:00:11. > :00:16.Two women a week are killed by their partners. Many more are
:00:16. > :00:26.beaten and abused. Would lives be saved if we had the right to expose
:00:26. > :00:40.
:00:40. > :00:44.Good morning. Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. In the age of
:00:44. > :00:48.internet dating, should the law let us know if our partner beat up
:00:48. > :00:51.their ex? To tarot cards, mystics,
:00:52. > :00:57.clairvoyants, is there anything in what they say? What do you think
:00:57. > :01:02.about them asking for money? Not a lot says one of our guests. I think
:01:02. > :01:08.it should be illegal. Card readers, tarot readers or astrologers to
:01:08. > :01:14.charge for their services. They bayed, brayed and point scored
:01:14. > :01:18.in Parma this week but should we be proud of our political leaders? --
:01:18. > :01:22.Parliament. Rosie Millard was the BBC Arts
:01:22. > :01:26.correspondent but now she writes on everything from art to dragging her
:01:26. > :01:33.four children around the world. In Collins is a late night radio
:01:33. > :01:36.host. His latest book is called 87 people are like to slap.
:01:36. > :01:42.And it is a miracle psychologist Donna Dawson got here at all. She
:01:42. > :01:47.is usually glued to the sofa at This Morning dispensing advice on
:01:47. > :01:57.relationships. You can challenge any of our guests on webcam, Skype
:01:57. > :02:04.
:02:05. > :02:09.Clare Wood's dad thinks his 36- year-old daughter would still be
:02:09. > :02:13.alive if she had known about her boyfriend's violent past. In her
:02:13. > :02:23.name he now wants eclairs law to give women the right to the
:02:23. > :02:34.
:02:34. > :02:37.knowledge about a violent past a -- The rise of online dating mean more
:02:37. > :02:41.relationships begin between strangers. Should women going into
:02:41. > :02:46.a new relationship be able to find out if their partner has violence
:02:46. > :02:53.in their past? With this large invasion of privacy outweigh the
:02:53. > :02:58.statistically small amount of abuse? But abusers often have form.
:02:58. > :03:02.One study found that half of all attackers were involved in another
:03:02. > :03:07.incident within three years. couldn't my daughter be told that
:03:07. > :03:12.this Laddie had a past? Michael's daughter, Clare, met
:03:12. > :03:18.George Appleton, a man with a criminal record of violence against
:03:18. > :03:22.women. He killed Clare in 2009. A law which would have alerted Clare
:03:22. > :03:26.took his past convictions may have saved her life, but should the
:03:26. > :03:32.police intervened so directly into our personal life. Such a law would
:03:32. > :03:36.not allow men to repent and reform. Once convicted, a man would always
:03:36. > :03:42.be considered a danger and some women could use the law to make
:03:42. > :03:47.false allegations against innocent men. We already ask for criminal
:03:47. > :03:52.records checks for those in contact with our children. Should we now
:03:52. > :04:00.ask the law to intervene in our adult relationships?
:04:00. > :04:05.Rosie, should we? I think it would be impossible to say that this
:04:05. > :04:10.would stop violence against women. Many women are attracted to men
:04:10. > :04:14.knowing already about their past. The fact that we have the police
:04:14. > :04:21.checks about people who work with children has not necessarily stop
:04:21. > :04:26.attacks on children. I do not think you would be able to stand it up,
:04:26. > :04:36.to be honest. The that is the question for our text vote this
:04:36. > :04:41.
:04:42. > :04:44.morning. Do we have a right to know For full terms and conditions visit
:04:44. > :04:51.visit bbc.co.uk/sundaymorninglive. We will show you how you voted at
:04:51. > :04:55.the end of the programme. Donna? With the greatest respect, Rosie, I
:04:55. > :04:59.think that is a simplistic view to take. I think we have to start
:04:59. > :05:04.somewhere, particularly with the Wild West frontier that is the
:05:05. > :05:09.internet, help women, guide them and give their someone -- give them
:05:09. > :05:13.somewhere to go. I think we all have a right to know if someone has
:05:13. > :05:18.a violent past. Yes, they do have a right and some rights are stronger
:05:18. > :05:23.than others. Hour right not to have our feathers ruffled is not as
:05:23. > :05:28.strong as the right as social animals to keep someone from a
:05:28. > :05:31.torrential abuse or even death. this is a balance of rights,
:05:31. > :05:36.someone who needs to know a crucial piece of information and somebody
:05:36. > :05:41.who might not want that information out? You cannot legislate for
:05:42. > :05:45.lunatics, it is as simple as that. It is a bad law. I would like
:05:45. > :05:49.information on dodgy neighbours, weird girl friends, if you like,
:05:49. > :05:53.what people who live down the road. We could call for a similar
:05:53. > :05:59.approach for all manner of things in life. Our democracy does not
:05:59. > :06:04.work on that basis. The man who attacked and murdered Clare, I
:06:04. > :06:11.think that his previous conviction was reasonably minor, I do not
:06:11. > :06:16.think there was any sense that he would have been held up. Let's find
:06:16. > :06:21.out from Clare's father, Michael Brown, who joins us. Michael, talk
:06:21. > :06:27.to us about why you think Clare would have been protected if she
:06:27. > :06:36.had known that George, her ex- boyfriend, had been violent towards
:06:36. > :06:43.other women in the past? If I can just intercede for the fellow who
:06:43. > :06:47.was speaking before, if he was standing in my shoes for 10 minutes,
:06:47. > :06:57.he would neither have the opinion that he has, nor would he deny it
:06:57. > :07:02.the women of this country another layer of protection. My daughter
:07:02. > :07:12.gave this Laddie his marching orders and until such time, I had
:07:12. > :07:14.
:07:14. > :07:22.no idea that he was controlling or abusing my daughter. I don't know
:07:22. > :07:29.if the law would have helped Clare. Michael, I wonder if I can ask,
:07:29. > :07:34.what was George's history of violence? George had three
:07:34. > :07:40.restraining orders against other women. He had already done six
:07:40. > :07:45.months for breaking a restraining order and he had done 3.5 years for
:07:46. > :07:51.following a lady from Manchester it to Newcastle, following -- breaking
:07:51. > :07:57.into her house and holding her at knifepoint for eight hours. Do you
:07:57. > :08:01.think, is Clare had known all of that information that she would not
:08:01. > :08:10.have struck up a relationship with him at all or managed to get out
:08:10. > :08:16.earlier? There are conjectures in that one. I believe my daughter was
:08:16. > :08:21.not stupid and she would have been out there -- out of there in a
:08:21. > :08:25.heartbeat. I was led to believe the criminal record he had was to do
:08:25. > :08:31.with driving offences. Ian, it is another layer of protection and it
:08:31. > :08:36.is hard to argue. To pick up on Michael's point, of course I have
:08:36. > :08:41.no idea what it feels like to be Michael's shoes and nobody could,
:08:41. > :08:46.how could they? But it does come back to the point that was made at
:08:46. > :08:51.the beginning, it is called bad law, we do not tend to make laws in this
:08:51. > :08:59.country based on the most seductive case. Otherwise, we would be in
:08:59. > :09:02.this never-ending circle to -- of litigation. From a fellow's point
:09:02. > :09:06.of view, does that mean every guy could be criminally checked to see
:09:06. > :09:13.if they have something in their past? Where does that leave
:09:13. > :09:17.innocent guise? It is impossible to have this law with the internet,
:09:17. > :09:24.with people meeting, how many friends on Facebook de actually
:09:24. > :09:29.know? That brings up a huge vitiate about where we start -- that brings
:09:29. > :09:34.up a huge issue about where we start. The thing is, there are no
:09:34. > :09:39.aspects on the internet to protect anybody. A psychopath's field day.
:09:39. > :09:47.They can go on there, pretend to be as normal as can be and cover-up
:09:47. > :09:51.their past. There are violent women out there, not as many. It is more
:09:51. > :09:59.important than your feathers being ruffled. If you'd be on the phone
:09:59. > :10:07.to the police every three minutes. When? Before the first day it?
:10:07. > :10:13.can hear that Michael wants to come back in. Excuse me, this is the
:10:13. > :10:17.level of discussion that I have come across all the way through the
:10:17. > :10:23.introduction of this law. There are people for it, there are people
:10:23. > :10:31.against, attack the end of the day, there are many clever people in
:10:31. > :10:40.this country who can fit this law in without interfering, we are
:10:40. > :10:47.talking about something in the region off... To protect women from
:10:47. > :10:57.that 25, eyelid suggest that unless you were in a domestic violence
:10:57. > :10:59.
:10:59. > :11:05.situation, that was denied to year. -- that was denied to you. If he
:11:05. > :11:11.was under police suspicion, that should be volunteered and you
:11:11. > :11:15.should be able to ask. I don't want this bandied about. I want men,
:11:15. > :11:19.women protected in this country from violent partners. Not just
:11:19. > :11:24.women. There are gay couples in this country and the best of luck
:11:25. > :11:31.to them, heterosexual, it makes no difference. I want partners who
:11:31. > :11:35.were in trouble to be given access to information of past violence.
:11:35. > :11:40.Michael, I really appreciate your time this morning and thank you
:11:40. > :11:45.very much indeed for coming on the programme to discuss what is
:11:45. > :11:49.obviously a very painful issue for you still. I'm going to talk to
:11:49. > :11:56.Hazel Blears now, because she is the former Home Office Minister who
:11:56. > :12:00.also backs the introduction of this law. Hazel, is this about a women -
:12:00. > :12:04.- or woman who lacked information or is this about a failure of the
:12:04. > :12:10.police to protect someone who had already made numerous complaints
:12:10. > :12:14.about this man? Good morning. Clare Wood was actually my constituent
:12:14. > :12:19.and I do not pretend for a moment that this law would stop domestic
:12:19. > :12:24.violence in its tracks, but what I do know, what happened to Clare,
:12:24. > :12:27.the sequence of events with a man who had a very violent past, the
:12:27. > :12:31.authorities knew that information but as the law stands now, they
:12:31. > :12:34.were unable to share that with Clare. She did not have the choice,
:12:34. > :12:38.she was not empowered to decide for herself whether she wanted to
:12:39. > :12:42.continue that relationship. The whole point of this law is it is
:12:42. > :12:49.not a fishing expedition on your first date, there will be checks
:12:49. > :12:52.and balances in the system. When a woman or a man feels that perhaps
:12:52. > :12:55.their partner's behaviour is starting to become abusive, they
:12:56. > :13:00.could go to the police, the police could check all their records from
:13:00. > :13:05.right across the country because they now have a national database.
:13:05. > :13:09.Can I interrupt? If the woman's partner has begun to be abusive, is
:13:09. > :13:14.there not an argument that that woman should be encouraged to
:13:14. > :13:20.report it to police or to leave, that actually, in a lot of cases,
:13:20. > :13:23.sadly, women whose partners become abusive, do not leave and they have
:13:23. > :13:29.the information write their in their homes, the evidence that that
:13:29. > :13:34.person is violent. Do they need other information? Of course they
:13:34. > :13:38.did. Domestic violence is a complex set of issues. On average, a woman
:13:39. > :13:42.is assaulted 30 times before they take action. I'm not pretending
:13:42. > :13:46.that this law would solve all the problems but at the moment, the
:13:46. > :13:51.police could have information, the council, the health service and
:13:51. > :13:58.they are prevented from sharing that with the person who is
:13:58. > :14:03.concerned. This is a matter of a woman or a man having the right.
:14:03. > :14:06.Let me through this back into the studio. Clare already did go to the
:14:06. > :14:10.police. Perhaps we should look at refuges for women who have an
:14:10. > :14:14.abusive partner, homes for them to go to add a whole support system
:14:14. > :14:18.which would have helped them once they raised the alarm. I don't
:14:18. > :14:21.think it is about knowing about the past, it is dealing with the
:14:21. > :14:25.present and Clare was aware that this man was very violent. If it is
:14:25. > :14:29.a complex issue. Once a man begins to abuse, and that is why you have
:14:29. > :14:32.to get the checks done early, women become so cowed and frightened and
:14:33. > :14:37.threatened by their partner that they are terrified to leave. They
:14:37. > :14:41.might think they can change this man, they will be in the first
:14:41. > :14:45.flush of romantic love and they think, he has got a dodgy past but
:14:45. > :14:50.I will forgive him that and carry on. Are we not missing the great
:14:50. > :14:55.point here? Hazel is advocating the secret police. We hold a file that
:14:55. > :14:59.anybody can access if they feel like it. Who gets the right to it.
:14:59. > :15:09.Not if they feel like it. You can extend it all over the place. You
:15:09. > :15:11.
:15:11. > :15:16.can have it for noisy neighbours, We have become a spoilt society
:15:16. > :15:20.where we believe we have so many rights. I have noticed that
:15:20. > :15:26.criminals have more right than victims. That cannot be right.
:15:26. > :15:30.mentioned refuges. Erin Pizzey set up the first women's refuge. Would
:15:30. > :15:34.this help women even if they already know their partner is that
:15:34. > :15:39.deserve? Yes, I think it would. I am all in favour of this because
:15:39. > :15:43.the situation is dire, and domestic violence is academic. Let's
:15:43. > :15:47.remember that hit it is not men and women while the real victims, the
:15:47. > :15:52.children have no choices. I have just been dealing with a man who
:15:52. > :15:56.had batted three women and is now one is for women. She has got three
:15:56. > :16:00.small kids and she is planning to move in with him. Yes, first of all,
:16:00. > :16:04.apart from anything else, if we have these checks and balances,
:16:04. > :16:09.everybody has the information. My main problem is I want to make her
:16:09. > :16:13.responsible for her choice. Once she knows she is with a violent
:16:13. > :16:18.partner, I want her to take part in what other it is that will protect
:16:18. > :16:23.the children. How can you know that he has batted previous partners but
:16:23. > :16:28.she does not? Because I know because, as far as I am concerned,
:16:28. > :16:34.I know a lot about his background. I have not actually talked to her.
:16:34. > :16:39.I know about him. We have this problem with violent men. Let's not
:16:39. > :16:43.leave them out of the equation. These men need a counselling
:16:43. > :16:47.service. I remember many years ago are sitting on the couch, in a
:16:47. > :16:51.group with Princess Anne, we were talking about more refuges for
:16:51. > :16:59.women. Yes, they need that, but these men need help, and that is
:16:59. > :17:03.often overlooked. They need to be treated. Women who consistently
:17:04. > :17:08.make violent relationships, and there are many of them. This is
:17:08. > :17:14.just about... I think it is impossible, it would be impossible
:17:14. > :17:18.to enforce. How is this meant to work? You go to the local police
:17:18. > :17:23.station? Before your first date? have just heard about a case where
:17:23. > :17:27.a woman is about to move in with a man, she has three children. There
:17:27. > :17:32.is information that this man has form. They are not going to tell
:17:32. > :17:37.her. I do not know how she knows that information, it might be a
:17:37. > :17:40.specific case. Often a friend of a friend knows information. When you
:17:40. > :17:45.have a state law that steps in and allows people access to some kind
:17:45. > :17:52.of database through turning up at the police station, phoning a
:17:52. > :17:56.hotline, whatever it happens to be, it is completely unworkable. Erin?
:17:57. > :18:01.Why is it that we are taking all the steps we can to stop
:18:01. > :18:05.paedophiles having access to children but we let violent people
:18:05. > :18:11.us and our children? Actually, we sort of marinate these children and
:18:11. > :18:16.violence, and they grow up like that. But how far do we take that
:18:16. > :18:19.kind of legislation? It could be applied in so many areas. If you
:18:19. > :18:24.look at individual stories, they are clearly very seductive and
:18:24. > :18:28.powerful. Because the children are innocent and cannot find these
:18:28. > :18:32.things out for themselves, they cannot judge for themselves, a
:18:32. > :18:41.small child, but an adult woman, should she be seen on the same
:18:41. > :18:45.level as a small... Correct. small child? Sean, this is a new
:18:45. > :18:50.way of meeting people, over the internet, it is still relatively
:18:50. > :18:54.fresh, it is an charted territory, it requires new ways of regulating.
:18:54. > :18:57.That is what this information is doing, it is the equivalent of your
:18:57. > :19:01.friends tapping you on the shoulder and say, I would not go near him,
:19:01. > :19:07.he is trouble. No, it is a containerisation of the atomisation
:19:07. > :19:11.of society that we have seen with the CRB checks. -- continuation.
:19:11. > :19:16.You create a default situation in which everybody distrusts everybody
:19:16. > :19:19.else unless they are somehow cleared by the state. I disagree.
:19:19. > :19:25.It mediates social relationships through the state. It produces the
:19:25. > :19:32.same kind of effect as the French, Russian revolutionary regimes by
:19:32. > :19:37.killing people at random. That is crazy, what... That is the most
:19:37. > :19:41.stupid bit of crepe I have ever heard! We are social animals, we
:19:41. > :19:46.are responsible for each other. We do not become a police stages
:19:46. > :19:51.because we have a few safeguards! People have to have police checks
:19:51. > :19:56.before they do a reading at a school, parents. Is that necessary?
:19:56. > :20:00.What is the problem? If you have got nothing to hide, what is the
:20:00. > :20:04.problem? Everything champs said seems to make perfect sense. It was
:20:04. > :20:09.an extension of the point I was trying to make about the secret
:20:09. > :20:12.police holding databases on people. How about a society which is too
:20:12. > :20:16.liberal and everybody gets to carve Up everybody else and criminals get
:20:16. > :20:22.to run loose because there are no checks on them? One final question,
:20:22. > :20:26.what about second chances. Second chances for who? Four men who may
:20:26. > :20:30.have made a mistake in the past. as a psychologist, I would say,
:20:30. > :20:35.great, he has got up in debt counselling, because our lot of
:20:35. > :20:40.them do not change. A lot of them need to be given the chance, but
:20:40. > :20:45.they cannot be left to run wild on the internet, no way. Do you agree?
:20:46. > :20:55.Do we have a right to know a partner's violent pass? That is our
:20:56. > :20:58.
:20:58. > :21:02.vote today. If you think we should You have around 20 minutes before
:21:02. > :21:06.it closes. Now, if you have been affected by any of the issues we
:21:06. > :21:14.have discussed, there links to organisations offering help and
:21:14. > :21:20.advice on our website. -- there our links.
:21:20. > :21:25.All of us affected by the terrible events in Norway this weekend, we
:21:25. > :21:32.still have so much to learn about what this individual thought he was
:21:32. > :21:36.doing when he murdered so many people on Saturday. Do we give some
:21:36. > :21:42.sort of false authority, the end, to people who say they want to
:21:42. > :21:46.explain themselves, explain their motivation? This chap says it was
:21:46. > :21:52.an atrocious thing to have done. that very point, I have been
:21:52. > :21:58.surprised by the police releasing a statement already, giving his
:21:58. > :22:02.interpretation, giving it context, giving it some vague, rather crude
:22:02. > :22:06.level of credibility in doing that. I am intrigued, on this particular
:22:06. > :22:09.story, about the absence of the word terrorist, which does not seem
:22:09. > :22:14.to be bandied about in the same way have seen with other similar
:22:14. > :22:18.stories. We talk about a lone gunman, a fundamentalist, but the
:22:18. > :22:22.worst terrorist does not seem to be in there very much. There are bad
:22:22. > :22:26.people. Once in a while, these terrible stories from Dunblane to
:22:26. > :22:30.Columbine to what we have seen here happen, and we can go around in
:22:30. > :22:32.circles trying to explain the various reasons, the
:22:33. > :22:36.interpretations, the psychological deficit in these people. We can
:22:36. > :22:43.attempt to put some kind of intellectual gloss on it. Bottom
:22:43. > :22:48.line, the world throws up, in the gene pool, some very bad people.
:22:48. > :22:55.Donna, or is it helpful but we here this person's explanation for their
:22:55. > :22:59.motivation? Or is it simply a heinous crime with no
:22:59. > :23:03.justification? Should we even allow a justification to be heard? It is
:23:03. > :23:07.both, but the fact that he did not shoot himself is quite interesting.
:23:08. > :23:11.There is a lot we can learn from his so-called explanation, not that
:23:11. > :23:16.we will accept it. What we are looking for is an insight into the
:23:16. > :23:19.mind of somebody who is obviously mentally unstable and the efficient
:23:19. > :23:24.and may have some clues in his background, his upbringing, his
:23:24. > :23:28.contacts, his point of view that will help us to deal with things,
:23:28. > :23:31.maybe preventing such a thing in a future. It may give us an
:23:31. > :23:35.understanding that will lead us to think about where else we need to
:23:35. > :23:39.look. This is a society that for years has been thought of as
:23:39. > :23:43.peaceful, you know, quite complacent. We have seen a surge
:23:43. > :23:49.and Scandinavian literature that has shown a dark underside to this
:23:49. > :23:52.society, whey -- where there is a lot of things happening on the far
:23:52. > :23:57.right. A lot of countries to have immigration issues need to look at
:23:57. > :24:01.this and address it. He is kind of the apex of a whole subterranean
:24:01. > :24:07.problem, where we are looking at somebody's whole upbringing as well
:24:07. > :24:12.as their mental state of mind. Yes, we have things to learn. Rosie,
:24:12. > :24:17.your thoughts? People are flailing as they try to explain how somebody
:24:17. > :24:21.could do this. Especially in a country like Norway. It will be
:24:21. > :24:26.very interesting to see what he says in court, how he can possibly
:24:26. > :24:31.address is absolutely horrendous crime. I think that, you know,
:24:31. > :24:34.there are similarities, it seems, to Dunblane. We know that from the
:24:34. > :24:38.stuff that is already around online that he has written. It seems that
:24:38. > :24:43.he has the same sort of feeling of being an outsider, that he was
:24:43. > :24:49.against what he saw as a liberal elite pushing the country in a way
:24:49. > :24:56.that he resented. He felt he did not belong. You know, he has this
:24:56. > :25:01.quote from John Stuart Mill's about one man with faith as more force
:25:01. > :25:07.than 100,000 people with interest. It is a misguided notion of some
:25:07. > :25:13.sort of crusade, using Christianity as some sort of explanation for
:25:13. > :25:16.what he has done. Well, obviously, we wait to hear what happens on
:25:16. > :25:20.Monday, but there is something that people are finding very hard to
:25:20. > :25:26.process. Meanwhile, an individual tragedy yesterday with the news
:25:26. > :25:30.that Amy Winehouse was found dead. Now, he walked past Amy Winehouse's
:25:30. > :25:36.flat regularly and had mentioned that there was not a time when
:25:36. > :25:38.there were not paparazzi outside, waiting to see her. A friend of
:25:38. > :25:43.mine who knew her reasonably well lived just around the corner, and
:25:43. > :25:49.every time we walked past, there would be a pack of paparazzi out
:25:49. > :25:54.there trying to get a picture try to get... I am not blaming the
:25:54. > :25:58.paparazzi, that was part of what she did, part of what she did for a
:25:58. > :26:02.living. It kind of goes with the job of being a celebrity, being a
:26:02. > :26:05.rock star, whatever you want to call it. I think most of the time
:26:05. > :26:08.she accepted that and went along with it, but it is interesting that
:26:08. > :26:14.the one-storey they never thought they would get, they actually got
:26:14. > :26:19.yesterday. Too much pressure on celebrities, on creatives, Donna?
:26:19. > :26:22.Or not enough support given? All support given but not taken? There
:26:22. > :26:26.is a creative temperament, and I think the problem with the creative
:26:26. > :26:32.temperament is that they are very good at using their imagination and
:26:32. > :26:35.their talents, but they can be, as in his days, fragile, unstable,
:26:35. > :26:40.maybe slightly addiction prone as a way of dealing with stress and
:26:40. > :26:43.anxiety. -- in his case. Obsessed with what they are trying to
:26:43. > :26:47.accomplish, maybe trying to deal with it. Yes, they need a little
:26:47. > :26:51.bit more care, and I think unfortunately our society has
:26:51. > :26:55.become too celebrity focused. We expect too much of our icons. We
:26:55. > :27:00.want to be like them, we want to watch every moment. It is too much
:27:00. > :27:03.pressure for many individuals who are creative and delicate. Rosie,
:27:03. > :27:07.you have covered celebrities and their lifestyles as well as their
:27:07. > :27:11.work. I have noticed that younger stars are looked after a lot more
:27:11. > :27:15.by their record companies than they used to be. You know, they are
:27:15. > :27:21.managed very professionally, their finances are managed, they are
:27:21. > :27:26.protected, you know, largely from the vicissitudes of being famous.
:27:26. > :27:30.They are not just cast out and left to sort of wallow around in the
:27:30. > :27:35.world of celebrity, as they might have done in the 1960s. You know,
:27:35. > :27:40.Amy Winehouse, it is a total tragedy. I think that she probably
:27:40. > :27:45.had obsessive, perhaps addictive tendencies, and those got the
:27:45. > :27:49.better of her. Issues that we will be discussing for weeks to come,
:27:49. > :27:53.issues that we will be addressing later in a series of Sunday Morning
:27:53. > :27:57.Live. Still to come this morning, politicians have had a rough ride
:27:57. > :28:07.recently, but as the dust settles, we are asking, should we actually
:28:07. > :28:24.
:28:24. > :28:34.And he floating in our text poll. - You have around 15 minutes before
:28:34. > :28:36.
:28:36. > :28:39.Now, be honest, do you cast your eye over your horoscope in a
:28:39. > :28:44.newspaper even if you think it is total hogwash? Thousands pay good
:28:44. > :28:47.money to good and bad mediums and psychics. It can bring great
:28:47. > :28:52.comfort, maybe some entertainment. Rosie Millard says that if you have
:28:53. > :29:02.got the gift, you should live up to that word and do it for proof. Here
:29:03. > :29:03.
:29:03. > :29:07.I do not believe that card readers, to leave readers, astrologers for
:29:07. > :29:14.mediums have any special powers, and I think it should be illegal
:29:15. > :29:19.for them to charge for their I have got four children. I have
:29:19. > :29:23.got no idea what any of their star signs are, and if they are ill, I
:29:23. > :29:26.take them to see a doctor. Recently I had the experience of meeting a
:29:26. > :29:34.medium, and the whole thing made me very worried that he was
:29:34. > :29:37.manipulating extremely vulnerable I think it is particularly wrong in
:29:37. > :29:41.vulnerable people end up paying for these services. It encourages them
:29:41. > :29:46.to believe the twaddle that is being dished out. Why pay
:29:46. > :29:54.otherwise? If you want to believe, that is your business, but please
:29:54. > :30:04.let non-have a bill at the end of it. -- let -- let's not have a bill
:30:04. > :30:04.
:30:04. > :30:11.What do you think? Do you think money making mediums should be
:30:11. > :30:17.banned? We are joined now by a Seema Malhotra, director of the
:30:17. > :30:22.Fabian women's network. Do you take them seriously? I think it is
:30:22. > :30:25.important that people have a choice. They have a choice in exploring the
:30:25. > :30:29.life and the afterlife. I don't think we can come in and say we
:30:29. > :30:33.will impose our own values and beliefs on other people. I think
:30:33. > :30:39.the idea that there is nothing after death and it is or something
:30:39. > :30:45.we should challenge, whether we can verify it, I think that is a
:30:45. > :30:50.difficult concept. I think we have to be open as a society. De believe
:30:50. > :30:54.in life after death? I think there is something and I am interested in
:30:54. > :30:58.different faiths and philosophies. I spend a lot of time exploring
:30:58. > :31:04.them. But I do not think it is up to me to impose my view on whether
:31:04. > :31:08.someone else's belief is right or wrong. 57 % of people do think
:31:08. > :31:14.there is life after death. Why do you deny them the chance to explore
:31:14. > :31:18.that further? You can explore life after death, obviously and world
:31:18. > :31:23.religions are based on the notion that there is life after death.
:31:23. > :31:28.What I think the problem is is paying someone else he says, I have
:31:28. > :31:32.the knowledge, I have a special gift and I will tell you what to do
:31:32. > :31:41.with your life, it takes the notion of self determinism out of people's
:31:41. > :31:49.hands. It takes their right for independence away from them. Let's
:31:49. > :31:54.butcher is a medium. Do you charge? Yes I do. Why do you charge if it
:31:54. > :32:00.is a gift you have? Because it is my time, it is my energy, to
:32:00. > :32:05.something I trained to do, something I trained for some time.
:32:05. > :32:10.The reason I act in a counselling role also. I spend a lot of time
:32:10. > :32:16.dealing with people who are bereft, who struggle with their grief.
:32:16. > :32:22.Having said that, I flatly refused to read for people who were
:32:22. > :32:29.perceived to be extremely vulnerable. Why do people go to
:32:29. > :32:34.mediums? If you are searching for a message from a pet dog you have,
:32:34. > :32:40.their art mediums who give messages from Peps to people who are grief-
:32:40. > :32:44.stricken, if you are searching for an answer to life, going to see a
:32:44. > :32:49.medium to have a message from Aunt Beryl about the fact that yes, you
:32:49. > :32:55.should possibly move to Stockport or give up your job, is
:32:55. > :33:00.irresponsible. These people are vulnerable anyway? I agree with a
:33:00. > :33:06.lot of what Rosie has just said. However, I do not feel you can tar
:33:06. > :33:12.everyone with the same brush. To me, medium ship is about proving life
:33:12. > :33:17.after death. You can not prove it, how can you prove it? Because you
:33:17. > :33:21.can describe the character, you can give memory links, you can talk
:33:21. > :33:24.about how they have passed to the spirit world. You can reassure the
:33:24. > :33:32.person whom you are reading for that their loved one, their friend,
:33:32. > :33:38.however it was, is no longer suffering... How can you possibly...
:33:38. > :33:42.Where is the scientific proof? is the point. Nobody, not you or
:33:42. > :33:48.anybody else can talk to the dead. It is a nonsense. You might think
:33:48. > :33:52.that you can. I have seen some of those people at work. You watch
:33:52. > :33:56.those channels. They say, anybody in the audience with feet or
:33:56. > :34:02.whatever. It is very clever, it is cold reading, it has been done for
:34:02. > :34:07.years and it is a magical trick. The notion of -- paying money for
:34:07. > :34:11.an unprovable message, it happens in religion as well. I think that
:34:11. > :34:15.is basically imposing our own beliefs. I think it is really
:34:15. > :34:20.important to be open. I will happily say I do not know if it is
:34:20. > :34:24.true that people are contacted. What I do know is that if people do
:34:24. > :34:30.make contact, or there is something which comes back that is a comfort
:34:30. > :34:35.to people, it may be true or it might not be. People have the right
:34:35. > :34:44.to exercise that. Children get nervous -- murdered because people
:34:44. > :34:47.believe there is a devil in them. want to come back to one. Macro
:34:47. > :34:52.which is what is a gift and what do charge for. You could say the same
:34:53. > :34:55.about art, you could say the same about psychology and journalism. At
:34:55. > :35:01.which point de re-sown one profession over another or
:35:01. > :35:05.something someone is interested in where the should charge for it or
:35:05. > :35:10.not. You might say politicians should be given their service for
:35:10. > :35:15.free. When people come to see you, how much do you charge and how
:35:16. > :35:20.popular is your service? Charges vary. There are some people I don't
:35:20. > :35:24.charge. I do not charge for healing. If I believe there is a genuine
:35:24. > :35:32.need and a person just need the comfort then I went charge anything
:35:32. > :35:38.at all. My services are practically now entirely word of mouth.
:35:38. > :35:42.healing. I was doing a programme with a medium and he took me to see
:35:42. > :35:46.some alternative therapists who said, if you step over this stone
:35:46. > :35:51.with your left foot, that will heal the. People with very serious
:35:51. > :35:56.diseases go to see these charlatans. We had to snort up ground-up paced
:35:56. > :36:01.through our noses, it was some South American thing. This
:36:01. > :36:07.character said people suffer from throat cancer and get a lot of help
:36:07. > :36:15.this way. This is stopping people from having proven scientific care.
:36:15. > :36:19.Next stick to the issue of mediums and psychologists. I want to talk
:36:19. > :36:26.to Professor Chris French from Goldsmiths University. There is no
:36:26. > :36:30.evidence that this is scientifically true but she says
:36:30. > :36:34.she provides a service that it is a solace to people. Psychologically,
:36:34. > :36:38.can it help? The fact is, it probably does give people some
:36:38. > :36:42.comfort, in the same way that alternative therapies which do not
:36:42. > :36:48.really work, make people feel better through a placebo effect. If
:36:48. > :36:52.it does raise a host of ethical issues. On the one hand, we would
:36:52. > :36:57.all condemn psychics who are deliberate frauds, but many of them
:36:57. > :37:01.to believe they have a special gift. You have the argument you have just
:37:01. > :37:04.made yourself fit people take comfort from it. Even though I do
:37:04. > :37:08.not for one minute believe these people have these special powers,
:37:08. > :37:11.if people take some comfort from it and they are adults and they want
:37:11. > :37:15.to pay their money on that, on the end, I have to come down on the
:37:15. > :37:19.side of the argument that says, I don't think we should ban mediums
:37:19. > :37:24.for charging for their services, even though I do not think they
:37:24. > :37:29.have this special gift. professor is right. I have done I
:37:29. > :37:36.don't have any phone-ins on this issue. People do come away with a
:37:36. > :37:39.semblance of comfort, that would be the placebo effect. The idea of
:37:39. > :37:44.banning them is a whole different issue. I have never heard one
:37:44. > :37:48.person who had a reading come away with something so unequivocal and
:37:48. > :37:52.perfect that he would have no choice but to say, clearly there is
:37:52. > :37:57.something in this. He is always very vague and it could always be
:37:57. > :38:01.applied to more than one scenario. I would disagree. I have never felt
:38:01. > :38:06.a need to talk to anyone myself but I do know people who have had tarot
:38:06. > :38:11.card readings of feel they have had communication with someone who has
:38:11. > :38:15.passed on and it is not for me to disagree or say yes or no to what
:38:15. > :38:19.happened to them. There is an irony in this debate. On the one hand we
:38:19. > :38:23.are saying, if it is a gift, don't charge, on the other hand you were
:38:23. > :38:28.saying, therefore, are you saying that we believe what you're saying,
:38:28. > :38:33.we were just should not charge for it. At which point will be saying
:38:33. > :38:37.is this a full-service or you should not charge for your time?
:38:37. > :38:44.think probably both. I think it encourages people to put their fate
:38:44. > :38:47.out of their own hands. There are links in between Clare's Law and
:38:47. > :38:52.berries and interesting link between how much are you guided in
:38:52. > :38:57.your life by your own views and your own experiences and your own
:38:57. > :39:06.intelligence, or should you put it in hands of mediums on the other
:39:06. > :39:10.hand,... Is this also about people wanting to deal with the great
:39:10. > :39:16.inevitable and it is one way of dealing with that? One thing, we
:39:16. > :39:20.all face, the inevitable and if we can tell ourselves that we can
:39:20. > :39:24.still communicate once we are on the other side, that makes people
:39:24. > :39:29.feel better, doesn't it? It is not just about communicating with
:39:29. > :39:34.people they have lost, it is something instinctive within us.
:39:34. > :39:38.would say it is something different. There is an important question
:39:38. > :39:41.about our comfort with life and our comfort with death that we know is
:39:41. > :39:48.inevitable and I think that is something which is important to
:39:48. > :39:51.people in different ways of their life to explore. I'd don't think it
:39:51. > :39:55.is about saying after my death I can communicate with the living, it
:39:55. > :40:02.is a question of saying if life is all there is and if it isn't, what
:40:02. > :40:10.does that mean for the choices I make in my life? Wendy Grossman
:40:10. > :40:14.from the skeptic magazine, it is any of that dangerous? If you think
:40:14. > :40:18.about where Amy Winehouse's mother is right now, and you can imagine
:40:18. > :40:23.somebody offering her the notion that she can connect in some way to
:40:23. > :40:27.her dead daughter and say goodbye, that is how vulnerable somebody
:40:27. > :40:32.years. I don't actually think that whether the medium charges or not
:40:32. > :40:37.is really the issue. I think the issue is much more that people are
:40:37. > :40:41.being offered something that is not necessarily true. I think the
:40:41. > :40:45.emotional damage is the same, whether they are paid or not. There
:40:45. > :40:49.are things like psychic hotlines and medium hot lines where people
:40:49. > :40:53.do make quite a bit of money and I would worry about those but I think
:40:53. > :41:01.there is a simple thing that if you catch somebody actually committing
:41:01. > :41:05.fraud, we have laws which you can prosecute on. It is difficult to
:41:05. > :41:09.prevent somebody spending their own money on something where the
:41:09. > :41:14.practitioner is deluded. Caroline has got in touch with the programme.
:41:14. > :41:20.Have you ever used a medium? Actually, I am a medium. I have
:41:20. > :41:22.used mediums myself. I am a psychic medium. And what if someone comes
:41:22. > :41:32.to you and they are incredibly vulnerable and they have lost
:41:32. > :41:36.somebody, what is your response to that person? It depends on them.
:41:36. > :41:43.Everybody is individual, as you know and their strength can be
:41:43. > :41:48.immense, even after losing somebody so close to them. I'd to weigh up
:41:48. > :41:53.as to whether they are too vulnerable or at the right time and
:41:54. > :42:01.my spirit guides will tell me this. To be truthful, I am insulted at
:42:01. > :42:05.being told or hearing that my job, my profession is a load of
:42:05. > :42:09.codswallop. It is not just a profession. You had better get used
:42:09. > :42:13.to it. You are talking about something a bit more fundamental
:42:13. > :42:18.than a bit of a job, you are talking about the ability to
:42:18. > :42:23.communicate with the other side. If it did not go into such emotional
:42:23. > :42:27.territory as we have talked about, it would be laughable. You are
:42:27. > :42:32.coming on national television and saying, look at me, I can do
:42:32. > :42:38.miracles. No, excuse me. Have you ever spoken to a medium? Have you
:42:38. > :42:42.ever had a reading? I have spoken to a medium. He had a spirit guide
:42:42. > :42:46.with him. The thing is, have you had a reading where that
:42:46. > :42:52.information which has come from that medium, was spot on? If not,
:42:52. > :42:57.then you have gone to the wrong medium. And you keep going to them
:42:57. > :43:00.until you get a good one, is that what you are saying? They do not
:43:00. > :43:07.know that you, how did they know the information they are giving
:43:07. > :43:13.you? It is called cold reading, religion has done it for years.
:43:13. > :43:18.Next let her finish. Briefly. not claiming that I am the be-all
:43:18. > :43:24.and end-all and I am godly. This is a gift that I have, just like a
:43:24. > :43:29.painter, an artist, a musician, a body like that. I have never had
:43:29. > :43:35.anybody complain to make that what I have told them is wrong. Thank
:43:35. > :43:39.you. I want to go to some of these comments from viewers. Cardiff on
:43:39. > :43:45.Twitter says mediums claim it is a gift they have been given, gifts
:43:46. > :43:52.are free, they say, no charge. June says she is a medium and does not
:43:52. > :43:56.charge and mediums should be regulated. And Ian on Twitter says
:43:57. > :44:01.mediums fill a demand as do psychologists. Both offer opinions
:44:01. > :44:05.which are left to interpretation by the recipient. Rosie, do you think
:44:05. > :44:11.everything should be scientifically verified before somebody is allowed
:44:11. > :44:14.to be charged for it, or sometimes do like not knowing. What about a
:44:14. > :44:19.magic show? We all know we are being conned to some extent but we
:44:19. > :44:25.pay for it. It is entertainment. People do not go to mediums for
:44:25. > :44:29.entertainment, they go for guidance and that is completely wrong. On
:44:29. > :44:33.what basis are they giving the guidance? I think there is a very
:44:33. > :44:36.different question and there is a question where we should challenge
:44:36. > :44:41.what people using mediums for. Whether or not you want guidance,
:44:41. > :44:47.you should be strong in your own life by your choices and your
:44:47. > :44:51.understanding, but what did you go for a medium for his, I think, and
:44:51. > :44:55.whether it does you good or whether it helps you is something that I
:44:55. > :44:59.think he can challenge about what you're hearing and will how you are
:44:59. > :45:02.using that information. I do think regulation is important and I do
:45:02. > :45:06.think we should be able to have a conversation with people who might
:45:06. > :45:12.use mediums and what they believe and why they believe it without
:45:12. > :45:22.outright rejection. Tarot card reading is an area of possible
:45:22. > :45:22.
:45:22. > :45:26.sites we do not know enough about. If David Cameron had been second,
:45:26. > :45:30.he would not have needed hindsight? Should we be proud of our political
:45:30. > :45:36.leaders? You have been voting in our text bold, should we have a
:45:36. > :45:41.right to know about our partner's violent past. Please do not vote
:45:41. > :45:45.now, you will still be charged but Joe vote will not count. We will
:45:45. > :45:49.renew the result at the end of the programme.
:45:49. > :45:52.Since the MPs' expenses scandal, politicians hold a place in our
:45:52. > :45:57.content usually reserved for journalists, bankers and estate
:45:57. > :46:00.agents. But he is a thought, are we too quick to have a go at men and
:46:00. > :46:08.women already get heckled and ridiculed for a living? Should we
:46:08. > :46:18.be proud of our politicians? Ought to think they have lost the plot? -
:46:18. > :46:18.
:46:18. > :46:26.The won declares famine in Somalia. -- the UN. Europe and America
:46:26. > :46:30.teeter on the edge of financial meltdown. Xinhua, in the mother of
:46:30. > :46:40.all parliaments, our politicians squabble over phone-hacking. --
:46:40. > :46:43.
:46:43. > :46:50.Order! I say to members who are now heckling, think of what the public
:46:50. > :46:54.thinks of our behaviour. Order! And stop it! But how well behaved would
:46:54. > :46:57.you be if you are fighting to hold on to your job? And fighting to
:46:57. > :47:05.stop one mistake derailing everything you and your party stand
:47:05. > :47:12.for? It is not just the hacking scandal. Our leader's' Rees and U-
:47:12. > :47:18.turns have brought a lot of anger, sacrificing principles for power. -
:47:18. > :47:21.- Recent. I have done a lot of my own, and they should be done with
:47:21. > :47:26.panache! Politicians used to stick to their convictions, even if it
:47:26. > :47:36.riled the public. I am telling you, you cannot play politics with
:47:36. > :47:41.people's jobs and with people's services! U-turn if you want to.
:47:41. > :47:45.The lady is not for turning. modern politics sometimes requires
:47:45. > :47:49.people to change their minds, reflect on their mistakes and shift
:47:49. > :47:53.position when necessary. And our legendary leaders did not have to
:47:53. > :47:59.put up with 24 hour news examining every detail of their private lives
:47:59. > :48:04.and public statements. So have our political leaders let us down and
:48:04. > :48:10.betrayed their principles? Or, slightly to our surprise, have they
:48:10. > :48:15.done us proud? Amber Elliott is political editor for total politics
:48:15. > :48:19.magazine. A morally bankrupt bunch what does your heart swell when you
:48:19. > :48:23.watch them? I am not quite sure that its rules, but I am quite
:48:23. > :48:27.proud of our politicians. They work very hard on a day-to-day basis,
:48:27. > :48:30.and while I have weeks when I am more proud of them, they too will
:48:30. > :48:38.lot of good work and a lot of good work that is not noticed by the
:48:38. > :48:43.majority. David Craig is author of Fleece, which gives some insight
:48:43. > :48:48.into what he thinks! Are you proud? Do they do a good job for us?
:48:48. > :48:53.at all. What I saw last week was a bunch of shameless, self-serving,
:48:53. > :48:57.self-righteous fools who were trying to gain the moral high
:48:57. > :49:01.ground in an attempt to get back some of the credibility that they
:49:01. > :49:08.have deservedly lost through their own greed and incompetence. Does
:49:08. > :49:13.any politician or political leader, do you hold any up as a role model?
:49:13. > :49:16.My worry is that our politicians have become part of a self-serving
:49:16. > :49:20.club, an elite that has doubled in size over the last 10 years. At the
:49:20. > :49:24.same time, we are paying for twice as many people in the political
:49:24. > :49:31.class than we did 10 years ago. At the same time, the percentage of
:49:31. > :49:36.our laws made by the European Union has gone up from 30% up to 80%. We
:49:36. > :49:40.are paying twice as many people to do half as much work. They are not
:49:40. > :49:43.hard-working, they have increased their holidays up to 100 days be it.
:49:43. > :49:47.They have reduced the number of hours they sit in Parliament. This
:49:47. > :49:51.idea of them being hard-working public servants is rubbish. Jimani
:49:51. > :49:57.and they do not do enough. The idea that they had six weeks' holiday,
:49:57. > :50:01.they are not on holiday. They are back in their constituencies, the
:50:01. > :50:04.majority of them, dealing with constituency work. They are
:50:04. > :50:10.available more to people now than when they are travelling to and
:50:10. > :50:14.from Parliament. I think David's point is right. If you look at the
:50:15. > :50:20.three main parties, you have this homogenised, liberalised, vacuous,
:50:20. > :50:23.platitudinous mess of an attempt at finding centre ground. You look
:50:23. > :50:30.back at Neil Kinnock at his absolute best, trying to get rid of
:50:30. > :50:35.the Militant tendency, people walking out, Thatcher, the opposing
:50:35. > :50:39.force of our political system, but there is none of that any more.
:50:39. > :50:42.it didn't do Neil Kinnock any good? Without Kinnock, there would not
:50:42. > :50:47.have been Tony Blair, the whole New Labour experiment only worked
:50:47. > :50:57.because of what Kinnock did so brilliantly. But he was going for
:50:57. > :51:00.
:51:00. > :51:03.the centre ground. That centre ground has now been taken up by
:51:03. > :51:08.absolutely every one. People have become less passionate about
:51:08. > :51:14.politics. We live in an age of soundbites. Politicians played to
:51:14. > :51:18.that. We also live in a peaceful age. I think it is easier for a
:51:18. > :51:21.politician to be moral, to be virtuous if they are leaving their
:51:21. > :51:26.country in a time of absolute crisis. You know, people look at
:51:26. > :51:30.Churchill and so he was amazing in the war. Well, that was a
:51:30. > :51:35.completely unrealistic comparison with now. The other thing is, I
:51:35. > :51:39.think politicians are off with very good intentions. I mean, look at
:51:39. > :51:43.Barack Obama, the saviour of the Western world. When they get into
:51:43. > :51:50.office, the necessity of modern-day politics, currying favour, dealing
:51:50. > :51:55.with people, accepting different sorts of deals with in your group,
:51:55. > :51:59.it means that you end up with a slightly bastardisation of your
:51:59. > :52:05.original concept. That is politics, it is about negotiation and
:52:05. > :52:10.compromise. By the health situation with Obama. He has not been able to
:52:10. > :52:14.put in his reforms. He has ended up with a fudge. Is that inevitable?
:52:14. > :52:18.Is that something we need to be proud of? It depends on the issue.
:52:18. > :52:22.You do have to negotiate at times, but look at the Norwegian Prime
:52:22. > :52:26.Minister at a time of crisis. He says the only way to go through
:52:26. > :52:31.this is by having more democracy, improve democracy, that is how we
:52:31. > :52:35.act. That was really staring stuff. When you say democracy, does that
:52:35. > :52:38.the more politicians agreeing? Cameron has got a great opportunity
:52:38. > :52:44.with what has happened with the Brussels bailout to make some
:52:44. > :52:49.alterations to our relationship with Europe. We could have a no, no,
:52:49. > :52:53.no moment from Mr Cameron. About 70% of the country would support
:52:53. > :52:58.that, but it is not going to happen because he is scared witless of the
:52:58. > :53:04.liberal media, that level of Don and Coventry -- dominant commentary
:53:04. > :53:08.in the media. I do not think years. He is scared of you! Dr Victoria
:53:08. > :53:13.and Damon is a lecture in British politics who has studied this area.
:53:13. > :53:19.Some people say that Ed Miliband, in the last week, has shown of
:53:19. > :53:25.moral leadership, moral backbone. He has only achieved a very slight
:53:25. > :53:30.bump in his popularity rating. Does the British public really want
:53:30. > :53:34.politicians to look strong and moral? I think so. We would like
:53:35. > :53:39.our politicians to look strong and moral. However, Ben are other
:53:39. > :53:43.things we consider important in politicians. -- there. Morality
:53:43. > :53:46.varies from person to person, it depends on your political viewpoint
:53:46. > :53:49.sometimes, so the fact that Miliband's rating has only gone up
:53:49. > :53:54.fractionally should not suggest we are an immoral country, simply that
:53:54. > :53:58.some of us believe his morals are correct, some have different views.
:53:58. > :54:02.That is exactly true. We have a situation where half the commentary
:54:03. > :54:06.was so proud of Ed Miliband, for standing up, taking on Murdoch, but
:54:06. > :54:10.the other half are saying, this is just because he wants to win votes.
:54:10. > :54:16.It is very hard for a politician, when they make a move like this,
:54:16. > :54:20.not to seem false. That is very true. For my money, the one who
:54:20. > :54:24.seems most false is Nick Clegg. He has basically abandoned so many for
:54:24. > :54:28.the principles of his party. It is a coalition, that is what you have
:54:28. > :54:34.to do. The Tories have abandoned theirs. It does not mean he is not
:54:35. > :54:37.moral. Which one of his policies have got through? None of them.
:54:37. > :54:42.Rosie, on the one hand, you could say that he has committed a
:54:42. > :54:46.political sin by jettisoning something he was very proud of, but
:54:46. > :54:49.others might say that he may be necessary political compromise,
:54:49. > :54:52.showed political bravery by doing something very difficult. This is
:54:52. > :54:58.the trouble of politicians, isn't it? It can be interpreted either
:54:58. > :55:02.way. But once in power, he has proved a weak force, and he has not
:55:02. > :55:06.put forward the principles of his party. Is he a good example a bad
:55:06. > :55:10.example? The problem with Nick Clegg is he is a difficult moral
:55:10. > :55:13.example, because at the end of the day he went back on some of his
:55:13. > :55:17.manifesto pledges in the interest of their country. He has been
:55:17. > :55:23.steamrollered by the Tories. think he is learning that, but we
:55:23. > :55:27.have things like the pupil premium, and the Lib Dems have so little
:55:27. > :55:30.money to push out their message that sometimes it is the
:55:30. > :55:38.mechanisation that affect them, rather than the fact that he is not
:55:38. > :55:42.doing good. Rosie, do you have political heroes? Not really.
:55:42. > :55:46.quite difficult to have a political hero now, I think. If you look
:55:46. > :55:50.across the House of Commons, what you see, sadly, there of people,
:55:50. > :55:54.Dennis in on one side, a few characters on the other, but there
:55:54. > :55:58.is no volatile it -- polarisation in politics. If we are not proud of
:55:58. > :56:02.our politicians, we are teaching a generation of people that they
:56:02. > :56:07.should not go into it. mentioned Ed Miliband, and if the
:56:07. > :56:10.leader of the opposition cannot or with an open goal by saying, Andy
:56:10. > :56:15.Coulson, Andy Coulson, he banged on about it all week. And yet across
:56:15. > :56:22.the water, a huge issue with financials, the euro, the global
:56:22. > :56:26.economy, hardly a word spoken about it. A couple of tweets, I lost
:56:26. > :56:30.faith when the Liberals made such a big deal of pledging not to raise
:56:30. > :56:38.tuition fees. Matt and London, until the politicians fix things, I
:56:38. > :56:41.will not be proud of them. It is about status. We should not have to
:56:41. > :56:45.me -- to make an effort to be proud of them. They should make us proud.
:56:45. > :56:49.We will see whether they bring us cause for pride or shame over the
:56:49. > :56:53.next week. Meanwhile, the results of the vote has come in. We ask
:56:53. > :56:59.that the beginning of the programme, do we have the right to know a part
:56:59. > :57:05.of's violent past, and this is what you told us. 81% of those who
:57:05. > :57:10.texted in said that yes, we should have the right to know. 19% no, we
:57:10. > :57:14.should not. That rather flies in the face of your argument. I think
:57:14. > :57:19.the question... There is something about the way the question is
:57:19. > :57:24.raised, and that is always the way it works. Should you have the right
:57:24. > :57:27.to know somebody is violent? If you put it like that, yes. But the
:57:27. > :57:34.greater picture of what it says about society, the state, he was
:57:34. > :57:38.watching, who we check up on, more databases, more lists... Let's get
:57:38. > :57:40.back to individual responsibility. I know that there are tough
:57:41. > :57:44.scenarios that come out of that, but as he said at the beginning,
:57:44. > :57:49.but more is what we are talking about, that cannot ever make good
:57:49. > :57:53.law. Thank you for getting in touch with us this morning. Thank you to
:57:53. > :58:00.my guests who have taken part, Rosie Millard, Amber Elliott, Ian
:58:00. > :58:04.Collins and of course Donna Dawson. Please do not text or call the
:58:04. > :58:09.phone lines any more because they are closed. You can continue the