Episode 3 Free Speech

Episode 3

The live current affairs debate show comes from Winchester in front of an audience of young people divided between those educated in the state system and those educated privately.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Episode 3. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hi Here's what's come up in Fetch for Free Speech - it looks as though


the very last few moments are missing at the moment. Tonight we're


trying something a bit different this evening. We have divided our


audience into people who were privately educated and people who


went to state school. We'll be hearing what they make of the issues


of the week in a moment but we want to hear what you at home think too.


Just tell Tina Daheley. Thanks Rick and a very good evening


to all of you. Here are the hashtags, addresses, Twitter handles


and so on that you'll need to join in tonight's debate online. Using


the latest in Free Speech technology we will be making your Tweets appear


here on this screen. I know we're blown away too. And


here is our panel. Ruth Porter, from the right of centre think tank,


Policy Exchange. Comedian and writer, Russell Kane. Member of pop


super group fifth Story and potential Conservative Party


candidate, Adam Rickitt. And leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett.


And that's our panel. The first question comes from our Leaderboard.


Tina? Yes, all week Free Speech viewers have been going to Free


Speech on Facebook, clicking through to the Audience Questions page and


looking through the many questions which have all been submitted by you


at home. This is how it works: people click "like" on the questions


they want to see on the show and we count up those likes to make this,


the Leaderboard. Here it is published at 2pm this afternoon with


the questions and the number of likes they received. The top


question is from Chris Reacord who asked: "Why are working individuals


worse off than people on benefits?" OK so that is the question. Let's


start with you Adam. Well first it shouldn't be that way.


The system should never mean that somebody who is a hard working


family should be worse off than somebody sat on the dole out of


choice. We have got to make a difference between if you're


uncapable or unable to work, society should look after you. We are here


to look after people. But if you can and it is your choice to play the


system, that should be removed. The Government put a benefits cap on,


which means for a family they only get ?500 a week. But if you're a


family on dole, you're still earning ?26,000 thousand a year. If you're a


working family you have to earn 30,000 to do the same. We need to


say it is a benefits trap. If you're a mother with young children, how


can you go out and work? Most of your money will go to child care. We


should support individuals who are trying to work and bring it all


together as a whole. This is good mood lighting. That is


what you asked for? We have to be careful about


generalising about people on welfare. People get payments for all


kind of reasons. A lot of people who are getting benefits are also in


work. There is a group of people working really hard, but they're


struggling to make ends meet. A large part of it is because we are


coming out of a difficult time for the country. What we saw during the


recession was that people largely kept their jobs and we have seen


employment go up, which is great. But it has been difficult, because


the flip side is has meant as economic output went down, we saw


wages go down and people were struggling and so we have ended up


with a situation where people on low pay are getting benefits. The


important question is what can we do to drive up wages, so we see people


who are working hard not having to also be claiming benefits. I think


what the encouraging thing is as we get economic growth, that is the


best way of pushing up wages and that is what we need to focus on,


the policies to push up economic growth.


You disagree with cutting benefits? I think you have to look at the


different types of benefits. About half of the benefit bill goes to


older people. So some of that is things like the state pension. Some


of it is on things like people who are of working age and are working,


topping up their incomes. There is a group trying to find work and people


who are on benefits because they're maybe physically or because of


mental illness unable to work. The questions are different for all


those four different groups. I think the group which perhaps where I do


agree with Adam is the reforms which have been made have focussed rightly


on that group who are currently looking for work. I think it is


right that we say that we need a system which incentivises people


getting into work, so you shouldn't be better off on benefits than in


work. And through doing things like capping benefits at the average


wage, we have made progress. Doing things like simplifying the benefits


system and rolling out universal credit will help. There has been


tremendous progress made. But I think also we need to be focussing


on that group who are in work and saying how can we get more economic


growth to push up wages. The gentleman here. Who I have come


dressed as! I don't understand the obsession


that people have with the small group and I mean really small


percentage of people who are claiming benefits and they have big


screen TVs. We should be looking at the massive companies who cheat out


the taxpayer each year, taking millions of pounds. They still


haven't paid back the money they owe the taxpayer, it is ridiculous we


are victimising a small group of people and victimising a group of


people on the tiny group of people... I don't think you should


say let's just target star bucks. We have to be in it together. I


don't buy the premise of the question.


I am not sure you can sit around on benefits a week and do four weeks


work and be worse off. It is part of the myth that there is this


underclass. It is this monster that has been created so we have


something to hate on and don't focus on the guys you're talking about.


The real problem is you can't earn enough to meet the minimum bills and


you have to have your wages topped up with benefits, because the


minimum wage is too low. That what is they should fix.


We have a minimum wage that is less than the living wage. And simply if


you work full-time, you should earn enough to live on. We need to lift


the minimum wage to make it a living wage. And also in terms of benefits,


I disagree with the benefits cap. We are the six South richest economy in


the world and we have vast numbers of wealthy people and benefits


should be paid to people on the basis of need, not some artificial


cap. The gentleman in the green shirt?


I'm someone that has been unfortunate to be on state benefits


and I can tell you it is ?72 a week. Unless your over 35 to receive


housing benefit you can't get over ?68. We have an ever increasing


homelessness problem. I have worked in a homeless hostel and they are


not pleasant. We have people that are doctors, solicitors, highly


qualified people claiming ESA and JSA. It is so and black and white to


suggest people on benefits earn more than people working. I have lived


it. And it is not true. There is a case that there are multiple


benefits and you can have other benefits.


Where does that benefit go, it goes to the landlord. It is some middle


class person that owns the property. It is those private landlords that


manipulate the situation because you're vulnerable and desperate and


you take the first option. There are landlords out there that don't use


the legal rent deposit scheme and people are losing their deposits


while on benefits. While your on benefits to save for a deposit on a


property is near on impossible. This lady here?


What we need to remember is every story about somebody earning a lot


on benefits there will be somebody who needs benefits to survive. We


need to sort out those who are doing it to get Monday you and those who


need it. The issue is the fact there is a


growing issue of hunger in our country and food kind of places are


having to grow to accommodate families who can't afford food, it


shows the benefit cap is harming people who need it the most and we


are neglecting the lower classes. There are half a million people


dependent on food benefits. The Red Cross is supplying the UK and that


is a disgrace. The gentleman here?


It is, we have seen programmes such as Benefits Street and it is a


disgrace that we are subjected to this sort of, we take a minority and


an issue and the media uses this policy of scaremongering to make us


well, in the case of newspapers or Channel 4 or five, whoever did it,


to make us watch their adverts. We see it on benefits, immigration and


Europe and what needs to happen is the media need to get back in line


and be told you can't do this and create this bubble of fear.


Does anyone favour here of the benefits cap? Yes?


Well... I'm in favour of the cap as a principle. The principle that


nobody should be earning more on benefits than they do on work. But


we need to be looking at tax rates as well. Because the second you earn


over ?10,000 in cash, you're paying 20% tax and national insurance and


VAT and everything else. Tax rates are too high. Now, I agree with the


gentleman down here that big companies are avoiding tax. They're


doing it legally, because the tax system is too complicated. It need


to be ironed out, loopholes removed and with the additional revenue that


generates you can bring tax down for everyone. Especially at the lower


end. Would you agree?


Yes the emphasis should be put on creating a situation in which


benefits are not needed and wages don't need to be topped up. So


everyone is earning what they should be earning to live.


The gentleman here. We live in a world where the rich


get richer and the poor get poorer. We see that happening each day. In


my opinion, we need to fix that problem of you know some rich


person, rich fat person, not offending fat people, but rich


person earning millions and somebody just you know living on the street


and not being able to actually buy a bread roll for themselves. I think


the main problem is that we need to sort these rich people out and make


them pay. Not all rich people are fat and


vice-versa. I am not saying big fat cats is


right. But it is the trickle down effect. But there is becoming, there


has always been a level of higher class, middle class lower class and


now there is this under class where people are not even seeing the


poverty. That is where we need to direct the support and get people


out of this trap. We need to get companies to be


paying their taxes. George Osborne boasts he has brought the rate down


to 20%. But that is the same as small business and these companies


are paying minimum wage, zero hours contracts and collecting enormous


profits and deposits them in tax havens.


Interesting messages. From Billy, people on benefits are too lazy to


find work annoy me so much. They're just too high and too easy


to access. What would your response be Russell?


I grew up in a council street so I think I'm qualified to comment.


Typical council street, there are were a few people who were, ponces


was the word we used. But most are doing the best they can to survive


and when that best isn't good enough because the system is skewed in


people higher in the income chain, these people don't exist there is


not this army of spraying out children, there is a few cases that


turned into poverty porn and lead to hateful comments like you read out.


Greenberg when I think both this audience should be angry at both


Adam and the tweeter. You are claiming there is a class of people


sponging on benefits. I said a lot of people have slipped


below the radar. There are nearly one million young


people unemployed. I used to be editor of the Guardian weekly. I met


those people. They usually had a degree, a Masters, a couple of


languages, they had been an intern and there were desperate to work for


me for nothing. There are huge numbers of people who are doing


everything right and can't get paid jobs.


Exactly, I agree. There are people who cannot get jobs which is why we


have jobseeker's allowance. The question about this was not about


whites are we not supporting people, it was supporting people when they


are sponging the system. It is a tiny minority.


Compared to the tax evaders. That is not the question we were


asked. Corporate tax evasion should be put right. But they also employ


and put money into the system. You are saying the big corporate bosses


only pay minimum wage. They are employing thousands of people as


well. They should be paying the higher rate of tax, 45% rate of tax,


but you can't knock these people because they are paying their fair


dues. We are talking about people's


ability to earn a decent living and we're talking about the tax and


benefits system but there is another important side to this debate, which


is the cost of living. It is not just about the amount of money that


you have got, it is about what that amount of money that will buy for


you. Feeding and housing benefits come up quite a few times. If we


look at child care, food costs, particularly housing, the difficulty


is that at this time during the recession when we saw wages go down,


although they are coming back up again, we have seen the cost of


living go up for people and if we take housing.


It is a toxic combination. Real wages falling, the cost of living


rising. We need to be more imaginative about


this whole discussion and say, how do we reduce the cost of housing?


We haven't got time to be imaginative now. The next question,


being asked from the studio audience.


Shouldn't the best education be available to everybody in the


country, however rich or poor they are?


Shouldn't everybody be entitled to the best education, no matter how


rich or poor they are? Russell. This is a question about is it moral


to have private schools, I suppose, beneath the lines. We have a private


school system, it is called Comprehensive Schools. If you want


to go near a decent Comprehensive Schools you have to buy the mansion


near the Comprehensive School. It is de facto private anyway because you


are paying to be near a school that is good. The thing that was the


generation before mine that was around, you were tested on your


ability and scooped into grammar schools, which a lot of people are


against but the reality is now that if you want a decent education you


have to pay for it, whether at a private school, or a nice area in


Surrey and be nearer comprehensive that get good results. If you are in


a comprehensive near a council estate,


a comprehensive near a council system. It has a shortage of places.


In Surrey, it is nearly a quarter of people who go to private school. The


solution, you have grammar schools but you have to reform the system


more widely so we don't have this ridiculous notion that if you're not


getting A levels you are a failure, that if you want to learn a trade or


skill, in Sweden or Germany it is lauded and praised and just as


worthy. We have in a trade or skill, in Sweden or Germany it is lauded


and praised and just as worthy. We have an aberrant system where you


are told if you cannot write an essay you are not worth anything.


Everyone should have the best education. The way to do that is not


abolish private schools but to make the state system works so fewer


people want to go to private schools.


People don't remember what it is like to be aged between 11-16. When


you are that age, I don't know about anyone else, I just wanted to be


popular and fit in. Most of us want to fit in. If you are dumped in a


bin, where the people who are popular are the hardest, who has


taken drugs, your results and everything else goes like that. I


know the grammars system is immoral and people have been told they have


failed, but if I was around the chance to be around as a bright,


poor kids, I might have done better at school. That is why social


mobility has gone down since the 60s. If you are born in a council


estate now, at the top of a tower block, you have less chance of


getting to Oxford than 30 years ago and that cannot be right.


This question of who gets into Oxford is an important one because


it illustrates something. What we know at the moment is quite commonly


talked about, at the moment there is the same number, there is more


children getting into Oxford or Cambridge who went to one school,


Westminster College, than children across the entire school system, who


are on free school meals. I think that just shows the scale of the


problem that we have got. The reality is for most families they


are never going to be able to afford private schools, so the question is


how we make state schools as good as they possibly can be and it is


partly a question of expectation. Actually expecting people and


encouraging them that they can do well.


The fact is this government, each year cutting funding to state


education in real terms by 3.5%. We have to invest in quality schools.


What we need is everyone to be able to go to a good school near them. We


don't want a situation where you have to cherry picked, parents


travel and children create enormous traffic jams, where people who know


how to play the system get a good school. We need a good local school


for everybody. If you take a contrast with private schools, nine


pupils per teacher, government schools, 22 pupils per teacher. It


is no wonder the results are different.


What we are seeing is academies and free school academies and free


school (APPLAUSE) Academies and free schools are washing up the quality


of teaching. Know they are not. They are


disasters. What we need is local, democratic control of schools.


It is exactly, free schools and academies are devolving more power.


Which is what you are saying we need.


One at a time! Tina, what have you got?


This has come in, Comprehensive Schools do care about their students


as people. The best education should be given


to everybody, it is a case of giving it to people who want to achieve so


maybe we should be selective. Finland has proven that children do


better when not subject to standardised tests. Why don't we


follow their example? Exactly, it is a sausage machine,


trying to shove people through. Ruth!


What we have seen in terms of standardised tests is it is a way of


making sure that our schools are delivering a high quality of


education and what we know is it is things like improving the quality of


teachers aren't getting the best and brightest into schools teaching that


actually makes the real difference for children. We need to be finding


of making sure particularly in the most deprived areas, that is where


the best teachers are going, into those schools.


Adam. I was lucky in that my dad worked


really hard and sent me to boarding school when I was seven. I can say


one thing, there is this myth that the best teachers are going to


private schools. They are not. The teachers that tend to go to private


schools tend to be the ones who go there because they want an easy


life. The state schools are the ones who want to inspire and they are


inspired themselves. Flatulence was the most interesting thing my


teachers taught me at school. We go to boarding school, you are inspired


themselves. We go to boarding school, you towards results. We need


to bring in that same thing to the state school system. The education


is there, the teachers are there, but we need the support helping


children to reach their full capability.


Muscle. Until you skew the balance of


background versus education, we have this thing called the PISA tests,


which shows how much the background and the education influences you,


your mum and dad are half the influence, the school is the other


half. If you have not got a mum and dad who take you to the opera,


between June and September, your brain goes... While the middle-class


kids are still related. If you put those people together, it doesn't


matter how good the teachers are, how good the school is, there is a


limit to how much you can do. Everyone has the same messed up


attitude towards education. There is a muddling up of concepts, equality


and fairness. Sometimes it is not the right thing to make everyone the


same and equal. Why don't we look at what people can do and all the


people who love maths and English, they go to a maths and English


school, the arty people go to an arty school. Instead of, everyone


has to have the same. Free schools then. You are in favour


of free schools. It is social, being at school. You


have lots of people, lots of types, it does not matter if you are


streaming, the law of the jungle goes on. I could not wait to restart


my education at 16 and do it on my own, where I could be proud to get


high grades instead of being bullied.


If children go through state school and go to university, they tend to


outperform those who have been to a private school.


How can Michael Gove expect state schools to be the same as private,


when there is one teacher to ten children, and in a state school, one


adult to 30 children or more and nowadays they don't even have T8s.


That argument is specious, you can have a large class and do


wonderfully. If you want to get a bunch of boys who learn about maths,


they learn about maths, as simple as that.


The lady at the back. I think there is a problem with


society and the structure of it as a whole, that it is a meritocracy I


understand, I understand that conditionis good and it drives


change and passion, but if you focus on grades alone than we are not


going to get the best out of everybody. People are so much more


complicated and complex than just achieving the best results. I agree


with Russell, send people to different schools that build on


their strengths and change society. It is run by the cream skimmed top


in drive at schools. Interesting word order, I get the


idea. I personally believe that I


completely agree with you, schools and colleges are so focused on


achieving academic excellence that students' well-being does not come


into play. I go to a really good sixth form and I am not an A*


student, I am not even talk properly because I am not going to achieve


that academic excellence. There is a huge flaw in the education system,


especially under Michael Gove. I really think it has become so


experimental and we need more investment in our education.


Education is the key to empowerment. APPLAUSE Go on.


Me? Why not?


We are talking negatively about state schools and my state school


was brilliant. We should not forget about that. You have to go to


private school to do well. It is not about that. You can go to a state


school and do really well. But if you are in a challenging


area, some state schools do fantastic but the rule of thumb is,


come on, guys, if you are in a challenged area and everyone is from


a challenged family, it is a de facto private system where I am


spending ?1 million to live in Woodford Green because I know the


competence of school is going to be good, I might as well go to private


school and save money on the house. I agree with what you say about


splitting people up to do what they enjoy, up to 14, I like maths, let's


do maths, I like sport, let's do sport.


You would not say to Usain Bolt, have the same PE.


If someone is into maths, initial history, celebrate it. Let's give


help rather than shame them the way secondary moderns do.


The gentleman with the white T-shirt on the private side?


I want to point out the original question, should everyone have a


fair and equal education? It would be a great idea and make sure we get


the best people rest jobs but would it be possible and as Charles Murray


says, no matter how we dress it up, 15% of the population will be below


to intelligence so they can't get high-ranking jobs and a lot of


money. Someone has to be a cleaner and someone has to work in the lower


classes. We can't have everyone achieving highly.


I don't think private schools are all may make out to be. There is too


much focus on academics and when it comes to mental health there is too


much strength, because you don't get the grades you're out.


Yes? I have been fortunate enough to go


to public school and some very good and very not so good state schools.


I think the divide, as soon as you come in as a child, you have that


class divide. You say these fat cats and people on the bottom line. If


you put them all in the same schools with the over attentive mums and


with kids who are not as well off, the quality would rise.


Education isn't just about, the school isn't completely in control


of your children's education. It is parents.


We were talking about international... International


comparisons and we have far unequal outcomes than most of the rest of


the world. People who are rich get better outcops. That is because we


have an unequal society. Think of the dreadful bedroom tax and we're


asking children of the same gender to share bedrooms. They share until


they're 16. How does the 12-year-old do their homework when the


six-year-old is rung around and playing. So we have inequality of


outcomes. That is what parents need to give


support on. At private school the school fill that role of giving you


support and push you. The parents need to do that as well. You can't


drop your kids off and say that is it, I wash my hands.


And the parents working on minimum...


I'm talking when they're at home at the weekend.


Now lots of people are talking about politics being dominated by people


who are privatery educated and this viewer says it is a problem.


Now to our next debate. And just to alert you our next debate is on


pornography so if that's something you find offensive you might want to


switch over. But if you like it hit record. The question comes from


journalist and former dominatrix Nichi Hodgson who Free Speech spoke


to this week. The first time I spanked somebody I


was about 24. I had a very conventional childhood and I went to


a good girls' school. Got A grades. Went to university to study


literature. When I came to London to work in the media, I was an unpaid


intern and had to general mate some money and became assistant to a


domicatrix. It was through this work that I was


absorbed into the BBSM world. Some say watching porn can be a


feminist act. But it has been a myth. For so many years that women


are not visually turned on by pornography.


The more we can do to counter that by viewing porn and buying it and


encourage people to make the porn we want to watch.


Lads' magazines don't cause rape and neither does porn.


The mass market stuff that most of us consume is of a poor quality.


So that there are some problems with the industry, but we didn't stop


wearing trainers because we found they were made in sweat shops.


The reason we are frightened of it is because we think desire is


immoral. Porn throws back at us our darkest sexual fantasies.


It is a way of exploring things that society doesn't allow you to do with


a regular partner. I don't understand why the age of


pornography is 18, it should be 16 like the age of sexual consent.


The question I want asked is porn really bad for us?


It is just eight. 30 so there are certain words we can't use during


this debate. But I can't tell you what they are. Natalie?


I would say with one in six people in Britain using porn it is not


innately bad. Why is that?


There is no evidence that it is bad. But it is bad for people who haven't


had good sexual education in school and don't realise it is fantasy. One


things we saw the Daily Telegraph having a campaign to improve sex and


relationship education in schools. It is a fact that the guidelines


were written in 2000 and the world has changed a lot, particularly


online since then. We need to look at the fact too many people with


things like lads' Mags are subjected to pornography when they don't want


to see them and page three and the green MP got told to cover up her


chest, because she was wearing a no more page three T-shirt.


But it is five to have page three in Parliament.


It is down to education. People are not taught about sexual education in


school. I can remember my sexual education cast and somebody came in


and gave me a plastic blue penis and said stuck a condom on it and said


well done, now do that when you have sex, or don't have sex. If somebody


tells you not to do something, you immediately think I might do that.


So instead teach about the proper which to protect yourselves and get


sex taught properly. And discuss relationships.


The fact that people have no knowledge that when you get pregnant


you have got to look after the kid. This is a bit off topic. We are


talking about whether porn is bad for us?


The reason people start, I'm a comedian so I have to be careful. I


don't think porn has affected me. But it is the main place I learned


about sex, but it is linked, because teaching sex education at 14 it is a


cringing and embarrassing. It needs to be taught in primary schools like


in other countries. All I got was a drop and run from my mum, a leaflet


and her running out. If an eight-year-old girl says at primary


school where do babies come from and we are in a bizarre situation where


the teacher says you will have to come back at 14 with the baby.


It is Norway or Sweden their rate of teenage pregnancy is one 20th of the


UK and they teach sex education in year one or two. But it is what type


of porn children are given access to. It is oo easy. When I was 14 I


found a job application to be a porn star.


How did it go? I'm wait gt for the reply. I feel


the schools and the parents, if they can address their children and let


them know before they're exposed to pornography they can realise it is


not what it is like. Nichi, you posed the question.


Is porn bad for us. Something that keeps coming up is the difference


between porn sex and real sex. And one person's real sex is somebody


else's porn sex. We have to really...


Stop looking at her! We have to turn on its head all


these ideas that we think we know are true about pornography and sex.


So many of us have imbiemed ridgeous -- imbibed religious teaching and


porn becomes a place where we pour our fears and desires into it and


then we want to torn it off and -- turn it off and society is telling


us it is wrong. So our relationship with pornography is complicated,


because our relationship with sex is and that comes back to education.


Until we are educated to accept your desire. Just because you have a


feeling doesn't mean you have to do it. The same with porn. If we


understand the difference, we are going to have a massive problem with


the way we consume porn and the we we frame it is always negative.


We did a poll of the audience. You have the results.


Yes we asked people about porn. 80% of people have seen porn. 39% in


the past week. And in gender, 59% of men and 20% of women watched porn in


the last week. The gentleman here?


What worries me is whether porn is good for us, but what the Government


will do. It becomes an issue of sensor ship and then where are the


powers going to lead you and will you live in a society where we can't


do what we want and we are going to be sopped by doing -- stopped by


doing things like porn and what else. Censor ship is the crux of the


problem. That has already happened with the


filtering that came in in January. It is not just adult content it is a


category that is undefined. Access to any sex education information and


information about war. It may turn you into a terrorist. I hope you


create a bomb. Once you have the broad categories and the Government


has a register of how we are accessing the internet, that is not


democracy. That is the thin end of the wedge and not the end we want to


be at. This lady here.


It is a fine line between looking at the news on some like, say you're


looking at the news on something that isn't the BBC porn flashes up.


It is a fine line between children encountering that and internet


providers helping parents to stop that and removing porn from the


internet. We have got to find a way too control it.


If you give parent sense of security a and you don't have to worry about


what your children are doing online. Porn is not the only danger and a


lot of 12-year-olds are more clever at the internet than their parents.


People need the education, the help and the parental oversight. Any


filter will give people a false sense of security.


It is true even's better than their parents at the internet. But maybe


we have to educate the parents on how to look after their children.


Mo parents don't want to talk about porn, because they don't know what


they think about it. Ofcom, which regulates contents did a study in


2005 and decided that the best way to protect children from adult


content was to give them sex education and get their parents to


talk to them. Those are the key areas.


I work for a charity and run a sex and relationship education


programme. We go into schools and talk to young people about sex and


relationships and pornography and what we hear a lot is young people


saying they use pornography as a form of sex education and what is


worrying, you talked about the difference between real sex and porn


sex, but there are myths perpetuated by porn. I asked them what they


learned from porn and some of it I can't repeat, but the root of it is


education and talking to parents and they feel a able to talk to their


children to work their internet filters so they feel they're


confident and to be giving young people a form to discuss these


things. It is the secrecy that can lead to some of the problems, as


well as addiction and things like that. I was in Parliament on Monday


speaking about this and had a letter in The Times. We need to think about


it as a public health inquiry, because of the issues of addiction.


Porn addiction is highly contested. The American manual has removed it


from its definitions. We have this debate about porn addiction like an


addiction to cocaine. There is a real difference between a physical


depend si and the chemicals firing you up and porn doesn't work like


that. We can't use the younger generation


as a guinea pig. Do you want there is an age where it


can mess you up for life? There is no evidence. I think the


main issue is if you watch porn as your form of sex education and Dons


understand about consent, the key word, then you practise what you see


in porn on women, you're not going to have healthy relationships. But


this doesn't mean that porn can't be used to educate, because it can.


Some porn is educational. And you can create a new kind of porn.


Who does think that porn is bad for us?


Yes, the gentleman in the white shirt.


I don't want to be smacked in the face! Yes, I do think Paul is bad


because it can totally give you a misconception of what a relationship


is about -- porn. If you watch it from a young age, I do worry about


kids and they are eight years old and can stumble across it and think


what they are doing to each other is a good thing and they are getting a


relationship and doing it and, oh, wait, that is not how it works.


Everybody can agree, it is monitoring it. It is how we can stop


younger children from seeing it. Back in my day before the Internet


started you had movies, they had 18 or 15 ratings and it was hard to get


to a cinema to see an 18 moving. Because the web has moved on much


faster than those bodies trying to police it, we need to bring in


better policing and it should not be done by one company because that is


too much power. It needs to be the parents who do it but it needs to be


more readily available. When the government tried to bring it in


recently you have the NSPCC being blocked, child lying being blocked


the course of the word abuse. We need to make sure it is much more


dependent on families. Parents need to be what -- more aware and alert


about what kids are doing. The largest study of children in


Europe done by a body called EU kids online, more than 22,000 young


people between 9-16, 57% of them said that porn had positively


impacted their lives and 1% reported it negatively impacted. We need to


be careful about talking about children's problems with porn. We


are too quick to say isn't it terrible, but we need to ask them


themselves what their problems. Or what problems might be expressed


later in life. Porn poisons your brain. It is like us women have to


be like that but most of their women -- most of those women are


practically getting raped. Absolutely not, they are consensual


and there and getting paid. The idea that all women have to look like


that, porn has a huge amount of body diversity. Any body part you don't


like about yourself, type it into Google with the word porn and it


will come up. Somebody out there thinks it is wonderful and wants to


see more of it. There is nothing more positive than that. We have to


get past the idea that women are objects to be used in pornography.


Plenty of women like to experience certain sex acts that other people


might find some educated. Porn infiltrates a lot of areas of


our lives that we are not aware of and it is not true that it is just


about the individual. 57% might has positively impacted their lives but


that does not survey the other people. I think it is iffy.


Women's magazines has more to say than porn does. There are so many


different shapes and sizes and ethnicities in porn.


I don't think you can categorise porn into black and white scenario.


Instead of trying to eradicate it, it should be more integrated into


our society and work on how to make it more ethical.


Still bobbing porn has become integrated into our society. We


can't define or draw boundaries around what it is. We have seen this


incredible sexualisation of our society and on the one hand that


openness and ability to talk about sex is a great thing, but it has


thrown up all kinds of different cultural challenges and yes, we can


police and try and protect children to an extent from that, but if you


look at the row over things like the lyrics around songs like blurred


lines just before Christmas, there are so many examples we can think


of, things like not just music videos, just the sexualisation in


general of things in our society, has led to this kind of


commodification of sex. It has led to a kind of misunderstanding of


relationships. It has led to us being talked about


issues around body image for people, unrealistic expectations of each


other. There is all kinds of broader, cultural issues which we


can't, there is nothing the government can do about them, there


are things we need to grapple with and work out what that looks like


for us. Quite a few people fake porn is bad


for you. To become EU here horrid and file


words about porn, women are just objects.


We should celebrate an industry where members are exploited.


We cannot differentiate between fantasy and real relationships.


Most of us, by the time the hormones hit between 12-14, we have not got


the information in their ready to deal with those urges and wanting to


look, the information needs to be put in when you are less of a sexual


being. The information about drugs, family, sex, needs to go in at


primary school. When you say, I have got those feelings, I have been


armed with information and when you go to the pornography you understand


what it is, what fantasy is, because you have been properly educated


prior to the torrent of hormones ripping through your body and


turning your life upside down. We will end that debate because we


are running out of time and move on. If you found that interesting, BBC


Three is showing a documentary after this programme with Jameela Jamil


looking at these issues. Our final question is from the studio


audience. It is Jamie. Where is Jamie? What do


you want to ask? Are arbitrary quota system is the


best way of ensuring that e-mails have access and opportunity in


public life? . We definitely need those. If you take the example of


Green Party policy, we have a policy of 40% of women on FTSE boards and


in Norway was introduced by a right-wing male, who wanted to


improve the quality of the boards in Norway. They put those women in and


the women on those boards were actually better qualified than the


men who remained. We were talking about a meritocracy. We don't have a


meritocracy. We have selection on the basis of if you belong to the


right golf club and went to the right school. The only way we can


deal with the lack of women, 22% of women in Parliament, we need more


women in public life and that requires quotas.


Rhoose? There is a group -- woeful


representation of women in lots of areas. We talked about boards,


Parliament, we can think of so many examples as well. The problem with


quotas is what it does culturally is it sends out further the message


that women should not be respected, women can't get there on their own


and it undermines their credulity. And actually, oddly, it makes the


problem worse. Russell? Agreed, but it is worth


paying that cultural tax for a few years while the system sorts itself


out. Going back to the first question about benefits, we are in a


country where it is much harder if you are woman to carry on working


and get childcare straightaway because there is not proper


childcare when kids are born. It is years before you can get back up and


that holds women in -- that holds back women in the workplace.


I agree with what you are saying, women aren't quite as good so they


need a leg up but the system is broken so it needs a bit of


lubrication, a bit of Greece, just for three or four years and then we


can drop back into a normal system and the system is broken and it is


the price we have to pay. This is part of the issue here, the


obsession with pulling women out as some kind of group.


Women can pull themselves out, they are strong. You talk about women and


childcare. One thing that is interesting is the


way we tend to assume that issues like childcare as if they are


women's issues. Single parents where I grew up, men


were not there. The way the media looks at this, the


way that if you look at when the government announces that they are


changing things which are going to affect the finance that a family


gets around a child or childcare provision, anything like that, the


next day I go through the papers and look at how different journalists


have reported it. What bothers me is the number of people who talk about


those changes and the impact on women. No, they will have impact on


families. You need to get the figures. The


Fawcett Society figures, one fifth of an average woman's average income


from benefits. For men, one tenth. The more in terms of our language


that we keep buying into and suggesting that these things like


childcare should be women's issues, not family issues, the worse we make


the problem. There are a lot of families without


dads around where the kids are left with the month.


They are still families, we can call them families.


Adam? We are off-track. My thing is, the


best person gets the job. The bottom line, if...


What if you can't get to the interview?


The best person should get the job and it empowers everybody, whatever


their colour, their sexuality, their race. If we are not at that level


than that is up to those companies to look at the internal.


Exams for GPs, there is a discrimination against people from


ethnic minorities. They fail the exam or other court has told them to


sort that out. There is discrimination and you have to sort


out discrimination and quotas is one way.


Quotas breed more distrust, more disgruntlement between every body


else. Look at it from a different angle.


When you put quotas some of the reaction of people who are not in


the quota is to get frustrated and angry and it builds resentment


between parties. It is the worst way of doing it.


It is successful, it has worked in Norway and other countries.


You will have to agree to differ because our time is up. We are back


in two weeks' time, on Thursday, in Nottingham, as part of the crime and


punishment system we will come from the old courthouse. There will be


Anna Soubry and one-time prison warden and comedian Ava Vidal.


You don't have to wait until then to get free speech. The questions page


is -- page on Facebook has been reset and is waiting for your


questions. Click like on the ones you most want to see in the


programme and we will count them up and see which comes top.


From us in Winchester, for now, good night. Subtitles by Red Bee Media


Ltd. E-mail: [email protected]


The live current affairs debate show comes from Winchester in front of an audience of young people divided between those educated in the state system and those educated privately. In the run-up to the show viewers help set the agenda by voting for the questions they want to see debated on the show's Facebook page, which are then discussed by the panel.

Download Subtitles