syria? I have

accompanied miners in Calais and don't just take my word for it when

I tell you they are fleeing extreme conditions, not just children but

the adults in the area. But Unicef reports points to the real dangers

facing children in these camps. Trafficking, sexual assault,

violence of all varieties. This might just be me, but there is

possibly a risk of as letting in a few people over the age in question,

but to do that to protect an overarching number of children

vulnerable to trafficking and sexual trafficking, I would say that is

worth the risk. I want this to be a panel discussion. Neil, the point

being made there, letting in a few rotten eggs to help the greater

good? You know the real point here, don't you? A lovely long speech from

the liberal elite sitting in comfortable London. I have known

Esther Rantzen for many years, a lovely woman, liberal, expansive,

let's be worthy, etc. Part of the issue we have got here is that the

people watching at home do not connect with this. Do not connect

with what? The reality is that there is a huge disconnect between the

liberal life here in London and how people are outside. That is a

reality... People are reacting to this. They are, but with respect,

they are not only talking about this from this position. Let's have some

facts. The Home Office, who are wonderfully copping this up as

usual, have admitted that 60% of those who have applied to come here

as children have turned out to be phonies. They haven't. That is a

misreading of the statistics. It isn't true. Yesterday it turned out

that roughly 50% of those who have come here have turned out not to be

children. I have a very clear position on this. If these children

are entitled to be here, then of course they should be. If they are

real children, they should be here. But let's have some reality. You

talk about Syria and war zones, they are not actually. They have

travelled all the way across Europe and they are in a safe country

called France. Why are they not in children's homes in France? Why

don't we want them here? Those statistics are wrong. You say that.

I do. Let me finish. They are based on those about whom there is some

dispute. When there are told about whom there is some dispute about

their age, 60% of them, as you say, but that is a tiny minority of the

children who are currently... It is not 60% of all the children, it is

60% of a tiny minority. Most of the children are obviously children and

are being looked after and fostered here. The Home Office ought to be

more open about it. We could look after more. They are children and

their privacy has got to be protected. If this was your child in

a vulnerable situation, you might not want to seek... Let's be

finished. I wouldn't want to see my child's face. They are not the same

as those coming through the other day. You are guessing and there are

clearly children, which you will accept, and so on that basis,

certainly their identity should be protected, as with any children. If

we make the assumption they are children until they go through the

appropriate checks... And you say there is no transparency but

actually The Home Office is very transparent. I don't know if you

have bothered to read it but I have. There is clear outlining of how

people assess the age of the children in question. There is the

Merton test when there is a dispute of the age. These people are experts

in determining the age of children and they do know how. If you think

there are lots of tests, I would love to see them working for a

change. It is estimated in the last ten years that 5000 grown-ups

pretending to be children got through our system. Although there

are deportation systems in place, they are never actually used. I

think 40,000 refugees, well, immigrants, last year were lined up

for deportation but they don't get deported because the system is

broken. We are not here this morning to talk about how many refugees we

should take in. We are talking very specifically about these migrants

pretending to be children in order to abuse the Dublin agreement. That

is what you are talking about. I am talking about the fact that in this

country we are demonising children. A lot of them are. Judge How do you

think this issue has got to this point where we are asking if this is

racist? That's a really important question. I will tell you how it

happens. It is because here in London these lovely comfy people

demonise what ordinary viewers, ordinary readers of newspapers,

ordinary people have concerns about. The fact that people have concerns

does not make them racist. It does not make them xenophobic. Just a

minor thing, again, it was mentioned about dental checks. There's a

reality here. There are 28 states in the EU. 24 of those states use some

kind of medical test to verify the age of potential immigrants. So we

are in a minority. I think Malta is one of the other ones. Most

countries out there actually use these medical tests. And so should

we, because the voice of ordinary people deserveses to be heard.

You've been sending us your texts and tweets on this.

Let's hear some of your reactions from Tommy.

By far the majority of people are saying that identity checks should

be in place, and how that doesn't make us racist.

Ester, I don't think Miriam and I are against identifying the age of

children. For all the reasons she said, it is in the children's

interests. That's what Miriam and I are trying to protect. Don't

demonise us as liberal. I don't know what your politics are, Miriam, and

you don't know what mine ar. I was an independent candidate in Louthton

South, very up successful. Nobody knew which side of the fence I was.

I am pro child. If you have an unaccompanied child, whether or not

they have links in this country, as the children who came over from the

Holocaust did not have, I say welcome them. And they will repay

us. How do I know? Because I'm a member of a Jewish community where

so many of the outstanding and distinguished people owe everything

to this country and have never forgotten it. Like Nikki Winterton

himself. Let's remember James' valid point. We took those children in.

They faced death in death camps. This is not the same. We didn't know

that at the time. In Si, 815,000 people? Except France and Calais

isn't Syria. There's a simple answer to this. Again, James touched on it.

If you want to come here and you have a genuine case, how many of

those children who've come all the way from the war zones, who have

travelled through all of those countries in Europe, who've made

that journey, somehow they've made it alone. That's another subject. If

you ask a genuine candidate to come here, if we, if you would agree to a

simple test to verify your age, would you agree? Any genuine

immigrant is going to, who is entitled to come here, who has a

genuine case, will say, me first. If they were deemed to be effective,

yes of course. Those countries think it is effective. We are the

minority. Along with Malta. Let her make her point. Two points. The

reason many of them are in Calais, and I have done many reports from

Calais and spoken to the children in question, they have family members

in this country and want to be reunited with the people they know.

If you have fled war thousands of miles away, you probably want to try

and resettle somewhere where you have a connection. But the second

point was about the Home Office checks. There are multiple checks,

physiological, psychological, documentary, and the Merton test,

experienced social workers looking at the child's educational

background, their level of development. Children from war zones

do not look your your children, because they've been through war.

They don't look like children? No, because they've been through a lot.

Your level of maturity and how you look is different. The debate in

this country over refugees only shifted when a white child's body

washed up on the shore. That's when the debate in this country changed.

It is only when the children look like yours that you are prepared to

make changes. We have to have compassion, surely. On that note,

I'm going to stop that conversation for the moment. Thank you. I'm sure

you've struck a chord with many people at home.

Still to come on Sunday Morning Live:

Muyiwa and Riversongz are here with some African music

Unusually for the BBC we are going to take a quick commercial break.

In the Army you get paid to develop new skills that will set you up for

life... That's a flavour of one

of the army's latest recruiting ads. But there's been criticism this week

about 16 and 17-year-olds The public health charity Medact

says that teenage army recruits are more vulnerable to trauma,

alcohol abuse, self-harm, and death during an armed forces

career when compared to adults. So should the army

recruit 16-year-olds? Samanthi Flanagan has

been sampling views. I'm in Liverpool, a city where youth

unemployment levels are well above the national average. One employer

is still recruiting across the UK is the early, but some people question

the minimum recruitment age of 16. So, how young is too young to sign

up? Tell me, do you know what age you can join up to the Army at? .

It's usually 18. Is it 18? 18, is it? I thought it was 16. I think

it's 2016. It is 16. Do you think that's a suitable age or is that too

young? It is a bit too young. It is about maturity. You are not really

man and you are going and doing manly things. No harm in it. It is a

good thing. It teaches them how to behave. Having been an Army wife and

seen young kids getting killed, getting maimed, no, for a mother and

I think for any woman it is heartbreaking to see young kids

going as basically what I call cannon fodder. What age are you

guys? 15. 16. Do you think you are ready to make a decision like that?

I wouldn't say I'm old enough to join the Army, because I'm not that

responsibility. Taking on that big a responsibility it just wouldn't be

right. I do think that perhaps some kind of national service, because I

think young people need self discipline. Possibly some students

will waste time going to university, it costs them a lot of money and

they can't find work, so the Army is a good outlet for them and they get

careers out of it. If your child wanted to join, what do you think? I

wouldn't like them to. Possibly the safety. Will they come back? Do you

think the age should be raised? Yes, I believe it should. At least 18.

You're old enough at 18 to vote, so if you are old enough to help with

the economy, you should be old enough to give your life. But 16 is

too early. It does them good, it gets that aggravation out of them.

Even at 16 you wouldn't be concerned No, not at all. I think better there

than on the streets. Joining us for this discussion

is Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Lane, a former Commanding Officer

of the Army Foundation College, Rachel Taylor, who is

the programme manager at Child Soldiers International,

and down the line from our newsroom is Colonel Johnny Blair-Tidewell,

a spokesperson for the You've worked in training

recruits under 18. Do you agree with this report

that they are more likely to suffer I would say from my experiences that

that's not something I recognise. I think the reality is that the junior

soldiers who come to the Army get more training. Than just about any

other recruit that goes through the system. And that preparation is

fundamental. Do they get more training because they are considered

to be vulnerable? I think in part, yes. And also that the Army is

absolutely obligated to getting soldiers to their units as close to

18 as possible. Possible. Noting that none of them can deploy on

operations until they are over 18. Rachel, you campaign against the

recruitment of people under the age of 18. Your view on this report. We

work closely with men act on this report, on Medact from this report.

From statistics from the Ministry of Defence and health professionals and

veterans and families we've spoken to is that it is the youngest and

the most vulnerable recruits who suffer the worst consequences as a

result of enlisting at that age. Precisely because coming into the

Armed Forces young, coming into that very pressurised environment, a

dangerous, physically dangerous environment, it affects them more

because they don't have the same resources to fullback on. It is

often presented by the MOD as this golden opportunity for young people

to gain education and training they wouldn't get anywhere else. But the

fact is the armed forces are exempt from legislation on educational

standards. They are exempt from pretty much all of the child welfare

legislation in this country, so the education you will get if you enlist

at 16 is of a lower standard and a narrower bredth than in any other

context in this country. A 16-year-old hairdressing trainee

will get higher qualifications than they would get if they enlisted in

the Army as an infantry soldier. Stuart? My experience is, we train

two cohorts. One is over a year, and they're those predominantly going to

the combat arms, and those going to technical for the six months. That's

because the second round of training for those in technical field can be

anywhere up to two years long. Those in the combat do a shorter length of

training. So in the case of an infant eer, four months. Our date

that showed that 74% of those joining the combat arms had a

literacy and numeracy rate below that of an 11-year-old. -Old. 2% sat

in the five-year bracket. They can't articulate themselves on paper. They

draw sketches, so somewhere along the line they have been failed. Yet

in 10 weeks of actual study time we get 100% to a City and Guilds level

1 literacy and numeracy. That's a GCSE equivalent, sort of, of a G to

D grade. You are talking about the level of education people get. But

often when people ask about recruitment they are thinking about

combat and the environment that children, or 1818s, are in. I have

never forgotten ChildLine listening to a killed of 16 talking about his

experiences in the Army. He had rung the helpline 08001111, he felt very

lonely. And I think it is a bit absurd actually. I belong to a

generation where there was national service but that was at 18. I do

think that it would be sensible, would it not, to move the age of

recruitment up top the age whenner considered old enough to sign a

contract, because 18... You get phone calls on ChildLine from

children bullied in school or their community. The trouble is when you

are in the Army there is no escape. This was the concern the kid had,

that the bullying, as it does with cyber bullying, but the bullying was

all around him. But it's not really that I'm concerned about. We though

that the emotional age of someone of 16, the neuroscience shows us that

the wires aren't joined up in your head. So if you get an emotional

impact of a very unhappy experience, if you are asked to make decisions

which are beyond you, you are still a child. Let's find out what

happens. Colonel Johnny Blair-Tidewell is a spokesman for

the Ministry of Defence. You've been listening to this discussion. Your

views, once you are in you can't escape, understand at that age you

are not wired the same way you are perhaps a couple of years older and

as well prepared to cope with the pressures of military life? Thank

you, I would say three things. First of all recruiting from 16 to 18 A

troop is necessary for the armed forces. It is legal and it is

voluntary. If I turn to that specific question about people being

perhaps able to make the right decision at that age, that's why

parental consent is required throughout the recruiting process.

It is not just the individual 17 or 16-year-old but The Guardian or

parent. It is a joint decision they are making to start a career in the

Armed Forces. Once a 16-year-old or 17-year-old joins the Armed Forces

there are special provisions in place to enable them to determine

their service. What we mean is that they are able to leave after a short

period of notice if they find they just don't suit the environment they

find themselves in. That's an absolute right. That's part of the

protection, part of the reason why recruiting 16 to 18-year-olds is

legal. James, your reaction? We seem to be living in an age where we like

to pathologise childhood. We are always talking about think of the

children. I think children are often a lot more resilient than we give

them credit for. You have to think that there were 13-year-old

midshipmen on the Victory at the Battle of Trafalgar, drummer boys

kept the formations moving at the Battle of Waterloo. And I imagine

they were petrified. I'm not suggesting we good back to that.

Children were used as runners and stretcher bearers at the siege of

Mafikeng. I'm not saying it is for everybody. I did CCF at school and

found it boring but some children really enjoyed it. For a certain

kind of 16-year-old, not all, the Army can become your family. We've

heard that they are allowed to stop if they don't want to do it. I think

statistics show that 16-year-olds stay in the Army longer than people

who join when they are older. I don't think there is anything wrong

with that. It is typical we are getting left-wing charities with to

think of the children game and this excuse, think of the military, which

is what people do. Some children can benefit from the

structure, from the military, being focused on and not left behind.

Children who slip through the gaps of normal education. Yes, that is

the response we often get from spokespeople. It is very misleading.

Well, they can drop out. They can drop out within certain restrictions

and they have got to give a three-month notice period. Children

cannot withdraw consent after they have enlisted. It doesn't mean you

leave and go back to your normal life as if it was a job like any

other. The ones that analyst at 16, one in three drop out within a year.

-- the ones that join at 16. They are unemployed, no qualifications,

at high risk of becoming long-term unemployed. The youngest veterans

are most likely to be long-term unemployed. If you take two

16-year-old boys with the same academic and social background, at

school in Morpeth, and one of them are lists and the other doesn't, the

one who listed is twice as likely to become long-term unemployed as the

one that didn't, precisely because the education they are getting does

not beat the standards they would get everywhere else. In the past,

16-year-olds probably got an equivalent level of education and

training as young people elsewhere but that is not the case any more.

Since the education and skills act 2008, 16 to 20 rolls have got to be

in education and get high high level of education. In terms of leaving, a

soldier under training can leave at any point. Without giving three

months notice? Yes, you have got to give three months. When I was

commanding officer at Harrogate, any soldier could leave at any time.

Why? Because this is our profession. We know we are called upon to do

things that for many are distasteful. So we have got to deal

with the reality of conflict. The last thing any of us wants to do as

commanders is put people in a situation they can't handle.

Selection, training, the support they get after they return from

operations is fundamental. If a soldier is dissatisfied within the

unit under training, it doesn't make sense to retain him or her. It

doesn't. It has an effect on everyone else and it is not right

for us. That is the whole point of training. Secondly when it comes to

education, what the army offers is not just a qualification. It also

offers life skills and we are building character. We are building

adults that this country can be proud of. Let's see what the country

and our viewers think about this. We have got some texts and tweets. On

that last point: A variety of views. Lieutenant

Colonel Johnny Blair-Tidewell, some of those comments saying they are

not physically mature enough at the age of 16 and one person said child

abuse. What is your reaction? If I can just go back to something that

Rachel mentioned, which is the standard of education. Although the

armed forces are exempt from the 2008 education act, they do comply

with it. 16 to 18-year-olds do receive the required number of hours

as they go through their training and that is a statement of fact. The

second thing is it takes a long time for people to mature and I don't

think 18 is necessarily a cut. It can in some cases take people

longer. What the armed forces offer is a really intensive education,

training opportunities and environment, which is actually there

to care for them. We are not talking about a population as vulnerable as

some of the speakers this morning have suggested. Thank you very much.

We could have continued this for much longer, I am sure. And Rachel,

we do acknowledge your reaction disagreeing with the Lieutenant

Colonel. Thank you for your comments and keep them coming in. Donny

Donny Osmond has been a performer for more than 50 years.

He was singing on network television in America at the age of five.

Since then he's sold 100 million records.

He joined other members of his family to form The Osmonds,

a group which became a phenomenal worldwide success.

Nikki Bedi went to meet Donny to discover

that there were bad times as well as moments of superstardom.

When you toured the UK in the 1970s, you practically brought the country

to a standstill, no exaggeration. What do you think it was about you

that caused that hysteria? Can you pinpoint it? I would like to think

there was some talent involved! I guess I was at the right place at

the right time with the right look and the Wright brothers. With Puppy

Love, Sweet And Innocent, I really hate that prepubescent teen and got

that message. We worked hard at what we did. -- we really hit the

pre-praise prepubescent teen. They just got the message at the right

time. # Love me for a reason... You were

in a rock and roll world. Where your beliefs and your faith ever tested?

I was about 16 when I thought I was a hypocrite. I told everybody I was

a Mormon and I didn't know what I believed, so I started studying. I

really started figuring it out. That is when I got my testimony that this

is exactly what I want to do in my life. It is going to ground me and

give me a relief and respect for deity and a purpose in life. It has

really helped me in my life. This excess of The Book Of Mormon,, if

you don't take it too seriously it is quite funny. -- this success. I

do agree that you shouldn't take yourself too seriously but I do take

God seriously. # We would like to share with you

this book of Jesus Christ. Do you know what the groups of Mormons did

here? They were outside the theatre. There were huge adverts throughout

the underground, saying with a moment and we are for you. Isn't it

great that the Mormon church didn't shy away from that. They said you

have seen the play, someone's interpretation, now read the book

and get your own testimony of whether it is true or not.

# And they called it puppy love. # I guess they will never know.

Let's talk about Popular Of. You had an image and the world adored you.

What about when it went away? That was when it got hard. I didn't do

anything but everybody rejected me after loving me for so many years.

It is just a natural thing that takes place. What you liked when you

were 13 years old, when you become 17, 18, 19, that is for little kids.

All teen idols go through this, excruciatingly painful emotionally.

I would go into the studio and I would record demos. I would ask

producers if they had anything for me to sing because I believed in my

talent. Just give me something to sing. Eventually that is when Peter

Gabriel came into my life and said, you have got a great voice. I have

never bought your records! Even Peter said that. But you have got a

good voice. What are you doing with your career? I told him I sob story.

He said, know what? Let's go and experiment. He gave me the hit,

Soldier Of Love. It took off and I never looked back.

# It is the state of the heart when you are soldier of love. Your

upcoming tour for the UK, January and February dates, you will be

performing from the album Sound Check To My Life. This is my 60th

album and not many people can say they have done 60. This is just for

me. Really personal. I want to cover some songs that influenced my life

had made me who I am today. # The long and winding road.

# That leads to your door. What I would love for you to tell us is why

you have put The Long And Winding Road on the album. I was in France

in the 60s in a hotel and I opened the door and Paul McCartney was

standing there with his daughter Mary, asking for an autograph. That

is a terrible accent! Forgive me. I said yes and he hands a picture of

me. He says put to Mary. There you go. Thank you very much. The door

closes and fast forward 15 years and I am in London and Paul is in the

adjacent studio. I thought I have got to verify this story. I walk in

and I say, hi, how are you doing? I say, Paul, did it happen or did I

dream about it? He said, not only did it happen, but you autograph is

one of the very few autographs I have asked for in my entire life. As

a child I believe you wanted to be the first person to sing on the

moon. You know this story! When they landed on the moon in 68, 69, I

remember watching on television. You know how little kids dream. I wanted

to be one of the first thing is on the moon. I think Buzz Aldrin told

me this story. They said one of the Apollo missions, they took a tape of

Andy Williams singing Aquarius. # Are you Lonesome tonight?

A television reporter became the news herself this week

when she said that an open season for criticism of Muslims

and minorities had effectively been declared by a decision

Fatima Manji, along with 1,700 other people,

complained to IPSO about an article by Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie

after the terror attack in Nice in July which killed 86 people.

He criticised Channel 4 News for using a presenter wearing

Theresa May has promised Britain will redouble its efforts to defeat

brutal terrorist murders, warning that a similar attack in the UK is

highly likely. The press regulator said that although his views were

offensive to some, he is entitled to express his views under free speech.

Is the press entitled to be offensive?

We're joined now by Joseph Harker, the deputy opinion editor

at The Guardian, and rejoining us is Neil Wallis,

the former deputy editor of the News of the World.

Have IPSO, the press regulator, proved themselves to be weak

by taking no action against Kelvin MacKenzie?

I think the way you have phrased that is interesting. The way that

IPSO have defended themselves is interesting. They are being thrown

against the clarion calls of the Guardian and the BBC, taking away

free speech but everyone else but keeping it for themselves. The truth

is it is an important ruling because one of the freedoms of the press is

the freedom to be offensive. I may say something, you may say something

that I deem to be deeply offensive. But if you are not breaking the law,

then you are allowed to say it. It was attributed to Voltaire and I

don't think it was him, but the great phrase about I detest what you

say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it, that holds

true. It holds true particularly at this time, in the circumstances of

this country. Kelvin MacKenzie could have said completely the opposite

and he would have had complaints. People are allowed to have opinions.

And a great part of the problem that we have in this country at the

moment is the fact that you are not allowed to have an opinion unless it

goes with that supposedly mainstream.

Let's get the view from the Guardian, one of the institutions

you mentioned were screeching. I'm not here on behalf of the Guardian.

I'm free so say what I want. Good. You always here about free speech,

but let's be real here. Free speech always have restrictions.

Restrictions. There are laws on libel and on contempt of court which

restrict what you can say. Free speech is not an absolute. Not only

that but after the Leveson Inquiry the press set up the IPSO, IPSO, to

oversee the press and it has an editorial code. And that editorial

code imposes further restrictions on what the press can and can't say. So

to claim it is all about free speech is ridiculous. The press have

willingly signed up to regulation which is restrict what they can say.

One of those regulations quite clearly prohibits comment which is

prejudicial to people by virtue of their religion. Clearly what Kelvin

MacKenzie said was prejudicial to Fatima Manji on behalf of her

religion, because he said, if it appropriate that a Muslim woman

should be covering the story of Nice? She was doing her job. He was

asking the question and IPSO cleared him of any wrongdoing. Do you

disagree with the ruling? I disagree with Kelvin MacKenzie. What is even

worse is IPSO's ruling. It goes, it flies in the face of the editors o

own code of practice and it there are institutionalises what Kelvin

MacKenzie said and makes it OK. It basically enforces and says to the

national press that bigotry is fine in the national press. This is rich

coming from a newspaper... Let him finish. Can I point out that IPSO,

if you go to its website it has 25 members of staff on the board, the

complaints committee and senior staff. Only one of them is from

anneth thing minority background. On the complaints committee not a

single one is ethnic minority. I'm not saying white people are not

entitle to judge on this but it shows you how out of touch this

organisation it is and how insensitive it is on minority

issues. Let's make this a discussion shall we? Esther, one of the points

is IPSO is upholding bigotry. Well, if I was looking for an epitome of

taste, sensitivity and empathy I wouldn't go to Kelvin MacKenzie and

even if he hadn't called me appalling names in the past. Do you

think he has a right to express a view? Yes, I do. Do I think he was

being offensive? Yes, I do. Do I think that this has sparked off a

very interesting debate? Yes, I do, because not all Muslims are

terrorists. It is very important, I think, that a Muslim woman should

sit there reporting objectively about an appalling terrorist event.

I think it makes the point that I would like to see made more often

and more loudly that terrorists are offending against Islam as much as

they are offending against the rest of the world. So, I actually, on

this occasion, the jury is out on this particular regulator. I'm not

convinced that they are strong enough or objective enough, but on

this particular ruling, I think that it has produced a fruitful debate.

Myriam, the job of a columnist surely is to provoke ideas. This is

what Kelvin MacKenzie that done and sparked discussion? Discussion?.

Yes, but there's a context to everything we say in the public

sphere and Kelvin MacKenzie is speaking in a context in which

there's a huge spike in hate crimes against Muslims in this country.

According to one of the regulators a 300% increase, over that figure, in

London. The Met Police cuts a doubling of the number of hate

crimes against Muslims. The incidents are manifold but, point

that's important to draw out here is Fatima Manji is a journalist who

happens to be a Muslim. To suggest that by virtue of being a Muslim she

would have any sympathy with terrorists the is extremely

problematic and also draws a line between any Muslim, anyone visibly

identified as Muslim, as potentially sympathising with terrorists. If you

suggest that somebody isn't appropriate to report on a terrorist

attack because they are Muslim, what are you saying, that they

potentially sympathise with the terrorists? I don't know what other

implication we are supposed to draw out from this. And that's within a

broader climate in which they are assumption of Muslims holding views

on this. A third of the victims were Muslims. The first victim as was a

Muslim in a headscarf, called Fatima. We are asking if the press

has a right to be offensive. As a former deputy editor of News of the

World give us an insight into what columnists are told to do. The idea

is to get people thinking. I think we do need to come back to your

point. This is a debate about press freedom. We've had two speeches here

about the reporting of Muslim issues. This is an issue about free

speech. Kelvin MacKenzie could just have easily be writing about the

American elections. He could just as easily, trust me, be offensive on

that or a number of issues. This is about whether or not freedom of

speech, freedom of the press, includes the right to be fence itch,

for instance, so, for instance, I found it incredibly offensive every

time I have watched Channel 4 News interview Anjem Choudary and allowed

him to spout his hate and his bile. I've been appalled, my friend over

here is the deputy comment editor. I think you've allowed him your

columns in your columns to spout his hate and bile. I don't think he's

ever written for us. Well, in that case I apologise, but he's written

for a variety of people. Do you know what? I hated the idea that your

readers at home had his revolting views exposed to them. But you know

what? That's freedom of speech. While you keep within the law. So

what about Charlie Hebdo? That was offensive. Deeply, deeply offensive

that I that cartoon newspaper to millions upon millions of Muslims.

Not just about Muslims. They were offensive about everything. Did that

justify them being massacred? There are a myriad examples of where

people in Holland... I'm going to stop you listing examples because I

want to get the views of our viewers. Freedom of speech. Freedom

to offend. I want to come back to the editors' code.

Tommy, tell us what our viewers are saying.

Joseph, tell me was restrictions you are given at the Guardian when it

comes to expressing an opinion. It was something that was clearly

racist or extremist, we wouldn't run the piece. Or we would edit it so

those extremists forms are taken out. We wouldn't publish Kelvin

MacKenzie's article. Can I remind Neil of what the code says, the

press must avoid pejorative reference to an individual's race or

religion. You have read the piece? I have. I will quote it. He talked

about the ordinary viewer, he looked at the hijab as slavery of women,

with all the major terrorist outrages in the world currently

being carried out by Muslims I think the rest of us are reasonably

entitled to have concerns about what is beating in their religious

hearts. In other words, he is saying that 1.5 billion Muslims around the

world are under suspicion because of the outrages... This is an

example... You are not hearing me. Joseph, no. We have a time issue

here. Enough. I apologise for shutting down this discussion. But I

have to. That's just about all

from us for today. It's frustrating, I know, but time

is against us. It's Black History Month,

a celebration of black history, Here to mark it for us we have

Muyiwa and Riversongz, singing in the Igbo

language of Nigeria. Their song is titled Imela,

which means "thank you". # I will sing of the Lord's

great love forever more. # With my mouth I will shout

for joy forever more. # I will sing of the Lord's

great love forever more. # With my mouth I will shout

for joy forever more. # I will sing of the Lord's

great love forever more. # With my mouth I will shout

for joy forever more. # Imela, Imela, Imela,

you feel that stm Imela. # I will sing of the Lord's great

love forever more. # With my mouth I will shout

for joy forever more. # I will sing of the Lord's great

love forever more. # With my mouth I will shout

for joy forever more.