Free Speech: Debt Special Free Speech

This is Free Speech, your chance to have your say about what matters to

you - live on BBC Three. # Such a good feeling.

# This feeling. # I can't stop myself feeling...

(APPLAUSE). Good evening. Nice to see you.

Thanks for joining us, and welcome to Free Speech. I'm Jake Humphrety.

Tonight we're live from Campsfield Market in Manchester as part of the

RE: Think Festival. Lovely to see you all. This evening, we're

excited too because we have a new set and a new face. Please welcome

to the show Tinea Taylor, who tells me she's excited about reading all

the messages you at home have been sending direct to our lovely, shiny

new screen. How do our messages reach us? A variety of ways.

Facebook, Twitter and online. Before we go any further, let's

meet our panel. First of all, she graduated from Grange Hill through

Extras to an international career in stand-up. Please welcome

comedian and campaigner for rights of the disabled, Francesca Martinez.

Next, he's the National Chairman of Conservative Future - so he's the

man that David Cameron should be looking over his shoulder at - Ben

Howlett. (BOOING).

Oh, Ben, you have some convincing to do this evening. Alongside Ben,

just down the road, actually, Liberal Democrat MP for Manchester

Withington, John Leech. And finally, as the author of

Jilted Generation: How Britain Bankrupted Its Youth, he literally

wrote the book on young people and debt - Shiv Malik.

(APPLAUSE). Lovely to see you all. Thank you

very much for being here this evening. But remember, tonight is

also about you. This is the only TV show with the Power Bar, and if

you're on Twitter, you can power it up by letting us know what you

think of the panel. Just use #Yes or #No followed by the first name

of one of our panellists. Instead of just shouting at the TV, start

changing it by tweeting the Power Bar. First, young people in debt,

and the results of an exclusive Free Speech poll. Almost half of

16-25-year-olds in our survey say of unt

of money they currently owe. Nearly half of young people in debt say it

will take at least ten years before they are in the clear, though the

good news is that 42% of those we surveyed say they don't have any

debt. So time to meet Michaela, who's stayed debt-free, and Daniel,

who hasn't. They're with us tonight and this is their story.

I've never been in debt at all. I'm terrified of being in debt. I was

first offered credit when I was 18, and I was offered a �250 credit

card and a �2,000 overdraft. I started working when I was 16 and

never went to university, so I've never had a student loan or

anything like that. When I got the �2,000 overdraft, I was very happy

because at the particular time, I couldn't afford to pay my rent. It

seems like it's going to help you. It all seems friendly and good.

However, you're going to have to pay that off at some time in the

future. In the past, instead of borrowing

money for the heating, I used to wrap up with a quilt around me. At

times I couldn't afford food, my mum and grandmother would empty

their cupboards of their tins and bring them around.

I am currently in about five grand in debt - credit card, overdraft

and student loan. I met my partner when I was 19. He

moved in shortly after, and we saved up together rather than

spending the extra money. A few years later, we had my daughter

Hannah. Having that debt affects me quite a

lot. I am depressed and finding it quite hard to just do everyday

things. There is a lot more pressure having

a daughter to go out and buy the latest things. I would rather go

out and buy second hand as long as we're happy.

Maybe that's the point that really matters. Daniel and Michaela,

everybody. Thank you so much for helping us. I love the hair, by the

way. You're going to kick start the debate tonight. What's your

question? My question is, does the panel think that credit is too

readily available for young people? Straight to you.

I think the issue of debt is really worrying, you know? The fact that

20% of UK adults are in debt or struggling with debt is just

terrible. I think also, the Government uses debt as a form of

control, and if you keep people struggling to pay the basics,

they're less likely to have time to worry about what they're doing as

their part. I also think it's to do with inequality. The UK's one of

the most wealthy countries in the world, and unequal countries have a

higher incidence of debt, which I think is interesting. I would like

to widen the picture and say, why should we think about why the UK is

such an unequal country, why 10% of people own 50% of wealth, which I

think is staggering, and we should look at creating a country where

people can function on their wages without having to get debt.

Unfortunately, consumerism functions on us buying stuff. When

times are hard, there is disposable income and debt is used to paper

over the cracks. Unfortunately, it's unsustainable and consumerism

is not only ruining the environment, but it's ruining our well-being, so

I would like to rethink our system and get a fairer, more equal system

in the UK. (APPLAUSE).

Ben, I saw you nodding your head there. A fairer, more equal system

- that's what she wants. I'm not going to scout around the

point. Debt is an evil thing. I work in recruitment and I've seen

ever since Lehman's went bust people going through and losing

their houses, people that have got themselves into a mammoth amount of

debt, people that have lost their families, people that have lost

their wives because of debt. Stress levels are increasing. One person

every 62 seconds goes bankrupt. That is horrific situation. We're

not going to beat around the bush on this. We really sort of need to

empathise with these people as well who are really suffering at the

moment. People like Daniel just now I appreciate where he's coming from.

I have a student debt myself. I am paying it off at the moment. We

need to be supporting people. We need to get down to the root causes

of the debt and looking at what the real problems are. The main problem

is a lack of responsibility, and when you've got a Government that

has been racking up debts - Labour has racked up debts over the years

- �120 million a day is being spent on interest alone - God knows how

many doctors and nurses that's taking out. We need to act

responsibly to reduce down that debt so we can then say to the

public, look, now you also need the pay down the debt and say to the

banks as well, you're acting responsibly. It's now your turn to

act responsibly and start... Are the current Government doing

enough to create that kind of climate? The Government has

inherited a massive problem... they doing enough to... I hope

they're doing enough. They can only start by doing what they have done,

which is to reduce the deficit down by 25% over the last two years

which then increases the amount of tax revenue going back into the

Treasury so it can start paying off the debt. To be honest with you,

you have ended up with a Government which is at the moment only slowing

the incline of the amount of debt. It's going to take a seriously long

time to sort out this problem. Tinea, I'm sure people have plenty

of thoughts at home. Have you any messages for us already?

I have one here from Catherine who says it's the pressure of society

to have a nice house, nice cars, nice clothes, et cetera, that leads

us into debt. The question initially was, John, is debt too

readily available? People at home are talking about the fact there is

pressure on people to have nice things too. The two go hand in

hand? It was too readily available. I'm not sure it is now because it's

becoming more and more difficult to get a hold of credit. Part of the

problem is that regardless of your ability to pay the debt back,

people were being lent more and more money. I remember when I first

got a credit card probably 20-odd years ago. I had a credit card

limit of �400. Every time I bought something that cost more than a

couple of hundred quid, they increased my credit limits, and the

fact that I paid it off at the end of the month was irrelevant. They

wanted for me to have the opportunity to borrow more money. I

think part of the problem now is that a lot of the time people

aren't being able to get anymore credit on their credit cards.

They're not being able to extend their overdrafts. That's why we

have a real problem with pay-day loans now because people have

exhausted the easy credit through their banks, through their credit

cards, and now they're turning to even more sinister forms of

borrowing where they really, really can't afford to pay it back.

We'll come on to pay-day loans in a minute. I have a startling fact

talking about the fact that debt isn't readily available for people

anymore - three-quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds are in debt. They have

credit. I think part of the problem is that

when - we were talking before about tuition fees, when you're

encouraging people to go into debt by saying, "You've got to have -

tuition fees. You've got to start off your working life in debt,"

it's not that surprising that young people think, well, I'm going to be

in debt anyway, so I might as well borrow as much as I possibly can

and have as good of a lifestyle as I possibly can.

Debt in itself isn't a bad thing or credit, so we use it, for example,

for mortgages, to buy a home. We use it to purchase cars and things

like that the question is, is it affordable? What we have done over

the last ten to 15 years is heaped more and more debt onto young

people, so for very necessary things. So education - we've seen

tuition fees go up. It's a form of debt which people are going to pay

out throughout their lives. Now tuition fees are �9,000.

Effectively it's acting like tax on young people throughout most of

their working lives. Housing is another big issue. House prices in

places where there is work are through the roof, so people can't

afford to buy there. Rents have gone up, and so increasingly, in a

sense, people have less disposable income, so they're finding it more

and more difficult to pay for the everyday things. When it comes to

the world of work, young people are interning for free for months on

end. I know people who have done it for years for profitable companies.

This is the thing. And this is what's creating it. When you add

those three things together, you end up with young people in massive

amounts of debt, desperate to pay, either borrowing from mum and dad,

if they're rich enough, or if you're poor, you're scrabbling for

some kind of credit to keep yourself afloat. The fact is this

is impacting on the economy at large. It means people are finding

it very difficult to set up homes and relationships and families and

actually buy some basic things in their lives, and worst of all, they

don't take risks, so they're bad consumers in the end. They also

don't start businesses and do all the things the Government want them

to do. It's creating the perfect storm in

your view. Right. Let's quickly hear from the viewers at home.

Time for the Power Bar. If we can just bring up the Power Bar. Panel,

this is what viewers think about what you've said so far. If we can

fire it up, please. Off it goes again - nice.

Shiv clearly in the lead. Francesca Martinez is just behind you. I

think people are agreeing with you about your points on inequality.

Ben, a bit of work to do. You can get there. Right. The gentleman in

the black tie with the blue shirt Francesca, I completely agree with

you - there are lots of inequalities in society, but I

believe the greatest inequality in society is in education. With

consultation of young people in my area from about 16 different

secondary schools, I have learnt that citizenship education differs

greatly from school to school. Some schools do the education they're

supposed to do in an entire year in one day. Some schools balance it

out over time. I think citizenship education is the most important

thing in making sure people understand how to manage their debt,

people understand how to do things like apply for a job, get a CV.

That's basically... Education - managing debt is the

most important thing to you. The lady next to you.

Once again, I am going to disagree with you, Ben because if the

Government is acting as a role model, they're not as to how to

manage things because at the moment we're seeing borrowing costs have

risen. You have actually not told the truth by saying their debt is

good and not as manageable because it's not. They've actually outspent

what they expected to, and they're actually treating the economy like

it's a play toy, and that's not fair.

A really quick answer to that, Ben. I - you won't be surprised I'll

disagree with you on that. As I said earlier on, it's a long-term

difficulty in terms of the economy. I don't think it's a play toy at

all. There is nothing more serious than to get the economy up and

running. That's the idea of us parties coming together to solve

these problems. Why isn't it working? Why has the Government had

so many U-turns and overspent still despite the fact they're claiming

to be plugging a deficit that we don't even know about? The deficit

is huge. Yeah, I understand that. Since I was doing my A-levels,

Gordon Brown was extending the deficit up - at my stage when I was

in my A-levels... I understand that but the Government isn't doing

anything about it despite the claim they were going to. That was what

their manifesto was all about. That hasn't worked. The Government is

keeping interest rates really low, so it increases confidence in the

market. Has it worked? It gives more opportunity with jobs. Has it

worked? 9,000 more job, but actually, has it worked? It's going

to work. It's going to take a long time. No answer.! (APPLAUSE). I'm

out of a job. I want to speak to Jack, because we are talking about

debt and credit and loans and you have experience and it's not always

a bad thing? Definitely not a bad thing at all,

really. All you need to bear in mind is you need to watch your

outgoings and incomings and make sure you keep your money down and

obviously pay your debts off. Remarkably, despite having an awful

accident in Afghanistan while serving for your country, you see

yourself as lucky getting on the housing ladder because that gave

you compensation and it's not available to many young people?

No, it's not, especially at 22. It's not mostly available to people.

I had a good deposit to put down when I got my compensation and I

still need to pay off the mortgage now.

Thank you for sharing your story with us. Tinea?

We have a mixture of opinions. One here saying the Government do use

debt as a form of control. Sam here, I use credit cards to launch my

business. I got to the last �40 maximum and turned it around.

Credit is good for startups. Ryan says, "I'm 16. I have a job. It's

just excuses." OK. Surprisingly different views there. Another

talking point when it comes to sorting out debt is pay-day loans.

If you've never had one, they give you a few extra quid until pay day,

but here's an example from one company.

I took out �100 and it would cost me �29.99 and I have 28 days to

repay, but if you don't and ignore all the warnings for three months,

I will owe them this much. �4,500. Indeed! The company in question is

not a member of the Consumer Finance Association, but the

association did tell us that repayments can distort widely when

applied to small loans over short periods, but they'll always tell

customers the total cost of the credit. I'm sure people here have

taken out these loans before. Jason, are you one?

Yep. Tell us about your experience.

It all started off through employment. I was 21. Because I was

under 22, I was on the minimum wage which was �4.83 an hour and I was

struggling to pay and I started to get the loans just to keep myself

afloat, because my wage wasn't getting me by. Eventually I got so

deep that I couldn't pay any of them off. I couldn't live

whatsoever. I was literally running into the ground. I applied for one.

It was - I can't mention the company - but I got �100. My

account was overdrawn. I didn't get to spend it. They wanted over one

grand back from that. Take us inside your head. How much pressure

was on you? It's hard to explain. No-one will understand unless

they've been in the position. reaction to the message we just got

from online saying it's just greed and people who want things they

can't have? It's not greed. I was 21. I was on a minimum wage. I was

working 35 hours a week and I was pulling out �133 a week and my rent

was �84 a week. Do the maths. felt you had no other option?

and I didn't have other family members to ask for support. Jack,

was your story? I've used the loans in the past and I was able to pay

it back, so it was OK, but it's definitely not a good thing. It's

like what John was saying before about not being able to get credit.

I can't get a credit card. Why did you take it out? I needed it at the

time. It worked for me because I could pay it back, but I wouldn't

advise anyone to use it. Lots of hands there. The lady there.

message, "Pay-day loans shouldn't be allowed. It's really quite

wrong." That's Alice. The reaction from in here. Like the gentleman

said down here, we all know the Government knows that pay-day loans

are wrong. Morally they're wrong, so why are they letting businesses

or people behind that to push them? You see them all over the high

street. They're everywhere. We know it's just the rich people basically

who are taking advantage. (APPLAUSE). Why are the Government

allowing this? It's common sense. How can you justify that? John,

give us an answer on behalf of the coalition? The loan companies are

the pawnbrokers of the 21st century. It's exactly what people used to do

when they used to take jewellery and get money for it and go and buy

it back when they could afford, but it's so much more dangerous,

because unfortunately the vast majority of people who are using

pay-day loans aren't actually using it for an emergency. The guy at the

front, was using that loan in the right way, but it's becoming part

of day-to-day activity for a lot of people, because they can't get

credit through the normal channels and the banks and cards any more.

Until people actually realise the impact of taking out pay-day loans,

because it can never be a good idea if it's simply to pay the day-to-

day bills. If it's to buy something specific until your money comes in,

they are acceptable, but unfortunately people are doing it

to keep themselves or pay bills and that can never be a good thing.

can't blame people. If people need to eat they will do anything to get

that money. If you yourself as a Government know it's wrong that

there's people behind the desk who are pushing this money forward,

it's criminal. Why aren't you stopping this from happening? It's

day-time robbery. I think the Government is wrong for

having a minimum wage, because companies who are employing people

are taking advantage and using that as a method of payment. It's the

maximum. I was 21. I had no choice about the wage I received. That was

the maximum wage I could receive and I was getting paid it. I

couldn't survive off it and I had my own tenancy. How is that

possible? I couldn't get tax credits.

I fundamentally disagree with what the guy has said, because actually

if we didn't have a minimum wage all that would end up happening was

lower wages than the current ones now. There's a far stronger

argument to increase the minimum wage. Fine. Thank you. Tinea.

One message on that, who agrees with the loans. David says, "What's

wrong? It's clear as day in the adverts." We are going to have to

leave that question, but thank you very much for getting involved and

everyone who shared their stories about taking them out and dealing

with debt. Thank you for all of the points online. If you want your

view read out you have to make it first and this is how you get in

touch: There's been an incredible experience watching the Paralympics.

The cheers have rung out night after night, apart from when this

happened. Medals will be presented by the right honourable George

Osborne MP, Chancellor. (BOOING).

Awkward watching it. Not a sound you expect to hear during a

ceremony and we have a question to get us started from Hannah. Where

are you? Is there a point that it's bad manners rather than showing

public opinion? Ben was booed when we started the programme so he

should answer it. Booing in a sense is sort of bad manners, but we all

accept that, because that's why we do it. We think we're mocking

someone. Whether it's wrong in this instance for George Osborne to be

booed, I don't think so. I think he's a political figure and the

question is what is he doing? What he's doing in terms of being the

Chancellor and setting out a whole swathe of cuts, especially on

disabled communities in various different forms, is clearly

upsetting a lot of people. If he turns up to a venue like that, he

should expect to be booed, in a sense. Being British, the other

thing we don't do is clearly - we haven't had a revolution for 500

years, but we like a bit of pantomime politics, so that's

perhaps our way of getting that revolution going. I would rather

have booing than anything else. Ben, how did you feel at the start?

Is it a personal affront, or do you think you are representing

something that people don't like? I was reaching for the tissues! No,

it's pantomime politics, I do agree. I wouldn't like to be the

Chancellor in a situation where you have ended up with that massive

great debt that he's going to end up having to reduce down. The

booing starts again. The Chancellor's in a very difficult

situation. He's turned up to that. Is he the right person to be

handing out medals to Paralympians? I don't necessarily think it was,

so that may have impacted adversely upon the successes of the athletes

and we should be shouting and praising them at that moment, not

talking about politicians. (APPLAUSE). People at home enjoy

the use of the words, "pantomime politics." Are you surprised that

George Osborne decided to put himself in that position? Judging

by his expression, I think he was thinking, "Why did I take my

adviser's advice and agree to do this?" It was pretty obvious he

would be booed. In terms of whether or not it's bad manners, yes, it is,

but I think it's also fair game for politicians. Politicians are there

to be criticised or supported. Sometimes we are flavour of the

month, sometimes we're the baddie of the month. We have just got to

accept that. I do think you have got to ask the question why on

earth did he think it was a good idea to be giving out the medals on

that occasion? We'll ask that to Fran.

He clearly had an off day! I think it's really important to celebrate

the Paralympic achievement, but this is a man who is a multi-

millionaire and he's about to obliterate the welfare state. There

comes a point! With disability, often people can't complain and

they can't make their voices heard, so I think they need to take any

opportunity. Would you have done it and booed?

I would have done more than booed. I would have thrown some tomatoes.

Over to the audience. We live in a society where people are not

listened to. All the big people think they can overpower the little

people so booing was a way of expressing themselves and if we're

not allowed to protest because you say it turns violent, like lots of

the governments and the police say it has turned violent when it

hasn't, that's the only way to express yourself.

You think booing is almost all we have in some ways? Yeah.

This isn't a joke. People - John Leech because what you have done,

it's your party's fault. I put the blame on you. Some people in this

country don't think they have a voice. Some of us don't have a

voice. You have now got a fixed- term Parliament. It's not a joke or

funny. People are struggling in this country because what you have

done. You are the human shield. It's your fault. You think long and

hard about what you have done to people in this country. Look what

you have done to us. It's your fault.

(APPLAUSE). I hate to use the word "pantomime"

and getting blamed for that. I would like to take issue with what

Francesca said because she said we're about to dismantle the

welfare state. Actually, benefits were the only - the only thing that

actually went up by inflation. Lots of people - low-paid workers - have

had no pay rise for two or three years now, yet pensions and

benefits all went up in line with inflation as a direct result of the

Liberal Democrats being in Government. That's not true. That's

not all benefits. That's mainly pensions it applied to. But your

Government is proposing to cut DLA by 20%. This has a... We will

discuss this in detail in just a moment. Half a million people are

going to lose their benefit. will talk about that we are going

to have a discussion about disability benefits. Let's hold

those points. Let's stick with the booing topic at the moment, then

we'll move on. I was going to ask - you said before about how they have

to pay off this big debt. When are you going to stop blaming Labour

and realise things have gotten worse under the coalition? A quick

answer to that one? As I keep saying it's a very, very long

period of time you're going to have to pay back this debt. There is no

short answer. It's going to take a long, long time. I think the

gentleman has to take responsibility and stop blaming

previous governments when things have gotten worse under the

coalition. I would like to take issue with that. The first time I

stood up at Prime Minister's Questions in 2005, I asked a

question of Tony Blair, who had been in Government since 1997, so

he had been in Government for eight years, and his answer was, it was

all the last Tory Government's fault, so I don't think it's fair

to say, when are you going to stop blaming the previous Government?

The fact is the country is in a serious financials mess partly as a

result of international factors, partly as a result of bankers, but

partly as a result of the economic policies of the previous Government,

and it's simply not true to say that we have made the situation

worse. The deficit has been reduced. When the coalition Government came

into power, we were spending �4 for every �3 that was coming in, and

it's a long, long process to get rid of the deficit and then start

paying off the debt because by the end of this Parliament, not one

single penny will have been paid back of the debts that we were

there in 2010. It will simply be about getting the deficit down, so

the debt will still be rising. said we were actually better off -

or worse off as a country in a sense, and that's nothing to do

with this Government, but what is a double-dip recession if not to be

heaped at your door? It's not like every other country is in a double-

dip recession. We're almost uniquely in that position. We're in

a terrible state. The eurozone is about to go back into recession.

Just about not what we are, which is in one - and for a number of

months. We'll leave it there. We're going

to move on. We were in a significantly worse position to

start off with. OK, John, thank you. Tinea. I know lot of people are

agreeing with the booing, but Tom says people should be celebrating

the athletes. "We have all year around to tell the politicians what

we think of them." Thank you very much. Thank you for getting in

touch online as well. We also want to thank people for getting on our

Facebook pages, Erica, Edmund, Jim and other always got in touch and

said George Osborne was booed because people were angry about the

Government's policy on disability benefits. We have already had a

discussion about that. Let's move on and talk about that now. We're

in the middle of one of the biggest welfare shake-ups in 60 years, and

the Government says half of the people who receive disability

benefits won't be eligible for new benefits. This, according to the

Prime Minister, is what's going on. In a world of fierce

competitiveness, a world when no- one is owed a living, we need to

have a welfare system that the country can properly afford. When

you know, as I do, how much help genuinely disabled people need,

then you can't just ignore this when the system isn't working

properly, so we're bringing in a system that is fairer and simpler

and, crucially, we're introducing proper objective assessments so the

money goes to people who truly need it. I would create a fair system

that would test people on their individual circumstances. I think

people could get reassessed to see if anybody could get extra benefits.

I would attempt to change the way that care is brought to the home.

would not cut the disability allowance because people like my

brother need it to fend for themselves. I would change the

benefit system so it is according to each one's abilities or needs. I

don't know if it's a backward state of the country instead of take care

of people that are less fortunate. At the end of all of this there

will continue to be generous disability benefits, and quite

right too. So do people think those benefits are generous? As you heard,

lots there. We know our panel are fired up about this and so are the

audience. Let's go straight into the audience and Candace has a

question for us. Why does the Government think it is acceptable

to cut disability benefits? We'll get the reaction from the

Government in just a moment. But first of all, Francesca, give us

some background on this. Well, it's a very scary time for disabled

people because these benefits - the DLA and ESA - they have tiny fall

rates of 0.5 and 0.3 which tells you how genuine most claimants are.

The Government is claiming ESA criteria so many serious conditions

are no longer credible. So you can have terminal cancer, you can have

had a stroke, you can be paralysed from the chest down, and you can be

set to lose your benefit. I think this is an incredibly cynical

attack on the most vulnerable in society, people who don't have a

voice. I also want to ask us, why are we making these cuts? We're

told we're in a recession. Why did the recession happen? Because the

banks had overspent. What happened? We bailed them out to the tune of

�850 billion. In 2010, bankers' bonuses in London totalled �14

billion more than in individual benefits. This is morally

unacceptable. (APPLAUSE). The primary problem - I think

everyone here knows it - is this coalition represents the elite and

the wealthy. They keep the profit but they want to share the deficit

with everybody. Ben, do you understand that kind of

anger and frustration? I do understand that anger and

frustration, and I've spoken to Francesca about this earlier on. I

give you my personal story on this. My mum's disabled, and I've seen

her over a series of years - probably watching this now, bless

her - I have seen her for a series of years degenerate. She gets the

Disability Living Allowance, and now she'll have to be going through

the reassessment programme herself. I am not rich, by the way. I wish I

was, but I'm not, and certainly, my parents aren't, and my mum

certainly isn't rich, but what the Government is doing, and I hope

that will be seen as the outcome out of all of this, is people like

my mum, people like Francesca, will actually receive hopefully more

support as a result of the money being allocated away from people

that haven't been reassessed. The Disability Living Allowance was

created in 1992, and it hasn't been ever reassessed since then until

2008 when Labour introduced the new ESA scheme. People's circumstances

have changed in that time. People don't necessarily need that support.

Some people do need that support. People need more of that support.

People like my mum, people like Francesca will continue to receive

that support. I think the money should be redistributed from those

people that don't need it to those that really do. But I - why aren't

the Government bringing in tax refrom instead? Because documents

estimate that the tax gap is �100 billion a year. Why aren't they

going after the corporations and the wealthy people who get off tax?

(APPLAUSE). I can answer. First of all, what

the Government is doing at the moment in terms of the Budget - I

am not a Government Minister. I must stress this again. I am not a

Government MP. Be brief, Ben. answer is they are they're put tax

on bankers' bonuses, which the Labour Government never managed to

do in their time, and also, they're changing the tax system so people

that own massive properties in places like Kensington and Chelsea

who have these big houses should pay more tax.

Thanks, Ben. Tinea? We have a quick one here from Ben

who sea, "Have the Government considered a pay-day loan to

consider tackling the UK deficit?" Not now they have watched this

programme, I think. The Power Bar is looking interesting. It is.

Francesca and Shive. It seems you're a little bit head to head

with Francesca just pipping to the post there. Our audience have heard

the background to these cuts. The gentleman in the blue? Most

importantly with the Government's policy is the incoherency of the

welfare-to-work programme. A lot of people that are disabled, they're

scared of going back to work because they're less well off as a

result of that transition and although Iain Duncan Smith has made

some negligible progress in that way, I think he needs to do more.

Needs to do more. Richard, you've got your hand up at

the front. What do you think?

I personally believe that change has to happen. It's an outdated

system. It doesn't work. I am a disabled person. I am backing up

what the Government is doing here in the sense that there is a three-

tier scheme but 41 categories of disabilities, and in those, there's

different situations. How does three tiers work? It doesn't. It's

outdated. It won't work. I personally believe that the

Government cannot take away the mobility side of things. There's

points of the DLA - there's your carers and your mobility. I know a

lot of people are very afraid that the mobility side of things will go,

and one thing I am finding disgusting from the Government at

the moment is the sense that people that are le that are le

getting provided false legs are actually then getting stripped of

their mode of mobility because the Government feels they have already

provided a need for them but you go to the London Underground and try

to get downstairs when you have an above-knee amputation. I play

basketball. I play with all different types of amputees. It's

an outdated system. I do believe why a lot of people say, why attack

the weak and the poor? Everybody is in a different situation. Good case.

Thank you very much. Is it about getting people back to work? Is

that the situation? Yes? I think that we should educate people

because at the end of the day, we've got people who aren't on DLA

who should be, and because people aren't being educated, they're not

getting the right benefits, and the people that are getting the

benefits shouldn't be getting them. I think everything should be done

individually at the doctor's, and people that are having their DLA

taken off them should be educated into other resources that'll help

them in the future. Thank you. Tinea? Yes, we've got Julian, who

responds to the question, "What effect will DLA cuts have on

disabled people?" He simply says, "Increased suicide rates". Wow. You

have your hand up. Yeah, one of the things that the Government is doing

now in terms of the reforms - there's a new system coming in

called universal credit which is Iain Duncan Smith's big idea. It's

got - it's very, very complicated, and even the Government hasn't

released all the details on it, but one of the things that's coming out

is that for those on employment support allowance which is

basically supposed to act in a way as an insurance scheme because

people get disabled or sick at any point of their life - you don't

know when it's going to happen - those people who are in the group

works the Government is increasing - we know now - the sanctions, so

if they don't do what they're told, effectively, the sanction will go

up from what was �28 a week to �70 a week. We also know that the

Government is thinking about and may institute plans about making

them work unpaid and do work experience. That's also very

controversial when you're talking about this group of people. We're

up against the clock so I think you should give us your final response

to this. Forcing people to do work experience - that is not happening.

That is one of the plans. There is an awful lot of misinformation that

goes on. Understandably, people with disabilities are very

concerned about the prospects of being reassessed. A number of these

people have never been reassessed for 20, 30 years in some cases, so

people are anxious about what it means for them. I have constituents

who have contacted me about having to go to Albert Bridge House in

Manchester to be reassessed, and understandably, they're worried

about what it means for them, but unfortunately, the way it's being

projected by the Government about, we're going to save 20% on the DLA

budget means that people are saying, oh, they're cutting benefits, but

actually, what we will end up seeing is seeing that people will

be reassessed. They'll be reassessed and realise they are in

need of this benefit, and it won't save them money... We'll wait and

see. We'll find out. A final point from you, please, Tinea? Yes, if we

can just look at the Power Bar, I think you'll see Francesca is in

the lead, and Ben, I think it's time to get that Kleenex. Fran,

you're making some great points. Keep that up. Please do make sure

you get on Twitter. Please use the Power Bar and make sure you let us

know what you think of the panellists. You use the #Yes or #No

followed by their first name. If you agree with Francesca, which

many of you are, it's #YesFran or #NoFran. So please, get involved,

make your voice heard on Free Speech and Tweet Power Bar. It's

the only show you can do that. Moving on, he may be serving in

Afghanistan now, but pictures of him triggered over two million

Google searches for "Prince Harry, naked". Final confirmation, if we

really needed it, that he actually is ginger, but what does it mean in

the big privacy versus freedom of speech debate? One newspaper in

this country did run the story, but I can't show you the pics! The Sun

argued that the pictures were already in the public domain online

before they were published. Michael has a question to get us going.

Does the public benefit by knowing that Prince Harry's going out

galavanting and having fun? Ben, self-regulation of the press, what

do we think? I did have a sneaky peak on the

internet and my boyfriend may kill me. Self-regulation, I'm not going

to get into the Leveson inquiry, but if I was in the Sun's shoes I

wouldn't have published it. I don't think it's necessarily in the

national interest for the paper to make money out of this. People

googled it anyway and most will have seen it. Let's see what they

come up with. I have a funny suspicion, but I can't comment,

that it will end up being further regulated. Does it really matter?

I don't care. We have established that Harry isn't brilliant at naked

billiards, but he's in the public eye and he knows that, but you know

anything that ends up on Facebook or on a camera phone isn't private.

OK. The lady there. Are there not more important things than Prince

Harry naked? Seriously! We'll find out, actually. Hands up all the

people that went out and bought the Sun that day. One hand up in the

air. Why did you buy it that day? What was the interest? Just a good

story in the paper. Was it a good story? I wasn't going to comment on

that. Is our Royalty now downgraded to that level? Of Paris Hilton?

Sun said it has implications because he represents Great Britain

around the world. Shiv, what was your reaction? I work for The

Guardian and we clearly are on one side of the debate on these matters,

which is very far away from the Sun. However, our lawyers saw the press

notice, they passed them to journalists in case they're

reporting on these and Clarence House was eager to say, "Please

don't. It was taken out of context." In the sense it was his

privacy. You just think, look, he is - there are two things, he's 27

years old and my own moral thing is he should be growing up and not

sort of spending lavish sums holidaying it up in Las Vegas. I

just didn't think it was appropriate and in a sense,

therefore, if he's going to do stuff like this, it will get out.

On the other hand, which is actually a supportive argument too.

Leveson has put a chill on a lot of people in the press and that chill

factor, the press have stopped publishing or are far more timid

and it's not just stuff like Harry's photographs, but also like

serious investigations. I don't support it. I don't think Prince

Harry should grow up, the pictures made my day, but Bob says,

"Everyone needs to keep their knickers untwisted." We'll hear

from the audience. People forget, even though he's a prince, he's

still human. He has to go to all of the gigs and he's got all the

duties, but he's still human and only 27 and missed out on so much

of what we go out and clubbing and he has engagements, so when he's

doing his own thing why can't he do what he wants? He's still a young

man making his own decisions. of people say the Royal Family is

outdated, but he's human and he's young, but what a lot of people

aren't looking at is, there was a picture of him naked, but also

there's a picture on the front page of him going back to Afghanistan.

He's enjoyed himself before he serves his country. He's a real

human being, so what? (APPLAUSE).

I just want to say the Sun is actually a Tory paper and the

Tories say that they are more inclined to cut people's benefits,

well why do they look at the Prince Harry rather than people's

services? That's what I want to know.

Tracey says, she doesn't agree, "I don't care so much for the story.

It's the principle of freedom of speech." Thank you for getting

online. Popular one. Surprise, surprise. Now, finally, it's

September 11th and that means it's 11 years since the attacks in

America that killed 3,000 people. Interestingly today, no politician

was invited to speak at the annual memorial service at Ground Zero so

is this a date to remember or one we should finally be putting behind

us? Alex uploaded this video and his view is pretty emphatic.

Some people say we shouldn't remember the events of 11th

September since it was so long ago, but I say, ask yourself how can you

ask when the consequences affect everyone every day? When you go to

an airport, you get searched. If you look at the recent Paralympic

and Olympic Games, all the hundreds of army personnel and armed police

there to protect us from the events that happened all those years ago.

I mean, look, it's not just about what happened, it's also about

learning from it, educating a youth that maybe couldn't see it first-

hand and explaining why we live in the world we do today and also

learning from the mistakes that we made, to allow that event to happen

in the first place. Making sure, most importantly, that it never

happens again and also let's not forget it's about respecting and

remembering all those people who died and all the people who put

their lives on the line to save others on that day.

Great points. You can do that and upload a rant to the website, but

the issues and how they affect the modern world are among the themes

of the Rethink Festival at BBC Media City and that starts tomorrow

and we have a question on this final topic. Would you agree that

media coverage of religion since 9/11 has only served to reinforce

negative stereotypes of religion, particularly of Islam?

This gentleman clapped there. Watching that video I didn't want

to get angry, but I am. He doesn't get stopped of the airports. People

like me do. What happened after 9/11 was a systematic demonisation

of Islam and people were attacked. Girls have their scarfs ripped off.

Jack Straw took advantage of the situation. What happened was we had

to look into our faith and try and constantly try to defend it all the

time and I think it was ridiculous and the media have a lot to answer

for. I was going into high school and I

remember the complete five years it was like the peak of racism. As a

result of that I got into a lot of fights at school. All of us, you

couldn't walk down the corridor without being called Taxi. I had to

stand up for myself and fight, because that was me standing up for

myself. I didn't feel like the teachers did enough. It was five

years of my life. A really difficult five years.

We'll hear from the panel. Tinea. One from David who says, "We

lost the war when our freedoms were stolen and our way of life

suffers." Is this time to put this behind us?

I think it was monumental. To address the point about the media,

I think for even now it's been absolutely horrific how most of the

sections of the media treated the Muslim community.

I don't think it's for us to tell people who want to remember a

particular time where their lives were affected by something so

important to tell them no, you shouldn't be commemorated.

I remember where I was and I was doing my work experience at the

time and I find it outrageous that you've received a lot of racial

abuse as a result of that, too. Being gay I've received a lot of

homophobic comments, so I understand where you're coming from.

Should we put it behind us? I think so. Me being an eternal optimist,

it's brought communities together. I work with a Muslim MP and we work

together on that. Fran? I think we need to look at

the root causes of terrorism. We need to stop allowing our

governments to be so violent in their foreign policy.

(APPLAUSE). We need to stop dehumanising each

other with labels and to have more compassion and understanding.

Perfect. Tinea. One last look at the Power Bar.

Fran, you've been winning the whole way through. Fran, you have won.

Sum up the show, Fran. Ten seconds. Wow! I think that what's facing

this country is the issue of inequality and I think as a nation

we need to stand up and try and fight for a government that

represents our interests and not the minority (APPLAUSE).