Episode 5 The Nolan Show

claims that is what some women have told him. Is there are grey area?

Tax avoidance is not illegal, but is it a moral. What is wrong with

paying as little tax as you legally can? She is at the heart of a

political row at Stormont, the voice of victims or a political pawn? Ann

Travers is here to talk about her public and private battles. Jordan

O'Keefe from Britain's Got Talent is on this show. Welcome along. Another

big show. There are so many people at home who want to get in touch

with us. Let us take a look at how to do so. If you're calling us,

08459 555678. Calls cost 5p per minute. There will be an additional

connection fee. Calls from mobiles may cost considerably more. If you

are tweeting as it is that @stephennolan and our hashtag is

#BBCNolan. You can text us on 81771. Now, the former Crimewatch presenter

Nick Ross provoked a furious response at the weekend after

extracts from his book Crime were published. He talks about women he

spoke to. Let us look at what he said. He said for them, rape is not

always rape. Let us listen to what he told us this week. Do you think

if the woman gets drunk and gets into bed with someone and claims she

was raped, do you think she is partly responsible? Is she to blame,

no. She partly responsible? Of course she is. Just as a man would

be if he put himself in a vulnerable situation. Any of us who put

ourselves into a situation where we are vulnerable to crime must take

responsibility. Heidi McAlpin, anyone who puts themselves into a

vulnerable position, must take responsibility. I do not see a

problem with what he said. People are getting sensational about this.

He is a man talking about it, so that adds a different layer. If you

are a woman who has drunk a lot and is out with your friends, and you

end up in a vulnerable situation, is it not better to put in place

circumstances that will not put you in that position? So if you are

woman at in that situation, what? Binge drinking is a big problem.

you partly responsible? It is not about responsibility. If you are

raped, you are a victim. My point is... Do not get to that point of

the night. Stay with friends. Be careful of how much you are

drinking. There are men out there who will prey on women who are

vulnerable. They are vulnerable because they have been drinking or

got lost from their friends. That is my problem with the people who are

jumping on Nick Ross and saying that he is wrong. Let us be open and

honest about this. He went on to talk about, you would not leave a

laptop in the back of your car! Purred Nick Ross. He is very naive

to make such a trivial comparison. -- who are Nick Ross. I do not

totally disagree. Rape is one of the most heedless crimes that can be

perpetrated on anyone. The woman who have allegedly been abducted in

America, who were used as slaves, the girl in India who was brutally

raped while she was sitting with her boyfriend and then thrown off a

bus. We have the Pakistani guys in England who abused girls. These sort

of people are misogynistic, these are wicked, nasty evil men. Is that

not every rapist? This is where I have the problem. There are loads of

young people and when we were all young, we would have taken a drink,

went out with our mates and you would have a young fella and I young

girl... This is the problem, you cannot cut to the chase, you have to

think about the broader issue. You can not make a comparison to what

I've talked about in America, , you cannot make a comparison of what

happened to those women and a couple of guys and girls going out for a

bit of a drink. The guy is putting himself in a position where he could

be accused of rape and the girl is putting herself into a position

where she could be raped. Both of them have a responsibility. He talks

about different grades of rape. Do you think we should look at it in

different circumstances? We look at murder in different ways. I cannot

claim that a young guy who gets drunk, meets a girl who gets drunk

and the two of them have not got the ability to rationalise what they are

doing and then one of them might have a regret in the morning and

accuse the guy of rape, because the two of them are not able to think

rationally. The law is really clear about this. The law talks about

consent, unless you are sure that an individual is in the position to

give consent, they do not have to resist. Then add guys should never

pick up a girl who is drunk. You are putting yourself at a position where

you can be accused of something that you might not have intended to do.

There are two issues here. One issue relates to how women can keep

themselves safe and a separate issue is to do with men who perpetrate

rape. I think what happened with Nick Ross is that he merged the two.

The perpetration of rape is about nonconsensual sex or reckless as to

whether the woman or man consented to sex. I think the perpetration of

rape lies solely with the perpetrator. It is as simple as

that. No one is saying that it doesn't. What we are debating now is

do not get to that stage of the night. If anyone who has been raped

could rewind the clock and change the course of the night so they did

not become a victim, they would do that. Rape is not perpetrated by

someone being dragged up a lane, the vast majority of rates occur by

someone close to the victim. Let me go to the very back row. It does not

matter how much woman I drink has. A man should have more respect than to

go to a woman, if she says no, rape is rape. What if she does not say

anything? Then it is her fault. You have to speak up. So let us look at

some of the circumstances. If someone is in bed and they are

clearly so drunk that they cannot give consent. A man should know

better. It is not the individual's fault? And man should have more

respect than to go near her. There are some dangerous messages being

arbitrated. It starts with Nick Ross talking about the sensitive issue

about which he has little knowledge. If there are victims of rape

watching this programme, they should in no way take from this message

that they are to blame. Whether they were drunk or naked in the street,

it is not an indication for someone to have sex with them. Introducing a

level of ambiguity, about graduations, is wholly unhelpful.

Surely, you cannot just say it is ambiguous. It is not. It is clear to

me. I have the right to wear what I want, if I want to wear a short

skirt, a low top... Why are you talking about different grades of

rape? When you have young people who are consuming alcohol, having a good

time, doing what, and they are heady with the atmosphere and the drink,

they are not in any position to make any rational decision, neither the

man or the woman. You cannot develop a situation where you decide because

someone is not fit to say yes or no that you have fun -- some form of

consent. You are then rapist. People that perpetrate it rapist. Whether

it is your husband, a boyfriend or someone has got you intoxicated.

Nick is in a timewarp. He has gone back 50 years and is damaging the

good work done ie different organisations which have helped

victims and encourage them to come forward. Nick Ross has come out and

said that his words were taken and spun for sensationalist media and

also he said that it is the antithesis of what his argument is.

One second. The chapter has been put on the Internet in an effort by the

publishers to clarify this confusion. I read the chapter and I

did not gain anything by reading it, because I just do not get this. You

would not leave a laptop in the back of your car, at bank would not leave

money beside the door? That is rubbish. He is a journalist who has

chosen particular surveys to try and serve his own purpose. He talks

about men and women in domestic violence relationships and tries to

We are allowed to walk around with what we want. There is a mixed

message from you tonight. You are talking about the responsibility of

someone who gets drunk. I am talking about young people who go

out and what happens to them. I am not talking about a woman who is

innocent to walking home, she has every right. If somebody rapes

her... Did you see the way you introduce words like innocently?

Who was it that said, serious rape? There is not a serious rape and no

serious rape. It is just rape. is a war crime, perpetrated to

dominate. We do not live in the utopian society, so protect

yourself if you can. This whole subject area is very pertinent to

you, what has happened to you in your life. Yes. I think that what

we need to bear in mind is that rape is rape. The way that it has

happened may have a different impact on people. I think one of

the things that Nick was trying to save is that some women and men do

not realise that there has been raped, because people do not

understand what sexual violence and rape is. Sometimes when they

realise they have been raped, it is a horror to them to even begin to

accept that they have been raped. I think what we have to look at is

giving out these messages that say that you have made yourself

available. In the same way that... Rather than make yourself available,

what about those who use language, you have left to suffer vulnerable?

Is that fair to debate or not? Is that off-limits? I think that what

we have to look at, when you are talking about people going out and

getting drunk, what you are not often seeing is the fact that the

perpetrators are the ones getting you drunk to get you into that

honourable position in the first place. That is why many victims

will not go forward because they think, I was drunk, it must have

been my fault. That is the argument, or that is the difficulty that lot

of women have and men have. They think it is their fault that the

rate has happened. What these comments by Nick Ross has done has

a reinforced Fatah really bad time for people the fact -- reinforced

at a really bad time for people the fact that they are being made to

feel they are responsible. As a survivor of rape herself, can you

put words to the impact it has on an individual long-term? That

brittle act? In terms of how it impact to life, your life can

totally changed overnight as a result of what happens. Many people

have post-traumatic stress disorder, that can go on for months and years.

For some people it will go on all their lives. It can have all sorts

of long-term mental health impact, it could have physical health

impacts. It can have lots of invitations and I do not think we

even know yet to the extent to that rape can have on people and the

balance but it does. Do you welcome the debate around it ought do you

think that people like Nick Ross should not even start the debate,

talking about you would not leave a sackful of money at the door of a

bank? I don't think the way he has introduced the debate is helpful.

We are in a very difficult time. We got to a stage where suddenly

victims, we were saying, yes, we will believe you. Even 20 years

later, we will believe you. Then we have the question of anonymity at

protecting the rapist. We are in a time when we are trying to throw

back the whole time and say, we will give with one hand but take a

lot more with another. What we are saying is, you have got to work

harder to prove that you are a victim. There are some young people

in the audience tonight he might not know your story, it was

headline news. It is a very personal story to you. It is my

life. People came up with those same arguments 27 years ago, and

people were saying at the time, rape is about what you are wearing.

If you wanted to use that in my scenario, I had a summer dress, it

came to just above my knee, and I had a baggy jumper on. I could not

win either way. I was not going anywhere, I was staying in my house

that day. People broke into my house. They came, allegedly, to

burgle the place in the first instance. That changed. There are

different stories as to whether that was in everybody's mind he

came that day. I do not know the ultimate truth. I was raped, I was

assaulted. My dad was beaten up, my boyfriend was beaten up. They both

had fractured skulls. We were left in a horrendous situation. And then

you get these accusations thrown at you. And although some people will

talk about radiation, the law actually does that anyway. --

talking about radiation. The problem is some forces are issuing

cautions when some people have admitted rape. I know this is a

tough question from me. Because of what has happened to you, would you

make a distinction between people who would break into a home and

brutalise you and your family in that way, and someone who is drunk

and did not ask for consent? think if you are talking about

whether somebody is still a rapist, yes, they are still a rapist. I

think there are different ways that the law views, and currently that

is under debate as well, with Sentencing Council, about the

different levels of violence that can be incorporated into the crime.

It does not take away the fact that if you have not got consent, and

that is not, she did not say yes, or whatever. You have to have

consent. Thank you so much. A young man here, second row. I was

thinking, going back to the original statement, is the main

problem not the word partially responsible? Surely, if you leave

your laptop in the car, using his own analogy, you won not partially

responsible if it gets storeman. You are wiser not to leave it, but

you are not responsible for the crime. It is getting back to what I

originally said, Nick Ross did not say that rape, somebody who is

raped is anything other than the victim. My point is still the same.

If there is any way you can avoid being in a vulnerable situation,

whether you're a man or woman, even a man who get inebriated and he is

in danger of being beaten up in the street. There are different levels

of a novelty you can have. As you get more drunk, -- have run well

banality you can have. -- vulnerability. He has compared a

crime against property against an intimate crime against a person.

The only positive out of this thing will be for predators, those people

who take advantage of the vulnerable. They will use this as

an excuse that what they did... Those of sorts -- those sort of

people can use anything as an excuse. He has got a book to sell.

He has put that out there, he has got a book to sell. From my own

point of view, and also from Heidi's point of view, and we all

agree to a certain degree of what we are saying, we all absolutely

agree that rape is wrong. A woman should not be attacked if she is on

her own, or walking home, she has every right to wear what she wants.

We live in a democracy, we are allowed to do what we want. There

are not -- it is not our fault that there are some people out there who

will attack us. We have to protect ourselves from these people. I want

to know how you think you are making victims field. You have

created a hierarchy of victims of the situation. The focus needs to

be on teaching men not to rape, not telling women, maybe you should not

have that much to drink. I didn't say. That is in a perfect world.

That would absolutely be in the case. We need to talk about this

openly without people bearing down and saying, you are saying that

forms of rape come in different grades of seriousness. It is in a

judgmental and balanced way. That is why so few people come forward.

They fear the stigmatisation. Nick Ross is particularly guilty because

he is a man of influence who had a position as a celebrity around

Crimewatch. What he says, people will listen to. That is dangerous.

Can I just go back, this young lady in the audience, I can say that you

are visibly upset. I am upset, because I know people who have been

victims of this crime. Just thinking about the offence that you

are causing him what you are saying. You are transferring responsibility,

at the end of the day, it is the rapist to make the decision to rape.

A woman who does not -- a woman does not have responsibility to

live her life in fear and think about, I should not have any fun

because I might get raped. What kind of message is that? I agree

with you. I did not say that. You're absolutely right. We have

every right to do what we want. But it is not our fault that there are

prats out there who will force their way on to us. Nick Ross, to

be fair to him, because I spoke to him at length, he also said that in

his view, rape is always break and he did say that this is what women

who he interviewed said to him who had been raped. Is he is entitled

to his views? I do not know who Nick Ross spoke to. I have been

working with victims of sexual abuse, rape, for nearly 30 years.

And the women I have worked with fall into three categories. There

are women who had been raped and understand they have been raped.

And they want to go to the police. As a side, and to that, over the

last few years, I remember when I start of this area of work. It was

appalling, and the police have worked very hard to create teams of

specialists staff who are very sensitive to the victims. I think

they have to be commended for that. You have one group of women who had

been assaulted who want to go and report. And the whole journey

through the courts system is a horrendous, absolutely horrendous.

Then there is a second group of women who have been sexually

assaulted and they realise that and they have no intention of going

anywhere near court. Then there is a set -- a third group, and this is

perhaps the group that Nick Ross was talking to, who have been raped

and do not understand that rape within marriage is still right.

me go to the young lady -- a rape within marriage is still rape. Let

me go to this young lady. What about that unfortunate person who

gets a drink spiked after one drink, a man comes along who is a knight

in shining armour, but he is not, he is the actual rapist. It is not

the fault of the moment when she is drunk. The point is, we have to

protect ourselves. We are out of time. We can continue this online

now, on Twitter. And on the radio show tomorrow morning. Details will

Here is what is still to come on the programme tonight. It is legal,

so what is wrong with companies or individuals avoiding tax? Be we

really expect Google, Amazon or anybody else to pay more than they

have to? We will be talking about that later on. Now, in 1984, Mary

Travers was shot dead by the IRA. She was 23 years old. Have much

straight father, Tom, the intended target, survived but was left

seriously injured. The ambush happened when the family were

leaving Mass in south Belfast. One of those jailed over her role in

the killing was for 19 year-old Mary McArdle. She was sentenced to

life but released in the Good Friday Agreement. In 2010, she was

appointed an adviser to the Sinn Fein Cultural Minister Caral Ni

Chuilin. It devastated and Travers, her sister. She has been

campaigning to prevent prisoners political debate. Can you explain to

me. You are comfortable with text prisoners being ministers, but not

being special advisers, how is that logical? First of all, this bill is

not just a Bill to stop paramilitary is getting jobs are special

advisers, this. Anyone with a criminal conviction of five years or

longer, that is anyone. Whether it is Republican, loyalists, . The

Minister was elected, the Minister has a mandate, people know their

background, they know who they are voting for. The special adviser is

given the position by the party. They are given this position. They

are getting between �80,000 and �90,000 per year so victims find

themselves in a position that they are contributing to the person who

was involved in the crime. I see that. Because politicians are also

funded from our taxes, it is public money that is paying for them. You

support ex-prisoners being politicians, being ministers,

running departments, making decisions that will will affect

hundreds of thousands of people. Yet special advisers is a no-no. I feel

that politicians have an absolute responsibility to victims. There are

thousands of victims in this country and thousands who have also left

this country because they cannot live here any longer. I feel that

when Mary McArdle was appointed, before she was appointed, I had

moved on with my life. I did not think about her, much, I obviously

remember my sister, but when she was appointed, it brought me back to a

place where I never ever wanted to go back to. Can I ask, would you

accept Mary McArdle as a teacher in this country? I am talking about the

special adviser Bill, there are vetting procedures for teachers.

any ex-prisoner. Would you accept them as a teacher, a lawyer, as a

doctor, a nurse? Those positions are privately paid for... There are

different vetting procedures. I do not have a problem with former

prisoners getting jobs and moving on, that is not what I am about. I

am not being vindictive towards ex-prisoners, asking them to live

their lives in sackcloth and ashes, I am asking for consideration to

their victims. We are talking about Stormont, it is not necessary. We

are 15 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, is it necessary now to

have this elite group of people who are gifted these positions to say,

well done for being party loyal and well done for what you did? That is

the message it sends out to me about is my right to have that. Does an

ex-prisoner have a right to move on? Society has said we accept that you

will move on. Is that what we have done? I think that we have all

accepted a huge amount for peace. I think it is a really cruel thing to

do to victims to turn around and say to a victim that because you are not

happy, because you have spoken out about something, because it has

appalled you so much, that you are in some way, against the peace

process. It is in turn what people do to victims. We have had a

conversation about rape. It has been put back on to me that it is my

fault that I cannot accept what former prisoners do. My present is

what my past is. I am not able to move on. Yes, I have got married and

had children, but... This is very important. This bill is not just

about former political prisoners, and also... It would also be a fact

in Northern Ireland, this is so complex, that no one speaks for all

victims and there will be people screaming out that they believe they

are victim of collusion, a victim of the British state. Absolutely. I am

not speaking for all victims. What I said on Thursday was misrepresented

when I said this bill was for all victims. How could I presume that I

speak for all victims? June what strikes me looking at this audience,

there would be quite a few, because we get a huge mix of an audience and

I am looking at a lot of young faces in this audience. They probably,

with all due respect, will not know your story and will not understand

your trauma. Can you tell them, very quickly? You were 14 years old.

was. I had been to an earlier Mass and my sister, who was 23, and in

her first teaching job, was walking home from Mass with my parents. They

were chatting about her and how she was taking her children to make

their first confessions. They were about 200 yards from our home. They

heard a gunshot. My dad thought that he heard somebody say, somebody has

been shot and they stopped and he turned around and he saw a map. A

man was waving something underneath some newspapers. He said to him,

what do you want? The man said, it is you that we want.

Simultaneously, Mary said, daddy, that man has a gun and she said

that, another gunman from across the road, shot her once in the back. My

sister, Mary. She fell into my mother's arms. As she was lying

dying, the gunman walked over to my mother and help a gun to her head,

where he tried to fire it three times, but it jammed. In the

meantime, the other gunman stood over my father and put six bullets

into him. The first I knew about it was my brother ran into my bedroom

and told me to come quickly, mother and father had been shot. I asked

what he meant. He said hurry up! I ran out of the house and he ran into

the bedroom of my parents. My dad would not have any security. He was

a resident magistrate. He would not have any security because he did not

want to put the lives of anyone else at risk and he would not carry a

gun. Police -- Paul was on the police radio. He got through to the

emergency services, my other brother was on the phone and I ran down and

I saw my mother leaning over my dad, saying my per husband, someone

please help him. Mary was lying awkwardly am a gurgling. Dad was

trying to undo his tie. My brother Martin came down with me and it was

just bedlam. Mary McArdle, who was 19, she was arrested a short

distance away, walking a dog. She was found to have two handguns

strapped to her legs in surgical socks. She was convicted of murder,

attempted murder and a number of firearms offences. The gunman that

day had been wearing wigs to disguise themselves. When they got

up and when Mary McArdle got up on that morning, they had a different

experience from my parents and my family. When my parents are my

sister got up and they had their breakfast, they were planning to go

to Mass and spend the rest of the day, how it was to be. Whereas the

gunman and Mary McArdle got up, got dressed, she put on surgical

stockings, the gunman took their guns and there are wigs and went out

knowing that they were going to commit murder that day. Knowing that

my father, or hoping that my father would not be coming home to his

family. You know, I understand what you are saying and I know at the

start of the interview you asked me about the bill. These jobs are

gifted. There was no need... Victims have got to be allowed to speak up.

I am blessed that I have been given that chance. If I caused you any

offence, I am deeply sorry, but I want to keep this balanced. It is

Northern Ireland, people will have different views. What is Mary

McArdle, and I do not know her, but what if every inch of her body is

thrusting towards trying to create a peaceful society. What if she is

deeply sorry for reformed or she would say, there was a conflict and

a different context back then, and that she is trying to make Northern

Ireland a safe place? We do not know that and I do not know that, but

what if? Would you forgive her? is very easy. Mary McArdle has said

that my sister's murder was a tragic mistake. She has said that publicly.

She has never said sorry. She also said that she could not say anything

more because it would risk offending me, in other words she would justify

going out and shooting my father. The historical enquiries team wrote

to her and asked for her help in their investigation and she ignored

the letter. I wonder, former prisoners and people involved in the

troubles, yes they are moving forward, who would not want to have

peace? I do not know one single family who would not want to have

peace. I do not know one. I did not... After my sister was murdered,

I did not go and join a loyalist organisation or go out and murder. I

had the opportunity, the flat that the gunman head in, I had the

opportunity to actually... This guy was walking across the road and I

had the opportunity to knock him down, but I did not do that. That

was my choice. I think it is time the politicians started showing the

victims and respect them. I know there will be a raft of different

opinion throughout Northern Ireland. You can contact us on Twitter and on

our radio show. We can continue this discussion. Please give her a round

of applause. In terms of a mix of a show, you get a sense, we were

talking about rape at the top of the programme, we were talking about a

lady there who is clearly deeply traumatised, and you just know that

elsewhere in Northern Ireland people will be saying different things

about that interview and now we are going to talk about a talent show

season on television. A few weeks ago we had Connor Scott from The

Voice on and now it is the turn of Jordan O'Keefe, a trainee estate

agent who blew the judges away on Britain's Got Talent with his

version of One Direction's little I'm in love with you.

There he is, let's talk, hello, Jordan! How you?Never mind about

me, you are the man of the moment, what stage a year out in the

competition? We are at the summer final stage. -- semi-final stage.

It is not on tonight, what has been shown since Monday is the semi-

finals. There has been so much great talent, it is fantastic.

you excited? Today as the first time I got to go to the studio and

see everything, it was mind-blowing. It was not as big as it seems on TV.

Everything there is mind-blowing, fantastic. And of course, there is

this story. That your dad has changed your course from music to

business studies, because what, you tell me? It wasn't that he was

doing anything wrong on me. It wasn't good for me to do music. It

was just that he wanted me to have a career. He thought bigger than

the -- he thought that doing the music writ, I wasn't going to get a

career out of it. He thought if he put me in the business route it

would be a back-up plan. If you don't make it in music, you have

something to fall back on. It probably was not a bad thing to do.

But I have proved him wrong! Have you got it in your heart that you

could win this? I am trying, all I can do is try my best. I hope I get

to the final. I will take it step by step. Hopefully I'll get to the

finals. If I win, that will exceed expectations. I am excited to see

how what is happening. How long have you been singing? When I

started, I was singing in a bar in Spain, singing Stevie Wonder and I

got the place up and going. That is my first memory of it. I started

properly singing when I was 14, writing songs and stuff. I started

when I was young. Isn't it amazing that when you follow your dream and

to keep on pushing, it is amazing Ed Wright. How while I you? I am 19.

You on British television on a big show. Whether you win it on not,

you have a platform, you have momentum but -- behind you and you

can go where you want. That is why I went on the show, it gives you a

platform as you said. Hopefully I will get something out of it. The

main thing is to get something a lot of it. Hopefully that will

happen. We are proud of you, and we wish you all very the best. Thank

you for having me. Give him a round of applause.

Before we move on, let us remind I have got the phone right here, if

you are treating me, I can see it. Tax avoidance, it is legal, doing

whatever you can to pay as little tax as possible. Jimmy Carter paid

an effective rate of tax of 1%. -- Jimmy Carl. He was battered by the

press. Apple were criticised for channelling revenue through

offshore subsidiaries to avoid paying tax over four years. The

Apple chief executive defended the practice, saying it was within the

letter and the spirit of the law. If it is within the law, is there

anything wrong with tax avoidance? Let's start with David Barnes.

you are obeying the law, what is the problem? The problem is that

the law, ought to be more precise the UK tax code, is an 11,500 page

on the, the most complex tax code in the world. Within those pages

there are lots of opportunities for accountants and other financial

people to find reasons for companies to reduce their to

Operation Pax. -- corporation tax. When you need a doctor, police

officer, that money is coming from somewhere, there is a moral

obligation to pay for it. We knew what a dog and a career, you need

companies to deprive them. If you - - if you want a job and career, you

need companies to provide them. So penalising companies of taking

advantage of the legal tax code seems hypocritical of a part of the

politicians who in the first instance but the tax code in place.

It is one of those things were there is one law for the rich and

one for the poor. The average person will not be able to avoid

paying tax. It gets taken out of your wages. The poorer you are, the

higher the marginal rate of tax, the match you paid for example, if

you are getting tax credits, your wages are so low you get tax

credits, just earning a couple of pounds more public can actually

lose you �50 per week in tax. That idea that there is something OK...

Companies are taxed on profit, individuals are parched -- taxed on

their income. I would like to see tax on individuals reduced as well.

Let's have parity all round. The government taking as much money as

they can, pilfering it... This is a very important figure that people

need to know. A recent report from Oxfam found that there is 12

trillion, I do not know how many zeros that is, 12 trillion pounds

just from individuals in tax havens across the world's with individuals

hiding their tax. That is such an amount of money, and the tax on

that per annum would be �100 billion per year from individuals.

Think of what that would be in a welfare reform and austerity.

think if anybody knew they could get away with not paying taxes,

they would do it, but we cannot. You are saying the majority of

people said they would get away with it? If there was a way around

it. One of you get your wage bill every month, we look at the tax, it

is horrible. Is there anybody in the world who wants to pay more tax

for many to? Of course not. How many people are watching this

programme and they have an eye so? That is reducing tax liabilities.

have heard this argument before, and I set his bag government-backed

scheme -- an ISA. That the government is encouraging be able

to avoid tax. -- there is no way that the government is encouraging

people to avoid tax. constructed the tax code, Stephen?

The politicians. The politicians who posture and tell us how immoral

these corporations are. They are hypocrites. I live in the Cameron,

-- in the community, David Cameron says we are all in this together,

no we're not. Big businesses can avoid taxes. Those taxes could help

our health, education and help address her Mrs -- address

homelessness so we can live a good laugh. That would mean that

governments do not have to tax and welfare. We are going to have a

more young people who are homeless. I live in the asylum committee --

community and I am proud because they have given me a home and Abed

unlike politicians. They are only there for their only money. Those

people who were earning money and say, I will not break the law, I

will not evade tax but I will have made as much as possible? They

should pay their fair share. How do you define fair? 35, 40? He should

pay a lot in taxes. Jimmy White, what is there? -- what is fair?

idea that the government can work it out is farcical. The whole point

about tax is it is a voluntary -- in a voluntary, you get put in

prison if you do not pay. If the company paid more tax than it

legally needed to, what it is doing is making a donation to the

government. When people make donations, they very rarely make it

to the government. If the managers of company were to pay more than

the tax they are legally have to, they would be acting immorally.

Because they are agents on behalf of the owners of the firm. The

moral duty is to be the owners of the firm. This is typical class war

language from the very wealthy. On one hand you have Tory politicians,

and unfortunately politicians in Stormont, who tell us that you have

to accept that the local daily will be closed, the care homes will be

shut, the local school will be shut because there is not money to fund

these services. Important services that people rely on. That is your

problem. We do not all live on the big salaries of the bankers who got

us in this mess. The reality is, there is plenty of money to pay for

basic services. When you use the word will Faye, aren't you resort

to the class warfare language itself? -- of the word wealthy?

When these are just there is plenty to money -- when you suggest there

is plenty of money to go around, how should the government have own

right to companies' profits? They have an obligation to shareholders

and profits to be profitable. If government pilfers from profits,

that is bad frock everybody. Even socialists should understand that.

The idea that workers are getting a lot of money from any companies

these days, would actually workers have seen their wages across the UK

and world been pushed down year on year for the last 10 years,

included in real terms in the public sector. There has been a pay

freeze in the public sector. There is a man here, let's have a look.

For these particular tax avoidance is, they seem to have more in

London rather than Dublin. Let me go up here. In view of the enormous

pay set-up paid to be the BBC presenters from the public purse...

Here we go! And you are all clapping at this! Is it appropriate

that those presenters should them to themselves into private

companies to avoid paying tax? question would go back to you, some

people might say, what does the law say? What is within the law? Who

defines what is legal? avoidance is legal, tax evasion is

illegal. It is up to the government to close the loopholes. Until the

government close the loopholes, is it fair game for anybody to tries

to maximise their wealth? Morality cubs at which as well. -- comes

into it as well. I think it is a question of conscious. So you have

a better standard of morality the more tax to pay? No, as the key

have to pay your adequate cover in terms of the deficits, a lot of

people would want to do the right thing, and paid the tax that they

should pay. This discussion is slightly silly. Going back to

corporations, corporations cannot pay tax. They can write the cheque

but the cost of taxation cannot fall of a corporation. The costs

can only be bought by individuals. The cost of corporation tax falls

on three group of people. Shareholders of the company, the

employees of the company, the shareholders through lower

dividends, the employers through low wages, and the customers to

high prices. There is no such thing as a company. It is a legal fiction.

If you are keen on corporate tax, what you're really keen on his

taxing employees, consumers and shareholders. The problem with

corporate tax is that it is very opaque. It is not clear whether

burden falls. It is very avoidable. It is a very silly tax. It should

be eliminated. Let me bring him Mary. I am 60 years of age, and I

have been a healthcare professional all my life, worked all my life,

even when I had children I work part-time. I put money into a

pension scheme. I am still being taxed, and it makes me very Tech --

cross that these multi-millionaire companies are not paying tax. And

there is me, taxed all my life, 68 and still paying tax. Are you cross

at the companies or the government for allowing it to happen? Whoever

is responsible. I just don't think that at my age, I think I should be

taxed on money but I saved towards my pension. Companies feel the same.

There is a contribution -- it is the same government here who has

reduced corporation tax to one telling of the companies. Where is

the logic in that? But you know and I know that companies use a thing

called transfer pricing or miss pricing, where they will say, maybe

I'd better not name the company. They will say, to use our main, you

have to pay so many millions to this company, likely to be in

Dublin, actually, or in London. By putting the money through that way,

by charging your own company discovered, you can do away with

having to pay tax. You have said, we have made no profits. Starbucks

are the obvious one. They are maximising the return for the

They are not lying. The point is, but they are declaring within the

law. The law has been written by politicians who did not represent

the interests of normal people. They represent the interests of big

business. So who does represent the interests of deep normal people?

Why are they recollected? We lack people to rot as a normal people.