Episode 9 Sunday Morning Live

Criminals, terrorists, even rioters - they've all found a handy shield

from justice in the Human Rights Good morning, and welcome to Sunday

Morning Live. The Human Rights Act is meant to

protect the vulnerable from torture, oppression and injustice. But John

Bird from the Big Issue knows a thing or two about the vulnerable.

And he reckons we don't need it. For the 1998 European Human Rights

Act has greatly distorted justice in Britain and has got to go.

More women are unemployed today than at any time since Mrs Thatcher

was in charge. And it could well get worse. So, should women park

the struggle for equality, concentrate on being mums and let

men bring home the bacon? Jedward on Big Brother, seven

drunken dwarves in a house, the first wailing of the rounds of X

Factor. Yes, "reality" is back on the box again. National guilty

pleasure? Or national shame? We'll hear what Pineapple Dance Studios'

Andrew Stone has to say on that one. My guests this week have all had

brushes with the law. John Bird spent his early years in and out of

prison before founding the Big Issue. And he's fronted a reality

TV show. As a feminist writer, Julie

Bindel's battled for women's rights in the courts for decades and

reckons all women should try being Jon Gaunt's opinions may have

blistered your late night radio ears over the years. But he wasn't

slow to use the Human Rights Act when he lost his job. We'll hear if

he's still so keen on it. And we want to hear what you think.

Call in now to challenge our guests Call in now to challenge our guests

The Human Rights Act enshrines our right to education, free elections,

free speech, and a family life. Rights we'd all stand up for. But

John Bird says the act also protects criminals ahead of the

innocent, and should go. This is his Sunday stand. The 1998 European

in Human Rights Act has greatly distorted justice in Britain and

has got to go. Two weeks ago, the streets of Tottenham in north

London erupted when a peaceful demonstration turned into criminal

disorder. The police held back. Why? Largely because they were

frightened of being seen as heavy handed. Every kind of life

threatening that civil disorder cannot be placed with our

protectors tied down, worried about over exaggerated human rights

issues. Is it right to valued that human rights of a violent mugger

over a victim, or let a prisoner way of the human rights flag so

they don't have to go to court? No. The system is flawed. What person's

humans rides are maintained at the expense of another us? -- human-

rights. Justice is often their only for the rock under work, and not

for the wrong doing -- there or the victim, and not the wrongdoer. We

cannot allow this miscarriage of justice to continue for another day.

We need justice there, as much for the victims as the perpetrators.

Julie, is John right? Macro now. The reason we needed Human Rights

Act is that the individual is protected against the state when

the state misbehaves -- no. I can see why lots of people think this

is an act only used by criminals. It is not. David Cameron, his knee-

jerk reaction, that is because he is pandering to Daily Mail readers.

The reason that most of the general public think that the Human Rights

Act is a charter for rapists and murderers and all sorts of

criminals is because the Daily Mile and other tabloids -- Daily Mail

and other tabloids run stories that disproportionately reflect the way

it is used. Many people in prison need to use this Act. Whether or

not they have committed this crime, they have the right to do so.

see John wants to get back in the Ahmad and Jon Gaunt, but before

they do, that is the question for the text vote. Should we get rid of

We'll show how you voted at the end of the programme. Jon Gaunt, you

have used it. I am using it. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

The bottom line, that Human Rights Act does get bad press, as Julie

says, but it always gets mixed up with our involvement in the EU. We

need British courts and British justice. Most people in this

country want our sovereignty to come back to our country. If we

untangle it from the EU, because as you said, it seems to be linked in

some people's minds, but it is separate. Her it is Lydd, because

you can't be a member of the key year and not beside it to the

charter -- it is linked. What people want in this country is

British laws for British people. had the Act introduced by British

people. By Tony Blair, but we have not had a referendum. People do

feel remote, they fill our law is dictated from outside. Mr Cameron

is right, we do need a British Bill of Rights, alone Human Rights Act,

so we would have more control. We cannot do that while remaining in

the EU, so we should have a referendum on the EU and reframe

bid for this country. Our freedom of expression, I use Article 10

because I believe that my rights to free speech had been infringed and

I am still using get now. You have to use whatever law is available to

you. Do you not see the contradiction in opposing it and

using it? We live in a democracy and though she said, and an elected

government put us into this Human Rights Act to use this Human Rights

Act -- as you said. But look at it this way, I don't care what anybody

says, I was in the present system and over a period of time, they

lost the plot over the perpetrator -- the prison system. They have

lost the plot but the Rhondda up. So they tell everybody they are a

victim of psychological, sociological stuff, and they

absolutely turned a whole group of people into very astute people. My

nephew in law, he is a cop back out on the streets, when he stops kids

who have got drugs on them, money on them, they all know their human

rights. They all know that you can't do this and you can't do that.

I am going to make this point. I will tell you, it doesn't matter

what the law you have got, it is the spirit of the law. And the

interpretation of the human rights, over the last 10 years... You have

spoken enough. Let it duly come back in. What we need to remember

is it is a criminal offence for a copper to clip some Ulick -- young

hooligan around the ear. It is an offence for a teacher to hit a

pupil. So we already have enshrined in our domestic law. If the pupils

are coming out with human rights language, it is because they have

heard it on the TV or read it in the paper. It is no difference to

the law we already have. What is different to the human rights

legislation is that any individual can use it, what you are the

perpetrator of a crime or a victim. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta

Jones used it for those photographs taken against their will, the same

as you. But because it is in Europe, it seems to be too remote for us.

It did was alone Bill of Rights, we would be in control that. In this

country, too many people know their rights and not many people though

their responsibilities. We need to take control. I am walking along

the, I meet a guy who will never work again because he has been

marred by somebody. And when he goes to court, there is a guy that

will never and a crust, then in his early fifties, and when he goes to

court... And what really appals him is they cannot defend the human

rights are that the person who perpetrated this crime. Pilot light

to bring in a human rights lawyer, let's put that to somebody it deals

with this -- I would like to bring him. You have heard these stories,

prisoners who claim it is a breach of their rights to come to court, a

burglar let out early because it breached his right to family life

have not to spend time with his children. The argument being that

we prioritise the rights of the individuals, and it seems an

injustice to the rest of society. Well, let's not forget that these

are tabloid stories. A lot of these cases are not even brought to court.

I think it is a complete nonsense to suggest we should scrap the

Human Rights Act. It would be to this country's shame if we lost

this clear and basic statement of our citizens's humans right --

human-rights on the broad understanding of its relevance to

our society. And senior judges in this country and even the Director

of Public Prosecutions agreed that the Human Rights Act had been a

very good thing for this country and it seems to be that it is only

some Conservative politicians that one does rapid. In the real world,

the place where politicians often find hard to locate, it is not hard

to find the real code and responsibility. The other

responsibility is to obey the law. Every law in the statute is about

our responsibilities. We have so many laws... I don't think we

need... Adam [email protected] That Adam is from the human rights

block. Be blase it should be replaced by something more British.

-- people are saying it should be replaced. Saying it is not British

is ignoring the history of it. The history of the Human Rights Act, is

that the convention was drafted most are by British lawyers, mainly

by a British Conservative lawyer, and it was implemented by our

Parliament. It is also based fundamentally on rights that go

back to around Bill of Rights in 1689. So really, to say it is anti-

British is taking a "we don't like Europe" line. Absolute rubbish.

What I'm saying is that if you want to get it more acceptable to the

British public, if it was a British act and all of the judgments were

by British judges, it would be fine. What gets up people's noses that

when the Human Rights Act is being there is -- used so prisoners can

get boats. The overwhelming people of this country did not want that

to happen -- get the vote. rights of prisoners to have a vote

has been a voted on in the European Parliament. According to the Human

Rights Act -- Human Rights Act, it has to be allowed. Can you see the

tension? There is a tension, which is the point of the Human Rights

Act. The point is that everybody has rights and they are meant to be

enforced in a non-political, none emotional way. Prisoners are a good

example of people that, because politicians don't have to rely on

their boats, they don't have to enforce them. -- on their boating.

Women didn't have the right to vote along time ago. Wouldn't you have

had -- like to have had the right to vote when you were in prison?

think that when you don't have a former prisoners, it is against

human rights. We have a responsibility to reform. I don't

care about judges, I don't care about these people, I don't care

about the middle classes are talking to the under class, where

most of the crime takes place this, and tell them what is good for them

or not. What we want to do is the reform of people who get involved

in crime and you can't do that when you are straddled by all of these

human rights. As I said in my film, if that human rights was as good

for the victim as it is for the perpetrator, and I don't read the

tabloids cut that I am not a right- wing conservative... Julie is

talking about the victims. What I would like to say no to any lawyers,

any human rights lawyers watching this programme, start being braver

and start using this act for the victims of crime. Particularly

women and children. They really can apply the law in an appropriate way,

and all we hear about, because actually the act has been used

disproportionately for those accused of crimes, but anyone can

be falsely accused and end up in prison, end up in a police cell,

end up dying in a police cell, which is what is so important about

this law. So a lawyer's, start using it bravely for the victims of

You said you don't care about the criminals and the lawyers.

saying I don't care about the judges. Let's talk to somebody who

might care, Debbie. She has multiple sclerosis. You wanted to

know if your husband would be prosecuted if you chose to commit

suicide at some stage and he helped you. How did you use the Human

Rights Act? We went to court... I have a right to understand the law

and my right to understand what would happen to the people I love

if I committed suicide. The thing is, the human rights law can be

misused, it can be abused, it can be very one-sided Lee used, but

without it we would be much -- a much poorer nation. I would not be

alive today, and I love my life, if the human rights legislation, which

our politicians are too scared of the electorate to deal with, if

they had not said that I had a right to know what would happen in

certain situations. We have to be very careful about not throwing the

baby up with the bathwater. Why do you say you would not be alive

today without it? I was in the middle... I did not believe we

would necessarily win at court and I was losing the ability to control

my hands myself. My MS was developing. That meant I would lose

the ability to commit suicide myself and therefore have to ask

somebody to help me. That meant they would face the possibility of

prosecution. I needed to know what the situation was. I was halfway

through arranging to go to Switzerland because I didn't know

whether or not my husband would be prosecuted. Thank you so much.

didn't get much of that argument. Can I return to what I think...

Under the Human Rights Act, she managed to achieve clarity because

of her right to a private and family life and it was agreed that

she needed to have that clarity about what would happen if

eventually her husband went with her to commit suicide. I would

never dispute this Human Rights Act has a good side and a bad side.

What I would dispute is the fact that if you talk to people in the

street, and not all of them a tabloid readers, and I never read

anything like that, there is a loss of a sense of justice because most

crime is poor on poor. You have got poor on-board... That is not true.

That is true. Sexual crime, domestic violence, child abuse,

corporate crime. Can I finished the point? It is poor on poor crime.

The perpetrator gets away with that and the victim gets left behind. I

can give you countless examples over the past 10 years. I have met

people who have suffered because of the way in which the courts have

emphasise the human rights of the perpetrator and not the victim.

Rebalancing. It is about getting justice. I have met countless

people who have been badly served by the courts, badly served by the

police, the CPS, the judiciary. That has nothing to do with the

Human Rights Act. It is to do with a legal system not been perfect and

that is why I am a feminist law campaigner. You have to reform the

law, you have to push its boundaries to make it better. I

agree that many victims of crime have been badly served, but many

victims have been well served. human rights lawyer wanted to

depict it as if it was tabloid newspapers and a few right wingers

who want this, but actually when it comes to prisoners votes, the

overwhelming majority in this country do not want prisoners to

have votes. But because we are part of the Human Rights Act and the EU,

they can impose VAT on us. That can't be right and that is widely

want a referendum on the UK and then Mr Cameron can have his own

Bill of Rights. We can have our own Human Rights Act and it can look at

our particular circumstances. we are never going to get a Bill of

Rights. As you pointed out earlier, we would have to withdraw from the

EU. Why can't we do that? Which of the rights in the Human Rights Act

would do not like? The right to liberty? The right to a fair trial?

You have missed my point. That is about how courts interpret it.

Isn't this just about interpreting it? Most people would agree with

most points. It goes back to the Magna Carter, the idea of the

judiciary and a jury and freedom of expression. Where people get angry

is the fact that when our Parliament decide on some things,

like prisoner votes, we can be overruled by the European Court.

That is what we need to redress. will put that to the text Pole.

am not against stopping torture! De deux it is a misinterpretation. A

Sue says when we did get a slap from a teacher at school, we did

not misbehave again. Absolutely. Don't we need that again? Somebody

who described themselves as a beaten wife has got in touch. The

police have failed to deliver me from intimidation, quoting my

husband's human rights. That is what I hear all the time.

criminal element know their human rights but forget... If you are a

good citizen, you don't require any assistance to escape prosecution or

deportation. A but many police officers don't actually understand

the law. They don't know whether it is domestic law or human rights law.

With all due respect to the police, if you send out a junior copper to

of domestic violence incident and some don't take it seriously, they

might use that human rights language. They mean it is the

domestic law of this country which means there are certain

circumstances where they can't arrest and prosecute. Lawyers tend

to go for these cases like that idiot trying to get prisoners votes.

That man who went down for manslaughter, that is the chap who

now wants votes for prisoners. the lawyer trying to get Peter

Sutcliffe out of prison, I absolutely agree, but that is not a

fault of the human rights law, it is a fault in the application of it.

How the spirit of the law. We could clearly devote a whole programme to

discuss in this, but we have other things to discuss. The rights of

our Parliament must, but Europe each and every time. Do you agree

that we should get rid of the Human You have around 20 minutes before

And something tells me this will be a lively programme!

The ultimate, have-it-all female dream - a high-powered job in the

boardroom and a nanny at home looking after the kids. But few

women make it to the top and childcare costs are going through

the roof. Should women re-think competing with men for scarce jobs

and go back to being housewives? In a moment, Andrew Stone is joining

us from Pineapple Dance Studios, who thinks this is a ridiculous

Unemployment rates are increasing and the number of unemployed women

is now at its highest since the Thatcher years. In tight financial

times it appears employers prefer to employ men. Is this just another

battle on the road to equality or time to reassess what is most

important? Work or parenting? Some studies show that children do

better emotionally and educationally if one parent stays

at home. Childcare costs are rising rapidly and in an average family,

one partner's wage goes on nursery costs. Would it make more sense for

women to stay at home instead and look after the children? Polls have

shown that more than 50% of people would prefer not to work if they

have kids. And if women were to leave the workplace, there would be

more place -- jobs for men who could support their families. But

why should it be women who give up their careers? In this week's A-

level results, girls again outperformed boys. Shouldn't

society want the best and brightest to be in work? And women have been

fighting for equal treatment at work for decades, why should they

give up now just because of the recession? So should women take a

back seat in difficult economic times or is this just a bad excuse

for good old-fashioned sexism? You can make your point on the

webcam or join the conversation on Twitter. It might be tempting for

me to be at home with the Georgian this morning, but do you think that

is where I should be? Yes, he is cooking the Sunday roast. Their

father! A I'm pulling your leg. I believe we had a better society

when women stayed at home and looked after the children. It could

be a man. But one parent should be at home and I say it should be the

woman because the woman is the nurturer. Julie? When you told me

about this topic, I thought you were having a laugh. I thought I

had woken up in a TARDIS and found myself back in the 1950s. Would we

sit here and have a conversation about apartheid in South Africa and

say, well, all these black people who we are used to looking after

our children and cleaning our houses, driving buses, cleaning

latrines, really they should not be given proper jobs because they are

there to serve us and we had a better service -- society under

apartheid? We would not be having this discussion. It might have been

better for men... Families. Better for families. A what about all of

those women who have no children, who have -- who don't live with a

man. We should make sure those women are encouraged to go out to

work. You have Cameron saying lazy, single, scrounging mothers who get

blamed for everything because they stay at home. What is different

from some Doris Day figure baking cookies? I can't invite Andrew

Stone into the studio but not ask him to contribute. What is your

upbringing? My mum was a foster parent. She worked very hard to

take me to dance classes. Spain did she stay at home with you? She did.

I'm a great believer in equilibrium. If you play the numbers games, if

you took all the men up the weight place, it would be just women. They

add a great emotional environment into the workplace. I think women

can do a job just as strong as men. Of course they can. I won't

subscribe to this Doris Day thing. The tax breaks in this country, and

the whole tax system, has been steered up to getting women back

into the workplace. I think that is bad for society. Then I should be

tax breaks so she can stay at home. I do not believe women should be

treated as second-class citizens when they do the most important job,

which his mother had. Her that this old chestnut! It is a fair point.

Parenting is parenting. Exactly. you are breast-feeding or bottle-

feeding, it is an issue about your physical presence. You talked about

apartheid and having black people looking after children, all that

happens now is that in professional middle-class women's case,

Europeans look after their children. People like us Susannah perhaps

should be at home. Single mothers get blamed for everything, a lot of

women choose not to live in the regular family unit who don't have

children. What are you going to say? Should you say there are not

enough jobs to go around? There is no way this will ever go backwards.

Shall we talk about the good society by going back 50 years? Can

you imagine how it looks to children to have Daddy coming in

with his briefcase, providing the money, and money mopping up the

sickle des? For such a we asked Michel? So it wasn't better when we

Do Michelle Dixon is a stay at home mum. Are you a throwback to the

1950s. Not at all! I am empowered because I have a choice in what I

do. Both I chose to stay at home when we decided to have a family.

We decided to have a mortgage we could afford on one wage so it gave

Her is there that pressure on women to go back to work? There is

pressure, but some women want to go back to work, and that is the

important thing, that we all have a choice where possible to lie that

be at home or to go at work if that is what you prefer to do. Stephen

is off of the Women Racket, should women have the choice -- author.

course. Within less -- tend to be less attached to the labour market,

so they lose their jobs in a recession. There are two

fundamental reasons for that, Women's preferences, our overall,

about 10-15% of women prefer to work full-time and continuously

like men. Over a quarter of them are a careerist -- only. By step

them what to worker job, but only part time -- most of them. And

there are fundamental differences between the sexes in motivation. A

man without a job basically has no life, effectively. Women choose men

with status. Been aware well, obviously that means a job and

money. -- been aware world. There is some shaking off their head in

the studio. -- shaking up the head. Men should be more encouraged to

show their emotions and be part of the family. It should be a

compromise between basically what you want individually and not being

one way all the way. I think one of the reasons that so few women go

back to work... It is utter nonsense to suggest that women

would suggest to be at home if they can't afford it, for one thing.

Everything is made difficult in terms of returning to the workplace

for women. We have no state childcare to talk of. That is why

we are talking about for middle- class women, nannies from Eastern

Europe. No working-class women I know can afford it. All of the

working class women I know cannot afford not to go back to work. It

is a ridiculous idea that we are even asking the question, should

women have the right to choose? We are not infants, we are not living

under apartheid, this is an equal and open society. I asked you not

to cast aspersions over their a professional life of people not

here to defend themselves, but isn't there a valid life --. Making

-- isn't there valid point that a lot of women would simply choose to

be at home but feel they have the work, either under societal

pressure or economic pressure? is ridiculous to suggest that one

person can present the group of statistics that speaks for all

women in the entire labour market. That is what... We have actually

moved on about talking about whether women should. We have made

it almost impossible for the majority of women, but they sure

are talking about very privileged women, to go back to work and rely

on their partner to do their heart of the childcare. The problem here

as well is that we have also devalued motherhood, and we have

got a situation... My wife is a very clever woman, she has got a

first, she has an AMA, she is going back to teaching it, we were lucky

that with the economic wherewithal, we made a decision and it wasn't

the chaining her to a kitchen sink. -- wasn't me. The bottom line is

that we have devalued motherhood in our society. We should create tax

breaks to hand back the idea of a proper family, which I am afraid,

is a man and a woman married, bringing up their children. In your

world, but not for many people. was a better world when people

thought like that and did the old fashioned thing there, got married

before they had children. Remember that old-fashioned thing? The idea

of bringing up your family and giving them as security. But speak

to Judith... You don't want to have children. Let's get some more

expert testimony. Judith, you have been employed full-time and raised

your children at the same time. Do the kids lose out? Not at all. And

in my children, I really feel they have benefited from the fact that I

have always been a working mother. It is true that I was lucky to be

able to combine motherhood with a full-time career, at that had left

the Army. -- After. I became a head mistress. My children and I have

fantastic discussions, debates, and arguments. I am not to stay at home

mum, they have often had to do their own washing and they don't

have people rushing around after them. It encourages independence

from the children... A what does? Judit, when she went out to work. -

- Judit. Were they at boarding school or were they in a day

school? It was a boarding school. End of argument. That is how you

get the balance, you send them to boarding school. Let her finish

have point. This is somebody who put her children in boarding school

and she is trying to tell me she was their mother at home with them.

Let me speak, they didn't go to boarding school until they were 13,

and that was bought their benefit. I thought they would get... At --

that was four. When they were very small, I was there and I was never

not in full-time employment. I have to interrupt, not because of want

to stop you making a point, but it is a shame that the sound quality

is so poor. They didn't go to boarding school until they were 13.

Nobody is suggesting these children were at home on their own. What I'm

trying to say that if we valued motherhood and got back to a

situation where there were tax breaks, and they father could go

out and work or whether they are stay at home that, at what I'm

saying is, as a society, it was better when we had back. I don't

recall that riots happening... want to watch at -- ask Andrew. You

work with a lot of women. By have been around women all my life -- I

have. It all of those working mothers were taken out of the work

force, what kind of place would it be like -- if? Boring. Nobody is

saying that. Like his couple when you have different things going on.

-- life is colourful. How many children have you got, Andrew?

There by choice. I am just asking the question. You haven't got a

family. These are very small group of extremely privileged women who

can afford to be at home. And in fact, often, I would rather not go

up to work and take my dog out for a walk. Play with the cats. Is that

all women do when they are at home, that is the meaning of! Because

motherhood is so difficult if they do not have as much support from at

the far that or they partner, they obviously want to stay at home

because they are exhausted -- from the father. And it is difficult for

them to get back into the workplace. Many women don't get so fissured

maternity leave, and I am sorry that you don't have a working class

woman on who tells her story about why she cannot go back to work.

Coming up on Sunday morning Live, the riots are making us take a long

hard look at our children, our parenting and our police. Should

they also make us look at hour watching habits? Has reality TV

damaged our morals? You can make your views known by phone, by e-

your views known by phone, by e- mail or online. And keep the voting

in the text poll. Should we get rid in the text poll. Should we get rid

There is around five minutes before the poll closes.

It is time to chew over some of the key moral moments of the week. It

is the second anniversary of the freeing up the Lockerley it --

Lockerbie bombing Abdelbaset al Megrahi, and apparently he is still

alive because of the British drug that is not available to patients

in the UK. To some people, it is irony upon irony in this case.

issue for me, and the only issue, is that this illustrates how a rich

people can get their hands on medicine at often poorer people

cannot command that is something we really need to look at -- that. If

there are medicines that can keep people alive, relieve pain and

reduce discomfort, we should all have access to it. That worries me

about the failing NHS system. That to me is the only issue. Everybody

has a right to medical treatment. He should never have been released,

this man murdered those people, let's make no mistake about that.

He was affected be released by Gordon Brown and sent back to Libya,

where I understand he wants political asylum in Scotland

because he thinks he will be safer. I agree but it is that the issue.

The bottom line is that the man should not have been released and

it is an insult he is getting this treatment. Not that I want him to

die in abject pain, but the simple bottom line is that Gordon Brown,

it was a filthy, squalid deal put together by the Scottish Parliament

and Gordon Brown with Gaddafi. The whole thing is sick beyond belief.

Jon, you were talking earlier about going back to the good old days.

Here is a couple who have renewed their wedding vows and it warned

your heart. 60 years on, and they had a photograph where they had all

of their original bridesmaids with them. It was a lovely story, it was

a couple who got married 60 years ago and they got together with the

bridesmaid and did their copycat photograph. It was in one of the

newspapers in the week and they put them all in the same position. It

was nice, in our fragmented society and we have been talking about the

break-up of families, to see a relationship that has stood the

test of time. 60 years there seems like such a challenge. Especially

these days, when everybody seems to be splitting up. It is so nice to

have a news story that is so positive and I wish there were few

more of those. There is so much good out there and we love to see a

bit of drama in the papers, we are a nation who loves gossip, but it

is nice to see a bit of a lot going on. Good news doesn't sell, though.

You would know! I did say it was a nice story but I don't want the

papers for lathered. We have paid as full of criticisms of they

politicians -- papers. Anna Hazare acid been on hunger strike in the

protest at the corruption of the Indian government -- has been on

hunger strike. He has been compared to Gandhi in some ways, become a

bit of a national symbol. He is standing up for something he

believes in, would you like it or not, the human essence of that is

amazing. A conviction campaigner. We need heroes. We need to be

inspired by those who are tenacious. I don't go big on martyrdom,

although people have died for very noble cause this, and I hope he

stays safe -- causes. He is a conviction politician whereas we

have politicians fall of convictions after the expenses

scandal! Bashful of. I would like to go back to having people like

this on the left and the right in this country who actually believe

in what they are doing, whereas I believe we have the kind of

politics there which is not a bad believe, it is about power.

what the newspaper editors say. Indian newspapers are not so

optimistic. One of them says that business as usual is right around

the corner. You have been voting in the text poll this morning. We have

been asking if we should get rid of the Human Rights Act. Do not text

again because the poll is now closing, we will bring you the

result at the end of the programme. Some people have blamed the

troubles of the past few weeks on our obsession with a vacuous

celebrity culture, and there are plenty of reality shows feeding

back fix, from The Only Way Is Essex to Celebrity Big Brother and

the X-factor -- X Factor. Light entertainment or heavy damage to

the moral health of the country? John Bird, who has fronted a

reality TV show himself, will be back to debate that in a moment.

After this, which contains flash photography.

Millions of us watch reality TV and share the joy as people's hopes and

dreams come true. But we also watched with morbid fascination as

people are humiliated. Or you go on about his you, you, you. -- all.

Those reality TV damaged our moral compass and help us revel in other

people's stupidity and misery? won't talk about the morality, but

I find it compulsive. We are now used to people becoming famous

simply because they are run reality TV. Does this warp our notions of

success, deterring young people from chasing proper careers? Or can

light entertainment also bring Reality stars like Jade Goody can

win our sympathy and highlight important causes. After her death,

many more women remember to go for their smear tests. And the conflict

Jade and shopper shirty had on big brother raised important questions

about racism. When TV first became part of our lives, families

gathered round it to hear news of war or the moon landings. Today

reality TV also draws families and the nation together around the TV

set. Invaluable common ground when our communities and families are so

fragmented. Does reality TV make us last after fame and money that we

can never possess or does it just provide a little bit of

entertainment and light amidst the current gloom?

John Bird is back. You can join in by webcam or by phone, e-mail or

online. His reality TV a good thing? You fronted a reality TV

show. I watched one version of by the celebrity get me out of here. I

became absolutely obsessed with it. I made sure I was at home and that

sort of thing. At the end of it, I felt quite soiled because I thought,

God, if this can con me and can take over my life, what will it do

for other people who may not have the full life I lead, rushing here

and there? It seemed to me as though at the end of it, it was a

bit like a terrible form of drugs supplied by the TV companies.

do you think that about a reality TV show? People planned their lives

around Downton Abbey. That is true. They can't have much of a life! For

not speaking personally. People like looking through other people's

windows, people like to know. We are incredibly nosy as a species.

The very idea that we can see these people with their knickers down,

metaphorically speaking, Carol Thatcher having a pony or whatever

she was doing, we love it. I think it becomes obsessive. What I hate

is that I want those people to get off their backsides and go out and

change society. In a sense, it takes energy from people, it takes

skills and abilities that could be used in society. That is a

particular issue from reality TV and not just people sitting and

watching hours of TV? I am only talking about really take --

reality TV because I became an addict to a series. Your programmes

are like drugs? If you are weak to that kind of thing, you can get

sucked in. A That's me! Sorry! Pineapple Dance Studios, people

can't stop watching because they can't wait to see the next thing

that will happen. Technically, that wasn't a reality show, but there

was a slight reality to it. wasn't my reality. Perhaps that is

part of the fascination, it is an insight into a reality none of us

could otherwise experience. It is full of surprises, you don't know

what will happen next. It is not scripted. All of those things make

it very, very addictive. But it is not hurting anyone, it is

entertainment. Pump -- some people come out as stars and some don't.

It is not hurting anyone? The only worry is that it means that kids

up... I was talking Andrew and he was telling me he worked with Tina

Turner. People in -- people like Tina Turner had to work in the

club's four years and years to get where they have got to. A lot of

kids think they can go on the X Factor and suddenly become a star.

I do worry that it makes younger people think everything can be

there without working hard. Shall we ask somebody who has been on X

Factor? And the Abraham, former X- Factor contestant. -- Andy Abraham.

You worked hard for a long time before you appeared on X Factor,

but does it give the impression there is instant gratification to

be had? Yes, there isn't an instant fame element to it. Especially when

you win the show and you sell a million singles, it is impossible

to keep that success going, do you Know What I Mean? The reality is

after the show has finished, you have to keep that momentum going

somehow. Do you think it can have an effect on those people who get

promoted by the reality TV shows, it can have a negative effect on

them? Of course it can. Thi I know of some contestants that have been

traumatised by the whole episode. As much as I believe X-Factor is a

good thing, especially for mature singers like myself, because the

industry, the music industry is very ageist. Someone like myself,

who was 40, it did me the world of good. People got to see my family

and how I grew up and my story. That is interesting. People were

fascinated by Andy's story. He would not have got that sort of

promotion anywhere else. People learned a lot. This is one of the

most annoying things about everything. Everything has a good

side, but it also has a bad side. We have to work Celt, is there more

of a bad side than a good side? -- work out. If you compare a lot of

reality shows to things like Strictly Come Dancing, Strictly

Come Dancing has led to, according to a mate of mine running a dance

studio, a lot of people getting out and dancing. If this leads to

people training their voices or learning other things, without

getting delusional... Can I say something? I used to think things

like X-Factor did not do that. My mate runs a free and easy on a

Monday night and there is a whole crop of new kids coming up who are

playing guitars and singing, solar acts, a lot of women as well. --

solo acts. You have used this as an opportunity to promote a bar!

kids are incredibly talented. Where have they come from? Maybe it is

doing something. I'm sure that is mirrored all over the country.

There is some good in it. If you're a sportsman, I used to box, and if

you are in the gym all the time, boxing and boxing and boxing, you

would not be causing grief on the streets, you would not be rubbing

JD Sports. There is always an element to it. But the obsessional

way people go one about the X Factor or the jungle. Ice a, get a

life. -- I say, get a life. Anna is editor of Star magazine. Isn't

abuse entertainment, humiliation, degradation as entertainment, the

magazines and media are profiting from that. Hello? I disagree with

that entirely. It is purely entertainment, people don't have to

buy these magazines, they don't have to watch these shows. There is

a choice. People should have a right to that choice. John said

sometimes there is something addictive about these shows. The

media rely on that because they want them to keep watching so they

continually put things into the story lines which keep people

hooked. Exactly. I accept these shows can be quite addictive. But

it is purely entertainment and who are we to say what people should

and should not watch? The danger is the editing. Especially with X

Factor. They cast people and then there is a sob story and then Simon

Cowell will beat them up. We see that a lot in other stars were you

might go into the jungle thinking you are one thing, and the way they

portray you, and Big Brother, that can be dangerous. Magazines fuel

VAT. There is a danger. If it is a celebrity, who cares? You have to

know what you're going into. If anybody does audition for those

programmes, understand what you're going into. They can find a way of

editing you because they want to put bums on seats. They did that to

meet in my programme. We put some people on the streets. At the end

of it I looked like an outraged, aggressive rather than a sweet,

kind, nice person. It was so strange that they did take the

grief parts and did not put the conciliatory part. Her Marjory is

chief executive of the mental health charity. You have compared

these programmes to Victorian freak shows, of a damaging? Yes, I do

think they are damaging. Not only for the people who take part, but

to the crowd who go a long, as they did in Victorian times, to laugh at

the freaks. It Blunts and corrupt things and it also reminds me of

those experiments we used to do as psychology students in the 60s and

70s were you deprived people of sleep and sensory stimulation, you

put them into a cage rather than a house, and see how much stress they

can endure. At least in those experiments, although they are not

forgivable, you tried to get information. Here, your soul end

his financial greed and ratings. I got lost half way through that.

It is like putting people in cages and see how they react. That is

basically saying they are not intelligent enough to know what

they're getting involved in. You have to know what you're getting

involved in. We are not Rats, we are humans. Lisa is a former Big

Brother contestant, did you know what you were getting involved in?

I don't think I did. Maybe I was a bit vulnerable. However, it was

supposed to be a row yet -- reality TV programme. I was told not to

have an agent, and why we don't need an agent, because I thought it

was about having fun and a psychological experience. What was

the effect on you afterwards? was brutal. I got told I was

Britain's most hated women, I had every part of my body torn apart.

It litany having plastic surgery. I got the gender question from a

silly throwaway comment. We have a couple of e-mails on this. Reality

TV is escapism in a world of woe, nothing more, nothing less. Alex

says, there is nothing real about reality TV, most are scripted and

shows like the X Factor manipulate viewers into voting a certain way.

Soaps are violent with characters that shout and hit an scheme

against each other. We have a reality to get to

ourselves, the result of the text poll. Should we get rid of the

Human Rights Act? This is what you 89% said no. We should keep it.

Well... That is up to them. As I said, I don't come from this from

right wing angle. I'd just come at it as a person who was commissioned

to work with the poor. I worked with the pork and I see the poor

suffering because they don't get justice. -- a poor. I don't care

about judges, I don't think judges know a lot about justice. It is

about the spirit of the law. I do apologise. This is an embarrassment.

Unfortunately because of a technical hitch, it will undermine

what you just said, the poll result was the wrong way round. 89% of

those who voted said yes, we should get rid of the Human Rights Act.