24/11/2011 This Week

Tonight, join us at Westminster for the political Antiques Roadshow.

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls claims the programme makes him cry. Will

we all be weeping if the economy doesn't increase in value? We turn

to expert writer and broadcaster Samira Ahmed. There was nothing

fake in David Cameron's admission to the CBI this week that economic

growth is no-where near where it should be.

And with the average worker feeling undervalued, top pay is pack on the

agenda. Investment fund manager Nicola Horlick, who is worth a

pretty penny, joins us. It would be good if we could all be paid the

same, but some of us are worth more than others. And you won't hear any

swear words on the AntiquesRoadshow, but are swear words just part of

everyday life? Swearing isn't BLEEP clever. Hankies at the ready, Mr

Balls. Good evening, all. Welcome to This

Week, the show that makes the BBC's editorial complaints unit weep in

anguish and despair every week, but even their emotional incontinence

can't compete with the flow of salty tears cascading down the

bare-faced cheek of the Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls because

according to bruiser Balls he has a softer, less bledge rant side, a

side we can all agree he's kept hidden from the rest of us. Yes,

he's let it be known rather than pulling the legs of spiders or

pulling out the fingernails Blairites or his new favourite

thing, pulling Ed Milliband's pigtails, he prefers to turn on the

TV and have a good blub - at the Antiques Roadshow. I can see how

that can reduce you to boredom, but tears? Now, viewers may well think

the idea of Ed Balls bawling his eyes out is a load of old guff, but

I suppose it's more believable than his deficit reduction strategy, I

emphasise the word slightly. I am joined on the sofa tonight by two

of Westminster's least probable politicians. I am speaking to have

Michael Portillo and currently trending as hashtag man on the left,

Alan AJ Johnson. Michael, your moment of the week? Funnily enough,

talking of salty tears, I went yesterday morning to see the Iron

Lady, Meryl Streep's interpretation of Margaret Thatcher, and it is

quite an emotional experience for a number of reasons - the portrayal

of Margaret Thatcher as an old lady is quite emotional, but also to

relive some of the things that with lived through which are very

accurately portrayed - for example, the death of Aere Neave in the car

bomb in Parliament, the Falklands War and the of course the moment

she leaves Downing Street on the 22nd of November, 1990, having been

deposed. I really did live through it all again and was put through an

emotional wringer. Are you in this movie? I am not. Didn't they offer

you enough money? Anyway, it's not the lefty hatchet job the Daily

Mail once led us to believe, is it? No, I think from her career in the

film, you would probably come out - I am thinking about people who

didn't know much about it or were Aleve at the time or conscious -

you would probably come out with great admiration of her. What is

controversy is she's now portrayed as an old lady with all the

feebleness of old age. That will upset a lot of jee. I am glad you

got to see it first. Alan There was a role called the Chief Corpsor all

parties agreed should be introduced. Before it was filled, it was

abolished. It's now not abolished but not filled - Chief Coroner. I

think what we have seen this week is the Government doing a U-turn on

this. The frontbench have been good. The Conservative MPs like my friend

Andrew Percy - have done good stuff. As a result of which, we think the

position will be introduced. It's a U-turn? It's a very big stonking,

badly, grinding U-turn. But you're happy with it? I am very happy with

it because I like to see Parliament doing its job properly. We like you

to be happy. A little smile on your face just cheers us all up. We have

been in shock this week again after we learned there are people running

some of Britain's biggest companies who are paid very large sums of

money, and apparently, it's not related to performance at all,

something Michael and Alan know all about when it comes to their

salaries. We have asked our own highly paid Mistress of the

Universe, fund manager Nicola Horlick to justify top people's pay.

MUSIC I have been very lucky in life. I

have had a privileged existence, a successful career. I own my own

company, and, as we know, life's not really fair. Some people are

born with a good brain, but when it really comes down to it, it's what

you make of what you've got that really counts.

# Price tag # Nonetheless, I am concerned about

the findings of the High Pay Commission this week. The

difference that now exists between the highest paid and the lowest

paid within many of our companies is major concern, I think. On the

other hand, we do have to remember that these companies are competing

in a global market and have to have the best possible people, and that

means that they have to be paid sometimes quite large sums of money.

# Ain't about the - # Bling, bling, bling

# Trying to make the world dance # Forget about the price tag

# It's not about the money, money, money

# We don't need your money, money, money #

The Communist ideal of equal pay for all sounds great, but as we saw

in the 20th century, it doesn't actually work. Capitalism is

probably the best ever system we're ever going to have. We just need to

work on it to make it better. I have absolutely no problem of

people being paid well as long as they deliver.

And there are some who have delivered. I can think of companies

like Tesco and Barclay's where they have done exceptionally well in the

last 15 or 20 years that means in my view it doesn't matter to the

same extent about the disparity between the lowest and the highest

paid because I think those people who have delivered deserve to be

paid properly for what they have achieved. The problem is that there

are a large number of companies where actually Tay haven't done

very well, and yet executive pay has been rising sharply. As far as

I am concerned, that's fault of the non-executive directors and the

shareholders, and they clearly haven't been doing their jobs

properly. Government has been making noises

this week about jumping on the high-pay bandwagon. I would urge

them not to do that. We already have people - mechanisms in place -

to deal with this issue. What we need is for the people who are

responsible to act. # Forget about the price tag #

Nicola Horlick joins us from her sofa in Mayfair to our little sofa

in Westminster. Welcome to the programme. Thank you. This position

of Chief Executive of Barclay's Bank has risen - the salary has

gone up by 5,000% in 30 years. That's got to be wrong. Well, the

actual quantum seems have been large, and I think we have been

infected a little bit by what has been going on in the USs, where, as

-- US where, as you know, there are very, very high salaries paid. It

sounds like a massive increase. shares of Barclay's haven't gone up

by 5,000%. No, but the profits have gone up a large amount. The banking

sector has been through a difficult period and share prices have gone

through a difficult period. It's difficult to look at share price,

but if you look at the value that has been created in terms of

profitability, there are some companies - and I would say

Barclay's is one, Tesco's is one, Sainsbury is another - there are

some British companies that have done very well. But Nicola, 5,000%

- it's crazy. I agree. The actual quantum is very high, but you know,

the people who need to do something about that are the non-executive

directors. They're the people who decide pay and the shareholders who

own the company. Everybody says that but never do. Let's come on to

that in a minute. Is there not such a thing as pay that's too high?

companies are owned by the shareholders. The shareholders are

generally insurance companies and pension funds, and the ultimate

beneficiaries are the man on the street, so those companies owe it -

the people managing the money - owe it to the man on the street to do

something about it. It's the shareholders who need to stand up

and be couldn'ted here. Everybody that's at this time. For all the

years I have followed this, the shareholders never do anything

about it. That's not quite correct. The non-executive directers are in

a club of their own. They're all on each other's boards. They all fix

each other's remuneration committees. It's a con. A few years

ago it used to be the case most Chief Executives had three of year

contracts. Most of my clients vote against those three of year rolling

contracts. They did it consistently year in, year out. Eventually they

got rid of those rolling contracts. If you want to do something about

it, it's a democratic process. have other examples? I agree when

it comes to pay, they have not been as effective. They need to do

something about it. Alan Johnson, the High Pay Commission, it said

high pay in Britain had now become corrosive to the UK economy. Is

that right? Well, I think it's becoming a social issue. I think

the British public are remarkably relaxed about these things, but

when they say a ratio of average earner to top people that was about

- the pay differential was about 16, 17 times 30 years ago, and now it's

75 to 83 times, and the thing that gets me - they don't only set that

differential by greed sitting on each other's remuneration

committees. They want it to expand further - a 49% pay increase for

the FTSE 100 top directors over the last year, 2.7, if you're lucky,

for the rest of the population. It actually gets wider and wider. When

you come to what should be done about it, I agree with Nicola

Horlick. There is an issue of how do you solve this? Is it a problem?

I think it is. Has it gotten out of kilter? The ratio of the pay of the

bosses in the quoted companies to the average pay on the shop floor

has just got wider and wider and wider. Yes. I think to some extent

it is a global problem. It's driven by the United States. It's quite

interesting that the peak year, I think, of the United States in the

global economy was 1970 when it had 20% of the world's economy - 20% of

the world's GDP. That was the period in history when the

remuneration of those at the bottom and those at the top in America

were at their closest. As we have seen this period where the top

payers move further and further ahead, the United States' position

in the world has actually been declining. Nicola kind of brushed

aside the fact that none of this supposed good performance of the

companies is connected in the share price. It isn't. Share prices have

been flat over a decade. It's the shareholders meant to control these

companies. What they're doing giving high remuneration to

executives when the share price is flat, I simply don't know, but

they're not doing their job. I don't think it's good enough

anymore to sit back and say, shareholders are not doing their

job. Nicola? In that case, we have had numerous codes. The question of

what do you do about it? We have had Cadbury's and Greenbury's and

Higs - they all say the same thing - the shareholders should do

something. It's not just people wonder about executive pay because

the gap between the top and bottom is so wide. They worry about that

even in companies that are doing very well. But they're appalled

when pay shoots through the roof in companies going no-where, and that

happens again and again. You're right. It has been happening

an awful lot over the last few years. That is reprehensible.

Something should be done. That's a clear case of non-executive

directors not doing their job because how can you be sitting on a

remuneration committee watching earnings going down and allow the

Chief Executive's salary to go up significantly? I'll tell you -

because they're conned by a different argue cult - no matter

what's happened within the company, they have to be globally

competitive because their Chief Executive is globally mobile. I

look at some of these Chief Executives in the United Kingdom,

and I know perfectly well they're not globally mobile. Absolutely.

They may be good, bad or good enough, be they're certainly not

about to go to New York. Outside pharmaceuticals and big oil and a

couple - banking probably - they're not. Quite. My understanding is the

German and French Chief Executives are not on these pay scales. You

look at the pay of much bigger companies than Britain - the BMWs,

Daimler's, Mercedes... Yes, but they're in family ownership to a

greater extent. We went through a phase in the UK on the Stock

Exchange for the families to exit. The families have ownership of

those companies. That's great strength for Germany and one of the

reasons they have done better than anticipated over the past couple of

years. None of you seem to know what should be done about it.

High Pay Commission made a number of sensible recommendations. They

point out that this business Michael rightly points out about

poaching Chief Executives - they looked at the last five years of

one Chief Executive... Give me an example of a British company.

said the top ten British companies should be obliged to publish...

What do you... The point they make is the earnings package of lots of

these high earnings - it's very difficult for shareholders or

anyone else to find them because it's hidden behind bonuses and

share options. It's not hidden. It's there in the company accounts.

Quite often, you'll get somebody just below the main board level who

is earning twice as much as the main Chief Executive. I am not

clear this would make a difference because the Chief Executive's

salary is fully declared in the reports and accounts. Nothing has

been done about that. Since you're all bereft of ideas, maybe the best

attitude is simply to say in the end if Government can't really do

much about this let's just take the view that if somebody is paying the

Chief Executive �5 million a year, we, the people, get �2.5 million of

It should happen now. It will happen in the future. Maybe that's

the way it's done, that half of it comes back to the Treasury. Yeah,

it does. You are screwing up your face. When you look back at your 13

years in power, was it right that you were - what is the famous quote

- that you spent the 13 years being intensely relaxed about people

getting filthy rich. That was Peter Mandelson in the late 90's and the

focus was on the low-paid. If we had set the minute numb wage at

�1.50 an hour, 250,000 workers in the country would have got a pay

rise. Introducing a national minimum wage for the first time,

along with tax credits, concentrating on the low-paid was

quite rightly our priority. If we had said, we are also going to have

a high-pay strategy as well, I think it would have been wrong. Now,

there's a different mood out there. There certainly is, on the left and

the right. We'll leave these two to look into their pay packets. Nicola,

thank you. Now, there's no point going to bed just yet. Of all it's

not as if anyone is setting their alarm for ITV's Daybreak, so stick

with us, because coming up from Channel 4 is Paul Choudhury, who

will be trying to avoid using some very bad language. For those of you

who feel right at home with swear words and blam my after your usual

barrel of Blue Nun there is always the interwebsite and Tweeter and

the face - pool whatever they are. -- Facepool, whatever they are. The

Leveson Inquiry into media ethics is scoring more highlyy on the

Totti count that Prime Minister's questions. We sent Samira off to

the flicks to give us her round-up Hollywood came to the Royal Courts

of Justice this week, although if you believe some of the papers it

was a V for vendetta. There was plenty of discussion in court 73

about brief encounters Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan were playing

themselves, honest cats with complicated love lives, but when it

came to the tabloids, they said they felt playing by rogues. Hugh

Grant accused the Mail on Sunday of hacking his phone for one story.

cannot for the life of me think of any conceivable source for this

story in the mail on Sunday, except those voice messages on my mobile

telephone. The Mail on Sunday denied the claim, accusing Hugh

Grant of mendacious smears. The following day Steve Coogan's

testimony suggested almost MAFF why-like levels of blackmail by the

News of the World. It left the lawyers silent. There was a girl in

the office who was going to speak to me on the phone and it would be

recorded and she would try to entice me into talking about

intimate details of her and my life. It's like the Mafia, it's just

business. Steve Coogan said the inquiry shouldn't be seen as the

Steve and Hugh show, it was really about families like the Dowlers.

rang her phone and it clicked through to on her voicemail, so I

heard her voice. I was - it was just like, "She's picked up her

voicemail." For the often demonised parents of Madeleine McCann, it was

a chance to shine a light on what they've endured. These were

desperate times. We were having to try and find our daughter ourselves.

We needed all the help we could get and we were faced with and I now we

are coming on to headlines, corpse in the car. Then body fluids in the

car. When it's repeated so often it becomes fact. The darkness took the

spotlight ow the economic crisis, but it feels like we are held

hostage by financial bandits. Where is the action hero when you need

one? I'm glad to be back from Berlin. I left my bazooka behind.

He told the CBI on Monday that things aren't going according to

plan. We are trying to cover from a deep and difficult recession. Yet,

growth is slow, not just in Britain, but in France and Germany too. In

the last quarter, we grew faster than many EU countries and faster

than the average, but we are frankly well behind where we need

to be. Yes, getting debt under control is proving harder than

anyone envisaged. Still, at least we can take comfort in scenes the

bromance back in action. In their field of dreams if you build it,

they will come. If you underwrite the mortgage for first-time buyers

of course. Cliff Richard once told British sen ma goers, young ones

shouldn't be afraid by Ed Miliband told PMQs on Wednesday that they

should. He's been looking at the youth unemployment figures. However

high it goes and however bad it gets it's a price worth paying to

protect its failed plan. I tell him there - unless he changes course

next week, unless he changes course next week, one million young people

will become the symbol of his failed economic plan and an out-of-

touch Prime Minister. Let me remind him of actually something he

brother said last week. He said clearly, "This Government did not

invent the problem of youth unemployment." I think we should

have that candour from this brother. As several Labour MPs still

secretly think oh, brother where art thou? The other said he cried

at the antique road show, Ed Balls, but it's reaching branching out as

a mime artist that's enough to make anyone weep. This is absolutely key.

He's at it again, I'm afraid. No wonder the Shadow Chancellor has

stopped saluting, he's started crying! The real horror movie

moment of the week though, goes to Andrew Lansley whose face appears

on a continuous loop at hospital TVs urging the people to thank the

staff for looking after them. I can't watch. I'm passionate about

the NHS and the quality of care. Some of the most compelling images

of the past week came from Egypt. Watching protesters back in Tahrir

Square, defying rubber bullets in the name of democracy was a

powerful challenge to our doe mess sick obsessions, as reporters there

made clear. They thought they had beaten the old regime back in

February, but now they think they have to fight it all over again.

This crisis has been brewing for months. When the light go up, it's

back to reality in Britain. The autumn statement is next week. The

Government -- will the Government carry on regardless? Certainly we

are in the bus teetering over the bus of an economic abyss and unlike

Michael Caine, this Government has no new great idea. The department

of full disclosure. Can we get it on the record that the coalition is

not now going to meet its debt reduction targets? The deficit

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 68 seconds

reduction targets. Obviously not, Right. Alan, given all of that...

Full disclosure. Why is the Labour leadership making so little impact

on economic policy? It's a funny thing about when a Government is in

trouble and when the economy is in trouble that a lot of the focus

goes on to the opposition that - why aren't you making more of this?

What's the answer? The answer is that the focus is on Government,

not on what the opposition are saying, and I think what we fail to

do - we lost that crucial six months or so after the general

election because we were fuffing around with our leadership election.

It went on for too long, and the Conservatives and the Liberal

Democrats were very successful at getting this credit card message

home. That is actually changing as far as public perception is

concerned. Take the ICM poll in Tuesday's Guardian - it shows that

the public - a lot more people blame the problems of the economy

today on, quote, debts racked up by Labour than they do blaming the

coalition. Of course. We were in power at the time that deficit

emerged, but... Emerged! As by magic! Wonder where that came from?

There is a big deficit! It did emerge. The structural deficit was

1% and falling in 2008. It was 2008 and the following three years that

caused the problem here and around the rest of the world, but if you

look at what the public think about cutting too far too fast, you'll

see a big change from 60% thinking that was wrong a year ago to now a

reverse of that. So I think that's a message. It's going to become an

irrelevant argue yult, though. is. But they're all going to be

irrelevant by 2015. Everybody's base figures are going to be shot

to hell if we go into recession, but why do only 25% of voters think

Ed Balls and Ed Milliband would do a better job on the economy? After

all, about 40% of us are saying we'd vote Labour, but only 25% say

they think Labour would do better. The first statistic is important so

far as it goes - this far off a general election. That's important.

Even the people voting Labour don't think you would do better. The

arithmetic is clear. Around 40% of people say they would vote Labour,

but only 25% of people think that Labour would do a better job.

but if you talk to Labour supporters on that statistic, they

- you'd see them... By definition, simple arithmetic... I thought it

was fairly simple. I'll show you later. May I say I think the

political argument is important because the coalition's point is if

we hadn't committed ourselves to the austerity measures, we would

have to pay 70% for our new borrowing in the way Spain and

Italy are doing, and we'd be staring into the abyss, and it's

because we're talking austerity measures that we're in a better

position, and then the counter argument is, no, no, that's not

really what's going on because the United States is borrowing cheaply

as well. The real difference is we're allowed to borrow cheaply

because we're not in the euro, in other words, we control our

currency. Therefore, these people say, you, Britain, ought to borrow

more money because then you can stimulate the economy. That I think

is where the political argument is. Let's move on. Big public sector

strikes on Wednesday - St Andrew's Day, a fitting day for a strike.

Absolutely. Do you back the strike? Yes, I do. The ceiling didn't fall

in! Actually, it did - just on its way in slow motion. If independent

free trade unions can ballot under very strict laws that Michael's

Government introduced - maybe the unions should have introduced

themself themselves - if they can't do that over an issue as important

as their pensions, then what can they take industrial action over?

On this issue I think the Government generally want to

negotiate a settlement, but they started off badly. They imposed

this 3% increase without any negotiations whatsoever, and I

think that's created the difficulties they now can't get out

of. Strikes good news for the Government at a time when it hasn't

got much good news? Yes, I think the Government will win this

argument because the numbers of people who benefit from these

public sector pensions is a minority, and the rest of the

population will think it's unfair, and they won't like being disrupted.

The Leveson Inquiry into the media, which was concentrated above all on

the tabloid press - let me put a proposition to you both to get you

to react. When you listen to the testimony of the McCanns and the

testimony of Milly Dowler's parents, and you hear what the tabloids got

up to in both these cases, it's over for the tabloid press.

Something major is going to happen to them. It's over - the free-

wheeling days are finished. Discuss. Well, they should be. They should

be because just as the issue didn't take off, when it was celebrities

and star, it did when it was Milly Dowler. Leveson took off when Milly

Dowler's parents appeared and the McCanns appeared. The disgust

people feel about those stories - equate it with the Press Complaints

Commission. The Daily Press were quoted over and over again. Which

rather puts regulation out of the window. I still prefer - I started

off thinking self-regulation. did I. I am now beginning to doubt

it. Just to another case - sienna Miller today - you tend to discount

sort of the famous - the loveys - the film stars. She made a good

point. She came out of a house at night, is chased up a dark street

by ten men. The fact that they have cameras makes it all right. One

woman being chased by ten - if they didn't have cameras, the police

would arrest them. It's finished. am not as optimistic as you,

because for instance, of course chasing someone with cameras is not

illegal, not going to be made illegal. She's got a court order to

stop it now. Yeah. Most of the things that the newspapers have

done apart from the hacking of the phone messages have been legal

activities. I think some of the things... Publishing Mrs McCann's

private diaries which were basically a private conversation

with a little girl who had been... Listen. I am not... Kidnapped.

not arguing with you about how disgusting this is. What I am

saying is most of the dreadful things newspapers do are not

against the law. This has only ended up where it is because one of

the things they happened to do, which is hacking phone messages, is

against the law. I am not at all convinced when we come out of the

Quinn rirry we're going to see changes in the practisings of

newspapers. Fair point. We'll see if we're still around. It's going

to take ten years to get there. Now, when a court ruled this week that

swearing at the police here in Britain, otherwise known as being

filthy to the filth, was not necessarily a public order offence

- and by the way, I do not advise that you try it with the NYPD, we

heaved a sigh of relief here on This Week. After all, for many

people, politics is the dirtiest of words. You should see the looks you

get in Hackney when you utter the phrase Diane Abbott. Talk about

unparliamentary language. So with this in mind, we decided to open

our potty mouths, wash them out with a bar of soap and put bad

How times change, but should swearing be an arrestable offence?

When a judge this week overturned a conviction for using the "F" word

in front of the police, the head of Scotland Yard said he still expects

his officers to slap on the cuffs, while another high-profile judge,

Strictly's Len Goodman thought he should get away with using language

some still think offensive. Superstar got in touch for wearing

these shoes on the X Factor. FIFA President's Sepp Blatter was forced

to backtrack by saying racist language should be forgiven with a

handshake on the field. I am working now for 30 years in FIFA. I

started to work in Africa. There is no discrimination in my feeling.

This is one open goal even Nick Clegg can't miss. When Sepp Blatter

trivialises racism on the pitch, his comments are rightly met with

public outcry. Which leaves us with bad sign language. We all know how

We should put that on a loop, just run it again and again. Paul

Chowdhry joins us. Welcome to This Week. Good to see you. Good to see

you too. Why is it now so many stand-up comedians depend on four-

letter words? It's almost a default position in the standup comedy

circuit. Lat of the time we perform to different audiences a lot of

times - late-night crowds - not the kind of sophisticated audiences you

play to. You have not met our audience, I assure you. We have to

tame them somewhat. You know, when you go out on a night out and you

have a couple of women around you in your evenings out, that's the

kind of crowd we sometimes appeal to. We have to hit them down

sometimes. Wasn't that always true? I mean, the old comedians in the

'60s and '70s, they didn't use this kind of language. They did. I think

they used worse. It's now used on TV a lot. Certain shows. Yeah.

EastEnders, you hear the word "bastard" now. Really? 20 years ago,

you couldn't say that after 10.00pm. I would be interested to see if the

C word makes it in in 20 years' time. Do you censor yourself in

language? If I am doing shows to MPs or a corporate event - it's the

crowd you're in front of. You have to tone it down on This Week. I am

not going to go all gangster on you. Do you think swearing - you hear it

on buses and trains, people often speaking on their phone, and

they're swearing away as they do it, has it now become part of everyday

life? Yeah, it's become - it's within our culture now. It's kind

of street language, even what David Starkey was talking about. I think

he was misunderstood by a lot of people. Street culture has

transcended into society. It's strange because you hear all sorts

of four-letter words on various late-night comedy shows on the BBC

or Channel Four,ed a yet Len Goodman on Strictly says "sod" and

gets 600 complaints. Easy with that. I was talking about grass. It's a

bit strange, isn't it? In the 19th century, if you said that, you

would be put in prison, even now, calling a police officer a sod - he

could put you into a position where it could happen. I wouldn't do that.

Is language now a lot more acceptable? Yeah, and kind of

working class communities where I come from - you would go to

football, and people would be F'ing and blinding. You wouldn't swear in

front of a child or a woman, although some of the women would

swear... Wouldn't swear at home. Certainly wouldn't. It was ironic

that the judge saying it was OK to swear at the police was called Mr

Beans, Justice Bean - that's ludicrous, because the police are

obviously going to attract people - it's not about comedians swearing

in front of a crowd that accept that's going to happen when they go

for a night out. This is about policemen who must routinely listen

to the foulest language, and this Mr Bean has said it's fine. In that

case they should do what comedians do and have heckle put-downs, the

add yes, sir - cut the people back, so it becomes like a "yo mama"

competition. What, on the streets? Yeah, the streets of London. Street

theatre? Yeah, street theatre. like it. What do you think,

Michael? It's all a matter of context. Swearing down by comedians

is very funny. Four Weddings and a Funeral I think starts with the

same word uttered four times. It's hilarious, but in another context,

it wouldn't be. It's interesting that the word we keep talking about,

the "F" word, relates to a daily activity. I don't understand how

this has become THE word. If you look back maybe a generation, a

word you couldn't say was "damn." Daily activity? Well, you know!

has been taking the pill, so don't worry. Damn refers to eternal

damnation. I can see why that would be a bad word. Bloody isn't such a

bad word to say. Used to be. Because that has a religious

connotation. There is a kind of different rule now for what is

acceptable and what isn't. Many words that were not acceptable -

the "F" word, the C word are now more commn. Even the C word on some

TV programmes, whereas words related to race which were common

are now completely taboo. Racism has gone underground. People are

more clever the way they use racism. Instead of being up front. The word

that has caused the problem is the word black, which is a word they

would use to describe himselfs or herselfs, yet that is the word that

gets you into trouble. I think it was the "N" word. He didn't say the

"N" word. The lip reader saw it. I asked a couple of friend, and, well,

they signed it. Swearing - when I was young, swearing was quite edgy,

and only certain people did it. Is it now just cool to swear if you're

young? The NME, I am told, named the World's Coolest Person as a

female rap artist whose songs are so full of bad words, they can't

even play them on television. Justice Bean - no, I am reading

someone else. Is it cool? I don't think it's koo. It's the way

youngsters talk to each other. a class thing partly. Well, as you

- made a reference to Hugh Grant... He doesn't swear a lot. Middle

class and upper-class people, particularly if they use very

strong language, can be quite funny. But when the Sex Pistols... Exactly.

The researchers told me that. That's it. We have run out of time.

Paul, thank you for coming on tonight. I am glad we got through

that without having the BBC come down on our necks. That's your lot

for tonight, folks. We leave you with yet more tales of the

unexpected from the ever generous wife of the Speaker, Sally Bercow,

the gift that keeps on giving, who has been sharing just a little bit

too much with the nation once again. This time an interviewer asked her

what was her favourite gadget, as you do. Let's say her rather risque

reply certainly wasn't "sewing machine". Nighty-night. Don't let

Sally's Rabbit bite! # Big John

# Every morning at the mine # You could see him arrive

# Stood 6'6" # And weighed 234

# Kind of broad at his shoulder # And narrow at the hip