Episode 19 Sunday Morning Live

Why can't racist insults be settled with a "sorry" and a handshake?

Because, says one of our guests, black people already face a

lifetime of abuse. -- ethnic minorities.

Should any racist insult lead to an immediate red card - on or off the

pitch? Or have we become too Good morning, and welcome to Sunday

Morning Live. Many have called for Sepp Blatter's resignation this

week over his comments on racism. He has since apologised. But can

white people ever really understand what causes racial offence?

IVF fertility procedures are on the up, but figures out this week

showed a big rise too in the numbers of single women receiving

it on the NHS. Should the state be creating single mums?

And ever get that feeling you've been here before? Coronation Street

star William Roache - a man we know for a fact to have lived two lives

- actually thinks we lead many more. Reincarnation is real. And if we

all led our lives with a better understanding of that principle,

the world would be a much better place.

My guests this week have all been witness to the issues we're

debating. John Amaechi made millions as an

NBA basketball player, but that didn't buy him immunity from being

called the N-word. Carole Malone was on the infamous

Big Brother where Jade Goody was accused of making racist remarks

about Shilpa Shetty. And before running ITV and trying

to fix the NHS, Sir Gerry Robinson trained as a Catholic Priest. Which

of those experiences shook his faith in reincarnation may become

clear shortly. We want to know what you think.

Call in now to challenge our guests on any of our three debates on

Skype. It is your chance to give Skype. It is your chance to give

Skype. It is your chance to give your views on Twitter, Facebook or

This week, the headlines have been about racist language on the

football pitch. But surely what's even more important is racial abuse

in everyday life. Do casual racist insults make it easier for people

to commit violence against those who look different? Or in modern

multi-cultural Britain, are we now too sensitive about racism? Ken

FIFA president Sepp Blatter apologised this Friday for

suggesting races him on the pitch should be met with a handshake.

-- race season. Many felt he should have resigned. The controversy

started when John Terry was resp -- accused of racially invest --

abusing another player. Many felt he should not have captained

England this Tuesday. Campaigns have largely eradicated the races

and of the 1980s, when players like John Barnes had bananas thrown at

them. But should we now have a zero-tolerance approach to racist

remarks, even during play, because people think it be humanises people

who look different. Sepp Blatter has now advocated zero-tolerance,

but is that another reaction? Or in modern Britain, is any racist

comment something we should never tolerate?

John Amaechi, are we too sensitive about what might have caused

offence? No, there is really good science, people saying bad things

about other people, a racially or otherwise, leads to action. That is

the question for the text vote this morning, are we too sensitive about

We will show you how you voted at the end of the programme. As you

might expect, you may hear terms in this discussion we are having that

you may find offensive. So you think this is on a continuum, John?

Definitely. I know like it since we have made so much progress, and not

just with races and, but with the bigger things in society, but when

you make progress, that is when you have to be more vigilant. You

listen to discussions now, even on television, and it is amazing how

many different ways people can get around and say N-word without using

it. Give me an example. I have watched debates whether language

clearly missed the point where, for example, you start talking about

black people and Asian people and how they have lots of babies --

where the language clearly gets to the point, and how they breed, a

term we used for animals, and it is more sophisticated than simply

Yelling the arm -- N-word. So things that may not be meant as

racist can be interpreted as racist? They can, and I applaud the

progress, but I think the pendulum has swung too far for -- bar. There

is such kind of terror of saying something which is interpreted the

wrong way, which by no was never meant to mean that. I think we have

gone overboard and it is now the subject that we can't talk about.

It is something we should be able to talk about in a very open way if

we want to continue the progress that John has applauded and I have

as well, and to make that progress, you have to get away from that fear

of saying the wrong thing. You are nodding it, do you feel the same

fear? I do. I think there are racists and people who cause

unintentional offence. I recently asked a lady to get to be something

in a shop, and the Lady happened to be black, and she was away for ages

and that -- asked another lady what had happened and the other lady

asked her to describe her for me, up this was the only black lady on

the floor, but I was scared to say the word black, because I didn't

want to appear an offensive or disrespectful. It wasn't that I was

being racist, I was scared to use the word, because... I think what

is happening is we have become very frightened, and on subjects where

you have an opinion about something, if it involves people of colour,

you are frightened to give that opinion. If you have an opinion on

immigration, it doesn't mean you are racist because you have an

opinion on immigration. Britain is the 6th most overcrowded country in

the world. It is a concern for some people that they shouldn't be

branded as racist, and I think the boundaries have become blurred.

John, the fact that people feel nervous, even describing somebody

factually, truthfully, by the colour of their skin. That is at

the heart of the issue about whether we are too sensitive about

appearing to be, or possibly even being a, racist. I don't think it

is, it is the example that this constantly cited. I don't

trivialise it, and I have been there, it doesn't mean I don't also

share those, but every time we discuss the issue, that is what

people trot out, the idea that it is uncomfortable mentioning the

black lady in the shop. Why is that silly? Not silly at all, but it is

not the core of the problem. If you look at Britain today, people talk

about the pendulum swinging too far and then they say we can't say the

word blackboards. What they don't talk about is the catch-all races

and that does exist. -- casual racism. How you explain the

disproportionate number of black and Asian people in prisons. When

we talk about women in boardrooms, nobody hesitates to recognise there

is a glass ceiling and a bigotry but the same inequality exists in

football, 38% of the players are black, but when it comes to

management, it is just one. Not 1%, just one. Does a discussion about

the language distract from bigger issues about representation? I will

give you an example. Sepp Blatter showed a photograph of himself with

Tokyo Sexwale a tagger, the South African minister, and then said you

couldn't accuse him of being racist, because he had taken the World Cup

to South Africa and an achievement like that was being overshadowed by

careless remarks about how to deal with insults. Macro know. That is

just another manifestation of "by not racist, some of my best friends

are black -- I am not.". It was a fundamentally brilliant business

decision to take the World Cup to South Africa. This is not a

benevolent man who has been misconstrued this one time. Maybe

not, and I am not here to defend a Sepp Blatter, believe me, but I

think what we need to be talking about in a very hard edged away is

why aren't there more black people, Indian, Chinese, whatever

nationality, in boardrooms, in serious positions in a whole raft

of industries? Those are the debate that now need to happen to move

this thing forward. Not, I can't mention the word black, because it

is so open to misinterpretation. I think it is getting the way now. --

in the way. It has served a purpose but I now think it is counter-

productive. In some ways, we are too sensitive. Last year, 20,000

children between the ages of three and 11 were reported for racist or

homophobic remarks. Schools are instructed to make files on people

that use those words. Can a five- year-old really be racist? But

authorities are doing this because it looks like they are attacking

the problem, but they are not. One young boy called a class make

"broccoli head" and we have to know the difference between what is a

playground statistic and real racist abuse. A I would say it

underestimate so massively the power of language to talk on these

levels. The fact is that in schools now, it is not necessarily with

black children, but gay and lesbian children, they are killing

themselves at an unprecedented rate. You talk to them, you did

stigmatise them. This conversation came up last time, that file does

not go anywhere. Yes it does. It is kept. By think it avoids teachers

dealing with it, but the fact is that language is a precursor to

action -- I think. Don't stigmatise them. Let's talk to some of their

guests we having voted -- invited to talk on the programme. John

Barnes is a former international footballer, and we saw that

photograph of you having to kick a banana off the pitch. How have

things improved? First of all, I didn't have to kick the banana off

the pitch, I didn't even now I had done it, so I don't even remember

doing it -- I didn't even know. Double issue with the races and,

let us first acknowledged that it exists -- races them. For for if I

was going to have -- if I was going to have a heart transplant and one

of them was from Birmingham and one of them was from London, I would

choose the London person. We make discrimination at around the way

people talk, the way they look, not just the colour of their skin. If

you see the way black people have been disenfranchised for the last

400 years, the legacy of slavery, they would be some Pawlett, so

white people look at them because of what history tells them. Look at

what happens in school today, in the school play, who are going to

be Mary and Jesus? Blonde, blue- eyed girl and boy. That is the way

we see it. -- Joseph. Let me talk about John Terry and Anton

Ferdinand. His race genetic? Anton Ferdinand's mother is white, his

father is from the Caribbean, which means he has white blood in him, so

if genetically, he is closer to being white than black. Is it the

way he looks or genetics? We have to understand what is races before

someone is of being racist -- race It's a massively complex thing. It

is a social a cultural thing. When people say someone is black, often

Times, and then on pejorative sense, you're not just referring to their

skin colour, people talk about black music, or food, the areas

people live, there is so much wrapped in to bat.

John Barnes, did you feel that when you received... And perhaps I

should ask you to give the evidence, what kind of language was used

about you when you were playing? fans, by players, you heard the

word back row, Black this and black bat. You cannot put all black

players together. -- you heard the N-word. You had -- have this cross-

pollination of cultures, whereby Anton Ferdinand culturally would be

much closer to John Terry to a black West African. Anton Ferdinand

would have more in common with John Terry and Gregor Tait more towards

him, so this whole issue of race, in terms of you are black, in which

Anton Ferdinand is genetically more wide, it is a question of the way

we look, or is it a question of someone like and are by no? -- an

Are we too sensitive when we talk about race? Sometimes we are,

sometimes we are not. I can't remember the lady's name, but I

understand why people get uncomfortable describing others as

black. In the old days, they would say they were Colored People. There

is a fear of being accused of racism. If you are a black person,

it is said that you look like a monkey. But if you say a white

person looks like a monkey, it is not racist. Why is a racist to say

a black person looks like a monkey. If you look like a monkey, you look

like a monkey. In years gone by, huge mistakes have been made. But I

think now British people would very hard at not tolerating racism. I

think British people now are generally fair handed and they try

to stamp it out in every walk of life of. Let's talk to Elaine. You

are a diversity consultant. What do you make of what John Barnes says

about this? John Barnes is absolutely right. But I would like

to address something that Carole Malone and Gerry Robinson said.

They understand their feelings, because we all have different ways

of approaching others, and racism is based on a fear of difference.

But we must appreciate that we are talking about white privilege in a

mixed society. Carol and Jerry have the privilege of saying how they

feel about a black person - whether they are nervous or whatever. But a

black person comes into Britain into a different society, and has

to make their way in it. It means that the whole country has the

responsibility to at least try and make us all integrated. We also

have a part to play, but the whole country has a lot on its part. As

John says, there is a history of black people being invisible. There

is a history of people who are treated as though they don't exist.

Gerry might talk about getting people on board, but the main that

is that a lot of people, especially minorities, are simply invisible to

the system. When you add to that people as -- people who treat them

as inferior, because that is what racism is about, it is about

superiority... I apologise for interrupting, but I wonder about

this issue, because you are talking about a gulf of understanding

between white people and black people. When white people don't

attend -- intend a fence, how do we deal with it when the person on the

receiving end perceives offence? is education. Carol and Jerry are

both right. People do not go out thinking, I am going to offend a

black person today? But as a black person, I do not have a problem

calling a white person white. If I am going to describe someone, I

will call them white because that is the way they are. De isn't that

go to the heart of the problem? I have no issue talking about

somebody being white. I am not in any way racist, but why do I have a

feeling that I can't quite say that the other way round? Yes, but I

think that is to do with peripheral issues, like talking about a

blackboard. There is some triviality which is not related. I

have to agree with John that language is extremely important at

any age. It defines us. If we are happy to have racist language

bandied about and being directed at part of society, it says a lot

about us. But I agree with Gerry Robinson that yes, we need to leave

triviality out of the arena so that we can appreciate each other

properly. Nobody should feel nervous about talking about black

people or say the word black. me go to Rabbi Alex Goldberg. This

issue was sparked by allegations of racist language and how that should

be dealt with on the football pitch. Why do you think it is important

that there is zero tolerance of this kind of language? I think

football is our national game. It is a big business, one which has

grown exponentially in the last 20 years of television rights. It is

therefore reflective of society at large. We need zero tolerance. I

work alongside ambassadors of the Football Association including

Garth Crooks and people who have experienced what John Barnes

experienced in the '80s, when there was overt racism. Yes, that has

changed. But in the last year, I have been to a football match in

London where people have been singing for anti-Semitic songs

about Auschwitz and the gas chambers. Surely that is not

acceptable to anyone. Neil Lennon, manager of Celtic, received some

sort of bomb device. This is going too far. When we have young players

coming up throughout the football division, we want them to field

part of the game. If you are a young superstar, you don't need to

have that sort of racist abuse every week. Sepp Blatter is totally

out of touch. He has put the game back. In terms of the handshake

policy, many of us think that FIFA should shake his hand and show him

the door. This is our text poll today. If you think we are too

Now, only six letters, but IVF and NHS are a potent mix, especially

when you add in a 250% rise in single women trying to become

single mothers. But should we regard motherhood as a right,

whatever your marital status? The number of single women

receiving IVF on the NHS has gone from 200 to just over 700 in the

last two years. Do all women deserve the chance of motherhood,

even if they have no partner to support them? At the same time as

the Government laments the breakdown of the family, should it

be paying to create more single mothers? During IVF, and eggy

surgically removed from the woman's ovaries and fertilised in a

laboratory. Only one in four attempts will end in pregnancy. At

the same time as the rise in IVF, there are increasing numbers of

children in care needing adoption. Should they be the first port of

call for single women wanting to become mothers? And if these women

want the state to pay for their IVF, should the state be asking more

questions about whether they can afford to raise their children? Yet

if a woman is determined and committed enough to undergo such an

ordeal, including invasive surgery, perhaps she is ideal mother

material. With more commitment, endurance and desire for a child

than some biological mothers. Many say they want to have a child with

a partner, but have not been able to find one who will commit. So

they want to have a child before they are too old to conceive. In a

world of scarce resources, do all women have the right to medical

help to have a child? If you have a webcam, you can make

your point on Skype. And you can join the conversation on Twitter,

phone or text. We are going by William Roache from Coronation

Street and Fionola Meredith, columnist and broadcaster. Carol,

what do you think of single women having IVF on the NHS? I feel

strongly that they should not. I do not believe the state owes anyone a

child. The NHS - I should also say I do not believe it is any woman's

human right to have a child. The NHS was designed to give people

healthcare at the point of need, and I do not believe wanting a

child is a pressing medical need. William? I believe that nature

generally knows what it is doing. If you want a child, the ideal is

to create an environment that would attract a child - a good income, a

good, loving relationship. People should enquire very seriously as to

whether they want a child. Are they thinking of themselves or of the

child? Why are you bringing it into this world, which is a difficult

place, and can you provide it with a loving home? I do not want to be

say they should not have a child on the health service. I am sure there

are deserving cases. But people should think very seriously about

why they are bringing a child in. Fionola Meredith, is it not enough

just to want one? If you are going to allow married women or women in

partnerships to have IVF on the NHS, by extension you have to allow

single women to do that, because it is a matter of basic fairness. It

should be based on clinical or medical need. If women meet the

criteria, it should not matter whether they have a man in tow or

not. Every statistic says a child is better with two parents, be it

two men, two Women or a man and a woman. You are being prescriptive

about what a good family constitutes. Families come in all

shapes and sizes. The most important thing is that a child is

brought up with love, time, commitment and security. If a woman

is going to put herself through the ordeal of IVF, that demonstrates a

huge level of commitment. We have a speaker who has been through IVF,

and you are pregnant now. Do these women know what they are getting

themselves into? I don't think they do. It is hard work bringing a

child up on your home. I do not disagree with single women having

IVF, but unless you have brought a child up on your own, I don't think

they realise how much hard work it is. It but the process of IVF

itself is extremely gruelling and requires a lot of commitment. The

fact that these women are prepared to go through that, as that shown a

level of commitment to having a child which perhaps other women do

not realise? I suppose so, but if I were a single woman and I was asked

if I would have IVF to have a child, absolutely not. Having brought up a

child on my home, I would not go through IVF on my own. You need a

lot of emotional support. It is physically harder. If you have not

got that support, it would be really difficult. It should be

pointed out that single women are being given priority over couples

in one in five Primary Care Trusts, which is astonishing. We have a

government which says the family is the most important thing, and yet

we have single women being given priority over married couples.

Susannah is doing research on this in Cambridge University. Is that

the case? I have been researching the experiences and decision waking

-- decision-making of single women have infertility treatment. Is it

the case that some single women are being given priority over couples?

From the research I have done, I am not aware of that. In my research,

only one of the participants has had their treatment funded by the

NHS. The rest have had to pay privately, at great cost to

themselves. Tell us about the reasons that these women are

pursuing this route. For the majority of these women, they are

not choosing to become single mothers. All of them would have

preferred to have had a child within the context of a

relationship. They have found themselves single, getting older

and being aware of their decline infertility. Only then have they

felt that pursuing single motherhood is their choice to

become mothers. And they are using for tillage treatment to do so. One

of the phrases which we came across in the research was, even if I met

someone tomorrow, it would be too late. So they do not feel they have

time to wait to have a child within a relationship. Fine, but they

should pay for it themselves. Don't ask the state to pay for it.

women in relationships are getting it on the state, it is only fair

that single women should. It is not fair, because it is not a family.

Dennis is not what bringing up a kid is about. It is about having a

stable home. A single mother can give you that. I am worried that

there is more than a whiff of underlying prejudice against single

mothers. You are saying a single mother cannot be a family. A single

mother can provide an excellent What degree of counselling goes on

with single women? To bring up a child on your own is terrifyingly

difficult. Having a man is no guarantee of stability. But I want

to know the level of discussion and counselling that goes into a single

mother who asks for this treatment. I wonder if you are taking on

Fionola's point, that there is an assumption that a certain type of

parenting is better, whereas there are single mothers than single

fathers who you could hold up as role models. It is very easy to be

judgmental. Personally, my view is you need a mother and her father,

and statistically that is the best relationship a child can be brought

up in. But there will be individuals... Is it a need for a

want. Is it a need, I am not sure. If it is just I want a child.

parent wanting to be a parent is inherently selfish, nobody wants to

do it because they think it is good from the child, they do it because

they want to. Bath for the child. What do you mean between the

difference between a need and they want? An essential need, our

clinical Lee, necessary for your health and well-being. -- a

clinical need. You could want a dog for company. It sounds awful to say

this, but the single mothers who are asking for this treatment

should be really deeply cancelled and talked to about their reasons.

Bill is right, if you want a dog, he wouldn't bring it into a family

unless she could take care of it and make arrangements for it to be

careful. People are bringing in children. How it is a single mother

going to adequately be able to take care of a child? They will have to

get help from outside and is that right for the child? You are

assuming she will be relying on state benefit. No, outside help.

What she should try to seek his family support, at that is an

important thing a, a wide network of support. Doesn't a child need a

male role model? Grand fathers, uncles, brothers. Let's speak to

the profession of communications who has written books on feminism.

Angela, what you think? Is there something else going on about the

way that people think that single mothers can parent or is it just a

fact that two parents are better than one? I think two parents

obviously can provide a much more supportive environment for a child.

Two obviously better than one, but we also have to take into account

the real shift in the demographics for young women these days, and

young women are encouraged, quite rightly, to train, to become very

well educated, get good jobs and to become economically Independent. In

many ways, the days of the male breadwinner in the family are now

over, and so women have got to become economic the Independent.

That means many young women simply do not find themselves in a

situation where they are married with a partner and with a job and

wanting to have a baby at the same time. The relationship could break

down in their thirties, and women are then very desperately wanting

children. Is it acceptable, can these women have it all? Is that a

good thing? I really don't think the phrase having it all is very

helpful. I think it is simply a gender discrepancy. A man can carry

on having children right into their seventies, women simply cannot. If

the circumstances are such that there is a warm family environment,

grandparents, brothers and sisters, if there are people that will stand

by, then I see absolutely reason why not. Josephine Quintavalle is

found our Comment on reproductive Ethics and you have described it as

absurd, why? I am a feminist, our mother of five boys and I would

like to ask the people contributing today, should then have equal

rights to have a child? -- should men. We have got to be realistic

about this. I think the most sensible part of the discussion so

far has been this idea that women do wait too long, they have their

biological clock ticking, they get panicky and decide they want their

child. We need to create a culture in society where they could have

some when they are likely to be fertile and will not need IVF. If a

single woman is needing IVF there, it is because she has got past

every productive peak, otherwise she would simply be looking for a

sperm donor, -- her reproductive peak. I think it can be about

respect for the male and this idea that women can do without men is

very dismissive. They are very quick to turn around when the man

is not paying child support. At a block text messages, one saying

that IVF should not be available on the NHS for anyone. If we continue

to fund it, however, it should be for all women, regardless of status

was up and for those who want their child, it is selfish to acknowledge

their children are back right, the child will yearn for a father, and

that is from someone who knows. Under David says he knows lots of

single parents who do a better job at rearing children than married

couples, so IVF should be available to everyone. Fionola, at a final

thought. I am not denigrating fathers, they perform many

wonderful functions and a family but I'm just saying if a woman is

on Harrowden, it is her right to be able to go ahead -- on her own.

think she should be allowed to if she can afford to do it. As long as

the NHS are strapped for funds, you have to make decision. Then get rid

of IVF altogether. Don't get rid of it. If we are going to deny people

life-saving drugs, NICE authorised this but bad start let's not going

to hierarchy... We will have to continue to go into bat on the

website. As Ken Barlow in Corrie, he has clocked up three wides and

holes the Guinness Book of Records for the longest-running soap

character -- wives. Not many people know that William Wright expects to

make an appearance in the next one. Do you agree with him, his

Do you agree with him, his reincarnation real -- William

reincarnation real -- William Roache. You can make your views

Roache. You can make your views known on line. And keep a voting on

the question, are we too sensitive You have around five minutes before

it closes. Now it... They are just discussing

what they might come back as. Let's see what has been that spinning the

moral compasses of the guests. Fionola, affected of the Pope and

than Imam Dr it have to look like they are kissing -- doctored. They

are the photographs that show high- profile politicians kissing. Angela

Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. It is a famous clothing chain and that they

are known for their provocative advertising campaigns, what you

think of this one? I like this one. I think some of the other ones have

been quite tasteless, people with Aids or people on death row. They

are a clothing manufacturer, so that is distasteful, but this is

much more light-hearted. I now it has caused controversy and I

believe the advert with the Pope and the Egyptian Iman has been

withdrawn, but it is quite tender. -- Imam. Did you see these? I think

it would be lovely if the Pope did kiss a Imam. Are they subject to

laws of libel? It is just like the media again. The Vatican came down

on it very hard and Benetton capitulated very quickly, which is

interesting. William, her story close to home, Corrie capitulate to

product placement. -- a story. Does that mean you will be drinking real

beer in the Rovers? It is not selling alcohol, or take three

wouldn't be very good. I think it is a wonderful thing, because India

early days, when we had a packet of cornflakes, if it was branded, we

had to put a fictitious name on. You remember the name of the brand

of cornflakes? It was Kellogg's. The fictional brand? No, they made

of fictional ones all the time. Now it will be more real, we can put

the products we are actually using. Everyone knows if you're drinking

certain drinks what it is, and it can be that. I think it is better

that they get the Revenue that way than taking chunks out of the show

with commercials. You are not concerned that your programme is

being used... A on the contrary, it is not being used, it is being paid

and it is can -- commercial television which needs to get its

revenue from advertising. It is not going to push a product in the

foreground while people are acting in the background. But it will be

allowed to be there, like the real world. We will look more real and

it is a splendid way to get the Revenue. Do you think there was

something slightly silly about using products that word real?

had the fictitious supermarket. could use the real name now. People

are trying to push things in and the company get fined, and now the

company can have their product shown but they pay for the

privilege. It is up to the programme makers to make sure it

does not distort what is going on. It is a subliminal finger, you are

hardly aware of it. Carol, a neighbour is complaining because of

an unusual place to be buried. lady in Kent wants to be buried in

her own back garden. She died recently and her daughter has asked

the local council if this is OK and that local council has said yes,

you can do it, but the lady next door has said she doesn't fancy

having a Kebabou a few feet away from her, which I think it's a

debit card -- having a good lover. But but if the lady moves into the

house and then moved away, will she take her mother away with her?

person who is buying the house would have to know. Otherwise, they

dig up a body and there will be a police inquiry. Why can't they just

be cremated and scatter the ashes, it is so much nicer? I think it

appeals to some people. The place where you most loved, the garden

where you parked it. It is personal, but I think it will be tough if you

move house. What would you do? how much do you want -- do you will

honour the wishes of someone? He should be taken with some

discretion, you love them that you care about them and you will fulfil

their wishes up until where you think is reasonable. But they think

to have her cremated and then scatter the ashes would be a good

compromise. Even if you move, they are still there. The Ashes don't

matter. You have been voting in the text boating. Are we too sensitive

about racism? -- of voting. It is now closed, so please do not text,

we will give you the result that the end of the programme.

It is one of the oldest of mankind's believes, that we are

reborn again and again in this world until we finally get it right.

William Roache thinks that if we knew the truth of reincarnation, we

would value life Capitol Mall and fear death and little less. -- a

little more. Here, fresh from filming on Coronation Street, is

his Sunday stand. Reincarnation is real, we should have no fear of

death. Life is too unfair for reincarnation not to be true. If

there is only one life, whereas the fairness? One child is born into

poverty in Ethiopia and another into luxury to the American

millionaire. We are spiritual beings in a spiritual realm and we

come to inhabit a body. When that body dies, the spirit returns to

the spiritual realm and the process is repeated many times. The earth

on which we live is a school and the purpose of this life is to

learn some of its many lessons. We are here to learn, amongst other

things, the difference between right and wrong, and if we do, we

become kinder, healthier and happier. On this journey called

Live, dying is just the end of one part of this ongoing process --

life. I may not like the actual act of dying but I look forward to the

release, to the going home. It will be like walking out of the smoke-

filled room into the fresh air. Everybody is on a spiritual journey,

whether they know it or not, but if we could all have a true and full

understanding of the principles of reincarnation, the world would be a

much healthier place. You can join in by webcam or you can make the

point by phone, text or e-mail. Gerry Robinson and John Amaechi

Wiliam, this comes from quite a personal experience, doesn't it?

doesn't come from personal experience. By personal experience

of the loss of my daughter and my wife endorsed what I already

understood. The word belief is a dodgy one, because a belief may or

may not be the truth. A lot of people say what they believe.

People are blowing each other up because of beliefs. It is important

to turn a belief in to a truth before you act on something. I had

a great fear of death when I was growing up. My father was a doctor,

and I was terrified all the time. I have spent my life reading, surging,

meditating, to find out. It is not just - is reincarnation a

principal? That is only a gateway into a wider understanding of what

it is that we incarnates. What are we? Once we embark on this journey,

you realise that we are spiritual beings, first and foremost. We come

from the spiritual realm and go back to the spiritual realm, and

for a short period, we incarnate to discriminate between right and

wrong. In the spiritual realm, you'd go back to the level of your

worth. By coming here, you meet Saints and sinners and learn to

discriminate. Jerry, you did a whole programme helping people to

divide out their spoils once they have died. Do you think that people

then come back? No, but I would love to think we came back. But I

do not believe it at all. I think it is increasingly clear from

scientific evidence that the brain is capable of doing all kinds of

things, making all kinds of connections, remembering things

from the past that had not happened. There is part of us that finds it

extraordinarily difficult to believe that when your time is up,

your time is up and that is it. I understand the desire. But there is

not a shred of evidence. John, would it be a motivator for good

behaviour if we thought we were going to come back or be punished

when we came back? That is the essence of it, the idea that since

we were painting on cave walls, we needed a way to keep people in

check and their way to explain the often cruel aspects of the world

that remained cool even a society has developed. This is one of those

ways, you can explain away tragedy, the things that most closely impact

us, and allow them to become less painful. But I do not think that

should supersede scientific truth about it. We have a lot of guests

who say they have had different experiences. Let's start with David,

head of a Buddhist Order. You believe that in a former life, you

were a Christian monk? That is just one of many experiences I have had.

But the point I want to make in relation to what we are talking

about is that much of belief is based on powerful experiences.

These have a profound effect on people's lives. It is not a

question of whether it is true or not. Memory is notoriously

unreliable. We have John Barnes's earlier saying he did not remember

kicking a banana. But that apparently happened in front of

thousands of people in front of cameras. Memory is unreliable. And

memories of previous lives are bound to be even more unreliable.

But people have these experiences, and they have powerful effects on

their lives. People live with people through their lives, and

they inspire others to live in a different way. It inspired me in my

life and led to me doing many things that I would not have done

if I had not had such experiences. Many of the most notable figures in

history have had experiences of these kinds. We are spiritual

beings in a subjective sense. What it means in terms of history,

science and so on, who knows? I do not think there is a scientific

truth about this. There is not a scientific truth about most things.

Let's ask a scientist. Chris French is professor of psychology. It is

obviously a very powerful feeling that people have who believe in

reincarnation. Is their science behind it? Is it even fair to trump

that belief with science? There are claims from some scientists who

claim they do have evidence to support reincarnation. But when you

look at this evidence critically, most of it does not stand up to

scrutiny. I think Gerry had it right. We are dealing with false

memories that can come about through a variety of means. We have

another guest who is a trained psychologist and a Sikh. Is it

false memory? You have an extraordinary belief about where

you met your wife in a former life. Yeah, it is not a belief system.

For me, it is experiential reality. We can believe whatever we want to

believe. Belief that is perhaps the biggest barrier to looking at life

as it is. My own subjective experience has demonstrated to me

categorically not but I have just one life, but that I have had an

extraordinary number of lives. I would like to address the point

about false memories. There is a chap called Dr Ian Stevenson from

Virginia, a professor of psychiatry, who has been tracking 3000 cases of

children with past life memories. How do we explain that? But if I

can get to the heart of this, tell me what you believe about where you

met your wife. It is not so much a belief. It is an experiential

process. I would like to differentiate that. I have known my

wife end my previous life. She was a unsee it when I met her. And

instantly on meeting her, I recognised too she was -- she was

not a secret I met her. She came from a background that was

Christian. She did not have a reincarnation idea, but instantly

recognised me. My younger son, who was a Sikh, when I took him to

India, he was recognised at the age of six by the Buddhists to be a

former teacher. So my experience has demonstrated. Plus also my

meditation practices. I have been a practitioner of meditation for 40

plus years, so I have a decent understanding of what my subjective

experience is. This seems very benign, the idea of believing or

not believing in reincarnation. My problem with it is that there is a

fundamental difference between something not yet been proven and

something absolutely lacking anything other than anecdote. Every

time we come to this, we hear an anecdote. I am not saying that is

not deeply personal and resonant with the individuals, but it is not

the same as evidence. There is no evidence. It is an individual

journey. This is why to argue this is pointless. Any individual who

embarks seriously on wanting to understand who they are and why

they are here will come across the fact that we do reincarnate. But

reincarnation is not important. We are the sum total of what we have

been. It is important to express our spiritual values of love,

compassion, peace and the higher aspects of ourselves. It is an

essential tenet of the Hindu faith. We can talk to the Hindu priests'

Association. What do you believe happens? You said it is a universal

tenet in the belief of the Hindus. I would say it spreads not only

through the Hindus, but all the related faiths, including the six

and the James. I can understand that some of your guests are quite

reticent in giving any credence to this. But the previous chap

mentioned Dr Ian Stevenson. Matters of faith should not be judged by

scientific parameters. For instance, if you were going to prove a point

of law, you would not revert to it. So I understand that you are

reluctant to believe that. However, the evidence shown from Dr Ian

Stevenson's work, there are over 3000 case histories which have

stood rigorous scientific gratification. These were children

between the age of two to four, and the oldest being seven, who were

able to pinpoint exactly who they were in a previous life. Then that

evidence was corroborated. For example, they had birthmarks at the

sight of a trauma they had sustained. Going back to Dr Chris

French, professor of psychology, you put a very important question

to the programme, which is, should matters of science ever -- should

matters of faith be subjected to scientific scrutiny? Certain

matters of faith can be subjected to scientific scrutiny? I am

familiar with Dr Ian Stevenson's work. Although superficially, it

looks convincing, Stephenson said he did not have a single case which

he considers to be watertight. There are alternative explanations

for the kinds of things he was putting forward. In general, we are

hearing views being put forward about people would like the

universe to work, not the way it actually does. It is all generally

based on subjective impressions. But if it could be proven, that

would be it. Everyone would say right, it exists. The whole point

about spiritual life is that in the exploration, you express your

spiritual self and grow spiritually. Whether you accept reincarnation is

unimportant, but it is important to know you are a spiritual being.

We have to end it there. Our votes are in. We asked, are we too

sensitive about racism? 85% of those of you who texted in said we

are. 15% said No. Jerry, you think we are too sensitive. I do think we

are, and I think that that is on help for. That was an astonishing

response. It tells me that we have not got this subject right at this

moment in time. And it is an important subject to get right. We

have gone overboard with it. And I think it is harmful rather than

helpful. John, you presumably agree that it is an important subject to

get right. I am not surprised by the results. But it is important.

If you are out there, don't worry about calling someone black if they

were in a room full of white people. Worry about wincing when you hear

some of the things people say around you. That is the racism we

need to worry about. We had a text saying that the fact that racism

exists in the 21st century is embarrassing for the world as a

whole. Another says those who are not at the receiving end of racism

can never understand how it feels. People must not be treated

differently because they look different. Everyone deserves to be

treated with respect. That you for your comments. My thanks also go to

all of you who have taken part in the programme. Please do not text

or call the phone lines any more. They are now closed. You can

continue the conversation online. That is it for this series. Thanks

to all of the guests who have enlivened our Sunday mornings, even

those he did a good job we infuriating you. Thank you to you