Episode 4 Sunday Morning Live

Dodgy hacks, bent coppers and gutless politicians. Has Britain

been corrupted? And is the Murdoch Good morning. Welcome to Sunday

Morning Live. A month ago you would have been hard-pushed to find a

politician who would say boo to Rupert Murdoch's. Now there is a

queue a mile long. What does that say about our leaders?

We have been preached at to celebrate the joys of sex but one

of the nation's unofficial sex therapists says we should stop

banging on about it. I am a sex columnist but I think it is time

that sex takes its tableaux back. And a BBC documentary about

Muhammad elects not to show its face. Is that respect or something

else? Our guests have all broken a few

taboos. David Aaronovitch is a debunker of conspiracy theories.

Anne Atkins was Agony Atkins at the Telegraph. And her Christian

beliefs didn't stop her donning a burka and liking it. And Ajmal

Masroor sees no contradiction in being a TV imam, politician, and

marriage guidance councillor. We would like to know what do you

Rupert Murdoch may have apologise this week but it seemed like only

yesterday the great and good were queuing up to bow down to his

lieutenants. How close can people in power get to the press before it

corrupts them? Is Rupert Murdoch to blame or is there something rotten

in the heart of the UK? David things we are less corrupt than we

We have always known that politicians cosying up to the media

that David Cameron has admitted he had 26 meetings with News

International executives since he has been Prime Minister and invited

his disgraced media chief, Andy Coulson, to Chequers even after he

resigned. The relationship that became too close, we were all in

this world of wanting the support of newspaper groups and even

broadcasting organisations. And it is not just politicians. There are

allegations the police took money from hacks and the Met fight --

hired a former News of the World adviser while they were

investigating phone hacking. Does this show that Britain has been

corrupted and when did it start? After all, some bankers cheerfully

acted irresponsibly and let us foot the bill. Then we found that some

politicians had their snouts in the trough in expenses scandal. So are

we now a tinpot regime for people on the take? Or does the fact we

found out about the scandals show how honest we are? It is rare to

see the head of a media empire asking for forgiveness. A would you

apologise? Of course. Many other countries have questionable

relationships between government, media and police but there is less

sign of the moral outrage we have seen here. They seem to accept it

as inevitable. And the media, particularly the Sunday Morning --

particularly the News of the World, have had a role in bringing

corruption to the public life. So at the end of the week are we left

with the sense that Britain is becoming more corrupt or confidence

in our ability to spot and root out corruption, however higher it goes?

David, are we a corrupt society? We are less corrupt. We know far

more about what is coming on and we used to. Over the centuries the

British establishment was never used to answering questions about

itself. It ran itself how it wanted to. That has completely changed.

The last few scandals we have seen are the signs of what a scrutiny

society we have become. That is the If you think we it is, text the

word "vote", followed by "yes". If you think it isn't text "vote"

followed by "no". Our text number is 81771 and texts will be charged

We have never been a society mired in corruption but we have had

establishments, press, politicians, even the BBC to a certain extent,

have been able to run themselves out for public scrutiny, pay

themselves what they like, not answer to people and so on. What is

increasingly happening is that all these relationships are coming out

into the open. We increasingly have scrutiny bodies like the Office for

Budget Responsibility and the statistics office to say whether

the government is telling the truth about statistics and this has been

a long-term development which has accelerated so that nobody in power

if they, what is a great thing. Imam, do you think this week has

shown there is something corrupt at I think we have never been a

corrupt society. Some institutions have shown they have a propensity

to be corrupt. If politicians had no accountability, there would have

them probably going down the same road as Zimbabwe and Pakistan, we

see what corruption really means. But with the media the corruption

has become more acute because they are not accountable, they and not

directly elected, they are not accountable to anybody except

themselves. I think media corruption has indicated that

nobody is beyond reproach and we have established authorities that

can take anyone into account and if somebody is found to be breaking

Anne, people have been concerned about who they should look up to

him this crisis. Should they look up to the politicians? Police?

is fascinating, has Britain become corrupt? We had a wonderful history

teacher, Margaret Chamberlain, and I remember her saying you think

people don't change, people do change hugely. In this sense we all

have a tendency to be selfish and corrupt but society can change

hugely from one era to another and I agree with David that the

encouraging thing it is a tiny minority of politicians and police

and journalists who had broken the rules but the great thing is that

we live in a society where we really care about this kind of

Comparing with how we may have changed over several hundred years,

I think society does come and go in its expectations and laws and in

some ways, the late 18th century up to the 20th century, actually from

the mid-nineteenth century, we had an extraordinarily high level of

expectation of public morals in a way that we probably did not have

We set ourselves a double standard. We read the titillating stories set

by the News of the World. We buy the newspapers but yet when it

comes to corruption in the same industry, we hit the roof. We

should not be reading these newspapers! We should not be buying

them if they are the ones corrupting society. We cannot have

double standards. We can. We need to put other people to account and

so, we are not going to do business with you. Just to say devil's

advocate, if we didn't buy the stuff, nobody would make money but

there can be a sense where there is a noblesse a bleached, where you

have the privilege of being in that position. -- noblesse oblige. That

is not hypocritical. If you like reading somebody's salacious

stories and bedroom secrets... Somebody has to expose it. That is

not the same as doing it. But you open up the doors to people to

abuse and for people to come and pick it up. We should say we will

not read their salacious stories. agree with you but it is fair to

have high expectations of --. is incredibly pious. Long before

newspapers, a village gossips hung over walls discussing who was doing

what with you. Our village is much Let's talk to a former Lib Dem MP,

spokesperson for a tough campaign. Is there a wider problem with

corruption at the heart of British society? There might be and that is

the main concern. Firstly the police are involved, that is one

real concern, and it seems that there is evidence that it goes deep

and wide not just in the Met Police, unless there is widespread

incompetence, but the police up and down the land may have been taking

payments and they appeared to have been soft-pedalling on an inquiry.

Secondly the links between powerful media moguls and politicians, both

in opposition and in government. When key questions were being

raised in Parliament about cross- media ownership. The 2003

communications bill for example. Huge amounts of lobbying and

pressure. The third thing is that this really should have been got to

the bottom of a long time ago because allegations were raised a

long time ago and it is worrying that even in a country with a free

press, it has taken the Guardian newspaper, individual MPs like Tom

Watson, to keep plugging away in order for this crisis to be exposed

and the scandal to be exposed. I don't think we can... I want to

focus more light on the issue with the police. With as is someone from

Transparency International. -- with us. How much of a problem is

corruption in the police? We have found through a recent study that

whereas the problem of corruption and the police is not as endemic as

it perhaps wasn't the 1970s, there are a series issues. One area of

vulnerability is where police are officers are prepared to take

illegal payments in order to trade information and that is precisely

the issue that we have seen in this recent scandal. I think this

exposes a broader problem which is that the checks and balances which

should be operating have failed and we need a much more robust policy

response to the problem of corruption. There is a great deal

of complacency about this. Let me put some of those points to Ian

McDonald. You used to be Assistant Chief Constable at Merseyside

Police. Not as endemic as it wasn't the 1970s but the level of

corruption exposed in the current crisis is really shocking people --

not as endemic as it was in the 1970s. To what extent do you

believe it is going on? I think the police today are far more straight,

far less compromised, far less likely to engage in any of that

kind of activity, than at any time in the past. The police have done a

lot of work to combat corruption and they are the best police force

in the world when compared to others. David, Imam Ajmal Masroor,

do you think it is a sign it is worse or not as bad? It could have

been worse and it could be getting better because there is greater

transparency but we also have institutions in place that can take

account of such corruption but Wasn't it very recently when Vince

Cable enlisting said he was declaring war against Rupert

Murdoch and David Cameron had to strip him of his power and take

half of his department from them. Mr Cameron should be ashamed of

himself. That man was saying the right thing. We cannot give

absolute power to one individual absolutely. That is exactly what

the point is. Do not give too much power would to any individual. Let

there be competition and transparent, accountable

institutions. There is a mixture of things. Funnily enough, with the

BSkyB bid, it is not the accountability you are talking

about. Eventually that has happened as a result of a firestorm. The

politicians suddenly getting together and turning on his person

who have supposed to have given them so much, they have given so

much power to over the years. My point is that all the problems we

are speaking about our real problems. It is not a great idea

for police medicine information. that not evidence... -- it is not a

great idea for the police to sell information. Is that not evidence

that Britain has been corrupted? Only so far as if you knew what

went on before. For a long time. But let me ask, would it be

corruption if the police officers leaked the information without

If it is corruption, you have to ask if the information is public

domain information, important information, that comes out in the

public interest. Then you wouldn't believe it was corruption. You

would believe it was corruption for a good cause. Why don't we put that

to Evan Harris? Yes, there are some illegal activities, on the face of

it, that can have a public interest defence. But much of the stuff that

we are told you about in the phone hacking scandal was not about what

is in the public interest. It was not about exposing hypocrisy or

wrongdoing. Again, I think we are being incredibly complacent to

think that we don't have widespread corruption in political life or in

the media, or in the police, until the outcome of the inquiry that is

so desperately needed. I think it is now going to have the wide scope

and strong powers that are hacked Is there a danger that if the press

becomes smaller and shackled as a result of the crisis, there is a

danger that the politicians and police could become more corrupt

because they are not held to account by the free press. You are

right, there is a balance. We have to have proper investigative

journalism. That is why many of us from the campaign also want to see

a change in libel laws to enable investigative journalism to have a

freer rein without the fear of having to make big payouts for

mistakes to wealthy individuals, often abroad. So there is

definitely a balance. There is a balance that needs to be found in

legislation. But the idea that... That doesn't mean that we can sit

by complacently and think that there isn't a real problem here,

now. Anne? Just going back to a question your last a minute ago,

has Britain been corrupt, we are in danger of being far too pessimistic.

-- a question you asked a minute ago. The MPs scandal, it was a tiny

minority. But if you looked at the British papers, you would have

thought that the entire House of Commons was corrupt. That was not

the case. I do think that we are in danger of... You are right but we

scrutinise things, there can be not exactly an over scrutiny, but an

over-emphasis on the problem, which may be very small, and the rest of

the press, the rest of the House of Commons, the rest of the police are

actually doing a very good job. It's not necessarily the case that

more scrutiny makes more Trust, its that it leads to better governance.

We are going to demand it in any case. I'm all in favour of his

public inquiry. One of the things that is messing me up at the moment

is the way in which people are prejudging the result of any

inquiry. They are treating the entire Murdoch business as if he is

Darth Vader, the killing of the evil intergalactic empire. If you

just do something about him then all of your problems are magically

going to go away. It isn't true. John says, when the bankers were

giving out large loans that people couldn't pay back, it was

apparently the customer's fault. When newspapers use phone hacking,

it is the public's fault for pushing these stories. Have

newspapers corrupted our minds, that we want to read these stories?

You blame the readers for wanting to read them. I would never do that,

it is both. If we don't read the stories, the stories will not get

sold. The journalists that have used corrupt means, and a few

journalists have used corrupt means to getting those stories, of course

they should be reprimanded. The one thing we can do as the public is

say that if you cross the line that we public agree to, we will not

bite you. We will not accept this behaviour. -- by you. We will

become more accountable to ourselves. We will say, you know

what, we will have the moral high ground and make sure that

journalists also follow the same ground. Something I like about what

you are saying is that change should always come from within.

There is an awful lot of pointing the finger at the moment. If I

point the finger at you, three. Gerrard, you are a UKIP MIP. How

correct is Britain, compared to other countries? I think compared

to continental Europe, corruption in British politics is fairly minor.

Any corruption is bad enough, it will always take place where you

have money and power. If you look over continental politics, it

wasn't so long ago when President Andreotti of Italy was considered

by a court to be effectively part of the Massif -- Mafia. You have

scandals with President Chirac, all kinds of people. On continental

politics, you kind of consider that there is something wrong with you

if you're not trying to fiddle something. That is fairly par for

the course. So, while what we have got is bad and it should be

eradicated, I don't think that we should beat ourselves up to much.

Politics amongst politicians in this country, corruption tends to

be at a fairly low level. I think we have a different kind of

corruption. Politicians and newspapers do not actually follow

through on the really big issues. For example we have Tony Blair, who

was prime minister, on a prime minister's salary, took us to war

on a basis of lies, he is now a multi-millionaire. A good

investigative journalist would tell us how he made his money. Are we

demonising Murdoch? I don't think we are demonising him because he

has been an angel, I think there is no smoke without fire. There must

be some responsibility for what has happened. There was a culture. It

was what you said in the beginning. Nobody would say boo to Mr Murdoch

because they were scared. The MPs were scared because they were

worried about being exposed. Policemen were scared because they

were worried about being exposed. That culture of being scared, or

blackmailed into submission, it's wrong. It's not just about being

scared. No... Ajmal, let me have a go. Let me finish, then you can

have a go. He's not a demon but he has been associated with some

activities that indicate that he must be somewhat responsible or

associated with demonic behaviour. You worked for him? I worked for

him, I've never met him. The Times is a very well-run newspaper. But

that's not really the point I want to make. The problem is not people

being scared. The problem is that people want to go along with power.

It is absurd that David Cameron has had 26 meetings with News

International. But the same thing happened with the Labour Party,

Robert Maxwell, the Daily Mirror. By attending these partisan been

together, there is a belief that you can be at the centre of things

and improve your outcomes. As a non socialite, I have never understood

why people thought that it was so necessary and that if they were to

stop doing it I would be extremely grateful. Has there been allowed to

blossom and in it for what you can get culture? N taking you back to

some of these e-mails about bankers, MP expenses. I think there has

been... I think what has happened is that our culture, if you look

back over a generation or two, the expectation... I think of my

father's generation, the mid- 20th century, there was a very high

expectation on people who had positions of responsibility. I

don't been a big responsibility like Prime Minister, I mean

teachers, clergy, lawyers. That sort of thing. There was very much

an expectation that you never lied to the taxman, you never lied to a

policeman. There was a sense of respect to which my children can't

really understand. But a lot was hidden. We say this, we love

knocking previous generations for being hypocritical. I say we are a

lot more hypocritical than the Victorians. Without putting it in

terms of who he's a better generation, an awful lot was hidden.

And all for what is hidden today. Because there were expectations,

you expected that they would live up to them. And an awful lot of

them did. Quite a lot of them didn't. A couple of malt used on

this. Simon says it is the readers that have corrupted Britain. If

people were not so influenced by tabloids, they would spend more

time investigating the facts themselves. The papers would have

to print more of the truth than their ulterior opinions. He says

people have risen through the ranks through networking and society in

general is correct. Ajmal, you are waving your hand? I can give an

example, when I was standing at the election there was a false

allegation made at may buy a newspaper. The assumption was I

would not challenge it. I nearly took them to court, they settled

outside of court and said sorry. Many people don't have that

knowledge or that courage, or that access to challenging certain

newspapers that go down that route. We, as a society, must challenge

such corrupt, individual, selfish journalists. That is our text poll

this morning. Do you think Britain Go you have around 20 minutes

Let's talk about sex. Or should we? This morning we learnt that Ashley

Cole allegedly had relationships with three women before getting

back with Cheryl Cole. Do we really want to know? Do we want to see sex

staring at us from every television and billboard? Agony and Karen

Krizanovich thinks it is time we put sex back in the closet. This is

her Sunday Stand. I'm a sex columnist and I think

that sex needs to get its taboo back. We need to remember that it

means babies and diseases and also that sex and love are sacred. What

I am saying is that we need to take sex out of the boardroom, out of

business, off the high street and put it back in the bedroom where it

belongs. But the world is turning into a downmarket strip club, with

sex been shoved in our face everywhere we go. It's time to

rediscover a sense of restraint. Most people would agree that seven

year-old with padded bras are wrong. But the kids are only doing that

because they see us do it. To a child, being an adult doesn't mean

being considerate, skilful smart. To a child, being an adult means

being sexy. The reason there is so much sexuality is not because of

nature, it's because of marketing. It's too late to put that genie

back in the bottle, but we can still act. I think we should

consumer boycott any company whose products are sold using gratuitous

sexuality. As adults we need to see that talking about sex means that

you can't say anything interesting. We need to make sex private and

adult again. As adults, we need to If you have a webcam, you can make

your point on Skype or join the conversation on Twitter. The

details are on the screen. Karen, you make your living talking about

sex. Should we really shut up about it? Yes, we really should. It

sounds as if I am anti-nudity, anti-physical beauty, but I'm not.

I just find it overkill, the over- exposure, particularly trying to

sell us things, it's not only having a trickle-down effect with

padded bras for five year-old and seven-year-olds, things like that.

Is that a direct result of being open about sex? Is that something

different? Sexualisation in our society? Being open is one thing.

Using sex as a marketing tool is another. You have to remember that

sex is a life force. That is why we are all here. I think there is an

abuse now of sexual imagery in order to sell lifestyle things.

Perfume ads, actually I like them, but it you see somebody sexy and

you think, I want to be like that picture, it's not going to happen.

Do you agree? I was so against that but I thought I was going to say,

actually, I was born three-party genesis. Maybe that's not true.

It's how we talk about sex. We still have an incredible level of

sexual ignorance in this country. Sex education, although they are

trying hard, the very fact that we allow religious people to opt out

of sex education in schools, as if their children are not perfectly

capable impregnating other people's children seems to be a scruple far

too far. When you ask the question, should we want to know about Ashley

Cole's sex life, I don't know if we should. I'm not interested in his

sex life. Maybe I can't cope with the idea of somebody sleeping with

three people in one go. It does sell newspapers. It does, it also

happens to be the strap line we put on this discussion. Presumably we

thought it would be something people related to. We didn't open

the discussion with a look at sexuality through the centuries.

Ajmal, do we talk about it too much or not enough? I want to say to

David that religious people agree that... Not all religious people

say they don't have sex. It's an essential part of our life. It's

very divine, as far as I am concerned. It's a spiritual

experience. Ultimate submission of your Lhasa that you share with

somebody that you are committed to. -- your love. What is divine sex

like? I'll tell you in a minute, or read my book! A chapter in my book

talks about it. You need to read that. Ultimately, we have

sexualised as society too much. The other day I was on the Underground,

a seven year-old kid was sitting next to his mother. There was a

scantily dressed couple, half-drunk, groping one another in every

possible part you can think about. Nobody was saying anything. This

poor mother was put in his hands over his eyes. She was blushing. He

was staring. This is what we are talking about, over sexualised,

irresponsible... Is that a result of our openers in talking about sex

or a different problem? As a result There is the difference between

being open about sex and that you can have sex without being in love.

A don't agree with that. I knew you were going to say that! Is your

The abuse of this, it is like trying to take marketing to the

ultimate. We are all interested in sex one way or the other but we

think that we can buy it. You can buy sex obviously, that was a slip

of the tongue, but... At what cost? It is over exposure. We are immune

to any sort of... Ajmal, you are beginning to sound like my

chemistry teacher. The first thing he said was, penis, and everybody

laughed and he got angry and said, how dare you start laughing, my

wife and I enjoy six very much end it is the sacred bond between us? I

thought, I will never have sex like that. You cannot sell it to me by

telling me it is sacred and him -- divine. There is something

wonderfully dirty about sex when it is done right. We are always

worried about other people's children have been too much sex,

what other people are doing in society and responding to

advertising, not ourselves. You could just have said to the couple,

get a room. That is what the phrase exists for. Ajmal, did you approach

it? It was a tube like a tin of sardines. The bigger problem is

that we as society have taken our eyes of a responsible attitude as

adults. We have sex but in the privacy of our home. We don't have

to flaunt it. But I don't want us to have abortion illegal and have

to wear hats. I am not suggesting that. I think we should teach

children at sexuality in a responsible money. Widowed pimp

children by getting them to dress up like a, I don't want to use the

word, like unsavoury... Robbing them of innocence. Cameron, Ajmal

is saying a lot of what you have said -- Karen. And yet you are

flinching. Because she associates me with religion. No. I think there

is a problem. In principle I agree but I also think that children want

to grow up. The first thing you want to do is lose your innocence

and be an adult and they are equating adopted with sexuality

rather than being smart and considerable. Isn't that the

problem? Some kids equate sex with love. What I mean by that is that

if they are not loved and wanted and don't have relationships with

their parents where they think they are loved conditionally, they look

and think, how can I achieve this, get his team, through sexuality? It

is not the padded bras... As much as I don't like them. Rachel

Gardner is director of the romance Academy. Is that something you are

concerned about? Yes, I love that last comment about self-esteem and

sex. I am quite concerned about relationship ignorance, not just

sexual ignorance. We speak about sex as if it is without context but

we don't talk about how to build relationships and it is the context

and meaning of the relationship that makes sex more fulfilling.

This conversation has been great but there has been no mention of

relationships and that is what she wished -- what we should be talking

more about with young people. relationships and love bond people.

You said you don't think you can have sex without love. I said in a

relationship when you have sex. Mechanically you can have sex with

anything you want but sex that is meaningful and fulfilling and that

does not make you feel cheap and dirty, it is in a relationship.

you know the Woody Allen quote, it is only good if it is done dirty.

How many marriages do you know where there is no sex? You can have

a perfectly fine relationship with no sex, West sexed -- or whether

sex life dwindles. What about the man who has sex with a pavement?

am worried about David. His attitude to sex is indicative of

his chemistry teacher. He should have been taught by a biology

teacher! Let's talk to a former teacher now. Good morning. Good

morning. You are now a porn star and a stripper. This will shock

David! Is there a contradiction. For four years are was a secondary

school teacher and the head of personal and social health

education, I taught French, German, sociology and religious studies.

The central theme of citizenship is respect. Respecting the rights of

people to do certain things and respecting their choices in life.

One of the central aspects of social education is to give people

the information to make their right choices in life and by that I mean

right for them, not right for their parents and religion and the school

and society and what society fez is acceptable. I did a job where I use

my brain in the day and my body at night and it became public

knowledge but stripping and pornography is a form of

entertainment. If I can turn the question on its head. There are

professionals up and down the country who do all sorts of things

that might go against arguably what they do in their day job. What

would you say about the teacher who smokes as other front of the school

gate and has the smell of cigarette on his breath? Is he allowed to

teach the dangers of smoking? Teaches that drink after school in

the pub? Is it therefore logical for Johnny to say that pornography

and what he does is perfectly acceptable? And that is something

we should teach our children to pursue? Pornography is and there to

teach children. Children should not be watching pornography. --

pornography is not there to teach children. Are you saying you would

allow your children to pursue the same path as you? Been in a porn

star? I would allow my children to choose at the age that is

appropriate as long as they are being in respect for two other

people. If they have taken into account all the consequences and

that is their choice, I would absolutely respect that. There are

perfectly legitimate job that I don't have respect for but if that

is somebody's choice, absolutely. If that sort of sex that you are

comfortable with? I think the only thing that is wrong with John it is

the strange surname he has! I do understand the particular

qualifications that you need for the job. He has obviously got a lot

to offer the world of teaching. I think it is a shame that you can't

do both. I presume the problem would tend to be ridiculed. It may

be difficult for somebody having watched you on the internet to read

your mind entirely... The funny thing is, two weeks before I was

suspended from my job, and within this two weeks I had a number of

students, particularly male, who came up to me and said, we have

heard about what you do and I denied it but I actually got far

more respect from children, particularly boys, who had been

badly behaved in those lessons than I had before. Rightly or wrongly!

Maybe teachers should be paid a little more, just a thought. Karen,

you want us to push talking about sex into the closet but I'll be

comfortable talking about it? Even the nature of this discussion? --

are we really comfortable talking about it? No. I don't think it

works any more. We are aware of it but I think we are pretty immune to

the shock value now, it has been around too long. I think there is

an absence of been francs. We are prepared to talk about the act but

we are not really prepared to talk about the difficulties, problems

and sometimes the pleasures of sex. I think it is still something we

have immense problems with. personally think sex as a concept

has been misunderstood by many, by a complete abstention, saying it is

dirty, and the other, doing it far too much and displaying it too much

in public. Moderation would be... How much is too much? Moderation

would be better. We have certainly talked about it enough on this

programme! Later on Sunday Morning Live. How far would you go to avoid

offending a religious person? Banning bacon butties? Not

swearing? How about not showing an You can join in by webcam. Or you

can make your views known by phone, The question we ask: Has Britain

You have around five minutes before the voting closes.

What else as been tingling our guests' more taste buds? You think

fat people are having it too easy? I am not saying that. I think a lot

of people who are obese are themselves responsible for making

the decision to use the weight. What started this for you? When I

was much younger, I had four stone it too much on my body. I was

depressed, I was unfit, I was going through a bad phase and I decided

enough is enough and I lost four stone in three months by willpower.

I did more exercise. I became more positive about my lifestyle. So you

get cross when you've read stories about people who say they have a

right to surgery and gastric bands...? I am not cross, I feel

sad for them. If I was a doctor... Ajmal, why do you think some people

do not have will power? Why? Self- esteem. Maybe things that have

happened in their life. Their upbringing, exposure to things,

experiences. If I was a councillor, I would look at the root issues

rather than the gastric bands and any other superficial ones. If I

could deal with their issues to do with their self-esteem and the way

they see themselves then I think there would be... Didn't you ever

think that maybe you would just state tubby? You have total control

of your body like Madonna? Yes. Rarely? Yes because I believe if I

do not have control of my body, what is the difference between me

and another more? That is not being obsessive, it is about me knowing

that I can use my mind to do lots of things, including the lose

weight. We can go to the moon and back because we want to. So you

have no fear of failure? I don't fear failure. If I fail, I will

stand up and carry on and that is about self-esteem. Before this

turns into a therapy session, Karen, your story about suicide? That

right. There was an author who took his life in using, I believe, an

American-style suicide kit, which you can order online apparently. I

have not looked into that. They are in two states in America, assisted

suicide it is legal in two Estates, and this is echoing the Terry

Pratchett been a few weeks ago about Dignitas. -- the Terry

Pratchett thing. In his note, he said he thought the �10,000 fee for

Dignitas was too high. This is a well-respected man. The last line

of his emo was "some people lived too long". It is interesting that

so many of us are living a lot longer and we become infirm and

people were read. I keep hearing this, we worry about the burden, we

worry about the lack of dignity, and obviously there is a big

proviso on this but it would be nice if we had Dignitas in this

country. Ajmal. My father is 87. What if he didn't have your family?

He has dementia. He went out the other day for half-an-hour and did

not return until nine hours later. I love him dearly. I would hate to

see anybody suggesting he is a burden. But what if he wanted that?

We should not encourage suicide. Under any circumstances. You are

not living his life. I am giving him love. Is the issue encouraging

suicide? No. Increasingly the autonomy that people demand over

their own lives extends to their deaths. People living lives that

are for them absolutely think they are intolerable and we make

The question is if they have the right to choose, not encouraging it.

Suppose your father said to you, Ajmal, I've had enough, I don't

want to live any longer. You have been a great son to me, but this is

what I want? But isn't it true that if we all decided to take our lives

when things became hard, many of us would have been dead. Because any

time small times become big, you never know if things can become

better tomorrow. Motor neurone disease and process doesn't allow

you to. You haven't made that decision for yourself, you have to

let nature take its own cause. That means that life is ours, not to

take but to enjoy. It's obviously an issue that needs further

discussion and I'm sure we will be addressing it later on in the

series. Moving on, you have been voting in

a text poll. We asked at the beginning of the programme, has

Britain been corrupted? The poll was closing, please do not text as

your vote will not count but he may be charged. -- you may be charged.

A BBC show tells the story of Muhammad. But it doesn't show his

face because Muslims would find it insulting. Is that right and

proper? Or is it another example of what people claim is a fear of

Some depictions of Muhammad have caused widespread anger and violent

protests amongst Muslims. Particularly satirical images like

the Danish cartoons which included a picture of Muhammad with a bomb

under his turban. The BBC has chosen to tell the biographical

story of Muhammad without using his visual image, in line with the

Islamic tradition. He has been on everything, and we don't represent

God. In order to be clear with the relationship with God, we never

have an image of any of the prophets. It's not just the last

prophet, Muhammad, its Abraham, Moses, Jesus, they are not seen or

drawn in anything like this in Islam. Neither the Koran or the

Haditha that tells the story strictly forbid his depiction. But

showing his face is seen by many Muslims as worshipping an idol. By

obeying their teachings do we show respect to Muslims and their

beliefs? Is it a sign of our tolerance as society? While we

caving into a religion that remains a minority in the UK? After all,

why are we open to ridicule and Christianity in a Christian country,

yet shy away from offending Islam? Is our ability to insult a religion

essential for healthy criticism and debate? Or does it just alienate

believers and breed conflict between faiths? What do you think,

are we scared of offending Muslims? You can make your point by text, e-

mail or online. Anne Atkins joins us again. Is it self-censorship out

of respect or fear? It makes us avoid even showing a picture of the

person we are talking about. haven't seen this particular

programme but the thing is that good manners seldom cost very much.

It was interesting that you had a clip of life of Brian. That is one

of my favourite films of all times. But I have to say, I find the last

minute but two deeply offensive. I can't watch the last couple of

minutes because it is ridiculing... The Crucifixion? The crucifixion

scene. I think the rest of the film is wonderful. But for myself I was

wishing that it hadn't had the last bit at the end. I don't think it

would have lost anything. This particular instance, what do we

lose by not showing a picture of Muhammad and a documentary?

Absolutely nothing, as far as I can see. If that makes it more

comfortable viewing, it doesn't matter if it's a tiny minority, it

simply good manners. Where it becomes worrying is when we cannot

express an opinion, where freedom of speech is curtailed. If you

cannot challenge it. For example, I am married to a clergyman and when

he became the parish vicar he was invited into the church to give

assembly. The first assembly he did, he talked about Jesus's claim to be

the way, the truth, the life. He was never invited back. The

headmistress thought it might offend somebody in the school. At

curtailing freedom of speech. Not showing a picture, frankly, it's

only television. Ajmal, Anne Atkins chooses not to watch the things

that she finds offensive. Couldn't Muslims did the same? The biggest

problem is that Prophet Muhammad's face is not ever photographed.

There is no photograph. Nobody has drawn it. There was no accurate

description. How would you bring that image? Who would depict him?

There is no photograph of plenty of people in religious beliefs. But

people of course do sketches and impressions based on historical

documentation. I agree with Anne, absolutely right, it is manners.

But I agree that freedom of speech must be embedded in everything. If

there is something you disagree with with Islam, you should have

every right to challenge it. If we are disagree with anything anybody

says, we must speak our mind. But here is a simple thing, there is

being good to one another by saying that we will be sensitive to one

thing and not show the face of Muhammad. I think good manners are

important. The first point is that there are representations of

Muhammad. Not contemporary, there are medieval Persian

representations. We are talking about something that is in the

grammar of the visual. The majority of people in this country are not

Muslims. They are not accused of idolatry if they look on the

representation of the Prophet Muhammad. So they can't be guilty

of the thing you are most worried about. So this offence... And not

talking about that. The offence we are talking about would have to be

a deliberate idea of wanting to take offence at something somebody

else has done. Who says it is an offence? That is a bigger question.

There are lots of television programmes we have where the camera

itself becomes the person and it tells a story. We are saying, how

can we cleverly make a story, how can we portray Muhammad, that a

bigger discussion. If you are worried about people not being able

to say anything about Islam, that you can't express your views, that

particular view is wrong. Another example, when I was an

undergraduate we did a lot of student reviews. When you are

students, you are experimenting with stuff. Funnily enough, in the

same review, there was an item about communion, which I happened

to find offensive. I didn't make a big deal about it because it didn't

matter to me. There was a sketch about an air crash. I didn't think

it was funny, that doesn't matter. One person, on one light -- night,

left the theatre in tears because his brother had been killed in an

air crash. It was not worth it for that amount of pain that a member

of the audience had. I don't think we lose anything. Actually,

although I am inclined to agree with you are a lot, by the examples

you're giving I am distancing myself further. I think we would

have lost a lot from not having had always look on the bright side of

life, because of the others circumstances. We also lose

something by saying that we are so worried about the sensibility that

we will not show those representations of the Prophet

Muhammad that do exist and which were this film about anybody else,

would have been shown. Would you object to the medieval

representations? There is an understanding that his image will

not be shown. In Muslim society, if they wanted to show something, who

are Muslims to say team non-Muslims that you can't? Just like freedom

of expression, we can protest. But the decision would have been yours.

I would like to ask a question that is more specific. Is there anything

about Islam that you feel frightened of saying? If the

society at large feels they cannot say things honestly because they

are... I can give you an example. I've given you an example of my

husband being censored because somebody somewhere, not a Muslim,

not a member of a minority faith, thought it might be offensive to

somebody. That's censorship was of I want to talk to Andrew Marsh on

the webcam. He's from Christian concern for our nation. Do you

think that Christians should be more offended by some of the things

that are shown? Well, yes, on occasion. Christians are concerned

about truth. Where there are portrayals of Christianity that are

inaccurate in the national media, and be seen how important the

national media are in the national debate, whether it is caricature,

think it's important that Christians do speak up for the sake

of the national debate and discourse. Jesus Christ is not

afraid of robust debate. I think he is compiling, reliable, relevant in

his own right. Historical testimony bears witness to that. It stands up

to scrutiny. What has happened with regard to Christianity is that it

has become too easy, rather than to engage in those realities in a

responsible way, to resort to ridiculing, rubbishing and

caricature. When we are relying on commentators like Christopher

Hitchens, whose explanation of the Christian message is so far from

the mark that it turns the Christian message upside-down, I

think that we are doing a disservice to our public debate and

discourse and to the public, who deserve a more reliable and

possibly more respectful approach. Adam Dean is an Islamic scholar and

also joins us. Some would say that there is a perception that Islam is

less tolerant than Christianity, are they right? Firstly, I'm not an

Islamic scholar. I thought I would say that first. Apologies.

worries. Adam is worried and is thinking, people will call them up

and say, how dare you say you are an Islamic scholar? How would you

describe yourself? A Muslim thinker. His Islam less tolerant than

Christianity? I don't think so. I think what is important is who is

the Muslim and who is the Christian in question. We will find many

examples of Muslims who behave in a tolerant manner when their faith is

criticised. Regarding the discussion so far, I think we are

missing the 11th in the room. That is that the programme is

effectively objective in looking at the life of Muhammad. Because they

have someone on the show called Robert Spencer. Robert Spencer

calls Muhammad, peace be upon him, all sorts of names, making him out

to be an opportunity EST -- opportunist and warlord. I think we

are losing focus of the actual documentary. You can make your mind

up, you can see the second programme in the Life of Muhammad

series tomorrow night on BBC Two. We have the result of our text poll.

We asked if Britain had been corrupted. Here is what you told us.

86% of those who text did in said it has. 14% said no. I can hear a

gasp from Ajmal. Are you shocked? Again, I think media has been

successful in manufacturing consensus. Which part of the media?

I'm going to say that in a moment. You say that you don't respect the

vote? I think it is the way you set the question. The country may have

been corrupted by certain incidence of our time today. But if this same

question is asked at a time when such media and public war was not

going on, the answer would be very different. Let's put it in a

different way, it would take in the poll after the end of The

Apprentice it probably would have gone the other way. It is who is

watching on Sunday morning. Love them, though I do! I hope so.

Thanks to everybody who has been taking part today. Please don't