:00:05. > :00:08.Gaddafi, the king of kings who died like a rat. After the horror
:00:08. > :00:18.inflicted on the people of Lockerbie and the people of Libya,
:00:18. > :00:21.
:00:21. > :00:31.This programme contains language which some people may find
:00:31. > :00:33.
:00:33. > :00:36.Good morning and welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Libya starts a new
:00:36. > :00:40.life after the death of Gaddafi. He terrorised his own people and
:00:40. > :00:46.exported terror against ours. But was killing him the right thing to
:00:46. > :00:50.The Government wants to blitz problem families. It will help them
:00:50. > :00:54.get out of bed and get their kids to school. Is this the kind of
:00:54. > :00:58.nanny state we should applaud? Ricky Gervais put himself in hot
:00:58. > :01:03.water with jokes he denies were aimed at disabled people. But isn't
:01:03. > :01:07.it a comedian's job to offend? My guests this week all have a very
:01:07. > :01:10.personal stake in our debates. Sir Ian Blair was Britain's top cop and
:01:10. > :01:16.sent officers to Libya to investigate PC Yvonne Fletcher's
:01:16. > :01:20.murder. And Jean Charles de Menezes was killed while he was in command.
:01:20. > :01:22.In a strange case of art imitating life, shock jock Nick Ferrari did a
:01:22. > :01:26.turn in Ricky Gervais' comedy Extras'.
:01:26. > :01:28.Claire Fox is director of the Institute of Ideas, but as a former
:01:28. > :01:34.mental health social worker, she knows about the problems of problem
:01:34. > :01:38.families. And we want to hear what you think.
:01:38. > :01:48.Call in now to challenge our guests on Skype. Or give your views on
:01:48. > :01:56.
:01:56. > :02:00.Gaddafi is dead and justice has been done. That's the verdict from
:02:00. > :02:04.some families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. One said, "I hope
:02:04. > :02:08.he's in hell with Hitler". Was Gaddafi's death a fitting payback
:02:08. > :02:18.for his crimes? Or itself a crime? This video contains graphic images
:02:18. > :02:20.
:02:20. > :02:25.Many felt uncomfortable watching the last moments of the bleeding,
:02:25. > :02:29.beaten, dying dictators surrounded by an angry mob. The United Nations
:02:29. > :02:34.may launch an inquiry into whether he was executed in cold blood. Many
:02:34. > :02:38.felt we would not allow an animal to die in such a fashion. But
:02:38. > :02:42.others felt Gaddafi had behaved worse than an animal and that he
:02:43. > :02:48.deserved his end. To some it seems fitting that someone who lived by
:02:48. > :02:54.the sword died by it, it seemed like justice. But was it just
:02:54. > :02:58.revenge? His regime at tortured and murdered thousands of its people
:02:58. > :03:04.and he is seen as responsible for the death of PC Yvonne Fletcher and
:03:04. > :03:08.the Lockerbie bombing. Not all relatives of Gaddafi's victims
:03:08. > :03:13.wanted his immediate death, some wanted him to stand trial so they
:03:13. > :03:17.could find more answers. Though many were left disappointed with
:03:17. > :03:23.the trial of Saddam Hussein. Some felt it was just a show trial and
:03:23. > :03:27.his judicial hanging in cold blood little better than a lynch-mob.
:03:27. > :03:33.Even some Americans felt uneasy when Osama Bin Laden, the architect
:03:33. > :03:33.of 9/11, was, without trial, of 9/11, was, without trial,
:03:33. > :03:37.of 9/11, was, without trial, effectively executed. But if
:03:37. > :03:42.Gaddafi had been put on trial, he would have remained a rallying call
:03:42. > :03:46.in a country trying to rebuild itself. Many remain opposed to the
:03:47. > :03:50.death penalty whatever the crime. Others argue that when leaders like
:03:50. > :03:56.Gaddafi spent 40 years committing appalling crimes against humanity,
:03:56. > :04:01.they deserve only a bloody and violent end.
:04:01. > :04:05.Nick Ferrari, did he deserve to die? The self-imposed lion of the
:04:05. > :04:15.desert died like a rat in a cellar. Libya and the world will be a
:04:15. > :04:22.
:04:23. > :04:27.better place. That is our text vote For full terms and conditions,
:04:27. > :04:32.please visit the website. We will show you how you voted at the end
:04:32. > :04:35.of the programme. Do you agree? There is no doubt there will have
:04:35. > :04:40.been a huge amount of satisfaction from people in Libya that he has
:04:40. > :04:45.gone. It is interesting watching the way everybody panicked at the
:04:45. > :04:51.way it happened. The whole focus of this war was get Gaddafi. I think
:04:51. > :04:56.what will happen now is we will not be sure what this war was about. It
:04:56. > :05:00.might reveal far more now that he has gone. In some ways you can see
:05:00. > :05:05.the Western allies have would have liked to have carried this on for a
:05:05. > :05:13.long time. The Libyan people themselves got Gaddafi, as you say.
:05:13. > :05:16.Sir Ian Blair, Lord Ian Blair, you send officers to Libya to
:05:16. > :05:25.investigate the death of Yvonne Fletcher. Did you feel this is
:05:25. > :05:30.justice? This shooting is I think almost inevitable. This is a war,
:05:30. > :05:37.people died in circumstances like that. In an ideal world, he would
:05:37. > :05:40.have been arrested and put on trial. This is not an ideal world. And I
:05:40. > :05:46.think we now move to a new stage in Libya. I think the most difficult
:05:46. > :05:50.thing about this... Arrested and put on trial with what penalty?
:05:50. > :05:54.have to say, I do not think it would have been appropriate to put
:05:54. > :05:57.him on trial in the international criminal court in The Hague. I
:05:57. > :06:02.think it would have been Libyan justice because this is a matter
:06:02. > :06:06.for the Libyan people. It is genocide against the Libyan people.
:06:06. > :06:10.I am quite certain they would have executed him at the end of it.
:06:10. > :06:14.Would that have been justified? That is a matter of personal
:06:14. > :06:18.opinion. I personally do not like the death penalty, I never have,
:06:18. > :06:23.but there is an issue here of Western imposed values on what is
:06:23. > :06:26.an emerging free country. The real difficulty is that this represents
:06:26. > :06:32.the weakness of the National Transitional Council, unable to
:06:32. > :06:36.stop this happening. We are now seeing Libya moving to what it --
:06:36. > :06:41.might be hopeful phase, but also might not be a hopeful face. In
:06:41. > :06:51.terms of his death, it was absolutely inevitable. Let's speak
:06:51. > :06:53.
:06:53. > :07:00.to somebody from Libya. An activist joins us this morning. I understand
:07:00. > :07:05.your background isn't Libyan, but you have been an activist there in
:07:05. > :07:12.Tripoli. What was the response of people there when Gaddafi was
:07:12. > :07:18.killed? It was a response of pure and utter joy and relief. I have
:07:18. > :07:25.never ever seen joy like this. In my entire life. Every single person,
:07:25. > :07:30.I felt like, was in the street. People were jumping with joy.
:07:30. > :07:34.People relieved, women, men, children, just wanting to cheer,
:07:34. > :07:42.wanting to hold each other, wanting to laugh out loud, wanting to find
:07:42. > :07:48.each other. It was a scene I will never forget. There are concerns in
:07:48. > :07:54.the West about the manner of his death. That this was not due
:07:54. > :08:01.process. Of those concerns in any way shared by those people over
:08:01. > :08:07.there, celebrating? Yes, of course. In the end, we share the same
:08:07. > :08:13.concerns as everyone else. We want a true justice system in Libya,
:08:13. > :08:18.which we haven't had for the last 42 years. Was his death justified?
:08:18. > :08:24.That is not for me to decide, I don't know the circumstances. I
:08:24. > :08:28.don't know what was happening exactly. We may never find out. But
:08:28. > :08:33.what I do know is that people are relieved. A lot of people were
:08:33. > :08:39.worried that if he would go to trial, he would turn himself into a
:08:39. > :08:44.martyr, 10 himself... Become like another propaganda, another show in
:08:44. > :08:52.the Gaddafi saga. We didn't want that, we didn't want him to become
:08:52. > :08:57.glorified again in front of international media. Was his death
:08:57. > :09:01.justified to the people who have died and suffered? I don't think
:09:01. > :09:07.anything would be enough for the families who have suffered, for the
:09:07. > :09:11.children who have become disabled and for the 2000 women that are
:09:11. > :09:16.still missing in Tripoli. No justice will be enough for them.
:09:16. > :09:20.His death is only a sigh of relief that the head of this nation has
:09:20. > :09:25.been chopped off, the poison will not stream into our lives again and
:09:25. > :09:32.now we can put that behind us and start rebuilding our nation.
:09:32. > :09:40.can hear the relief, the celebration, but also the concern.
:09:40. > :09:44.It is quite an interesting question, is this an assault on due process?
:09:44. > :09:48.I absolutely get nervous about the law... To me this was a bloody
:09:48. > :09:53.civil war the West should never have been involved in. I have had
:09:53. > :09:58.enough of this. You would have just watched Gaddafi kill tens of
:09:58. > :10:01.thousands of his own? I am absolutely of the opinion that the
:10:01. > :10:11.West going into Libya... We would have just stood and watched him
:10:11. > :10:13.
:10:13. > :10:17.murder. Yes. However... Now, Mr Ferrari,... Call me Nick. We have a
:10:17. > :10:21.situation where everybody is situation -- where everybody is
:10:21. > :10:24.squeamish. The Western elite is squeamish after they have
:10:24. > :10:29.intervened in a bloody civil war. Thousands of people have been
:10:29. > :10:35.killed in this process. Thousands and thousands throughout the whole
:10:35. > :10:40.thing. Why did we do it? Some kind of PR exercise? OK, very briefly, I
:10:40. > :10:44.am delighted he's dead. I am concerned about the manner of his
:10:44. > :10:49.death, but I'm delighted he's dead. He has probably killed 30,000 of
:10:49. > :10:54.his own people, he has also been responsible for PC Yvonne Fletcher,
:10:54. > :10:58.Lockerbie and funding the IRA. What is the point of putting this man on
:10:58. > :11:02.trial? People are now bleating about some kind of UN lead inquiry.
:11:02. > :11:06.They couldn't find weapons of mass destruction. If you think they can
:11:06. > :11:11.find the man who fired the bullet in Libya I would be amazed. Putting
:11:11. > :11:15.him in a glass box in The Hague would just be farcical. He would
:11:15. > :11:20.make out they wanted him back like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. It is
:11:20. > :11:29.good he is gone. Let's speak to somebody who has a personal stake,
:11:29. > :11:34.Brian Flynn. Your brother was on board Pan Am flight one 03, which
:11:34. > :11:40.was blown up over Lockerbie. That's 103. Did you share that sense of
:11:40. > :11:45.justice when you find out Gaddafi had been killed? I am upset you
:11:45. > :11:51.didn't let Nick keep going. I agreed with everything he said. It
:11:51. > :11:54.is very easy, and Americans have been accused by many in Britain of
:11:54. > :11:58.fostering some kind of culture of vengeance and I think it is
:11:58. > :12:03.something personally I have dealt with through the years. When
:12:03. > :12:07.Gaddafi first died, my reaction was a little bit of excitement and I
:12:07. > :12:13.don't think that is appropriate. Not in a normal situation. But the
:12:13. > :12:18.reason I was excited, and other families, was because it was tied
:12:18. > :12:25.to the liberation of the Libyan people. It would have been the easy
:12:25. > :12:31.for us to say, oh well, this is just classic American phi for an I
:12:32. > :12:36.A, death penalty, we believe that the freeing of the Libyan people
:12:36. > :12:39.was a key part of what made this such a significant event. It is
:12:40. > :12:45.interesting that you see it from that perspective. When your brother
:12:45. > :12:50.died in the Lockerbie bomber him, what did you want to happen to
:12:50. > :12:55.Colonel Gaddafi immediately afterwards? -- Lockerbie bombing.
:12:55. > :12:59.have been focused on and believe that I have been true to this idea
:12:59. > :13:03.that I remember my mother saying, and screaming, my son will not die
:13:03. > :13:10.in vain. My reaction was that I would do everything I could to
:13:10. > :13:17.bring justice to this. Not revenge. As a Christian, you could go Old
:13:17. > :13:23.Testament and say I for an eye, tooth for a tooth. You could also
:13:23. > :13:28.say something about Luke's Gospel, which is that if a man since and
:13:28. > :13:32.then asks for forgiveness, you forgive him. If a man's sins and
:13:32. > :13:39.asks for no forgiveness and is unrepentant, you have to rebuke him.
:13:39. > :13:44.That is the case for both Gaddafi and al-Megrahi. We are talking
:13:44. > :13:49.about notions of justice here and whether you think... If Gaddafi had
:13:49. > :13:52.been put on trial and cross- examined about what happened at
:13:52. > :13:57.Lockerbie and answered some of the questions that perhaps you still
:13:57. > :14:03.have about what happened, do you think there is a sense you might
:14:03. > :14:13.have got more justice out of that or do you feel satisfied now that
:14:13. > :14:13.
:14:13. > :14:18.We would have got more out of it, in the sense of, who was behind it?
:14:18. > :14:24.This was not then working alone. There were many other people
:14:24. > :14:30.involved, who are still at large. That process may have revealed that.
:14:30. > :14:36.This is the story of the Libyan people, it is for them to write it.
:14:36. > :14:42.I think vengeance is appropriate for the Libyan people. If they want
:14:42. > :14:50.to meet out justice. I agree with this part of what Nick said, to go
:14:50. > :14:56.through the United Nations court would have driven us all mad, but
:14:56. > :15:03.the West want that. What gives a more or justification is the idea
:15:03. > :15:07.that Colonel Gaddafi was the evil guy. He was. It is refreshing to
:15:07. > :15:11.hear somebody say, met the Libyan people deal with it. I would have
:15:11. > :15:20.wanted them to deal with it rather than it being a grandstanding thing
:15:20. > :15:24.for the West, to say, we are a bit -- liberating the people.
:15:24. > :15:27.Practically, I do not think that the death of Gaddafi changes
:15:27. > :15:34.anything. I do not think that Gaddafi would have testified in
:15:34. > :15:44.court about what happened. The answers to what happened will peak
:15:44. > :15:45.
:15:45. > :15:50.in files -- will be in files. The trial would have given him the
:15:50. > :15:56.opportunity to become Father Christmas. All of this stuff about
:15:56. > :16:02.how Saddam Hussein was put on trial did not help the Iraqi people. I am
:16:02. > :16:06.with Nick, he is dead, now it is time for the Libyans to move on,
:16:06. > :16:11.and to uncover the truth about Yvonne Fletcher. One person who
:16:12. > :16:18.wants to know the truth is John Merry, he was with Yvonne Fletcher
:16:18. > :16:23.when she was killed outside the Libyan embassy. Do you hold Colonel
:16:23. > :16:33.Gaddafi responsible for his -- for her death? Yes, there is no doubt
:16:33. > :16:34.
:16:34. > :16:38.about it. The order came from Gaddafi himself, he was the head of
:16:38. > :16:45.state. His agents were at the embassy. He gave the order, no
:16:45. > :16:54.doubt about it. When you found out he had been killed, is that an eye
:16:54. > :17:01.for an eye? He did not deserve to die in that way. He should have
:17:01. > :17:05.been placed in front of a court. He has taken a lot of the answers I
:17:06. > :17:09.have been seeking with him. If he had stood trial, we could have
:17:09. > :17:16.asked him questions. He may not have answered them, but we would
:17:17. > :17:24.have had the opportunity to ask him. I was in Libya not so very long ago.
:17:24. > :17:28.I returned with a lot of information. I sped to the NTC, --
:17:28. > :17:37.I spoke to the NTC, and the information I received was very
:17:37. > :17:42.good. Better than the Met Police. I want a lot of answers. I will keep
:17:42. > :17:47.fighting until somebody is in court to answer for Yvonne Fletcher's
:17:47. > :17:54.death. People might be surprised to hear you say that he did not
:17:54. > :17:57.deserve to die. Considering what you have been through and what you
:17:57. > :18:07.know the family of Yvonne Fletcher have been through. Why do you feel
:18:07. > :18:07.
:18:07. > :18:12.that? It is part of the due process of law. If he stood trial in Libya,
:18:13. > :18:22.he probably would have been given the death penalty. I have no or
:18:23. > :18:27.
:18:27. > :18:33.gimmick with that. -- no argument. The NTC, will pay deal with people
:18:33. > :18:37.-- will they deal with people in the same way? That is an
:18:37. > :18:43.interesting question. If this is how they deliver justice... It was
:18:43. > :18:49.not as if they had some kind of tribunal or hearing. It would
:18:49. > :18:57.appear that, in a mode of extreme ecstasy and panic, he was executed,
:18:57. > :19:02.and the manner of his execution, yes, we can see that. You mean that
:19:02. > :19:06.you agree that you do not think he deserved to die in the way that he
:19:06. > :19:12.did? He deserved to die, but as a human being, you have to say, that
:19:12. > :19:19.is quite concerning. But he killed 30,000 of his own people, he was
:19:19. > :19:25.getting ready to kill many more. It might have been better to take into
:19:25. > :19:31.a court house. It would have been slightly better. But if we were
:19:31. > :19:36.here in 1945, would we say, is it right that Hitler is gone? We would
:19:36. > :19:42.be celebrating. It is the same with Osama Bin Laden, I was delighted.
:19:42. > :19:52.There is a danger of turning Gaddafi into a lot more than he was.
:19:52. > :19:52.
:19:52. > :19:56.To compare him to Hitler, it will it advises people. These were a
:19:56. > :20:01.nasty little tinpot dictators. that to the brother of the
:20:02. > :20:07.Lockerbie victim, to the policeman standing next to Yvonne Fletcher...
:20:07. > :20:13.Let me make the point. I am not saying he was a good guy, but to
:20:13. > :20:22.compare him to Hitler, that flatters him. We have tinpot
:20:22. > :20:27.dictators, and you can turn them into icons of the full -- evil.
:20:27. > :20:31.There is more to the rebuilding of Libya than this. One person says, I
:20:32. > :20:35.shed no tears, but I feel this is not how democracy should begin.
:20:35. > :20:42.Another person says, we needed the truth on Lockerbie, and we have
:20:42. > :20:47.been robbed of this. Another person says, wide to the bleeding hearts
:20:47. > :20:55.need their investigation? Did he deal in due process? He needed to
:20:55. > :21:05.be terminated so Libya could move on. If you think Gaddafi deserved
:21:05. > :21:11.
:21:11. > :21:15.it, or not, text in. You have 20 minutes before the poll closes.
:21:15. > :21:19.The government says problem families are costing taxpayers a
:21:19. > :21:23.small fortune, so it wants to give them their own government helper to
:21:23. > :21:29.stop them causing havoc in society. A good idea? Rewarding the
:21:29. > :21:32.feckless? This week, committee secretary Eric
:21:32. > :21:39.Pickles revealed that problem families who make-up less than 1%
:21:39. > :21:44.of the population cost the taxpayer a whopping �8 billion. These
:21:44. > :21:47.families cost so much because they take up so many different resources,
:21:47. > :21:52.from Social Services to the police. The government wants to
:21:52. > :21:57.deliberately target them. Each family could get a dedicated helper.
:21:57. > :22:02.They could help them get out of bed, send their children to school and
:22:02. > :22:05.make sure they attend alcohol and drug rehabilitation. Is that
:22:05. > :22:11.sensible? Is that the nanny state gone too far? If families cost the
:22:11. > :22:16.state so much, do they deserve to get personalised help? The scheme
:22:16. > :22:20.targets families who are not employed, live in poor housing, RL,
:22:20. > :22:24.or simply pull. The government hopes this will prevent the
:22:24. > :22:27.families going off the rails and cost less in the long run. Is it
:22:27. > :22:32.patronising to force held on families simply because they are
:22:32. > :22:35.poor and often on benefits? Harboured any of us like it if a
:22:35. > :22:39.government official came into the privacy of our homes to tell us how
:22:39. > :22:44.we should be living? With spending billions on giving problem families
:22:44. > :22:48.their own dedicated helper be the final push they need to get out of
:22:48. > :22:52.poverty, or will a helping hand discourage people from helping
:22:52. > :23:02.themselves? If you have got a webcam, you can
:23:02. > :23:03.
:23:03. > :23:07.make your point on Skype. Is this a good idea? It is a bit strange. The
:23:07. > :23:12.previous government had a thing called Total place, which was
:23:12. > :23:16.putting exactly this piece of work into action. Not a single dedicated
:23:16. > :23:20.person, but putting the police, the health service, the social services,
:23:20. > :23:25.wrapping them round the most difficult families. Exactly the
:23:26. > :23:30.same is being proposed about gangs. Getting in their early and sorting
:23:30. > :23:36.out the children who are at risk of becoming a gang members. The idea
:23:36. > :23:42.of a single dedicated person coming into the house is a very strange
:23:42. > :23:47.idea. I am all for concentrating on the most difficult people... If one
:23:47. > :23:54.person goes in and it saves all of those other agencies... Did you
:23:54. > :23:59.think somebody will go into those houses and Tom Mapp? I do not
:23:59. > :24:04.believe it is possible. I believe we need to concentrate on those
:24:04. > :24:08.families. It is sometimes called the Boston method, somebody
:24:08. > :24:13.involved in a gang is confronted by the police and the prosecutors and
:24:13. > :24:19.people from housing and education and given a straight forward choice.
:24:19. > :24:27.In other state in a life of crime - - you are either state in a life of
:24:27. > :24:32.crime or you go straight. That works. But going in by yourself
:24:32. > :24:40.seems to be a gimmick. I think Eric Pickles has gone nuts to keep the
:24:40. > :24:44.food theme going! Way of going to reward the reckless and feckless,
:24:44. > :24:51.whose life is in crime and crime, by giving them a servant, who will
:24:51. > :24:56.not on their door? It will save us billions of pounds? I do not
:24:56. > :25:00.normally use this analysis, but if we are so worried, we should think
:25:00. > :25:04.about the money we are spending in Afghanistan, which is double this
:25:04. > :25:09.ludicrous experiment. Think about the money that bailed out the
:25:10. > :25:15.bankers. Put them in jail. You are a former social worker dealing with
:25:15. > :25:21.people with mental health issues. Mental health is one of the
:25:21. > :25:28.identifiers for these families in crisis. There is a number of things.
:25:28. > :25:32.This has been brought on on a delusion that the government can
:25:32. > :25:39.sort everything out by interfering, which is ludicrous. I also think it
:25:39. > :25:45.is promised on the now orthodoxy of early intervention, everybody will
:25:45. > :25:53.now say, what happens before the age of three will determine
:25:54. > :25:59.everything what happens afterwards. It is based on poor science. It is
:25:59. > :26:02.nonsense. It is over deterministic. Then, this gives a green light to
:26:02. > :26:07.the government, because if you say, what happens before the age of
:26:07. > :26:12.three means that you have to intervene, they can then say, every
:26:12. > :26:17.parent needs to be undermined. Parents' authority is being
:26:17. > :26:26.undermined by this idea that the Government tells you what to do. It
:26:26. > :26:31.is true that if you say that depict the state was that all parents are
:26:31. > :26:39.responsible, but I do not trust how they have identified these families.
:26:39. > :26:45.We will talk to somebody who has identified them. Is it true, few of
:26:45. > :26:50.the man that came up with the figure of 120,000 problem families?
:26:50. > :26:56.Yes, from the research we did for the government. We were focusing on
:26:56. > :27:01.poverty. We were focusing on families that had five or more they
:27:01. > :27:05.have his problems, being poor, ill health, living in poor quality
:27:05. > :27:12.housing. It is focused on the problems they have, rather than the
:27:12. > :27:19.problems they are causing. The media have twisted things slightly.
:27:19. > :27:23.That is a common accusation! It is a tiny proportion of families, but
:27:23. > :27:27.you say they are not causing problems. Presumably you mean
:27:27. > :27:34.criminally. Financially, some people might think it is causing a
:27:34. > :27:38.problem. Yes, in terms of anti- social behaviour, the families that
:27:38. > :27:45.we identified, and the 10% of them had children that have been in
:27:45. > :27:50.trouble with police. The focus is not on anti-social behaviour. But
:27:50. > :28:00.yes, if they have got five or more problems, we are talking about
:28:00. > :28:02.
:28:02. > :28:05.disadvantaged families. Can I just ask, you have done the research on
:28:06. > :28:09.the existence of these malted problem families, I take it you
:28:09. > :28:18.have not come up with the idea of sending a person in to get them up
:28:18. > :28:24.in the morning? No, we just do the research. I am not quite sure what
:28:24. > :28:29.getting them up in the morning has to do with it. Nor are my! That is
:28:29. > :28:34.what Eric Pickles wants to do! We have got a fine piece of academic
:28:34. > :28:41.research that somebody is taking a simple solution on to, and that is
:28:41. > :28:45.not part of your job a tour? That is right. The research revealed
:28:45. > :28:48.there are significant families that have lots of issues going on, which
:28:48. > :28:53.makes it hard for them to live their lives and raise their
:28:53. > :29:03.children. They need somebody to help them negotiate with a
:29:03. > :29:05.
:29:05. > :29:10.There are very specific problems here. If somebody has a mental
:29:10. > :29:14.health problem, you needed -- decent mental health services. If
:29:14. > :29:21.you have a poor person, you could say the problem is just money.
:29:21. > :29:28.There's a danger that you are designating them as problem
:29:28. > :29:33.families. They have multiple problems so sending in a person who
:29:33. > :29:38.deals with one problem, you are not dealing with the more trouble
:29:38. > :29:44.problem issue. This multiple problem, they are poor. What are we
:29:44. > :29:49.meant to do about it? In terms of poor, there is a lot of poverty
:29:49. > :29:55.around. Give them more money? SEN somebody around with yet more money
:29:56. > :30:03.for these people? A means of getting more money. Those who are
:30:03. > :30:09.unemployed, give them more money? No, get them work. What does that
:30:09. > :30:14.practically mean? A means to get into work? Education, training,
:30:14. > :30:21.work programmes. If you have health problems that will stop you...
:30:21. > :30:28.is different. I want to introduce somebody else who has direct
:30:28. > :30:33.experience of this and that is David Derbyshire. We have sound
:30:33. > :30:38.issues in the studio! He is from Action for children. Presumably you
:30:38. > :30:43.are listening to this debate as well and I presume the digger to
:30:43. > :30:49.come in and explain exactly how help is given to these families.
:30:49. > :30:57.You run projects where you do intervene. Good morning. Yes,
:30:57. > :31:02.indeed we do, up and down the country. I suppose the thing is
:31:02. > :31:08.about the key worker, what Eric Pickles was talking about, they are
:31:08. > :31:15.not there to wake up the family, for a link-up with other
:31:15. > :31:23.professionals and enable families tax as if facilities they need. --
:31:23. > :31:27.families to access facilities. It needs a lot of persistence. It will
:31:27. > :31:31.involved contact four or five times a week with a family by that key
:31:31. > :31:36.worker and that key worker is laying out for the family what the
:31:36. > :31:42.choices are. By the time they are in contact with one of the services,
:31:42. > :31:46.the choice is often the children entering care or young people being
:31:46. > :31:50.criminalised all the parents being criminalised. Or they can take
:31:50. > :31:55.steps which in almost all the cases the families want to take in order
:31:55. > :31:59.to make things better for themselves. At the beginning of the
:31:59. > :32:05.debate, Nick Ferrari characterised the key worker as a personal Jeeves
:32:05. > :32:12.who gets you ready to go out. Everyone would like somebody to
:32:12. > :32:19.motivate them and help them out. But why do these families
:32:19. > :32:23.particularly need somebody like that? They need someone... Workers
:32:23. > :32:26.will not normally go and get them out of bed, what they may do is not
:32:26. > :32:32.on the door to make sure the parents themselves are able to take
:32:32. > :32:37.the child to school. School attendance is often an issue. They
:32:37. > :32:43.will do that for a limited period so that parents build up confidence
:32:43. > :32:47.about doing that. The reason families are in that position is
:32:47. > :32:53.often because parents have had difficult backgrounds and histories.
:32:53. > :32:58.There is often some form of mental illness. David, I can hear
:32:58. > :33:02.exasperation in the studio. With the exception of people with mental
:33:02. > :33:05.or physical problems, we have all had challenges his life -- in life.
:33:05. > :33:09.There is something called individual responsibility where
:33:09. > :33:13.unless you have mental health issues, you have to tough it out.
:33:13. > :33:18.Get up in the morning and say I am going to get the kids to school.
:33:18. > :33:22.What about all of these families who do it every single morning?
:33:22. > :33:28.While we rewarding the ones who are not doing that and ignoring the
:33:28. > :33:32.ones who do do it? I Want To ask you, you are saying this is an
:33:32. > :33:39.antidote to criminalising family's? Are you not in danger of utterly
:33:39. > :33:44.patronising them and in tantalising them. I can't imagine anything more
:33:44. > :33:50.demoralising than having... Saying to families you are not up to it
:33:50. > :33:55.unless you have a professional to help you. I don't think that is the
:33:55. > :34:00.experience of people. You know it is. They feel as though they are
:34:00. > :34:05.constantly being told they can't cope unless an expert, someone
:34:05. > :34:14.like? E B mack, comes around and helps them. Do we make them
:34:14. > :34:17.dependent on new? No, families will say they have benefited from the
:34:17. > :34:20.relationship with a professional who was able to build on their
:34:20. > :34:26.strengths as a poster telling them what they couldn't do. What they
:34:26. > :34:29.would generally say was that before the interventions, they had
:34:29. > :34:39.experience of being told off by authorities and had negative
:34:39. > :34:39.
:34:39. > :34:44.experiences. These interventions gave them something in which they
:34:44. > :34:49.can engage properly. You are talking about a system that clearly
:34:49. > :34:55.exists and has existed for some time, is that right?
:34:55. > :35:01.intervention programme have existed for a little time. Not for that
:35:01. > :35:06.long. Are we talking a year, two years? More than that. What I don't
:35:06. > :35:09.understand is what is Eric Pickles announcing? What you are describing
:35:09. > :35:12.is what he is announcing. I don't understand why we are doing
:35:12. > :35:18.something different. It sounds like we are doing the same thing that
:35:18. > :35:24.you're doing. It may well be effective in some way, but there is
:35:24. > :35:30.nothing new here. No. The announcement was an indication that
:35:30. > :35:36.authorities should take up... want to put the question to the
:35:36. > :35:42.TaxPayers' Alliance. The Robert Oxley joins us. Is this a good use
:35:43. > :35:48.of money? Good morning. What we have to look at is can we afford to
:35:48. > :35:53.continue to allow these 120,000 problem families to continue
:35:53. > :35:58.costing the economy �8 billion a year. We saw from the riots the
:35:58. > :36:03.damage and destruction a small number it can cause. Clare mack his
:36:03. > :36:07.anger on the panel about the fact we already spend a lot of money if
:36:07. > :36:12.on these families. They are already making certain other people's lives
:36:12. > :36:20.a misery, while we spending more money on them? But we can't leave
:36:20. > :36:24.certain families who are causing disruption... This measure is not
:36:24. > :36:30.about spending more money, it is about saving money. First of all,
:36:30. > :36:34.in terms of evidence, the guy who came up with 120,000 families has
:36:34. > :36:40.already told us only 10% have problems with crime and anti-social
:36:40. > :36:44.behaviour. Suddenly they all have. I understand what Eric Pickles has
:36:44. > :36:51.done is if -- say it if you look at these families, there are agencies
:36:51. > :36:55.all over them. Social services, health services, local government.
:36:55. > :36:58.You can't move but for a professional expert advising them
:36:58. > :37:03.for up Eric Pickles has said, let's leave it to one person so it will
:37:03. > :37:09.save money. That appeals to you because you are mean-spirited. But
:37:09. > :37:14.in the end, would it not be better to query the whole premise of the
:37:14. > :37:21.120,000 families in the first place? Robert? It is not about
:37:21. > :37:28.being mean-spirited, it is about getting value for money. Yes,
:37:28. > :37:34.experts have identified Ferag these families causing trouble. One
:37:34. > :37:43.suggestion is these problem families are spending between
:37:43. > :37:50.�250,000 and �330,000. We can't pretend people... OK. Children who
:37:51. > :37:54.are not going to school and who are not growing up in a household...
:37:54. > :37:57.Thank you. A couple of text messages.
:37:57. > :38:02.This is disgusting, so many underprivileged families are trying
:38:02. > :38:11.to move up in society, why did we help them improve? Instead we are
:38:11. > :38:15.helping people who don't want help. Yet again, reward for not working.
:38:15. > :38:19.Becky says, poorer families need support and guidance to stop the
:38:19. > :38:21.cycle that children inherit and don't know how to escape from.
:38:21. > :38:24.But Coming up on Sunday Morning Live:
:38:24. > :38:28.Fuming at offensive comedians is nothing new. Monty Python's Life of
:38:28. > :38:31.Brian caused apoplexy more than 30 years ago. From Frankie Boyle to
:38:31. > :38:33.Sacha Baron Cohen and even Russell Brand, funny-men have had us
:38:33. > :38:36.falling about and feeling uncomfortable in roughly equal
:38:36. > :38:41.measure. Python Terry Jones said "There should be no taboos in
:38:41. > :38:45.comedy". As long as it's funny, is he right? What do you think? You
:38:45. > :38:47.can join in by webcam or you can make your views known by phone,
:38:47. > :38:57.email or online. Remember, keep voting, too, in our
:38:57. > :39:13.
:39:13. > :39:18.text poll. The question did Gaddafi Time to show you some of the key
:39:18. > :39:21.moral moment of the week. Claire Fox, it is claimed an undercover
:39:21. > :39:27.police officer gave evidence in court while still under cover.
:39:27. > :39:33.Should he have broken his cover to see justice done? This is not --
:39:33. > :39:36.this has not excited my moral juices as much as everybody else.
:39:36. > :39:40.Probably he shouldn't have stayed under cover when he gave evidence
:39:40. > :39:46.and I worry about the law being undermined. But although I am very
:39:46. > :39:53.much of the left the act of this type, in case anyone had noticed,
:39:53. > :39:57.what amuses me -- amuses me is people moaning about the cuts? If
:39:57. > :40:01.you are seriously taking on the state, you can't expect them to pat
:40:01. > :40:06.you on the back. I have no problem with the police going undercover, I
:40:06. > :40:11.always assumed that was what they did. Did you assume you might be
:40:11. > :40:18.working alongside some of them? course. If you are seriously
:40:18. > :40:21.involved in politics, challenging the orthodoxies of the day, unless
:40:21. > :40:27.the state are hopeless wimps, you will assume they are keeping their
:40:27. > :40:32.eye on you. Whether it is morally a good thing or not... Then there is
:40:32. > :40:36.a point about entrapment. One does get nervous about that. You don't
:40:36. > :40:40.want to be in a situation whereby the police make things happen
:40:40. > :40:44.because they are under cover, that is the big moral dilemma. I don't
:40:44. > :40:48.want the rule of law to be undermined and I don't want the
:40:48. > :40:52.state complete East buying one of the thing everyone does. Let's ask
:40:52. > :40:58.an audience where? Presumably under your watch their were undercover
:40:58. > :41:02.police officers. -- let's ask Lord Ian Blair. How widespread was the
:41:02. > :41:09.infiltration into activist groups? I don't think I will announce how
:41:09. > :41:13.widespread it is. Always worth asking! Were they spying on me!
:41:13. > :41:19.Don't forget Jack Straw becoming Home Secretary and asking for his
:41:19. > :41:25.MI5 file, which she got. It is a legitimate police tactic to go
:41:25. > :41:28.undercover and some of the people I have met who have been undercover
:41:28. > :41:33.officers involved in terrorism and organised crime are immensely brave
:41:33. > :41:36.men and women. When we have had some of the riots recently, the
:41:36. > :41:41.police were criticised for not having enough intelligence about
:41:41. > :41:45.what the students were going to do, or the rioters. There are only two
:41:45. > :41:51.ways of getting that intelligence, open source intelligence on the
:41:51. > :41:56.internet and undercover activity. The issue that is worrying people
:41:56. > :42:01.is not the existence of undercover officers, but the claims that an
:42:01. > :42:06.officer would then remain undercover while in a court of law.
:42:06. > :42:10.This is a very delicate one. As far as I remember, the rules are that
:42:10. > :42:16.it depends on what level of penetration the officer is in.
:42:16. > :42:21.Let's say it is a very long running undercover operation. What is the
:42:21. > :42:24.criminal act involved? If there is some serious criminal act, that
:42:25. > :42:29.officer would immediately have been withdrawn and his identity would
:42:29. > :42:32.have been revealed. But if you were talking about something that will
:42:32. > :42:37.end with a fine or conditional discharge, it is conceivable that
:42:37. > :42:41.it is worth remaining under cover to continue the penetration. These
:42:41. > :42:48.are very, very expensive and delicate operations. I think the
:42:48. > :42:54.key issue, as in the shooting of suicide bombers, these things have
:42:54. > :42:59.no place in public debate. We need a place like the King's Fund, where
:42:59. > :43:04.policing tactics of this nature are made open to the public. This is
:43:04. > :43:07.the methodology we use. Is this acceptable in a democratic society?
:43:07. > :43:13.When you were in charge, were undercover officers convicted of
:43:13. > :43:19.crimes? I have not come across one serving a sentence. People might
:43:19. > :43:23.have agreed that someone should stay and a cover when it is
:43:23. > :43:27.something as serious as infiltrating the terrorist cell,
:43:27. > :43:30.but wonder why someone would stay under cover when it was
:43:31. > :43:35.investigating an environmental activist group, for instance.
:43:35. > :43:39.is what I'm saying. We need a place where that is debated. At the
:43:39. > :43:41.moment it is decided work -- with the police and the Crown
:43:41. > :43:46.Prosecution Service and the Home Office. I think it should be a more
:43:46. > :43:53.public debate. One thing I would say is that I think there is a
:43:53. > :43:58.danger... We can't debate publicly on all of this, but one of the
:43:58. > :44:01.things that amuses me is it seems to me that the police might be
:44:01. > :44:08.wasting their time in four trading a lot of rather hopeless activist
:44:08. > :44:15.groups. -- infiltrating. They don't know how many vicars are police
:44:15. > :44:21.officers. To be serious... You are not making that allegation.
:44:21. > :44:28.terms of the priorities, that is what I'm trying to say. It is quite
:44:28. > :44:31.feasible that the state of over exaggerating... I think it was on
:44:31. > :44:37.your watch, Lord Blair, the brilliance of the anti-terrorism
:44:37. > :44:42.officers when they got into a plot. They substitute explosives for
:44:42. > :44:46.kitty litter. I think it was on your watch. That is the amazing job
:44:46. > :44:51.they do. Policing is not a perfect science. Last week a bloke went
:44:51. > :45:01.down in Lithuania for 12 years, he possibly would have blown up London
:45:01. > :45:01.
:45:01. > :45:05.You have been voting this morning. Did -- did Gaddafi deserve it? The
:45:05. > :45:10.poll is now closed. We will bring to the resort at the end of the
:45:10. > :45:15.programme. -- result.
:45:15. > :45:19.Ricky Gervais got into trouble this week and apologised for what many
:45:19. > :45:23.took to be the mocking of people with Down's syndrome. Should
:45:23. > :45:30.comedians be smarter about where to draw the line? Satire and religion
:45:30. > :45:34.can cause and or violence. Is it a comedian's job to break taboos?
:45:34. > :45:40.Half-a-million people tuned in this week to laugh at the dramatisation
:45:40. > :45:44.of this debate between Monty Python and religious leaders over whether
:45:44. > :45:51.their Life Of Brian was blasphemous. 400 years ago, we would have been
:45:51. > :45:55.burned for this. I am suggesting we have made an advance. The debate
:45:55. > :46:00.still rages today. Nearly half the country say they are Christians.
:46:00. > :46:05.More than 50,000 were outraged when did musical Jerez spring or the
:46:05. > :46:11.opera felt free to ridicule Christ. Many Muslims were upset by cartoons
:46:11. > :46:17.which mocked the Prophet Muhammad. Of the some topics which should be
:46:17. > :46:21.taboo? This week, a heated public debate about Ricky Gervais,
:46:21. > :46:26.tweeting the word mong. Many believed he was being offensive to
:46:26. > :46:31.those with Down's syndrome. One mother was particularly hurt.
:46:31. > :46:34.is absolutely endemic in our society, it is everywhere. We do
:46:34. > :46:39.not need another comedian with a large fan-base suddenly deciding
:46:39. > :46:47.that this is OK, that you can target disabled people, because
:46:47. > :46:49.they cannot fight back. Ricky Gervais yesterday apologised. The
:46:50. > :46:55.accepted that whatever he meant by the word, and many had taken
:46:55. > :47:01.offence. Others, including some disabled people, say any special
:47:01. > :47:06.treatment is patronising. Is it an essential part of comedy to say the
:47:06. > :47:11.unsayable and to come from taboos? Of the sum things which are simply
:47:11. > :47:17.never for me? -- never funny?
:47:17. > :47:22.You can join in. You have secured a four by by the principle of free
:47:22. > :47:29.speech, even when the mother of disabled children is in tears,
:47:29. > :47:35.saying that this is not acceptable? We live in and society which says,
:47:35. > :47:40.you cannot say that all the time. I would argue for the right to be
:47:40. > :47:44.offensive. You could say that is me encouraging everybody to be nasty,
:47:45. > :47:49.but the right to be offensive is essential. In comedy more than ever,
:47:50. > :47:54.that has to be a taboo busting place. You can decide that you
:47:54. > :47:59.think that the likes of Frankie Boyle or Ricky Gervais are not to
:47:59. > :48:02.your taste, but the whole point of comedy is to shake-up manners and
:48:02. > :48:08.challenge orthodoxies. What makes it funny is that you are being
:48:08. > :48:13.derisory about somebody. If we say that we are to be quiet in case we
:48:13. > :48:16.have then somebody, we will all be quite a lot of the time. We live in
:48:16. > :48:22.a society where people pussyfoot around, it is like walking on
:48:22. > :48:27.eggshells. You have worked with Ricky Gervais, and you also know
:48:27. > :48:31.how powerful speeches. Ricky Gervais said, we are all terrified
:48:31. > :48:36.of saying that the wrong thing. Part of his comedy is to confirm
:48:36. > :48:43.that. In that interview, he also says that many people are offended
:48:43. > :48:50.by things that... Some people are offended by mixed-race marriages.
:48:50. > :48:56.The fact that it causes offence is ridiculous. Humour always has a
:48:56. > :49:00.victim. The episode I was in with Ricky Gervais, he plays a character,
:49:01. > :49:04.he is just becoming famous come at a child is misbehaving, he has
:49:04. > :49:09.Down's syndrome, Ricky Gervais kicks off, he does not realise, he
:49:10. > :49:15.gets in trouble. The laugh is on the Ricky Gervais character. The
:49:15. > :49:23.Down's syndrome boy is ennobled. He has tried to make it off at the
:49:23. > :49:27.victim of the Down's syndrome people. His argument is that the
:49:27. > :49:33.word does not refer to disability any more. I could take you off-air
:49:34. > :49:37.by saying other words. I would not dream of saying them. Responsible
:49:37. > :49:46.people... He is a very bright fellow, but you have a
:49:46. > :49:52.responsibility, and he lost it. started off with religion. God has
:49:52. > :49:57.got his sense of humour. There is a lot of cheerfulness in the Bible.
:49:57. > :50:02.Life Of Brian was on television last again. I find it difficult for
:50:02. > :50:12.people to find the Life Of Brian offensive. It is an affectionate
:50:12. > :50:12.
:50:12. > :50:15.take. But there are some words that should not be said. There are some
:50:15. > :50:20.communities, their identity is so bound up in their particular
:50:20. > :50:26.religious belief, this is not an attack on their religion, it is an
:50:26. > :50:32.attack on their life. It produces the most difficult issues in terms
:50:32. > :50:38.of free speech. Is it right to say something in speech which leads to
:50:38. > :50:47.a riot on the streets? The speech does not lead to the riot, it is
:50:47. > :50:54.the response to it. What we have done, we have given the green light
:50:54. > :50:58.to a hecklers veto. Because we have given that such precedents, people
:50:58. > :51:07.are frightened. The alternative is that we laugh at the weakest
:51:07. > :51:11.members of society. They then become... You cannot want that.
:51:11. > :51:21.What we are now doing, we are saying that words can damage people
:51:21. > :51:21.
:51:21. > :51:29.more than anything else. I do not think they do. Words are not action.
:51:29. > :51:34.Sticks and stones and all the rest of it. We have got confused. More
:51:34. > :51:42.sinisterly, -- more seriously, if we say this, maybe this will offend
:51:42. > :51:47.a whole community, we might be seen to be insensitive, and something
:51:48. > :51:55.might happen. And intimidation goes on. That is a serious assault on a
:51:55. > :52:04.society. We have guests ready to talk to us. Tell us about your
:52:04. > :52:11.experience. You have a Down's syndrome child. Yes, my daughter.
:52:11. > :52:20.We were at the Frankie Boyle kick some time ago, we did not take him
:52:20. > :52:27.on in any way, we were just upset. Without going into great detail,
:52:27. > :52:32.what was the nature of the joke? had quite a long piece on taking
:52:32. > :52:37.the mickey out of people with Down's syndrome. Very different
:52:37. > :52:43.from the Ricky Gervais piece this week. What was your response?
:52:43. > :52:50.were disappointed that he was not funny. That is such a grown-up
:52:50. > :52:54.response. The problem with him, he is not funny. Frankie Boyle has
:52:54. > :52:58.said in the past he would like to be able to challenge society and
:52:58. > :53:03.introduce progressive ideas through comedy. This is what he was failing
:53:03. > :53:07.to do. He was reinforcing stereotypes. I would defend his
:53:07. > :53:15.right to say whatever he wants, but I would also defend our right to
:53:15. > :53:21.challenge some of those stereotypes. Have you got somebody on the webcam
:53:21. > :53:29.with learning difficulties? No, we have contacted a comedian with a
:53:29. > :53:35.disability, though, and we are hoping to speak to them later.
:53:35. > :53:39.Should comedians make jokes about conditions like Down's syndrome,
:53:39. > :53:45.about people with learning this of it -- learning difficulties?
:53:45. > :53:52.Comedians should be able to make jokes about anything. Comedians are
:53:52. > :53:55.not the people that make and the society, they are a result of the
:53:55. > :54:02.society. As long as people with learning difficulties are excluded,
:54:02. > :54:06.they will be the butt of jokes. Look back at Bernard Manning, it
:54:06. > :54:15.was then acceptable to make jokes about race, and they have become
:54:15. > :54:20.ostracised and irrelevant. That is a fair point, but when you come to
:54:20. > :54:25.working out what is funny, Dietrich -- Dietrich is that you make people
:54:25. > :54:31.laugh without causing offence. One of the poorest decisions the BBC
:54:31. > :54:36.made was transmitting that opera. You did not play a single clip from
:54:36. > :54:40.it, rightly. I do not see what is funny about putting Jesus Christ
:54:40. > :54:45.anyone -- in a nappy, but I do not want to see anybody being killed
:54:45. > :54:52.for putting the Prophet Mohammed in a cartoon. I thought the opera was
:54:52. > :55:00.brilliant. What was funny about it? You can now have an argument about
:55:00. > :55:04.what makes you laugh. I thought it was lampooning daytime television.
:55:04. > :55:10.Once you get to a point where you allow the subjective decisions of
:55:10. > :55:18.what people find taste for orphanage to dictate what we say in
:55:18. > :55:27.public, what I find is interesting, I get nervous sometimes about the
:55:27. > :55:30.fashion for Schalke jokes -- for shocking jokes. I think it is
:55:30. > :55:38.infantile, and Frankie Boyle, he has gone out of his way to draw
:55:38. > :55:44.attention to himself in a way that is not amusing. I want to talk to
:55:44. > :55:54.Geoff. Somebody has raised the issue of whether you can be as
:55:54. > :55:59.funny about Islam as you can about Christianity. Off course. The main
:55:59. > :56:03.criteria is the intention. The Danish cartoon is a good example of
:56:03. > :56:09.the intention being to cause offence, gratuitously, and not very
:56:09. > :56:14.funny. Muslims were right to protest. Comedian should be able to
:56:14. > :56:24.say whatever they want to say, as long as the intention is right. The
:56:24. > :56:28.other day, I was heckled by a blind man. I said, has he gone yet?
:56:28. > :56:34.have to be careful about intention. Unless you are going to start
:56:34. > :56:42.reading minds, how well you know? The Cottee might have been in bad
:56:42. > :56:46.taste, -- Cottee might have been in bad taste, but you do not know.
:56:46. > :56:56.have to bring you the result of the text poll. We asked, did Gaddafi
:56:56. > :56:59.
:56:59. > :57:05.deserve to die? 84% said yes. 16% said no. There is a majority
:57:05. > :57:14.opinion who belief that it was justice. The one thing it was not
:57:14. > :57:19.was justice. He died at the end of a brutal civil war, and for the
:57:19. > :57:27.Libyan people, this is the right ending. It is like saying Osama Bin
:57:27. > :57:34.Laden got justice. They get justice in the world that they inhabit.
:57:34. > :57:41.got his just deserts. Yes, absolutely right. He chose to
:57:41. > :57:46.murder in that way, so that is what comes. There is a small minority
:57:46. > :57:52.who do not think that he deserved it, despite his crimes. We can all
:57:52. > :57:57.have qualms about the way he died. I would want us to broaden it out
:57:57. > :58:05.to have qualms about what is going on in Libya. What I am worried
:58:05. > :58:14.about now is what happens in Libya. That is a big question to leave and
:58:14. > :58:20.a debate on. I would like to thank all our guests. Lord Ian Blair,
:58:20. > :58:25.Nick Ferrari and Claire Fox. Do not text or call again, because the