Episode 17 Sunday Morning Live

Gaddafi, the king of kings who died like a rat. After the horror

inflicted on the people of Lockerbie and the people of Libya,

This programme contains language which some people may find

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Libya starts a new

life after the death of Gaddafi. He terrorised his own people and

exported terror against ours. But was killing him the right thing to

The Government wants to blitz problem families. It will help them

get out of bed and get their kids to school. Is this the kind of

nanny state we should applaud? Ricky Gervais put himself in hot

water with jokes he denies were aimed at disabled people. But isn't

it a comedian's job to offend? My guests this week all have a very

personal stake in our debates. Sir Ian Blair was Britain's top cop and

sent officers to Libya to investigate PC Yvonne Fletcher's

murder. And Jean Charles de Menezes was killed while he was in command.

In a strange case of art imitating life, shock jock Nick Ferrari did a

turn in Ricky Gervais' comedy Extras'.

Claire Fox is director of the Institute of Ideas, but as a former

mental health social worker, she knows about the problems of problem

families. And we want to hear what you think.

Call in now to challenge our guests on Skype. Or give your views on

Gaddafi is dead and justice has been done. That's the verdict from

some families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. One said, "I hope

he's in hell with Hitler". Was Gaddafi's death a fitting payback

for his crimes? Or itself a crime? This video contains graphic images

Many felt uncomfortable watching the last moments of the bleeding,

beaten, dying dictators surrounded by an angry mob. The United Nations

may launch an inquiry into whether he was executed in cold blood. Many

felt we would not allow an animal to die in such a fashion. But

others felt Gaddafi had behaved worse than an animal and that he

deserved his end. To some it seems fitting that someone who lived by

the sword died by it, it seemed like justice. But was it just

revenge? His regime at tortured and murdered thousands of its people

and he is seen as responsible for the death of PC Yvonne Fletcher and

the Lockerbie bombing. Not all relatives of Gaddafi's victims

wanted his immediate death, some wanted him to stand trial so they

could find more answers. Though many were left disappointed with

the trial of Saddam Hussein. Some felt it was just a show trial and

his judicial hanging in cold blood little better than a lynch-mob.

Even some Americans felt uneasy when Osama Bin Laden, the architect

of 9/11, was, without trial, of 9/11, was, without trial,

of 9/11, was, without trial, effectively executed. But if

Gaddafi had been put on trial, he would have remained a rallying call

in a country trying to rebuild itself. Many remain opposed to the

death penalty whatever the crime. Others argue that when leaders like

Gaddafi spent 40 years committing appalling crimes against humanity,

they deserve only a bloody and violent end.

Nick Ferrari, did he deserve to die? The self-imposed lion of the

desert died like a rat in a cellar. Libya and the world will be a

better place. That is our text vote For full terms and conditions,

please visit the website. We will show you how you voted at the end

of the programme. Do you agree? There is no doubt there will have

been a huge amount of satisfaction from people in Libya that he has

gone. It is interesting watching the way everybody panicked at the

way it happened. The whole focus of this war was get Gaddafi. I think

what will happen now is we will not be sure what this war was about. It

might reveal far more now that he has gone. In some ways you can see

the Western allies have would have liked to have carried this on for a

long time. The Libyan people themselves got Gaddafi, as you say.

Sir Ian Blair, Lord Ian Blair, you send officers to Libya to

investigate the death of Yvonne Fletcher. Did you feel this is

justice? This shooting is I think almost inevitable. This is a war,

people died in circumstances like that. In an ideal world, he would

have been arrested and put on trial. This is not an ideal world. And I

think we now move to a new stage in Libya. I think the most difficult

thing about this... Arrested and put on trial with what penalty?

have to say, I do not think it would have been appropriate to put

him on trial in the international criminal court in The Hague. I

think it would have been Libyan justice because this is a matter

for the Libyan people. It is genocide against the Libyan people.

I am quite certain they would have executed him at the end of it.

Would that have been justified? That is a matter of personal

opinion. I personally do not like the death penalty, I never have,

but there is an issue here of Western imposed values on what is

an emerging free country. The real difficulty is that this represents

the weakness of the National Transitional Council, unable to

stop this happening. We are now seeing Libya moving to what it --

might be hopeful phase, but also might not be a hopeful face. In

terms of his death, it was absolutely inevitable. Let's speak

to somebody from Libya. An activist joins us this morning. I understand

your background isn't Libyan, but you have been an activist there in

Tripoli. What was the response of people there when Gaddafi was

killed? It was a response of pure and utter joy and relief. I have

never ever seen joy like this. In my entire life. Every single person,

I felt like, was in the street. People were jumping with joy.

People relieved, women, men, children, just wanting to cheer,

wanting to hold each other, wanting to laugh out loud, wanting to find

each other. It was a scene I will never forget. There are concerns in

the West about the manner of his death. That this was not due

process. Of those concerns in any way shared by those people over

there, celebrating? Yes, of course. In the end, we share the same

concerns as everyone else. We want a true justice system in Libya,

which we haven't had for the last 42 years. Was his death justified?

That is not for me to decide, I don't know the circumstances. I

don't know what was happening exactly. We may never find out. But

what I do know is that people are relieved. A lot of people were

worried that if he would go to trial, he would turn himself into a

martyr, 10 himself... Become like another propaganda, another show in

the Gaddafi saga. We didn't want that, we didn't want him to become

glorified again in front of international media. Was his death

justified to the people who have died and suffered? I don't think

anything would be enough for the families who have suffered, for the

children who have become disabled and for the 2000 women that are

still missing in Tripoli. No justice will be enough for them.

His death is only a sigh of relief that the head of this nation has

been chopped off, the poison will not stream into our lives again and

now we can put that behind us and start rebuilding our nation.

can hear the relief, the celebration, but also the concern.

It is quite an interesting question, is this an assault on due process?

I absolutely get nervous about the law... To me this was a bloody

civil war the West should never have been involved in. I have had

enough of this. You would have just watched Gaddafi kill tens of

thousands of his own? I am absolutely of the opinion that the

West going into Libya... We would have just stood and watched him

murder. Yes. However... Now, Mr Ferrari,... Call me Nick. We have a

situation where everybody is situation -- where everybody is

squeamish. The Western elite is squeamish after they have

intervened in a bloody civil war. Thousands of people have been

killed in this process. Thousands and thousands throughout the whole

thing. Why did we do it? Some kind of PR exercise? OK, very briefly, I

am delighted he's dead. I am concerned about the manner of his

death, but I'm delighted he's dead. He has probably killed 30,000 of

his own people, he has also been responsible for PC Yvonne Fletcher,

Lockerbie and funding the IRA. What is the point of putting this man on

trial? People are now bleating about some kind of UN lead inquiry.

They couldn't find weapons of mass destruction. If you think they can

find the man who fired the bullet in Libya I would be amazed. Putting

him in a glass box in The Hague would just be farcical. He would

make out they wanted him back like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. It is

good he is gone. Let's speak to somebody who has a personal stake,

Brian Flynn. Your brother was on board Pan Am flight one 03, which

was blown up over Lockerbie. That's 103. Did you share that sense of

justice when you find out Gaddafi had been killed? I am upset you

didn't let Nick keep going. I agreed with everything he said. It

is very easy, and Americans have been accused by many in Britain of

fostering some kind of culture of vengeance and I think it is

something personally I have dealt with through the years. When

Gaddafi first died, my reaction was a little bit of excitement and I

don't think that is appropriate. Not in a normal situation. But the

reason I was excited, and other families, was because it was tied

to the liberation of the Libyan people. It would have been the easy

for us to say, oh well, this is just classic American phi for an I

A, death penalty, we believe that the freeing of the Libyan people

was a key part of what made this such a significant event. It is

interesting that you see it from that perspective. When your brother

died in the Lockerbie bomber him, what did you want to happen to

Colonel Gaddafi immediately afterwards? -- Lockerbie bombing.

have been focused on and believe that I have been true to this idea

that I remember my mother saying, and screaming, my son will not die

in vain. My reaction was that I would do everything I could to

bring justice to this. Not revenge. As a Christian, you could go Old

Testament and say I for an eye, tooth for a tooth. You could also

say something about Luke's Gospel, which is that if a man since and

then asks for forgiveness, you forgive him. If a man's sins and

asks for no forgiveness and is unrepentant, you have to rebuke him.

That is the case for both Gaddafi and al-Megrahi. We are talking

about notions of justice here and whether you think... If Gaddafi had

been put on trial and cross- examined about what happened at

Lockerbie and answered some of the questions that perhaps you still

have about what happened, do you think there is a sense you might

have got more justice out of that or do you feel satisfied now that

We would have got more out of it, in the sense of, who was behind it?

This was not then working alone. There were many other people

involved, who are still at large. That process may have revealed that.

This is the story of the Libyan people, it is for them to write it.

I think vengeance is appropriate for the Libyan people. If they want

to meet out justice. I agree with this part of what Nick said, to go

through the United Nations court would have driven us all mad, but

the West want that. What gives a more or justification is the idea

that Colonel Gaddafi was the evil guy. He was. It is refreshing to

hear somebody say, met the Libyan people deal with it. I would have

wanted them to deal with it rather than it being a grandstanding thing

for the West, to say, we are a bit -- liberating the people.

Practically, I do not think that the death of Gaddafi changes

anything. I do not think that Gaddafi would have testified in

court about what happened. The answers to what happened will peak

in files -- will be in files. The trial would have given him the

opportunity to become Father Christmas. All of this stuff about

how Saddam Hussein was put on trial did not help the Iraqi people. I am

with Nick, he is dead, now it is time for the Libyans to move on,

and to uncover the truth about Yvonne Fletcher. One person who

wants to know the truth is John Merry, he was with Yvonne Fletcher

when she was killed outside the Libyan embassy. Do you hold Colonel

Gaddafi responsible for his -- for her death? Yes, there is no doubt

about it. The order came from Gaddafi himself, he was the head of

state. His agents were at the embassy. He gave the order, no

doubt about it. When you found out he had been killed, is that an eye

for an eye? He did not deserve to die in that way. He should have

been placed in front of a court. He has taken a lot of the answers I

have been seeking with him. If he had stood trial, we could have

asked him questions. He may not have answered them, but we would

have had the opportunity to ask him. I was in Libya not so very long ago.

I returned with a lot of information. I sped to the NTC, --

I spoke to the NTC, and the information I received was very

good. Better than the Met Police. I want a lot of answers. I will keep

fighting until somebody is in court to answer for Yvonne Fletcher's

death. People might be surprised to hear you say that he did not

deserve to die. Considering what you have been through and what you

know the family of Yvonne Fletcher have been through. Why do you feel

that? It is part of the due process of law. If he stood trial in Libya,

he probably would have been given the death penalty. I have no or

gimmick with that. -- no argument. The NTC, will pay deal with people

-- will they deal with people in the same way? That is an

interesting question. If this is how they deliver justice... It was

not as if they had some kind of tribunal or hearing. It would

appear that, in a mode of extreme ecstasy and panic, he was executed,

and the manner of his execution, yes, we can see that. You mean that

you agree that you do not think he deserved to die in the way that he

did? He deserved to die, but as a human being, you have to say, that

is quite concerning. But he killed 30,000 of his own people, he was

getting ready to kill many more. It might have been better to take into

a court house. It would have been slightly better. But if we were

here in 1945, would we say, is it right that Hitler is gone? We would

be celebrating. It is the same with Osama Bin Laden, I was delighted.

There is a danger of turning Gaddafi into a lot more than he was.

To compare him to Hitler, it will it advises people. These were a

nasty little tinpot dictators. that to the brother of the

Lockerbie victim, to the policeman standing next to Yvonne Fletcher...

Let me make the point. I am not saying he was a good guy, but to

compare him to Hitler, that flatters him. We have tinpot

dictators, and you can turn them into icons of the full -- evil.

There is more to the rebuilding of Libya than this. One person says, I

shed no tears, but I feel this is not how democracy should begin.

Another person says, we needed the truth on Lockerbie, and we have

been robbed of this. Another person says, wide to the bleeding hearts

need their investigation? Did he deal in due process? He needed to

be terminated so Libya could move on. If you think Gaddafi deserved

it, or not, text in. You have 20 minutes before the poll closes.

The government says problem families are costing taxpayers a

small fortune, so it wants to give them their own government helper to

stop them causing havoc in society. A good idea? Rewarding the

feckless? This week, committee secretary Eric

Pickles revealed that problem families who make-up less than 1%

of the population cost the taxpayer a whopping �8 billion. These

families cost so much because they take up so many different resources,

from Social Services to the police. The government wants to

deliberately target them. Each family could get a dedicated helper.

They could help them get out of bed, send their children to school and

make sure they attend alcohol and drug rehabilitation. Is that

sensible? Is that the nanny state gone too far? If families cost the

state so much, do they deserve to get personalised help? The scheme

targets families who are not employed, live in poor housing, RL,

or simply pull. The government hopes this will prevent the

families going off the rails and cost less in the long run. Is it

patronising to force held on families simply because they are

poor and often on benefits? Harboured any of us like it if a

government official came into the privacy of our homes to tell us how

we should be living? With spending billions on giving problem families

their own dedicated helper be the final push they need to get out of

poverty, or will a helping hand discourage people from helping

themselves? If you have got a webcam, you can

make your point on Skype. Is this a good idea? It is a bit strange. The

previous government had a thing called Total place, which was

putting exactly this piece of work into action. Not a single dedicated

person, but putting the police, the health service, the social services,

wrapping them round the most difficult families. Exactly the

same is being proposed about gangs. Getting in their early and sorting

out the children who are at risk of becoming a gang members. The idea

of a single dedicated person coming into the house is a very strange

idea. I am all for concentrating on the most difficult people... If one

person goes in and it saves all of those other agencies... Did you

think somebody will go into those houses and Tom Mapp? I do not

believe it is possible. I believe we need to concentrate on those

families. It is sometimes called the Boston method, somebody

involved in a gang is confronted by the police and the prosecutors and

people from housing and education and given a straight forward choice.

In other state in a life of crime - - you are either state in a life of

crime or you go straight. That works. But going in by yourself

seems to be a gimmick. I think Eric Pickles has gone nuts to keep the

food theme going! Way of going to reward the reckless and feckless,

whose life is in crime and crime, by giving them a servant, who will

not on their door? It will save us billions of pounds? I do not

normally use this analysis, but if we are so worried, we should think

about the money we are spending in Afghanistan, which is double this

ludicrous experiment. Think about the money that bailed out the

bankers. Put them in jail. You are a former social worker dealing with

people with mental health issues. Mental health is one of the

identifiers for these families in crisis. There is a number of things.

This has been brought on on a delusion that the government can

sort everything out by interfering, which is ludicrous. I also think it

is promised on the now orthodoxy of early intervention, everybody will

now say, what happens before the age of three will determine

everything what happens afterwards. It is based on poor science. It is

nonsense. It is over deterministic. Then, this gives a green light to

the government, because if you say, what happens before the age of

three means that you have to intervene, they can then say, every

parent needs to be undermined. Parents' authority is being

undermined by this idea that the Government tells you what to do. It

is true that if you say that depict the state was that all parents are

responsible, but I do not trust how they have identified these families.

We will talk to somebody who has identified them. Is it true, few of

the man that came up with the figure of 120,000 problem families?

Yes, from the research we did for the government. We were focusing on

poverty. We were focusing on families that had five or more they

have his problems, being poor, ill health, living in poor quality

housing. It is focused on the problems they have, rather than the

problems they are causing. The media have twisted things slightly.

That is a common accusation! It is a tiny proportion of families, but

you say they are not causing problems. Presumably you mean

criminally. Financially, some people might think it is causing a

problem. Yes, in terms of anti- social behaviour, the families that

we identified, and the 10% of them had children that have been in

trouble with police. The focus is not on anti-social behaviour. But

yes, if they have got five or more problems, we are talking about

disadvantaged families. Can I just ask, you have done the research on

the existence of these malted problem families, I take it you

have not come up with the idea of sending a person in to get them up

in the morning? No, we just do the research. I am not quite sure what

getting them up in the morning has to do with it. Nor are my! That is

what Eric Pickles wants to do! We have got a fine piece of academic

research that somebody is taking a simple solution on to, and that is

not part of your job a tour? That is right. The research revealed

there are significant families that have lots of issues going on, which

makes it hard for them to live their lives and raise their

children. They need somebody to help them negotiate with a

There are very specific problems here. If somebody has a mental

health problem, you needed -- decent mental health services. If

you have a poor person, you could say the problem is just money.

There's a danger that you are designating them as problem

families. They have multiple problems so sending in a person who

deals with one problem, you are not dealing with the more trouble

problem issue. This multiple problem, they are poor. What are we

meant to do about it? In terms of poor, there is a lot of poverty

around. Give them more money? SEN somebody around with yet more money

for these people? A means of getting more money. Those who are

unemployed, give them more money? No, get them work. What does that

practically mean? A means to get into work? Education, training,

work programmes. If you have health problems that will stop you...

is different. I want to introduce somebody else who has direct

experience of this and that is David Derbyshire. We have sound

issues in the studio! He is from Action for children. Presumably you

are listening to this debate as well and I presume the digger to

come in and explain exactly how help is given to these families.

You run projects where you do intervene. Good morning. Yes,

indeed we do, up and down the country. I suppose the thing is

about the key worker, what Eric Pickles was talking about, they are

not there to wake up the family, for a link-up with other

professionals and enable families tax as if facilities they need. --

families to access facilities. It needs a lot of persistence. It will

involved contact four or five times a week with a family by that key

worker and that key worker is laying out for the family what the

choices are. By the time they are in contact with one of the services,

the choice is often the children entering care or young people being

criminalised all the parents being criminalised. Or they can take

steps which in almost all the cases the families want to take in order

to make things better for themselves. At the beginning of the

debate, Nick Ferrari characterised the key worker as a personal Jeeves

who gets you ready to go out. Everyone would like somebody to

motivate them and help them out. But why do these families

particularly need somebody like that? They need someone... Workers

will not normally go and get them out of bed, what they may do is not

on the door to make sure the parents themselves are able to take

the child to school. School attendance is often an issue. They

will do that for a limited period so that parents build up confidence

about doing that. The reason families are in that position is

often because parents have had difficult backgrounds and histories.

There is often some form of mental illness. David, I can hear

exasperation in the studio. With the exception of people with mental

or physical problems, we have all had challenges his life -- in life.

There is something called individual responsibility where

unless you have mental health issues, you have to tough it out.

Get up in the morning and say I am going to get the kids to school.

What about all of these families who do it every single morning?

While we rewarding the ones who are not doing that and ignoring the

ones who do do it? I Want To ask you, you are saying this is an

antidote to criminalising family's? Are you not in danger of utterly

patronising them and in tantalising them. I can't imagine anything more

demoralising than having... Saying to families you are not up to it

unless you have a professional to help you. I don't think that is the

experience of people. You know it is. They feel as though they are

constantly being told they can't cope unless an expert, someone

like? E B mack, comes around and helps them. Do we make them

dependent on new? No, families will say they have benefited from the

relationship with a professional who was able to build on their

strengths as a poster telling them what they couldn't do. What they

would generally say was that before the interventions, they had

experience of being told off by authorities and had negative

experiences. These interventions gave them something in which they

can engage properly. You are talking about a system that clearly

exists and has existed for some time, is that right?

intervention programme have existed for a little time. Not for that

long. Are we talking a year, two years? More than that. What I don't

understand is what is Eric Pickles announcing? What you are describing

is what he is announcing. I don't understand why we are doing

something different. It sounds like we are doing the same thing that

you're doing. It may well be effective in some way, but there is

nothing new here. No. The announcement was an indication that

authorities should take up... want to put the question to the

TaxPayers' Alliance. The Robert Oxley joins us. Is this a good use

of money? Good morning. What we have to look at is can we afford to

continue to allow these 120,000 problem families to continue

costing the economy �8 billion a year. We saw from the riots the

damage and destruction a small number it can cause. Clare mack his

anger on the panel about the fact we already spend a lot of money if

on these families. They are already making certain other people's lives

a misery, while we spending more money on them? But we can't leave

certain families who are causing disruption... This measure is not

about spending more money, it is about saving money. First of all,

in terms of evidence, the guy who came up with 120,000 families has

already told us only 10% have problems with crime and anti-social

behaviour. Suddenly they all have. I understand what Eric Pickles has

done is if -- say it if you look at these families, there are agencies

all over them. Social services, health services, local government.

You can't move but for a professional expert advising them

for up Eric Pickles has said, let's leave it to one person so it will

save money. That appeals to you because you are mean-spirited. But

in the end, would it not be better to query the whole premise of the

120,000 families in the first place? Robert? It is not about

being mean-spirited, it is about getting value for money. Yes,

experts have identified Ferag these families causing trouble. One

suggestion is these problem families are spending between

�250,000 and �330,000. We can't pretend people... OK. Children who

are not going to school and who are not growing up in a household...

Thank you. A couple of text messages.

This is disgusting, so many underprivileged families are trying

to move up in society, why did we help them improve? Instead we are

helping people who don't want help. Yet again, reward for not working.

Becky says, poorer families need support and guidance to stop the

cycle that children inherit and don't know how to escape from.

But Coming up on Sunday Morning Live:

Fuming at offensive comedians is nothing new. Monty Python's Life of

Brian caused apoplexy more than 30 years ago. From Frankie Boyle to

Sacha Baron Cohen and even Russell Brand, funny-men have had us

falling about and feeling uncomfortable in roughly equal

measure. Python Terry Jones said "There should be no taboos in

comedy". As long as it's funny, is he right? What do you think? You

can join in by webcam or you can make your views known by phone,

email or online. Remember, keep voting, too, in our

text poll. The question did Gaddafi Time to show you some of the key

moral moment of the week. Claire Fox, it is claimed an undercover

police officer gave evidence in court while still under cover.

Should he have broken his cover to see justice done? This is not --

this has not excited my moral juices as much as everybody else.

Probably he shouldn't have stayed under cover when he gave evidence

and I worry about the law being undermined. But although I am very

much of the left the act of this type, in case anyone had noticed,

what amuses me -- amuses me is people moaning about the cuts? If

you are seriously taking on the state, you can't expect them to pat

you on the back. I have no problem with the police going undercover, I

always assumed that was what they did. Did you assume you might be

working alongside some of them? course. If you are seriously

involved in politics, challenging the orthodoxies of the day, unless

the state are hopeless wimps, you will assume they are keeping their

eye on you. Whether it is morally a good thing or not... Then there is

a point about entrapment. One does get nervous about that. You don't

want to be in a situation whereby the police make things happen

because they are under cover, that is the big moral dilemma. I don't

want the rule of law to be undermined and I don't want the

state complete East buying one of the thing everyone does. Let's ask

an audience where? Presumably under your watch their were undercover

police officers. -- let's ask Lord Ian Blair. How widespread was the

infiltration into activist groups? I don't think I will announce how

widespread it is. Always worth asking! Were they spying on me!

Don't forget Jack Straw becoming Home Secretary and asking for his

MI5 file, which she got. It is a legitimate police tactic to go

undercover and some of the people I have met who have been undercover

officers involved in terrorism and organised crime are immensely brave

men and women. When we have had some of the riots recently, the

police were criticised for not having enough intelligence about

what the students were going to do, or the rioters. There are only two

ways of getting that intelligence, open source intelligence on the

internet and undercover activity. The issue that is worrying people

is not the existence of undercover officers, but the claims that an

officer would then remain undercover while in a court of law.

This is a very delicate one. As far as I remember, the rules are that

it depends on what level of penetration the officer is in.

Let's say it is a very long running undercover operation. What is the

criminal act involved? If there is some serious criminal act, that

officer would immediately have been withdrawn and his identity would

have been revealed. But if you were talking about something that will

end with a fine or conditional discharge, it is conceivable that

it is worth remaining under cover to continue the penetration. These

are very, very expensive and delicate operations. I think the

key issue, as in the shooting of suicide bombers, these things have

no place in public debate. We need a place like the King's Fund, where

policing tactics of this nature are made open to the public. This is

the methodology we use. Is this acceptable in a democratic society?

When you were in charge, were undercover officers convicted of

crimes? I have not come across one serving a sentence. People might

have agreed that someone should stay and a cover when it is

something as serious as infiltrating the terrorist cell,

but wonder why someone would stay under cover when it was

investigating an environmental activist group, for instance.

is what I'm saying. We need a place where that is debated. At the

moment it is decided work -- with the police and the Crown

Prosecution Service and the Home Office. I think it should be a more

public debate. One thing I would say is that I think there is a

danger... We can't debate publicly on all of this, but one of the

things that amuses me is it seems to me that the police might be

wasting their time in four trading a lot of rather hopeless activist

groups. -- infiltrating. They don't know how many vicars are police

officers. To be serious... You are not making that allegation.

terms of the priorities, that is what I'm trying to say. It is quite

feasible that the state of over exaggerating... I think it was on

your watch, Lord Blair, the brilliance of the anti-terrorism

officers when they got into a plot. They substitute explosives for

kitty litter. I think it was on your watch. That is the amazing job

they do. Policing is not a perfect science. Last week a bloke went

down in Lithuania for 12 years, he possibly would have blown up London

You have been voting this morning. Did -- did Gaddafi deserve it? The

poll is now closed. We will bring to the resort at the end of the

programme. -- result.

Ricky Gervais got into trouble this week and apologised for what many

took to be the mocking of people with Down's syndrome. Should

comedians be smarter about where to draw the line? Satire and religion

can cause and or violence. Is it a comedian's job to break taboos?

Half-a-million people tuned in this week to laugh at the dramatisation

of this debate between Monty Python and religious leaders over whether

their Life Of Brian was blasphemous. 400 years ago, we would have been

burned for this. I am suggesting we have made an advance. The debate

still rages today. Nearly half the country say they are Christians.

More than 50,000 were outraged when did musical Jerez spring or the

opera felt free to ridicule Christ. Many Muslims were upset by cartoons

which mocked the Prophet Muhammad. Of the some topics which should be

taboo? This week, a heated public debate about Ricky Gervais,

tweeting the word mong. Many believed he was being offensive to

those with Down's syndrome. One mother was particularly hurt.

is absolutely endemic in our society, it is everywhere. We do

not need another comedian with a large fan-base suddenly deciding

that this is OK, that you can target disabled people, because

they cannot fight back. Ricky Gervais yesterday apologised. The

accepted that whatever he meant by the word, and many had taken

offence. Others, including some disabled people, say any special

treatment is patronising. Is it an essential part of comedy to say the

unsayable and to come from taboos? Of the sum things which are simply

never for me? -- never funny?

You can join in. You have secured a four by by the principle of free

speech, even when the mother of disabled children is in tears,

saying that this is not acceptable? We live in and society which says,

you cannot say that all the time. I would argue for the right to be

offensive. You could say that is me encouraging everybody to be nasty,

but the right to be offensive is essential. In comedy more than ever,

that has to be a taboo busting place. You can decide that you

think that the likes of Frankie Boyle or Ricky Gervais are not to

your taste, but the whole point of comedy is to shake-up manners and

challenge orthodoxies. What makes it funny is that you are being

derisory about somebody. If we say that we are to be quiet in case we

have then somebody, we will all be quite a lot of the time. We live in

a society where people pussyfoot around, it is like walking on

eggshells. You have worked with Ricky Gervais, and you also know

how powerful speeches. Ricky Gervais said, we are all terrified

of saying that the wrong thing. Part of his comedy is to confirm

that. In that interview, he also says that many people are offended

by things that... Some people are offended by mixed-race marriages.

The fact that it causes offence is ridiculous. Humour always has a

victim. The episode I was in with Ricky Gervais, he plays a character,

he is just becoming famous come at a child is misbehaving, he has

Down's syndrome, Ricky Gervais kicks off, he does not realise, he

gets in trouble. The laugh is on the Ricky Gervais character. The

Down's syndrome boy is ennobled. He has tried to make it off at the

victim of the Down's syndrome people. His argument is that the

word does not refer to disability any more. I could take you off-air

by saying other words. I would not dream of saying them. Responsible

people... He is a very bright fellow, but you have a

responsibility, and he lost it. started off with religion. God has

got his sense of humour. There is a lot of cheerfulness in the Bible.

Life Of Brian was on television last again. I find it difficult for

people to find the Life Of Brian offensive. It is an affectionate

take. But there are some words that should not be said. There are some

communities, their identity is so bound up in their particular

religious belief, this is not an attack on their religion, it is an

attack on their life. It produces the most difficult issues in terms

of free speech. Is it right to say something in speech which leads to

a riot on the streets? The speech does not lead to the riot, it is

the response to it. What we have done, we have given the green light

to a hecklers veto. Because we have given that such precedents, people

are frightened. The alternative is that we laugh at the weakest

members of society. They then become... You cannot want that.

What we are now doing, we are saying that words can damage people

more than anything else. I do not think they do. Words are not action.

Sticks and stones and all the rest of it. We have got confused. More

sinisterly, -- more seriously, if we say this, maybe this will offend

a whole community, we might be seen to be insensitive, and something

might happen. And intimidation goes on. That is a serious assault on a

society. We have guests ready to talk to us. Tell us about your

experience. You have a Down's syndrome child. Yes, my daughter.

We were at the Frankie Boyle kick some time ago, we did not take him

on in any way, we were just upset. Without going into great detail,

what was the nature of the joke? had quite a long piece on taking

the mickey out of people with Down's syndrome. Very different

from the Ricky Gervais piece this week. What was your response?

were disappointed that he was not funny. That is such a grown-up

response. The problem with him, he is not funny. Frankie Boyle has

said in the past he would like to be able to challenge society and

introduce progressive ideas through comedy. This is what he was failing

to do. He was reinforcing stereotypes. I would defend his

right to say whatever he wants, but I would also defend our right to

challenge some of those stereotypes. Have you got somebody on the webcam

with learning difficulties? No, we have contacted a comedian with a

disability, though, and we are hoping to speak to them later.

Should comedians make jokes about conditions like Down's syndrome,

about people with learning this of it -- learning difficulties?

Comedians should be able to make jokes about anything. Comedians are

not the people that make and the society, they are a result of the

society. As long as people with learning difficulties are excluded,

they will be the butt of jokes. Look back at Bernard Manning, it

was then acceptable to make jokes about race, and they have become

ostracised and irrelevant. That is a fair point, but when you come to

working out what is funny, Dietrich -- Dietrich is that you make people

laugh without causing offence. One of the poorest decisions the BBC

made was transmitting that opera. You did not play a single clip from

it, rightly. I do not see what is funny about putting Jesus Christ

anyone -- in a nappy, but I do not want to see anybody being killed

for putting the Prophet Mohammed in a cartoon. I thought the opera was

brilliant. What was funny about it? You can now have an argument about

what makes you laugh. I thought it was lampooning daytime television.

Once you get to a point where you allow the subjective decisions of

what people find taste for orphanage to dictate what we say in

public, what I find is interesting, I get nervous sometimes about the

fashion for Schalke jokes -- for shocking jokes. I think it is

infantile, and Frankie Boyle, he has gone out of his way to draw

attention to himself in a way that is not amusing. I want to talk to

Geoff. Somebody has raised the issue of whether you can be as

funny about Islam as you can about Christianity. Off course. The main

criteria is the intention. The Danish cartoon is a good example of

the intention being to cause offence, gratuitously, and not very

funny. Muslims were right to protest. Comedian should be able to

say whatever they want to say, as long as the intention is right. The

other day, I was heckled by a blind man. I said, has he gone yet?

have to be careful about intention. Unless you are going to start

reading minds, how well you know? The Cottee might have been in bad

taste, -- Cottee might have been in bad taste, but you do not know.

have to bring you the result of the text poll. We asked, did Gaddafi

deserve to die? 84% said yes. 16% said no. There is a majority

opinion who belief that it was justice. The one thing it was not

was justice. He died at the end of a brutal civil war, and for the

Libyan people, this is the right ending. It is like saying Osama Bin

Laden got justice. They get justice in the world that they inhabit.

got his just deserts. Yes, absolutely right. He chose to

murder in that way, so that is what comes. There is a small minority

who do not think that he deserved it, despite his crimes. We can all

have qualms about the way he died. I would want us to broaden it out

to have qualms about what is going on in Libya. What I am worried

about now is what happens in Libya. That is a big question to leave and

a debate on. I would like to thank all our guests. Lord Ian Blair,

Nick Ferrari and Claire Fox. Do not text or call again, because the