:00:01. > :00:08.With me in London tonight, the former Deputy Prime Minister, John
:00:08. > :00:11.Prescott. The Conservative David Davis, former Shadow Home Secretary.
:00:11. > :00:15.Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick, who stood for Mayor of London after
:00:15. > :00:19.retiring from the Metropolitan Police. The Archbishop of York,
:00:19. > :00:29.John Sentamu. The founder of the charity Kids Company, Camila
:00:29. > :00:37.
:00:37. > :00:41.Batmanghelidjh. And the editor of Thank you. Before I go to the first
:00:41. > :00:46.question, with no respected David Davis, you may be wondering why
:00:46. > :00:49.there is no Cabinet minister on this important occasion. We did ask
:00:49. > :00:54.for a Cabinet minister to join the panel tonight and not one of them
:00:54. > :00:58.would agree to come. Just in case you are curious. They were all in
:00:58. > :01:02.the House of Commons today. All of them in the debate. Just so that
:01:02. > :01:07.you know, because it is a surprise they are not here. Our first
:01:07. > :01:10.question from William Brewster. a resident of Clapham Junction, I
:01:10. > :01:14.felt very exposed as I waited for the police to arrive on Monday
:01:14. > :01:18.night. How are we going to make sure the police are not outflanked
:01:18. > :01:24.again as we return to normal policing levels. No longer with
:01:24. > :01:28.16,000 police on the streets of London. David Davis. One of the big
:01:28. > :01:32.concerns was not just how late they arrived but even when the police
:01:32. > :01:38.got to the site of the looting and the rioting there was what appeared
:01:38. > :01:42.to be, anyway, and order to stand back, to allow the violence and the
:01:42. > :01:45.crime to go on. One of the lessons that David Cameron made clear in
:01:45. > :01:51.the House today, one of the lessons that has been learned from this is
:01:51. > :01:56.that the way you police a mass criminal activity, which is what
:01:56. > :02:00.this has been, is very different from the way you police and
:02:00. > :02:03.ordinary demonstration. This is completely different. The police
:02:03. > :02:06.who operate under so-called public- order policing rules, which are
:02:06. > :02:10.designed not to deal with this. In future, I hope we will see that
:02:10. > :02:13.when the police get there they will intervene before, all whilst the
:02:13. > :02:19.crime is taking place and not wait until afterwards, leaving us to
:02:19. > :02:22.clear up the mess. Do you agree with David Cameron, that the police
:02:22. > :02:26.chiefs have actually said they made a mistake here? I am sure that is
:02:26. > :02:28.right. They were operating under a set of rules which were really
:02:28. > :02:33.designed for demonstrations which might go wrong but are generally
:02:33. > :02:41.peaceful. This was not that at all. This was a mass Quim of outbreak.
:02:41. > :02:44.Very different. Brian Paddick, how come this would happen. The first
:02:44. > :02:48.thing to say is that I think that if the disturbances in Tottenham on
:02:48. > :02:51.Saturday night were handled properly, if they had sufficient
:02:51. > :02:54.officers there - and it should not have been a surprise because when I
:02:54. > :02:58.was Police commander in Brixton we had somebody shot by the police, a
:02:58. > :03:02.peaceful demonstration turned into a riot - there was no excuse for
:03:02. > :03:06.not having sufficient officers on duty in Tottenham on Saturday night.
:03:06. > :03:10.If we had had that, and if the officers had acted, rather than
:03:10. > :03:14.standing back - we saw the pictures on the television of officers
:03:14. > :03:21.standing back and allowing people to go looting - then I do not think
:03:21. > :03:24.we would have a copycat violence in Clapham Junction or anywhere else.
:03:24. > :03:28.As far as the specific question, these crowds were organising
:03:28. > :03:33.themselves using social network, using Twitter, Facebook, BlackBerry
:03:33. > :03:40.Messenger. Why weren't the police on Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry
:03:40. > :03:43.Messenger, getting one step ahead of the crowds? You are very
:03:43. > :03:49.critical of your former colleagues. Where do you think it has gone
:03:49. > :03:52.wrong with the Met? They have lost a lot of experience at the top of
:03:52. > :03:56.the organisation, in terms of experience of dealing with public
:03:56. > :04:01.order situations. This is the first thing. I was talking to officers
:04:01. > :04:04.about this this afternoon, and they are very concerned, after the G20
:04:04. > :04:07.and criticism of the police in those demonstrations, that if they
:04:07. > :04:12.do police robustly, which I think is what the majority of the public
:04:12. > :04:18.want, they fear they will not be supported by their bosses, should
:04:18. > :04:22.there be a complaint. Therefore, not only are the senior police
:04:22. > :04:25.officers telling police officers to watch, we will get them afterwards
:04:25. > :04:29.with closed circuit television, sending the wrong signals to the
:04:29. > :04:32.public and the rioters, but officers are afraid of acting
:04:32. > :04:37.robustly because they think there will be complaints and they will
:04:37. > :04:41.not be supported by their bosses. number of people wanting to come in.
:04:41. > :04:46.I dispute that, actually, because there was a news bulletin on Monday
:04:46. > :04:50.night. My friend's flat in Clapham was burnt out completely. If there
:04:50. > :04:53.were four officers at the scene watching with him while people help
:04:53. > :04:57.themselves to shops around, stood there doing nothing. Surely they
:04:57. > :05:02.would be able to employ an amount of reasonable force in order to
:05:02. > :05:09.prevent the destruction that continued for two hours before they
:05:09. > :05:13.intervened. A thing we agree with each other. On the point that was
:05:13. > :05:18.made about using reasonable force, I think the public, the media and
:05:18. > :05:21.the politicians, we all send mixed messages to the police. In April
:05:21. > :05:26.2009 we had the G20 protests and police were accused of being heavy-
:05:26. > :05:34.handed and there is now an opera -- an officer on a manslaughter charge.
:05:34. > :05:37.To pick up on the point that Brian Paddick made, if Sunday night had
:05:37. > :05:40.been policed properly, we would be sitting here saying the police were
:05:40. > :05:47.heavy-handed and did not act proportionally. They cannot win
:05:47. > :05:53.either way. Do you agree? I think there are difficulties but let's
:05:53. > :05:58.recognise there have been 29 civil disturbances since 19 some T5. This
:05:58. > :06:01.is of a different magnitude altogether. -- since 1975. The
:06:01. > :06:05.scale of it, the use of social Messaging, all of that as played a
:06:05. > :06:08.part in making this different. What I find it difficult to understand
:06:08. > :06:14.is why the police, that have these powers, did not exercise them in
:06:14. > :06:18.the way they could have done. 1, numbers, no doubt about it. 16,000
:06:18. > :06:21.showed that people stayed off the street. You cannot sustain that, so
:06:21. > :06:25.the Public Order Act would allow you to designate special powers to
:06:25. > :06:30.deal with them. I believe politicians, whatever they do to
:06:30. > :06:33.get all the back, must recognise, designate a special area, which
:06:33. > :06:36.requires bigger than the police to talk together about that, put a
:06:37. > :06:41.proper police numbers in to deal with it. Thirdly, let's deal with
:06:41. > :06:44.these people who covered their faces with scarves in order to
:06:44. > :06:47.commit criminal acts. Make sure that if they are involved in that
:06:47. > :06:57.designated place, they are acting in a criminal way and they must
:06:57. > :07:00.face the consequences for that. That is obviously an issue. But I
:07:00. > :07:04.think that when we talk about the police, I think it is important to
:07:04. > :07:10.remember that the police are actually part of our society and
:07:10. > :07:14.individuals with families themselves who also have - it's the
:07:14. > :07:18.job. It could be a vocation, but it is a job and it is important to
:07:18. > :07:23.remember that they do not get backing. This gentleman's point
:07:23. > :07:27.about mixed messages. No support, very little support, mixed support
:07:27. > :07:32.when things go wrong. If they were heavy-handed, they would have been
:07:32. > :07:36.filmed and the rest of it. And then they are on a manslaughter charge
:07:36. > :07:41.and they do not get the backing from senior officers, all from the
:07:41. > :07:45.public that they deserve. Most of the time. Brian Paddick's point was
:07:45. > :07:51.that these were orders to behave as they did, not an individual
:07:51. > :07:54.policeman deciding how to react. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of
:07:54. > :07:57.Constabulary, in his review of public order policing, said exactly
:07:57. > :08:02.what this gentleman said, which was that there is no guidance to
:08:02. > :08:08.officers as to what reasonable forces, no consistency across the
:08:08. > :08:14.country about reasonable force, and officers need that protection.
:08:14. > :08:18.feel that this has been an evolution of responses to
:08:18. > :08:21.demonstrations in the past. You started to see it towards the end
:08:21. > :08:24.of the student riots. Instead of clustering in one area, the
:08:24. > :08:29.students went into small gangs, people wanting to cause
:08:29. > :08:35.disturbances went into small gangs, because they knew the police would
:08:35. > :08:39.kettle them, for instance. Second, I do not feel additional violence
:08:39. > :08:44.from the police would solve the problem, because that is pretty
:08:44. > :08:49.much what caused it in the first place, isn't it? What do you call
:08:49. > :08:55.additional violence? I am talking about people calling for people to
:08:55. > :08:58.be shot, using rubber bullets, for instance. The mistake that the
:08:58. > :09:02.police made was to stand and observed on Monday night because
:09:02. > :09:08.that is what they have always done. But none of us ever expected these
:09:08. > :09:10.riots happening in diverse places in London. Tottenham, arguably, was
:09:10. > :09:17.predictable because there were bad moves their head. But nobody would
:09:17. > :09:20.have thought Croydon, Woolwich. I think Brian is being a bit mean on
:09:20. > :09:24.his former colleagues. They do monitor Twitter and BlackBerry. But
:09:24. > :09:30.do you know how many people in London use them? There is no way
:09:30. > :09:34.the police can sit and work out. If somebody says, I predict a riot,
:09:34. > :09:39.they may be talking about a pop song. You cannot do that, unless
:09:39. > :09:42.you set up a fascist state. We could be sitting here saying, the
:09:42. > :09:45.police were brittle and look at all of the people they have beaten up.
:09:45. > :09:49.I think it is amazing that there have been no instances of police
:09:49. > :09:56.brutality. I would rather live in a city that erred on that side,
:09:56. > :10:00.rather than going in with shields and batons. This issue of social
:10:00. > :10:05.networking is extremely important. My children in infield picked up
:10:05. > :10:10.that there was going to be a riot in Enfield at 1pm. That is when
:10:10. > :10:18.they picked up a message. It happened at 4pm. They gave me the
:10:18. > :10:22.time. That is three hours. Why weren't the police there? The man
:10:22. > :10:25.in the red tie. If we think that the police were not heavy-handed
:10:25. > :10:28.enough, what does the panel think they should be doing differently,
:10:28. > :10:34.and what other techniques should they be using on the streets of
:10:34. > :10:38.London? John Sentamu. I think the first responsibility of any
:10:38. > :10:42.government is to keep the peace, above everything else. So we have
:10:42. > :10:47.to ask the question, is the Government keeping the peace
:10:47. > :10:52.through the police? Because don't just simply blame the police.
:10:52. > :10:59.Because if the police can't actually do it, vigilante groups
:10:59. > :11:04.grow up. Nature always fills a power vacuum. Are you in favour of
:11:04. > :11:08.vigilante groups? No. Do you disapprove of people standing in
:11:08. > :11:12.front of their temple, armed in case it was attacked? Be careful if
:11:12. > :11:15.you want to go that way. If you have a liberal democracy, where
:11:15. > :11:18.people are accountable through Parliament and the police are
:11:18. > :11:22.accountable as well, it will be a matter of time before people begin
:11:22. > :11:26.to say, and I heard on one particular social network where
:11:26. > :11:29.people were saying, I think we had better go and get it done because
:11:29. > :11:35.we need to protect ourselves. Please, let us not go down that
:11:35. > :11:38.road. -- go and get a gun. But if you know there is a mob coming up
:11:38. > :11:44.the road, are you right or wrong to get together with colleagues and
:11:44. > :11:48.stand outside and say, if you come, I will hit you. I would say to the
:11:48. > :11:55.gross surfacing that difficulty, where are the police? Where are the
:11:55. > :11:58.police. They have a responsibility to keep the peace. And the
:11:58. > :12:03.Government have a responsibility. Therefore, you have to ask yourself,
:12:03. > :12:12.do we have sufficient numbers of police? Do we really want to go
:12:12. > :12:16.down a road which says, get in and use as much force? If there is a
:12:16. > :12:26.lot of violence already and we respond with more violence, you
:12:26. > :12:26.
:12:26. > :12:32.create a darkness on a night when If we are talking about more force
:12:32. > :12:35.being used, what force is that? If people are waiting for the
:12:35. > :12:40.criminals to be identified on closed circuit television, then
:12:40. > :12:44.there have to go in and arrest the looters in the act of committing it.
:12:44. > :12:46.That sends the signal that the police are doing something direct,
:12:46. > :12:54.and it sends the signal to the rioters that they cannot get away
:12:54. > :13:03.with it. Camella, you live in Peckham. I work in Peckham. Where
:13:03. > :13:09.do you live? In West Hampstead, if you must know. Where there were no
:13:09. > :13:13.riots. What do you think about the issue of how the police reacted?
:13:13. > :13:19.think the police have an incredibly difficult job, in very challenging
:13:19. > :13:24.areas. Potentially if they had got in very heavy handed in some of
:13:24. > :13:29.those neighbourhoods, it could potentially have led to use of
:13:29. > :13:34.firearms by people in those areas. What we have got to understand is,
:13:34. > :13:39.as you rightly say, the police are human beings. They were also taken
:13:39. > :13:45.by shock. They had to ascertain how to ascertain the situation.
:13:45. > :13:48.Potentially, I think this situation may have calmed down. Unfortunately
:13:48. > :13:58.because David Cameron was suggesting that rubber bullets and
:13:58. > :13:58.
:13:58. > :14:04.water cannons would be used, and even though I regret the fact that
:14:04. > :14:08.warlike behaviour is responded to with warlike language, I think the
:14:09. > :14:12.police feel they needed back up. you thought the first reaction of
:14:12. > :14:18.the police on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, was the right reaction, to
:14:18. > :14:23.stand back and watch rather than making arrests? I think we can
:14:23. > :14:28.never make judgments sitting behind the desk. There were lots of people
:14:28. > :14:33.in very heated situations on those streets, both victims, perpetrators
:14:33. > :14:37.and the police. I think we have to be very cautious about blaming
:14:37. > :14:42.people in these conditions. Let's hear more from the audience.
:14:42. > :14:51.disagree. I expect my police to stop people in the act of a crime.
:14:51. > :14:57.And what was your reaction to the way that they responded? Blind
:14:57. > :15:01.panic. I could not believe the pictures that I saw on Saturday
:15:01. > :15:08.night of non- intervention and CCTV policing going on. That is not the
:15:08. > :15:12.right way to deal with a mob like that. Brian has touched on the
:15:12. > :15:16.point, but this is very important to understand. People have compared
:15:16. > :15:19.this to the G20. That was broadly speaking a peaceful demonstration.
:15:19. > :15:24.The man That died was not committing an act of violence or a
:15:24. > :15:30.crime. It is very dangerous to use the same rules for that as you use
:15:30. > :15:35.for this. And what we need to do is to give our police the discretion
:15:35. > :15:40.on the ground to act when a crime is being committed, and to act
:15:40. > :15:45.appropriately. If that means force, then that means force. The real
:15:45. > :15:50.problem, as you know, the police claim the right to have the powers
:15:50. > :15:54.to control, operation rights. Governments of the poster not
:15:54. > :15:58.interfere. In this situation, a remarkable situation, one which has
:15:58. > :16:03.to be dealt with in a different way, COBRA was pulled together, and then
:16:03. > :16:06.all the arguments about water cannon came up, because of the
:16:06. > :16:11.political discussion between Government and the police. We need
:16:11. > :16:14.to know exactly what should happen in these exceptional circumstances,
:16:14. > :16:18.how the police should act. If you leave it to the Chief Constable of
:16:18. > :16:22.the moment, or even a commissioner, you get different solutions at
:16:22. > :16:26.different times, which causes confusion and encourages people to
:16:26. > :16:30.do the looting because the police don't know how to act in that
:16:30. > :16:33.situation. Are you saying that the commissioner or the deputy
:16:33. > :16:39.commissioner of the Net police was not in a position legally to deploy
:16:39. > :16:43.the police as he wanted on Saturday and Monday, that he had to wait for
:16:43. > :16:46.the Prime Minister? They have the powers under the Public Order Act,
:16:46. > :16:50.but to use them they are required to discuss the Government. They did
:16:50. > :16:54.not discuss any of that and Government was not there any way.
:16:54. > :16:58.So they called COBRA. COBRA was only called when the Prime Minister
:16:58. > :17:03.and Home Secretary came back from their holidays. The place where
:17:03. > :17:07.this is discussed is broadly among senior police officers and they
:17:07. > :17:11.made the mistake, bluntly. They applied rules for a demonstration
:17:11. > :17:15.to a circumstance which was about crime. That is why it was discussed.
:17:15. > :17:19.What they have all now recognised, it has come up in the house today,
:17:19. > :17:23.they got that wrong and they need different rules of engagement for
:17:23. > :17:30.their police officers on the ground. Until the Prime Minister came back
:17:30. > :17:33.from holiday, the police could not have acted. Do you agree with John?
:17:33. > :17:37.The idea that the police commissioner should call a room
:17:37. > :17:42.full of politicians and ask them what to do, that would make the
:17:42. > :17:51.situation worse. That is called COBRA and it happens constantly.
:17:51. > :17:55.That fills me with dread, asking you what to do now. Sorry! Let's
:17:55. > :17:58.assume it is your mate David Cameron. They can have the
:17:58. > :18:02.discussion, politicians and Government. Where they do not have
:18:02. > :18:08.it, they have the mess that we have had over the last few days.
:18:08. > :18:11.police got it right in the end. You put more police on the streets.
:18:11. > :18:20.police had sufficient powers on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. They
:18:20. > :18:25.have the authority of to use baton rounds and Robert -- rubber bullets
:18:25. > :18:29.if they wanted to. When it came to Manchester, the police had learned
:18:29. > :18:35.what went wrong, so they intervene straight away. Or it was a
:18:35. > :18:39.different police commander. The man over there? I think the problem was
:18:39. > :18:45.that they did not have any rubber bullets. They have four policeman
:18:45. > :18:51.in Clapham Junction and that was it. If you of four policeman with 250
:18:51. > :18:56.rioters, you cannot do anything about that. On your own, to hundred
:18:56. > :19:03.and 50 rioters. In your view why were there only four? God only
:19:03. > :19:07.knows. There were riots in South London anyway, but... The woman in
:19:07. > :19:13.red? I put it to you that the decision was taken deliberately to
:19:13. > :19:17.have lax policing in order to after the events that happened push more
:19:17. > :19:25.rules for were it to stop protests, to stop the working class having a
:19:25. > :19:32.voice, and to stop... -- forward. Initial point. I drove round many
:19:32. > :19:35.areas of South London where I live and there were no police. I cannot
:19:35. > :19:38.believe that in five different large areas there were no police.
:19:38. > :19:47.Eyesore crimes being committed and I cannot believe there were none.
:19:47. > :19:50.It was deliberate. -- five saw crimes. Do you think it was
:19:50. > :19:55.inevitable that the police would be limited in their ability to handle
:19:55. > :19:58.the situation effectively considering a mistrust of the
:19:58. > :20:06.police that pervades through so many of the communities affected by
:20:06. > :20:11.the violence? I think that there are challenges in relationships
:20:11. > :20:16.between the police and these communities. Funnily enough, I
:20:16. > :20:22.don't think they stem necessarily from the police. I think that the
:20:22. > :20:28.police end up with the bulk of our social troubles and they become an
:20:28. > :20:32.agency that in effect has to suppress people's rage and protest
:20:32. > :20:35.and that is what we are doing to our police. We are asking them to
:20:35. > :20:40.do everything without really giving them the equipment to do it
:20:40. > :20:45.sensibly. What is very interesting for me throughout this is that
:20:45. > :20:49.actually the areas that did not get raided, like Oxford Street, like
:20:49. > :20:54.Knightsbridge, it is well worth thinking what happened that those
:20:54. > :21:00.areas did not really get attacked, and... Why do you think they did
:21:00. > :21:07.not? I think the police caught on to what was happening and prevented
:21:07. > :21:13.attacks on those areas by really pulling the crowd in. There is some
:21:13. > :21:18.discussion among children at street level that suggests that the really
:21:18. > :21:28.wealthy areas were well protected and the areas that we economically
:21:28. > :21:29.
:21:29. > :21:32.more vulnerable were less protected. I will take one more point. Given
:21:32. > :21:36.the speed with which all of the gangs seemed to be organised,
:21:36. > :21:40.because of the use of social media, surely the police had an impossible
:21:40. > :21:45.task? There cannot organise themselves quickly enough to follow
:21:45. > :21:50.the gangs. What do you say to communities that did on themselves,
:21:50. > :21:55.prevent trouble, when there is no adequate police response? I would
:21:55. > :22:01.like to come back on this actually. The kids at street level did say
:22:01. > :22:06.that the gangs that would normally be fighting each other United in
:22:06. > :22:10.these circumstances to fight what they perceived to be the wrongs of
:22:10. > :22:16.Government and the police. Does that make it better? I am just
:22:16. > :22:20.stating what happened. I am not saying it is a good thing. This is
:22:20. > :22:28.exactly the kind of liberal rubbish that has put this country in a
:22:28. > :22:34.state we are in today. And to Lord Prescott, with all due
:22:34. > :22:37.respect, the Labour Government over the last 13 years created this
:22:37. > :22:42.culture of impunity that has led to the senseless act that we have seen
:22:42. > :22:47.on the streets of our country this week. How dare you sit there and
:22:47. > :22:53.defend your record? Because unemployment reduced by 2 million.
:22:53. > :22:57.You always quote that. You always have facts and figures but people
:22:57. > :23:01.of the country know the truth. Interesting that riots happened
:23:01. > :23:07.under the Conservatives. They happened under a Conservative
:23:07. > :23:13.Government. Labour are being paid off to be quiet. Who are being paid
:23:13. > :23:19.off? Since they have come to power, there have been more riot because
:23:19. > :23:26.cuts are being made, welfare payments are not as generous. And
:23:26. > :23:31.people... People what? I think Labour tried to create this state
:23:32. > :23:36.for the voters. We need to move through these topics because there
:23:36. > :23:41.are several to raise. Just before we do, this programme is also being
:23:41. > :23:45.broadcast on Radio 5 Live and on BBC local radio in London, the West
:23:45. > :23:48.Midlands and Manchester, and we welcome all of those listeners. The
:23:48. > :23:55.debate will carry on after this programme is over in all of those
:23:55. > :24:01.places. In the meantime, you can join the discussion on Twitter. You
:24:01. > :24:05.can send us text messages. And we will tell you what other people are
:24:05. > :24:10.saying. John Prescott has his own tweeting going on here. You can
:24:10. > :24:18.also press the red button to see what other people are saying.
:24:19. > :24:23.you know that you are called dimple pot? I do! We are having a serious
:24:23. > :24:30.discussion but I do know that is my name. I know there is a dimple
:24:30. > :24:37.dance and I know that I can do it, too! This is neither the time nor
:24:37. > :24:41.the place. The question from Emily, please. What do you think about the
:24:42. > :24:46.petition demanding that those convicted in the riots lose their
:24:46. > :24:49.benefits? This petition has been set up by the Government, whereby
:24:49. > :24:56.you can petition Government and get hurt if over 100,000 people signed
:24:56. > :24:59.it. This petition has now reached that. It is suggesting that people
:24:59. > :25:03.convicted in the riot lose any welfare benefits that they receive.
:25:03. > :25:09.Are you in favour of that? I know the Government is looking seriously
:25:09. > :25:11.at this. At the moment, if you go to prison, you do not get your
:25:11. > :25:19.benefits but that is because the Government is looking after you in
:25:19. > :25:23.prison. OK, not very good food but to get the idea. If you get a non-
:25:23. > :25:28.custodial sentence, you still get benefit. They are thinking about
:25:28. > :25:31.putting them. Benefits could be used as part of the penal system
:25:31. > :25:35.here. That might be a good or bad idea but I think now was not the
:25:35. > :25:38.right time to make the decisions, right in the heat of it. We are
:25:38. > :25:46.getting all kinds of suggestions and the worst possible thing would
:25:46. > :25:50.be to come out with a Tony Blair style of the five things to do. We
:25:50. > :26:00.should have the discussion, but when but tempers have calmed down.
:26:00. > :26:01.
:26:01. > :26:05.OK, 100,000 signatures. Anyone in I think it is completely right. If
:26:05. > :26:08.you have broken the law in the way that these people have done and
:26:08. > :26:14.destroyed their community, why should they be receiving tax money
:26:14. > :26:18.to go about their lives in the way they want to? It is disgusting.
:26:18. > :26:21.the second row. Do you not think if you take away benefits and put
:26:21. > :26:24.these people in prison you will make it even harder for them to
:26:24. > :26:31.contribute to society when they come out? I am just asking the
:26:31. > :26:36.question. They should have thought about that. Isn't it going to
:26:36. > :26:41.create a vicious cycle? No, they should take responsibility for
:26:41. > :26:48.their actions. I am asking if it will alienate them further from
:26:48. > :26:51.society. They should have thought about it. What do you think? They
:26:51. > :26:58.should take away their benefits and confiscate their private property
:26:58. > :27:01.as well, in order to pay for the damage that has been caused and
:27:01. > :27:05.compensate the victims, which include My cousin whose flat was
:27:05. > :27:12.burnt down in Clapham on Monday night. Why should the taxpayer pay
:27:12. > :27:15.out even more for these riots? David Davis, his petition is there
:27:15. > :27:19.and there was talk in the House of Commons about removing people from
:27:19. > :27:25.social housing, council housing, if they offended. Do either of those
:27:25. > :27:30.ideas seem practical to you? I have slightly more sympathy for the
:27:30. > :27:35.social housing aspect because that is a privilege. You have a 17-year-
:27:35. > :27:38.old who was arrested... With a -- with respect, let me finish because
:27:38. > :27:42.this is a difficult area. Fraser Nelson was right that decisions
:27:42. > :27:46.made on this in the heat of the moment normally generate bad law
:27:46. > :27:49.and we live to regret it years later. For example, if you take
:27:49. > :27:54.away benefits and housing, you end up with a social case not just of
:27:54. > :27:58.the individual but maybe their children. You cannot make sweeping
:27:58. > :28:03.judgments. These judgments should be made by people who have all the
:28:03. > :28:07.facts at hand, normally the court. That is where I like to see
:28:07. > :28:12.judgments made on people's misbehaviour, not in Parliament and
:28:12. > :28:17.not, with the best will in the world, on your programme, David.
:28:18. > :28:23.And what about the e-petition, organised by Downing Street, with a
:28:23. > :28:26.Cabinet that if they reach 100,000 they will go before Government.
:28:26. > :28:29.That can be debated and that is fine. Many things will be debated
:28:29. > :28:32.which will be uncomfortable for Parliament in coming years, which
:28:32. > :28:35.people want to debate. At the end of that, hopefully parliament will
:28:35. > :28:40.deliver laws which will be interpreted by the courts. We will
:28:40. > :28:43.not have one law for a crime committed on this circumstance and
:28:43. > :28:48.another law for exactly the same crime committed a year later
:28:48. > :28:52.perhaps not in the glare of the public eye. John Prescott, what do
:28:52. > :28:56.you think of this sort of punishment, the gentleman was
:28:57. > :29:01.saying, for those found guilty? think that is happening on the
:29:01. > :29:05.social network now. I got 30,000 against the bankers bonus. They are
:29:05. > :29:08.deciding to participate in the debate. If you get 100,000 for a
:29:08. > :29:12.petition, I am not against Parliament debating it. Why
:29:12. > :29:14.shouldn't they? But I think what might happen is that the facts
:29:14. > :29:18.might come out about the circumstances of what you were
:29:18. > :29:21.dealing with. We found with hanging and abortion, there was lots of
:29:21. > :29:24.emotion and feeling but when Parliament had to make a decision
:29:24. > :29:28.against a background of those problems it did not arrive at the
:29:28. > :29:32.same conclusion. I am happy to see that happen. But I think we have
:29:33. > :29:37.only been told today that something like 50% of those before the courts
:29:37. > :29:43.in London are under 18. Do you mean the 18-year-old, or do the whole
:29:43. > :29:46.family get thrown out and become homeless? Do you change the law to
:29:46. > :29:56.deal with homelessness? It is not just a simple solution to a problem.
:29:56. > :29:57.
:29:57. > :30:00.Parliament has to make those kinds of decisions. I want to comment on
:30:00. > :30:06.David Davis when he said about council accommodation being a
:30:06. > :30:10.privilege. Have you lived on a council estate? I was brought up on
:30:10. > :30:15.one. Believe me, it is no privilege. A lot of these people don't have
:30:15. > :30:19.nothing. If you take away their accommodation, what happens then?
:30:19. > :30:23.That is why I said it is a decision for the court with full information.
:30:23. > :30:27.How many family are there, how many dependants, what was the
:30:27. > :30:32.circumstance and the nature of the crime, all of the crimes committed?
:30:32. > :30:36.Those are decisions that have to be taken properly, not in this way.
:30:36. > :30:43.you evict those people, what happens to the family who are
:30:44. > :30:46.innocent? I agree, which is why I say it is a decision forecourt.
:30:47. > :30:50.First of all, the most informed people to make these decisions as
:30:50. > :30:54.to what the appropriate punishment should be are the courts. They get
:30:54. > :30:58.social reports and so forth. If the court decides somebody on benefits
:30:58. > :31:02.should be fined, they get time to pay, and it effectively takes away
:31:03. > :31:06.their benefits, as some people are suggesting. The other thing that
:31:06. > :31:09.already exists with some social landlords are things called
:31:09. > :31:12.acceptable behaviour contracts, where when they take over social
:31:12. > :31:16.housing families, particularly those who have children with a
:31:16. > :31:19.record of misbehaving, signed something to say they will keep
:31:19. > :31:24.their children under control and behave themselves. That is a
:31:24. > :31:27.condition of tenancy. I see no objection to that. But to take away
:31:27. > :31:30.somebody's home, where it has not been agreed in the first place,
:31:30. > :31:40.just to blanket takeaway benefits because a crime is committed, I
:31:40. > :31:43.think that is going too far and it is too simplistic. In response to
:31:44. > :31:48.Lord Prescott saying that 50% of those convicted are under 18, why
:31:48. > :31:51.can't we offer them vocational apprenticeships to rebuild the
:31:51. > :31:55.communities that are really damaged that they have destroyed
:31:55. > :31:58.themselves? Instead of giving them a sentence, give them community
:31:59. > :32:04.service where they can go and learn how they can actually help in the
:32:04. > :32:07.future and give them a job? That is one of the things we have to
:32:07. > :32:11.consider in dealing with the kind of problems in society. Give them a
:32:11. > :32:14.chance and an opportunity. That is what many of them are calling for.
:32:14. > :32:24.They are acting this way because they don't think they have any
:32:24. > :32:27.opportunities. The man on the far right over there. If these people
:32:27. > :32:31.on benefits, committing these acts, which we don't know, if you take
:32:31. > :32:34.away what meagre sums they are run, they will have no money and will be
:32:34. > :32:40.more likely to steal more because they will not have any money to
:32:40. > :32:46.live on. Let me move on to the people who were engaged in the mobs
:32:46. > :32:53.that were rioting, or whatever you like to call it, with a specific
:32:53. > :32:57.riot, or looting. Matt Sheffield has a question. How can we engage
:32:57. > :33:06.with rioters when they show no respect for society and appear to
:33:06. > :33:14.lack the intelligence and understanding to be a part of it?
:33:14. > :33:18.John Sentamu. Sadly, we have created an individualistic society
:33:18. > :33:23.with a weakened family and community structures, where the
:33:23. > :33:27.interests of me, myself have become prominent. From my point of view,
:33:27. > :33:32.in many ways we have made a gob of self and self interest. The
:33:32. > :33:36.difficulty is that our education system, as we have got it, what do
:33:36. > :33:40.you do when all that you have been doing his driving towards higher
:33:40. > :33:44.and higher academic achievement? Some of these people, quite frankly,
:33:44. > :33:47.the system has not delivered for them. You have been requiring them
:33:47. > :33:51.to do the same thing. I have a friend of mine who says, if you
:33:51. > :33:56.want to make sure that your pig grows fast and quickly and you want
:33:56. > :34:00.to sell it, the best ways to feed it and not to constantly way it. We
:34:00. > :34:05.have had these attainment targets every time and some of our people
:34:05. > :34:08.just cannot make it. It is time to recognise that within society some
:34:08. > :34:12.people are going to be better off on apprenticeships, the kind of
:34:12. > :34:17.thing you are suggesting, better off in other areas. The education
:34:17. > :34:21.system, friends, needs to be looked at very carefully. And remember,
:34:21. > :34:26.quite a number of these have been excluded from schools. I am not
:34:26. > :34:30.making an excuse for anybody who committed a criminal act. The other
:34:30. > :34:35.thing is that if you go into a house and you find that water is
:34:35. > :34:42.leaking down the stairs, it is no good getting a mob to mop up the
:34:42. > :34:51.water. It is better to find where the taxes, and to turn it off. --
:34:51. > :34:56.where the tap is. Isn't it fair to say, answering the question there
:34:56. > :35:00.and what the panellists are saying with regards to respect, over the
:35:01. > :35:04.last few years we have seen a number of major court cases, MPs'
:35:04. > :35:08.expenses and the phone tapping, with regard to the rich and
:35:08. > :35:12.powerful who are somewhat immune from being prosecuted in any way,
:35:12. > :35:15.shape off-form? These people have nobody to look up to. They are
:35:15. > :35:19.supposed to look up to politicians and police, and all they do is to
:35:19. > :35:25.see them as the enemy, the people that have, when they are the have-
:35:26. > :35:30.nots. They feel as though they have been left out. Fraser Nelson, do
:35:30. > :35:34.you agree? I am not sure how many of us look up to politicians,
:35:34. > :35:37.lovelies -- lovely though some of them are. But you are right about
:35:37. > :35:42.the absence of role models. We are talking about people who have been
:35:42. > :35:46.given, to a large extent, a bad education, short changed by the
:35:46. > :35:49.schools. We have this ongoing scandal of sink schools in the
:35:49. > :35:53.country, particularly in the poor parts of London, where they churn
:35:53. > :35:56.out people who can barely read and write at the age of 16. How are
:35:57. > :36:02.they expected to get a job and provide for themselves like that?
:36:03. > :36:06.Then they need to find a job and an employer. And right now, a lot of
:36:07. > :36:12.them are better off on benefits than they would be working. You get
:36:12. > :36:16.taxed on your work. We paved a road for them which leads to a welfare
:36:17. > :36:24.ghetto. Are you saying we have created the circumstances for
:36:24. > :36:28.looting mobs to go round the cities of London, the Midlands and so
:36:28. > :36:31.forth by the way that society has been constructed? Absolutely not.
:36:31. > :36:35.There are lots of very poor people in this country and hardly any of
:36:35. > :36:38.them would even think about that kind of behaviour. It is an insult
:36:38. > :36:43.to those who are struggling to put food on the table, struggling to
:36:43. > :36:49.find a job, that poverty leads in its grip -- inextricably to mooting.
:36:49. > :36:54.So what are you saying? The welfare state was set up to cure what
:36:54. > :36:58.Beveridge called the giant evil of idleness. What the welfare state is
:36:58. > :37:04.now doing is unintentionally creating joblessness, creating the
:37:04. > :37:06.very evil that it was designed to eradicate. John Sentamu -- John
:37:06. > :37:10.Prescott is screwing up his face because his record in Government
:37:10. > :37:13.was not good when it came to dealing with this. We owe it to the
:37:13. > :37:18.poorest to give them a decent education system and the ability to
:37:18. > :37:23.find a job. We are churning them out of schools at the age of 16...
:37:23. > :37:27.How dare you blame the state education for the system when you
:37:27. > :37:33.and you're not come from a private education system. You have no idea
:37:33. > :37:37.where I came from. 7% enjoyed private education, becoming bankers,
:37:37. > :37:41.politicians, dominating most of the decision-making. And don't say that
:37:41. > :37:44.has been free from corruption. The bankers have created part of the
:37:44. > :37:50.problem we have got today and you cannot put that down to state
:37:50. > :37:57.education. Do you think some schools are a problem? Yes, we
:37:57. > :38:00.tried to do with them. What success did you make? We built a new
:38:00. > :38:08.schools. You and your lot knocked them down and gave us deplorable
:38:08. > :38:11.conditions. Look at your moral righteousness. Bankers did not come
:38:11. > :38:14.from state education and they have given us the biggest problem we
:38:14. > :38:19.have in our society and it is the poor people that are having to
:38:19. > :38:23.carry it, not you lot. What is your answer to the question, how can you
:38:23. > :38:27.engage with rioters when they show no respect for society and lack the
:38:27. > :38:32.understanding and intelligence required to be part of it? You have
:38:32. > :38:36.to separate them into those who are obviously criminal and older. You
:38:36. > :38:40.have to do with them fiercely. No doubt about it. But with the
:38:40. > :38:45.younger people, we have to hope we can rehabilitate those people, give
:38:45. > :38:47.them hope and opportunity. That is the challenge. Nobody knows the
:38:47. > :38:50.exact formula but we had better start thinking of it or else we
:38:50. > :38:53.will be saying to a lot of these young people, you have no role in
:38:53. > :38:58.this society, and they will continue to be antagonistic to it
:38:58. > :39:06.through the rest of their lives. We cannot want that. We will get more
:39:06. > :39:13.of this. I think it is very important to separate the moment in
:39:13. > :39:18.which people engage in a riot and are not thinking from their normal
:39:18. > :39:22.level of intelligence and their capacity to think. I think it would
:39:22. > :39:28.be wrong to suggest that all of the rioters were somehow lacking in
:39:28. > :39:32.intelligence and not part of society. That is the first thing.
:39:32. > :39:37.The second thing to understand is that, whether we like it or not,
:39:37. > :39:41.and I appreciate that there are a lot of heated feelings around the
:39:41. > :39:46.despair that this situation has caused, but whether we like it or
:39:46. > :39:49.not, there are large numbers of exceptionally disenfranchised and
:39:49. > :39:56.disengaged individuals living in the ghettos of Britain. They have
:39:56. > :40:00.not had a voice. The whole dynamic of the interactions politically has
:40:00. > :40:04.been dominated by people who have a voice and a media who can express
:40:04. > :40:09.things the way they want to. These people have not had a chance to say
:40:09. > :40:12.it. It does not justify them rioting, but they have not had a
:40:12. > :40:18.chance to say many things and we must not dismiss them. This is an
:40:18. > :40:22.opportunity to listen to them as well. This is all very interesting,
:40:22. > :40:26.but the vast majority of the people who went out mooting over the last
:40:26. > :40:36.few days were just going out there to get things for free because they
:40:36. > :40:39.thought they could get away with it. -- looting. Yes. We had a teaching
:40:39. > :40:43.assistant brought up before the courts. We had a student who
:40:43. > :40:48.admitted they were stealing to pay for a trip to Africa during their
:40:48. > :40:53.gap year. Yes, there are these problems, but let's separate that
:40:53. > :40:56.from this mindless violence we have had over the last few days. I think
:40:56. > :41:00.it is very interesting how this has got packaged, because you have
:41:00. > :41:06.these people paraded in front of all of us to suggest that there is
:41:06. > :41:09.this brand called "the criminal" and there is nothing else to this.
:41:09. > :41:19.That would be missing an opportunity to understand some
:41:19. > :41:21.
:41:21. > :41:26.On this occasion I disagree with you. Brian was that the riots in
:41:26. > :41:30.1985, and there was a political background to them. This was
:41:30. > :41:39.clearly a criminal exercise at every level. There were gang
:41:39. > :41:43.members... I will come back to that in a second. Let me finish. I will
:41:43. > :41:49.come back to the precipitation. It starts off, I am afraid, with a
:41:49. > :41:53.large number of gangs in London, 200 gangs in London, I think, and
:41:53. > :41:59.many of them in Brixton, Hackney. And that is where the organisation
:41:59. > :42:03.came from. I don't come from public education or a private estate, as
:42:03. > :42:06.you well know. I will tell you a story that Alan Simpson told me, a
:42:06. > :42:12.left-wing member of the Labour Party, talking about problems in
:42:12. > :42:17.Nottingham. He said there were estates in his constituency when
:42:17. > :42:22.young people had �30 per day paying for drugs and the man to look up to
:42:22. > :42:26.was the drug dealer because he had a big car and he lived well. Before
:42:26. > :42:29.you create circumstances like that, it will be no surprise that we get
:42:29. > :42:36.the problems we have had in London and the Midlands and the North and
:42:36. > :42:40.the last week. Why does Sweden not have this problem, and Norway?
:42:40. > :42:44.Because it is a more egalitarian society. Thank you. I want to bring
:42:44. > :42:48.in a man that commented on David Davis. We have failed to recognise
:42:48. > :42:53.that everyone is quick to hammer into them, and we are not looking
:42:53. > :42:56.at why things started and why it escalated. You make that point
:42:56. > :43:01.about state schools. As a council estate boy that went to a good
:43:01. > :43:05.state school, you reach the point when you have to go into the public
:43:05. > :43:10.school sector to progress your career. We need to look at why that
:43:10. > :43:15.is. I had to do that. You cannot become a politician, you cannot go
:43:15. > :43:18.on into those careers. We need to look at young kids, and provide
:43:18. > :43:23.real characters that they can look up to because they are not people
:43:23. > :43:29.like me in the Cabinet. There are not people like me that our MPs and
:43:29. > :43:36.we need to look at why that is and address it. You are saying why did
:43:36. > :43:42.it start now? I grew up in a council estate. I am well-educated.
:43:42. > :43:46.I have got a great job. I bet you any amount of money that I have
:43:46. > :43:53.been stopped and searched more times than David Davis, more times
:43:53. > :43:56.than that editor. There is a real distrust within that level of
:43:56. > :44:00.society that you just don't trust the police. You need to address
:44:00. > :44:04.that to stop the riots. I want to hear from more members of the
:44:04. > :44:08.audience that have had their hands up for a long time. Going back to
:44:08. > :44:12.what the panel said about education, I work in a secondary school in
:44:12. > :44:17.East London and I teach citizenship. I think we can all agree that the
:44:17. > :44:22.rioters that we have seen over the past few days all lack basic
:44:22. > :44:25.citizenship values. Why has this subject like citizenship been
:44:25. > :44:32.planned to be removed? It is the only subject that teaches young
:44:32. > :44:38.people about their rights and their responsibilities. Why is that?
:44:38. > :44:41.you get a good ear from your pupils if you talk about citizenship?
:44:41. > :44:51.majority of the young people IT to articulate with views and they care
:44:51. > :44:56.about their future and they want to go into politics and careers. And
:44:56. > :45:03.to judge all the young people by the behaviour of a few is not fair.
:45:03. > :45:11.Young people can be engaged but blue -- we will not engage them
:45:11. > :45:14.without the necessary subject. you in the 4th row? I think it is
:45:14. > :45:18.all good that politicians are condemning everything that has been
:45:18. > :45:24.going on, but what in reality is deterring these people from going
:45:24. > :45:28.back to attacking our streets? I read in newspapers today that one
:45:28. > :45:32.boy got sentenced to two days in prison. What in reality is stopping
:45:32. > :45:37.them going out and doing all that they have done all over again?
:45:37. > :45:44.would you like to see happen, yourself? I think this talk about
:45:44. > :45:48.scrapping benefits, we know that it is not realistic. I don't know
:45:48. > :45:53.either what will stop them. David Davis, what do you think?
:45:53. > :45:57.think we start by the court being sensible about proper penalties. If
:45:57. > :46:03.the courts do not do that, it will be a terrible signal for the rest
:46:03. > :46:10.of society. The politicians set the sentences. The set a maximum and
:46:10. > :46:15.the men are men and then the courts choose it. -- they set the maximum
:46:15. > :46:20.and the minimum. They are passing these on to the Crown Court to give
:46:20. > :46:24.a heavier sentence. That is why we have to deal with this... We will
:46:24. > :46:29.come to parenting in a moment. is going to deter people from
:46:29. > :46:33.rioting is the certainty that they will get caught. The reason why it
:46:33. > :46:37.went viral was because people thought from what they saw on the
:46:37. > :46:41.television that they could get away with it. It is not about how tough
:46:41. > :46:45.the sentence is, that should be appropriate to the crime and the
:46:45. > :46:50.circumstances of the individual. What will deter people is if the
:46:50. > :46:54.police are there, arresting people at the time. And if people really
:46:54. > :47:00.believe. Why was Oxford Street not attack? Because it is covered, end
:47:00. > :47:07.to end, with very good CCTV. So people thought better than to go
:47:07. > :47:11.there because they would be caught. 10 minutes away from my house there
:47:12. > :47:17.is just as much CCTV. It is the fact that the police were told to
:47:17. > :47:21.stand back. Oxford Street is a safe haven, the centre of the city. We
:47:21. > :47:24.saw what happened with the students, when Kettering was going on. It
:47:24. > :47:29.makes sense for them to go to their own homes and neighbourhoods
:47:29. > :47:35.because they do not respect them. When the student protests on there
:47:35. > :47:41.were attacks on shops on Oxford Circus. That does not hold water.
:47:41. > :47:48.This lady made a good point about parenting, so let come back to it.
:47:48. > :47:55.But you are against CCTV, have you changed your mind? No. Intrusive,
:47:55. > :48:02.expensive and not effective. That is exactly right. Guess where those
:48:02. > :48:06.words came from, from the man that ran CCTV in the Met Police because
:48:06. > :48:13.there was CCTV all the way up and down Archway Road, a lot of crime,
:48:13. > :48:21.and they were never used. Nobody has never said don't have CCTV. I
:48:21. > :48:27.wrote the policy. Make sure it is properly controlled. They work
:48:27. > :48:34.effectively. Exactly. Let's move on it to parents. And to tie into it,
:48:34. > :48:36.this question, saying that many of the rioters will be parents in the
:48:36. > :48:43.next few years and what does the panel think the next generation
:48:43. > :48:47.will be like in the light of that? With parental rights, a lot of it
:48:47. > :48:51.has been removed. Parents cannot discipline their own children, they
:48:51. > :48:57.cannot correct them, they cannot ask them to stay in. They just go
:48:57. > :49:01.out and do what they like. Why cannot they ask them to stay in?
:49:01. > :49:06.Because children are parents these days. That is nonsense. Children
:49:06. > :49:15.just don't listen. We have cinemas everywhere, on the buses, so unruly.
:49:15. > :49:19.They have been given so much liberty. So many things go in, and
:49:19. > :49:23.so children perceive they have rights. The teachers are afraid,
:49:23. > :49:28.parents are afraid. Who will give them the right values for Society
:49:28. > :49:32.for them to be good citizens? Where does it come from? What do you
:49:32. > :49:36.think? We need to restore that because the children of today of
:49:36. > :49:41.the adults of tomorrow. We saw that in the student rampages well. 20
:49:41. > :49:51.years ago they were all children. What will happen in this
:49:51. > :49:51.
:49:51. > :49:55.generation? I think for me, remembering parenting when things
:49:55. > :49:59.go wrong only is not helpful. We should remember it all of the time.
:49:59. > :50:02.Actually we have got social pressures. Controlling small
:50:02. > :50:07.children is not that easy. I have been a parent and a foster parent
:50:07. > :50:12.and all I will say is this. When children are growing up, when they
:50:13. > :50:16.become teenagers, like me they seek independence from their parents. I
:50:16. > :50:20.wanted a peer group to which I could belong. Fortunately for me
:50:20. > :50:24.there were proper structures. At the moment, there are no proper
:50:24. > :50:32.structures, no proper care and concerns, so what tends to happen,
:50:32. > :50:37.if they are not safe, then unsafe structures will emerge. And gangs
:50:37. > :50:42.developed to create that structure which is not safe. So I set up a
:50:43. > :50:46.Youth Trust. I can tell you the story of a little man. A teenager
:50:46. > :50:53.that move to Manchester, after his friend Damilola Taylor was shot. He
:50:53. > :50:57.got involved in gun crime in Manchester. He was met by one of
:50:57. > :51:02.our projects, and he is now studying for a degree in youth and
:51:02. > :51:06.community work. Why? A structure was provided that took him away
:51:06. > :51:16.from that difficulty. Please don't undermine the social pressure of
:51:16. > :51:17.
:51:17. > :51:21.our society now. I just want to follow up on that and ask about the
:51:21. > :51:27.cuts to after-school programmes, sports programmes, at and youth
:51:27. > :51:37.clubs. How is that going to help these people get into something is
:51:37. > :51:40.
:51:40. > :51:44.good. -- which is good? They need to reform the school system. The
:51:44. > :51:49.Conservatives are taking city academies, one of Labour's good
:51:49. > :51:53.ideas, and putting rocket boosters and of that. We have been talking
:51:53. > :51:56.about guidelines, legislation and education for children. There is a
:51:56. > :52:01.link between ideas of responsibility and what the state
:52:01. > :52:05.can and should not do in order to create an environment for people to
:52:05. > :52:11.take on responsibility and accepted for themselves. An interested in
:52:11. > :52:17.asking the panel about what they think about the Government appetite
:52:18. > :52:21.to instigate change, to make things happen. I am not talking about cuts
:52:21. > :52:25.and increased legislation to stop people doing stuff, I am talking
:52:25. > :52:29.about empowerment and creating an environment for people to take
:52:29. > :52:37.responsibility for themselves. empowerment of teachers and parents,
:52:37. > :52:42.you mean? Absolutely. What do you say to that? I think there is an
:52:42. > :52:47.appetite for that. As has been said, if a young person thinks they will
:52:47. > :52:54.be caught and punished, then they will not take part in the crime. If
:52:54. > :52:58.over the course of their years from year 7 onwards, the parents do not
:52:58. > :53:01.keep them under control, do not set rules and guidelines, and the same
:53:01. > :53:05.happens at schools because the teachers are afraid to exercise
:53:05. > :53:09.those powers, then they find they can break the rules and nothing
:53:09. > :53:13.happens, then they do it again. Then they come into contact with
:53:13. > :53:17.the law, they break the rules and nothing happens. By the time they
:53:17. > :53:24.get to 16, actually, even if they are certain they will get caught,
:53:24. > :53:27.they tend to commit crimes and that is a real problem. We have got a
:53:27. > :53:34.moment for a last question, which comes back to what happened over
:53:34. > :53:38.the last few days. A lot of people have commented on this. Under what
:53:38. > :53:42.circumstances is vigilante action justified to defend your community
:53:42. > :53:50.or home? We have talked about the police, we have talked about
:53:50. > :53:53.parents and schools and the rest of it. John Prescott? There are
:53:53. > :53:56.vigilantes because there is a breakdown of law and order and we
:53:56. > :54:00.are not providing law and order. I find I cannot condemn people if
:54:00. > :54:06.they stand outside their property and say you cannot come into this
:54:06. > :54:11.church, and they take those actions. Basically, I understand that, but
:54:11. > :54:15.the failure is all of us that have a responsibility to make sure law
:54:15. > :54:19.and order is maintained in our streets. People that are vigilantes
:54:19. > :54:24.do not want to do it. They do it because we are failing to provide
:54:24. > :54:28.the proper cover on the streets. Under what circumstances do you
:54:28. > :54:36.think vigilante action is justified? I think we should avoid
:54:36. > :54:42.it at all costs. No. You saw an incredible amount of disorder at
:54:42. > :54:49.street level. One set of people start, then another set joins in.
:54:49. > :54:52.It just escalates and I don't think we should have vigilantes. So what
:54:52. > :54:57.happens to the vulnerable in society that cannot stand up to the
:54:57. > :55:00.thugs? What about my 92 year-old mother? She will not turn into a
:55:00. > :55:05.vigilante. She will not stand up to these people and she has to rely on
:55:05. > :55:09.the police and we should rely on the police. The question is in what
:55:09. > :55:14.circumstances is vigilante action justified? In whatever
:55:14. > :55:18.circumstances, you get people like the English Defence League, roaming
:55:18. > :55:26.round Lewisham, purporting to be protecting society, but in fact
:55:26. > :55:32.they are justifying their racist attacks on black people. What do
:55:32. > :55:36.you think? The man in the yellow. But then you also get people
:55:36. > :55:42.roaming around looting, purporting to be acting in response to the
:55:42. > :55:45.death of Mark Duggan. I think there was a very small minority of people
:55:45. > :55:49.on the Saturday night that were really angry about what happened
:55:49. > :55:53.with the police shooting. I think what happened subsequently that was