Episode 1 Sunday Morning Live

The Government wants to make forced marriage a crime but will

vulnerable girls report their own parents to police? His fear of

being labelled racist stopped us Good morning and welcome to a new

series of Sunday Morning Live. Up to 8000 women from the UK are

forced into marriage every year. The Government wants to make it a

criminal offence but will that make the problem worse? Ukrainian fans

are accused of racist chanting. And accuse the government of human

rights abuses. Is that a good enough reason to boycott Euro 2012

or is it punishing players and fans? The rich are getting richer

and the poor are getting poorer and the government is dominated by men

in her school boys. Are they being demonised because they're posh?

Made in Chelsea * France's Ole does not think so. What is important in

my opinion is how someone uses the power., guests are known for

standing their ground. Owen Jones is the author of How we demonise

the working classes. He describes himself as a former trade union

flunkey. As a personality and behaviour psychologist, Donna

Dawson gives advice that people don't always want to hear. And be

one of Britain's leading experts unforced marriage and his going to

be shortlisted as a torch-bearer. What do you think? Challenge our

guests on Skype, Twitter or over Texts will be charged at the

standard rate. It is the most intimate betrayal. Girls as young

as five forced to marry against their will, kidnapped, beaten and

raped if they protest and by their own families. Mostly from Pakistan

and South Asia. Why has it taken so long to criminalise forced

marriage? Last year there were almost 5000 reports of forced

marriages involving UK citizens, around one-third were under 18 but

many cases go unreported so the true figure is likely to be far

higher. I was 14 when I came home from school and when mother

presented me with a photograph of the man I was promised to win I was

eight years old. I said no, my family took it out of school when I

was 15 and a half an hour was literally held a prisoner in my own

home. At the moment, forced marriage itself isn't a crime.

Victims can only seek a civil injunction to protect themselves

but parents can be jailed for associated crimes like kidnap and

violence. David Cameron now says it's time to change the law.

should be a crime and for too long in this country we have thought,

well, it is a cultural practice and we have to run with it. We do not.

It is a crime. Campaigners hope the new law will help police, schools

and social services confront families about forced marriage

without the fear of being called racist and they say the victim

could use a lot as a bargaining chip with their family. Critics say

that poor families will take their children abroad to be married in

secret, for fear of being prosecuted for what they see as a

cultural tradition. Some people view this as a cultural problem.

They don't want to marrying outside of their family. I don't want to

get married! Some say the new law will make things worse. Could

victims' be less likely to seek help if they think their own

parents can be imprisoned? The Government says it is about time

that we set our ground. I strongly opposed specific stand-alone

legislation with forced marriage because forced marriage can be

prosecuted under existing legislation and this is supported

by leading barristers, including Lord Lester. And the end violence

against women coalition. Should we make forced marriage a crime?

We would show the results at the end of the programme. The thing

that the Government says is we have had all these years to deal with

the existing law and we need to just make it a crime? It is

recognised as a crime, particularly in terms of the human rights

violation. I do not a pose that but argument and the argument of other

organisations, over 114 of them, is that it can be prosecuted under

existing legislation, the Civil Protection Act in 2008 is effective

and recognised. Is it not that you think it will make things worse?

All of these laws but it is going on, 8000 women each year. I dispute

those figures, that is another debate. For that make this worse?

It would deter victims from coming forward. Donna, will it make people

afraid to come forward? At the moment they have to take it to a

civil court. What young Asian girl can do that? The thing is, it is a

crime against human-rights and with miners it is abuse, child abuse. We

have to send a strong message that this will not be tolerated and the

point is that, I am sorry, but groups themselves, the Iranian and

Kurdish women's rights organisation and there was a study in Cambridge

that's it they want tougher legislation, they want to be able

to use this against their parents if they have to to say, this is a

bargaining chip and you cannot do this. But we have to give a message

to the community. The goal of this is to be as a deterrent? What has

not been recognised is the need for indications of prosecution because

the standard of proof in relation to criminal proceedings... Is it

not supposed to put people off carrying out forced marriages? Then

you don't have to worry? There is legislation already in place.

is piecemeal. It isn't. They have to prove there was kidnapping. What

it does not recognise is the course of behaviour. If a girl, 17 years

old, under pressure, you need to do this, we will be ostracised, she

pretends to fall ill and the girl eventually gives them and after

weeks of emotional and psychological pressure. That forced

marriage isn't considered illegal at the moment. There are existing

laws. Rip, GBH, false imprisonment, people should be prosecuted. The

danger is, I initially thought this was a straightforward case of a

separate criminal offence but having spoken to grassroots

activists, including a fantastic organisation that works of victims,

there is a real fear that this will deter young women and particularly

children from coming forward. There is a massive problem. Up to 8000

forced marriages taking place each year. About 1500 each year are

referred to the forced marriage unit. At one that work that works

with people, looking after people who have escaped from forced

marriages, they ask those women it they would come forward if it was a

separate criminal offence and overwhelmingly they said they would

not. At the moment we have forced marriage protection orders that

have been working quite well with only five violations. We should

criminalise the violations of those orders. They should also include

course of behaviour. The Lord isn't recognised psychological caution.

Talk to the victims themselves. the moment, this is the other point,

only �500 million has been -- five- under �1,000 has been allotted.

That isn't sufficient. It cost over �100,000 to put this legislation

and players and it has not been given due regard. The issue around

protection has been neglected and the Government has not listened to

the 136 organisations... experienced a forced marriage

yourself when you are very young. What is your view on the idea of

this Government criminalising forced marriages? First and

foremost, Alan Knott name-drop organisations, I will speak as a

survivor and on behalf of the many hundreds of victims who are helped

every single one. Many fully support this, including the general

public. We went on the streets across England, asked people for

their views and 2500 people cannot be wrong. 98% believe it should be

criminalised and the reason is the Prime Minister is right to send out

a signal that such appalling acts of exportation are unacceptable in

the 21st century Britain. If this country believes that forced

marriage is an illegal practice, they will be prepared to deal with

it. Would we have helped you when you're 15? With respect to the

legal framework, what is very evident is that very few of the

legal mechanisms available are being used to take cases to court.

This isn't about the number of prosecutions, I believe in the

symbolic value. For those girls who for the summer holidays, there will

be hundreds taken at a school and put into forced marriage and they

need to know this is a crime and overnight we're giving them the

message that this is against the law in this country and I have

spoken at schools across the country. Young people do not view

this as a crime. I want to bring in another person who survived forced

marriage. This happened to you. What is your view? Well, the law

would not have helped me when I escaped. Can I just say, it was a

lot that got it right in the first place. The wire with this lot not

protect you? I was taken at a school at the age of 13. The school

did not ask any questions. I was taken abroad and forced into a

marriage. I was brought back to this country pregnant. The GP, a

hospital, social services did not ask any questions when I was giving

birth to my baby at the age of 14. When I escaped and came to

Manchester, the lough got it right. So, I do not know why the

Government has put new legislation in place to tackle the issue of

forced marriage. Existing legislation is already working.

What needs to happen is that... People need to take this on board,

like schools, doctors and hospitals, and then need to start tackling

this as a preventative measure. Not when it happens. This is exactly

what the law will do, put money into educating? This is a quick fix,

�500,000. At the other end of the argument is that people and

violence against women in the UK. At one end we will do with this and

at the other end, bulldozing those services that are lifelines for

victims and survivors. In the case of victims who are coursed into

marriage against their will, will they go? When those criminal

proceedings kick in? Into housing and things like that? Where is the

money? Women's refuges across the country are facing serious cutbacks.

Legal aid faces massive cutbacks so women will not be able to take

civic address on these people. We need a national campaign to educate.

Proper resources to educate. Teachers and all those people who

work in the community to identify early signs. As I understand it,

even when the law is passed, victims of forced marriage will

still have a choice whether to go the civil writ or the criminal

route and if they take criminal proceedings, they can change their

mind so the options are just being widened. The thing is, the

communities themselves which these women feel they are being

ostracised from, they need to be changed from the inside out. What

David Cameron said is, why is it taking so long? Are we being afraid

of being called racist? Yes! Multiculturalism, letting cultures

function independently within society. You don't importer own

laws. You are a UK citizen! This isn't a problem endemic in entire

communities, most of nothing to do with forced marriage whatsoever.

And if you end up stigmatising people, it can be counter-

One session was set up with Irish traveller families, it was

cancelled precisely because of that awful programme on Channel 4,

because they thought it would help if you're the stigmatisation of the

communities. I think they should be it is illegal, human rights abuse,

they should be stigmatised! Forced marriages happen in all communities,

it just doesn't happen in the South Asian community. Light with

Rochdale, nobody wanted to talk about it. That is just saying the

fact. One of the things the government is considering doing is

if parents try take the girls abroad, they have to register their

intent with the local registrar, so if there is a marriage, we know

about it before it happens. But the government has also said they are

going to put more money into protecting victims long term.

do you say on this issue about whether there was too much

political correctness? We had a poster saying forced marriage is

abuse cannot cultural. The reason being that these professionals,

teachers, police officers up and down the country, we speak to

thousands of people every year, tell us there is a real fear that

when they look at this, they feel they have to tiptoe around it and

deal with it as something cultural. There is a real fear about being

called racist. We have to acknowledge that we have a

statutory guidance, for the statutory sector. But they're not

in permitting it because they don't feel it is part of their business,

criminalising forced marriage will place a duty on them. I don't

understand why we are waiting -- wasting time, it seems nonsensical

to me to be arguing and debating about measures that will be

strengthened to protect the weak in society.

I don't disagree with regard to putting the victim as part of the

justice system, I think our work, violence against women coalition, I

think it is about as in the victim at the heart of this. My concern is

that there is not enough emphasis on non criminal justice routes in

terms of the perception, and provision. We have a woman's right

organiser, you had issues with not feeling you could talk about the

race issue enforced marriage? Deflected. It has been going on in

increasing numbers, and for a long time we felt, as white women who

ran refuges and places a century's, that we had to keep quiet, that we

would be accused of being racist, we were being culturally

insensitive. We felt we had to tiptoe around the issue. But having

listened time and again to the appalling stories of young Asian

women, we thought, we're not going to be silenced any more. I am over

the moon that forced marriage has been made a crime, I think the

other feminist women's organisations are utterly wrong in

denying women their right. Take on the issues, people were just two of

Fred, they were not standing up for victims, as in Rochdale, the

victims of abuse were being ignored. There is a clear way round this. We

need more voices from within the communities, that is why it some of

these organisations are embedded in the communities. They haven't

changed things? They have, they are arguing... Let me finish. They are

doing for decriminalisation of all breaches of the forced marriage

protection orders. But if we are ending up with situations where it

is just why people talking on behalf of those communities, it

will be counter-productive. You say you don't care about demonisation.

Any cultural group doing something wrong, let's get the racist group

out of here! Don't be afraid to say, this is wrong, it is illegal!

no one is disagreeing with that point. The problem with what you're

saying is that if you end up demonising people... I am not

demonising anyone. If you end up with groups feeling stigmatised,

they will not co-operate and work with people, and that has been the

experience of women's groups so far. If they feel their grip has been

demonised in any way, that breaks down a sense of trust. If there is

already a law in place that begins to change attitudes, then those

people beginning to feel demonised can actually say, this is the law.

It is not my personal feeling involved any more, this is the law

of the country. It is already the law of the country. Domestic

violence doesn't have a stand-alone piece of legislation, it is

prosecuted under existing legislation, so let's not lose that

wider debate in terms of training it within that issue of violence

against women. Is this law about changing the demonisation around?

Should we make a forced marriage a England take to the pitch against

France tomorrow, but this year, politics seems to be a budding

football of the centre stage. First there was the row over racist

chants and attacks, and now British ministers are boycotting games over

human rights abuses in Ukraine. It is the sporting field the best

place to make a political point? England start their Euro 2012

campaign tomorrow, but our ministers and the world Princes

will not be there to cheer them on. I hope for our team, it is a great

sporting event, but we don't want people to understand that as giving

political support to some things that have been happening in Ukraine

that we don't agree with. The one of those things is the treatment of

the Ukraine's opposition leader, Timoshenko, serving seven years

after what her supporters say was a show trial, and she claims she has

been beaten in jail by guards. And some England fans were also staying

away, because if fears about racist thugs in Ukraine. So is it right to

boycott sporting events to punish the country for its human rights

record, why should sport, by its nature, be above politics? Nobly

refused to go to the Beijing Olympics, and there are lots of

reasons not to go to China. I'm sure there are bad things going on

in Ukraine, but trying to pick which means you should boycott or

not, there are other ways to achieve that rather than sport.

Others say international sporting events are the best place to

highlight injustice simply because so many people are watching them.

Most famously, our refusal to play sport with apartheid South Africa,

which probably played a part in ending the racist regime. But what

makes an effective boycott? The borrowing from three was called off

after violence Against democracy protesters. -- Bahrain grant Prix.

So should sport be separate from politics no matter who the host

country? Or as a show of solidarity for countries in turmoil, should

our sportsmen and women lead the way towards blowing the final

whistle on unjust regimes? We are joined by Hugo MacNeill, who

risked his career by refusing to join his team on a tour in

apartheid South Africa. Why did you decide to do it? I think it was the

end of my first year playing for Ireland, there was a lot of

controversy at the time with the apartheid regime, apartheid was

very active in sport, the fans were segregated, black players couldn't

play on the same basis, and rugby was very much part of the regime

there. A lot of the black leaders were saying, please don't come, I

remember of us at Trinity College at Dublin, and one of the

professors said, "please don't come and play rugby". It just fell to me

that it wasn't the right thing to do. -- thought to me. The injured

to -- interesting thing was I play it would be with a lot of South

Africans after that, and I thought their reaction would be critical,

and it was very interesting, because these were very impressive

people, very liberal, a number of whom have gone and done great work

in South Africa, and they said to me, it was absolutely right not to

come. Because a lot of people in the regime didn't really care about

the financial markets, but they did care about not being able to see

the Springboks. What did you make of this? I think you made the right

decision. I think whether his overt racism involved, whether it is

about people who can come to watch it all players on the field now,

being attacked for their skin colour, it is something that you

have to do something about. But do you pick and choose which subjects?

His team was going, only a few players have made that decision.

feeling is about basic human rights. The thing is to make your eye in a

team that is going to a country with a bad human rights record,

does the team stand back and say, I can't do this? I don't like sports

players being used as political pawns by government, and the

governments themselves should be taking action to stop did you feel

you were being used in any way? I think it was a personal decision.

I think I can take the view of people who say, may be the softly

employment is better, maybe we should encourage and develop

dialogue, and that is often better, we saw in our own country, Ireland,

Northern Ireland, it has been useful, but I think there are times

you have just got to take hard decisions. We have a government

making decisions, the ministers are not going out, is that different?

The point is, the argument against it is that sport should be kept out

of politics, but the point is that sport can become political. It

should have been the whole team in your situation. What it means in

the apartheid era is basically a PR exercise for PR -- apartheid South

Africa. Compare it to today, what situation are we in in the UK,? --

Ukraine? It is a complex one, because Bahrainis should definitely

have been boycotted, and whilst it was taking place, that event helped

the regime. Ukraine is more complicated, because I think there

has been a lot of sensationalist reporting about the issue of racism

in the Ukraine. It is a problem as in many other countries, including

our own, but England played in 2009 in the Ukraine without a single

racist incident. I want to bring in a former Premier League footballer,

who is now campaigning on race. What is your view about whether we

should be at Euro 2012? My view is first of all, good morning, but my

view is that footballers should be used as political tools, the

situation is that Poland and Ukraine have been granted these

championships, and really, we have got to go there, showed solidarity

in that we want to fight any forms of discrimination by actually going

there and showing how players from mixed backgrounds promote... Mixed

race and black, white, can all come together to win a match or to play

together to try and win a football match, that is the positive message.

Hugo, that is the opposite of what you did? I think the situation in

South Africa was different, because there was an apartheid regime, and

sport turned into a positive. It shouldn't just be in -- individual

players. So that the car was excluded from World Cups until the

situation changed. -- South Africa was excluded. Then they came back

into the World Cup in 1995, and won it, and President Mandela came into

Beck Springboks dressing room, and wore a Jessica Moore which was the

symbol of the regime, and sport had a been transformed into a positive

Fuss X wore a Springboks jersey. a country that has bad human rights,

if a team goes in and shows car operation, could well, Sport polite

behaviour, fairness, that can set an example that can permeate

through society. It is a subtle and a long-term thing, but it is an

Eastern European has are being portrayed as knuckle dragging

racists, which isn't true. France will host this in 2016 and one in

five French voters voted for a far- right party but no-one is kicking

off about that. In the Ukraine there have been allegations of

things like monkey chanting and that has to be taken very seriously

by your wife have. And taken to the fullest possible prosecution.

Players like Road hole at say they should just walk off. Individually,

even if they might be disciplined. And would not say that anybody

being abused, you should do what you feel like, and one of the

dangers is that if you have a crowd of 18,000 people and one in eight

starts shouting that somebody or if your team is losing and they try to

us at the other players to walk off, that is difficult. It is a personal

decision but the other point is that sport can also be a very

positive means of influencing and changing society. Great strides

have been made in Britain on the racist Front. Garth Crooks a couple

of years ago was talking about this. This states to be taken on. We have

a fanned from the Association in Great Britain. Should baby in the

Ukraine at all? Absolutely. They were like to give the Games to

Poland and Ukraine, countries that have a very proud and tragic

history. Both are very rich in culture and tradition and these

parts of the world were not accessible to the West not so long

ago. We have all seen the terrible pictures that were shown on the

Panorama programme but they are in no way a representation of the

whole of the population of both Ukraine and Poland. They do not

reflect the culture and hospitality of those people. What about human

rights abuses? There is a serious problem with human rights. And the

main problem in Ukraine at the moment is the issue of the rule of

law and the judiciary system. isn't not a reason for a boycott?

It is a reason for the Government to not send ministers to be seen

relaxing with the authorities in Ukraine at the moment. Thank you. I

want to bring in the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, who joins us

on the line. Our government isn't sending ministers because of your

Government's alleged human rights abuses. Is that fair? Thank you for

the question. As was mentioned before, politics and sport do not

mix. It is a sorry decision by any government cannot send people to

these events. This isn't inter- governmental. I would like to say

that there are plenty of places where human rights issues can be

discussed and they are being discussed, the Human Rights Council,

the United Nations, the Council of Europe. Thank you. I want to get

some response from the panel. are serious allegations in his

country and it is that that the right that government ministers do

not go up and when you says boards are not political, that isn't true

because sporting events facilitate Government's showing solidarity

with other governments under those allegations but the problem we have

is the hold of Ukraine is being tarred by the actions of a small

minority. That happen with England fans a few years ago, some

hooligans were used to betray all England fans as a problem. I agree

that government and sport should not mix but it is a reaction to the

human rights issue. I think that you were for me to get tougher, all

they had to do is admit there is a real problem rather than heads in

the sand. Or if the referee does not do anything, they cannot walk

off. They need to get tough and the men doing the chanting have to be

chucked out immediately. Maybe the whole section so that people around

them will stop them. Where do you draw the line? Personal protests

but then Bahrain, we went to China for the Olympics, how do you view

that decision-making process? personal and there is a big

difference between apartheid South Africa and Poland and Ukraine.

even with those abuses? I do not minimise in any way those, they

should be dealt with. And the organisations must take leadership.

We have seen how sport can actually go on, South Africa, sport could

bind people. And when the IRA blew up Canary Wharf, myself and another

team-mate, Irish people, were walking on the streets and we said,

this isn't in our name. We organised Peace International, and

many of the best players in the world came as a stick and against

IRA violence and one of the big South Africans who sent it is

amazing images came to us. Francois Pienaar. It can be a force for good.

Would you draw the line? The government boycott? Personal?

few are going to be abused in the stands, you should not be on the

field. When sport becomes a prop for dictatorships engaged and

struggles with the people fighting for democracy. If people face

racism on the pitch, they should walk out on their team-mates should

also in solidarity. Picture, the author of Downton a big described

as the last acceptable prejudice, bashing posh people just for being

posh. Is he right or are we just jealous? In modern Britain, too

posh people have to much power? We will hear from Francis Boulle from

Made in Chelsea. You can contact us. And key boating on the text poll.

Should we make a forced marriage a You have five minutes before this

closes. Time for the more moment of the week when guests pick the

stories that got themselves worked up. We will start with a one?

Miliband and his Englishness speech. This has been a debate, what is

English identity? It means different things to different

people. Tea, queuing, football. I think it is something that

politicians should not be getting their noses into, it is like

religious belief, it is private. I am not sure we should be defining

people primarily by their national identity. A supermarket worker in

Manchester has far more in common with another supermarket worker in

Glasgow or Paris or Athens, particularly at these times of

austerity, and my fear was that this was pandering to a certain

form of English nationalism which is very exclusive and divisive and

should be left to people themselves to work out. Donna, you have a

story about a young woman thrown off a bus because she lacked 20p?

This was in December in Nottingham. She stood for eight minutes

remonstrating, she said she would go to the cashpoint or call her

mother and he threw her off the bus. People around her did not come

forward with 20p. She was subsequently raped and beaten and

left for dead. This is incredible, it happened around Christmas time.

What is it about people at the moment they see any ruckus, they

shut themselves away. What is wrong with the bus driver? He could not

use common sense? Or maybe he was a sadist and using his little bit of

power. These men are behind glass, no conductors, they don't even

relate to people, they cannot be bothered to deal with this. I hope

to God he does not get a good night's sleep from now on, I am so

angry and the bus company is protecting him. They say that lies

were told in court. The people on that bus have to think again. This

is just common sense. What is your view? That is a horrendous

situation. Both from the driver's point to you and how could

everybody else? At the moment, but I was younger we were told it that

was it at night and you were young, and you did not have the bus fare,

you should give you details and say you have someone waiting, that is

what she did. But there is no system in place and this was in the

freezing cold, 3 o'clock that morning. She did nearly die. The

bus fare was �5. Bus fares are out of control as it is. It puts young

woman's lives at risk and we need a system that allows people to be

able to get on. Hugo, you are interested in the fact that Disney

will band junk food advertisements from their channels? I thought this

was another nanny state thing but as someone who loves America, three

weeks ago I was there and we went outside New York and be walking

around a shopping mall and I was just staggered at the size of

people and children, in particular. I live in the Republic of Ireland

and a recent survey says the 20% of 3 euros are overweight. 12% or

obese. It is very clever what Michelle Obama has done because the

President tried to bring in something against soft drinks and

it was defeated but by her time this up with Disney, that is very

clever because the American marketing has made either watching

sport or watching cinema, it isn't complete without a huge amount of

advertising. And that is true, I have lived here for most of my life

but when I go back on, I cannot believe how many more children are

obese, the food industry in America has a stranglehold on the media and

they are all was projecting advertisements to very young

children. Define junk-food, there are such things as good hamburgers

and healthy pizza but this is about manufacturers thinking about what

they put into these. Disney is making a moral stand? They are

tapping into this growing sense, not least because childhood obesity

is a problem in America and also here, and a lot of people will

welcome the stand. I would like to see it emulated, I would like to

see advertising aimed at children... Think of the Olympics and all of

those brands? I do think that it will be beneficial. We need to

start thinking about things along these lines, particularly around

children's programmes, not having advertisements for McDonald's.

There are some rules? And they should expand that. Chatted obesity

is something that is growing across the western world. Thank you all.

If you have a webcam, you can make her point on such a media and Skype

water when the conversation on Twitter and buy text. You have been

voting, should be made forced marriage a crime and the poll is

closing so please do not text any more. -- should we make. Took part

boys who don't do the price of milk, that is how it the Tory MP in

Aideen Tory described the PM and the Chancellor and said they do not

want to understand the lives of others. Is she right? Our leaders

out of touch or are we just touchy about class? One person who thinks

so is Francis Boulle from Made in Chelsea, he is where he stands...

don't believe that all posh people have power, it has hired someone

used as a power. No-one has control over the background, there are

advantages and disadvantages to being rich and poor. It's up to us

whether we let that limit as. When I hear someone commenting on

someone's class and defining them, I think the Speaker is in some way

deflecting attention from themselves, some inherent prejudice.

I am proud of who I am and what I have achieved and I will certainly

not apologise for that. So many posh people are in high places but

they have earned this places and they deserve them. That allows him

to tackle society's worst problems. There are limitless possibilities

in each of us, despite the positions into which we were born.

It is only there for the taking. The only thing limiting us his

imagination. No-one is aiming to land struggles, everyone

understands pain, loss and despair. These experiences do not exist

along class lines, no-one is his attempt. Surely, this unites us? --

no-one is exempt. You can join in with webcam or over the phone or on

mine. Are you just chippy about the fact you're not posh? I am not posh

or a working-class hero. It is interesting, when you stand up for

the bottom 70% recorded a class warrior but when you stand up for

the top 1% to and you are labelled immoderate. When taxes are slashed

for the rich and VAT is increased for the majority, that his fiscal

credibility, but calling for rich people to pay their fair share,

you're a frothing at the mouth class warrior and you should never

hold anybody's background against them. No-one has any control over

their upbringing, it isn't about snobbery, it is about the fact that

society is so dominated by privileged people and it is run in

their interests. Before the last election I interviewed his obvious,

and I said, 5 million people in this country are stuck on social

housing waiting list. Why don't Labour do something? She said,

because no-one in government was that interested in housing. If you

have people in Parliament who have been in that situation, stuck on a

waiting list, it would force it to the top of the agenda but it is

dominated by people from the most privileged backgrounds. How do you

answer? I think you make some good points. I disagree with the tax

side because you are inferring that by raising tax, you would generate

more tax revenue, which isn't true. But what about not having the

understanding or caring? That is ridiculous, like you said, you

should not be penalised for what you are born into, you don't have

Do you think people don't take seriously enough the concerns over

things like social housing? they are important issues, but I

think what you what inferring is people who was born into privilege

don't understand that. It is just less likely, in it is not a live

experience. So should they go live in a council estate? Absolutely not,

what we need is a political system which is representative of the

committees that exist. They were voted into power, they were

sanctioned by the people. problem in terms of getting

candidates collected while working class, there are lots of barriers

in the way, it is the same in the media. The top 100 journalists,

over half were privately educated. It wasn't because other people were

not talented, but because to get into the media can we have to get

an unpaid internship, living in London... I agree that creates a

situation where people who are living in London, or who have the

finance from their parents, they have an advantage, sure. But what

I'm saying... So you agree? saying that we should always strive

towards social mobility, obviously, but I don't think that if you are

speaking about posh people in high places, in government, there are

lots of other people who want posh. I don't really know what your

definition is. For me, it is the fact, in Parliament today, over

two-thirds of MPs come from a professional middle-class

background, less than one in 20 are from an unskilled background. There

are lots of people on the left, people like Tony Benn, George

Orwell, they would from privileged backgrounds, they understood the

issues affecting ordinary people, but it becomes less and less likely.

I just want to bring in Nadine Dorries can she is the MP who

accused the Chancellor and the Prime Minister of being out of

touch. Would you make of France's's defence? I was slightly

disappointed, because as a wing has highlighted, with the look at the

BBC, banking, in the highly paid profession, the majority of people

from what you describe as privileged background to stop

privately educated. The problem is, this can be addressed in the future,

the problem is that the private education sector are today has

become so adept at providing absolutely excellent, world-class

education about the state system is so far behind, that if you're an

employer in banking or in the BBC, you're going to take on the best,

and the best people are coming from the private sector today. You are

saying more than that, Nadine, you are saying that your party leader

and too many people in power what are arrogant and out of touch.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are the children of the

privileged, they become the people in those high-earning and

influential positions, and what we do need to see are more people from

absolutely ordinary, normal working-class, northern, as well,

background. Both the media and politics and the high-paid Industry

to admitted by people from the south. We need more of that from

the north. They're not going to do that until the education sector

provides be same level of education as the private sector. Tell us, as

a person has come from an American perspective, what you make of our

obsession with class? It is part of your history, it is certainly not

part of mind. I think the class system has done a lot to damage

individual enterprise. Do you think Nadine is right when she says the

government is arrogant and out of touch? Yes, because they have this

public-school boy network where they only help each other out. So

it becomes an enclosed club that perpetuates itself. When you are

born into privilege, it is difficult Tim Firth -- defies the

something you have never experienced, no matter how hard you

try. He is right to say that it is about how you use power and

privilege, but they Rotimi people born into it now to accept it as a

God-given right, who do think they are better than other people and

have not really gone on to do anything about helping other people

with that power. Do you accept that there are the problem with people

from your back run to don't care and are happy...? It is a problem

with anyone who doesn't necessarily understand something that they

haven't lived, trying to comment on it. But obviously you have to

strive to understand and take all aspect. Just to go back to an

earlier political era, the post-war Labour government it down to the

NHS, Nye Bevan, who was a Welsh miner, he saw the health problems

that existed in a working-class community in Wales. But there were

rich, not to do with education, it was to do with a strong trade union

movement, who gave working-class people an avenue into politics, as

well as a strong local government. Both of those were battered by

Thatcherism, and they closed down a lot of the routes, particularly the

Labour Party, which has become more dominated by professional people.

That is what we have less working- class people at the top. Nadine?

doesn't mention people like Harold Macmillan, who was educated at Eton

and Oxbridge, one of the first things he did was introduce an act

to benefit the poorer and the working classes. Margaret Thatcher

had a lot of working-class people voting for her, because she was a

grocer's daughter, and although she went to Oxford, she and people like

Robert Miller and could identify with the lives of the people they

would governing. It is not just about Labour politicians, it is

about politicians or across the board. It is, and it is a problem

in the Labour Party, and even more in your party, as you keep

repeatedly highlighted. It looks a little bit like a Cabot from the

19th century. It is not just Labour. Julian bellows, who is appear, he

said that it is a demonisation of the wealthy and the posh going on.

Katie, you are right and you are a politically posh. What is your

defence, are you being demonised? don't think we're being demonised,

but I do think that being posh is a state of the being, rather than

class. I do agree with Nadine, the state education system has a lot to

answer for, we're at 60 or 70 years a bit, it should be better than it

is. Explain the discrimination, do you really feel intimidated by the

public debate around being posh? don't feel intimidated, what I have

said is that plushness at its best incorporate courtesy, good manners,

a sense of public duty, and to decry people because they are posh,

without saying why it is that somehow, these people are worse

than anybody else... I am glad... No one is suggesting a possible are

being demonised, I think the suggestion is a offensive or. Since

this government has been elected, the people who have been demonised

are people on benefits, the disabled, public sector workers.

They are been pilloried by the press. If it is also about

traditional values, Francis, can you become posh? It is not just

about wealth? I guess not everyone started off Posh, people, like

Katie said, people can aspire to being posh, and it is an idea...

is not just about inheritance? is about 100 times more difficult.

Obviously, yes. We had some good examples of people who have made it.

My personal Heron, Victoria Beckham, who has certainly been labelled

Bosch. -- heroine of. I'm a little bit bemused as to what Posh means

cover does it mean you were born into a certain class, is it your

accent does it mean you went to a certain school, or is it about

politics or personality? Is is just people who took advantage...?

everybody aspires to money and everybody aspires to property.

example, you're a dapper young lad, I am quite scruffy, I think if

people want to, they should be proud of their background, they

shouldn't feel shame to buy it. The point we are making his and

personal. It is about the fact that our society is so delighted by

people from privileged backgrounds. How would you solve that problem?

Should we kill them all? I don't think anybody is calling genocide

of rich people. We should always straight -- strive towards a more

level cited as the other would paying more tax help? The key issue,

it is not about killing people, it is about representation and a voice,

about making sure that politics is rooted in communities, not prepared

-- professional politicians who have never had a job outside the

Westminster bubble. Over a third of our MPs are privately educated.

don't we just talk about the great national character, how I perceive

Brits, as opposed to looking at sub-groups? You have a reputation

of being a tolerant country, being patient, resilient, this is what

the average British oppression understand what they say, I am

British. With the your upper class, working-class, middle-class, if you

have the British trade, stubbornness may be as well. That

is what we should all be aspiring to. Do you think our government is

apologising to much? When David Cameron doesn't wear a morning suit

to a wedding? I do, I think that is a results of a long-term inverted

snobbery inverted -- pregnant in our society, that creates a

situation where he has to apologise or try and hide his background. I

did think anyone should be ashamed of their background to stop people

should accept other people for their differences to stop and I

agree. That is what makes this country great. I am sure there are

some things we need to look at the dressing and try and improve social

mobility. I don't think people should be penalised for taking

advantage of the advantages they are presented with when they are

born. We will have to leave it Were you surprised? No, not at all.

The government are absolutely right to make it very clear statement

that this is absolutely wrong, I would support that criminalisation

of breaches of the forced marriage protected and orders. -- protection

orders. Francis, there has been a history of forced marriages going

back hundreds of years in aristocratic families, is it an

issue you think about? Arranged, perhaps. Do you have a view on

forced marriage? I think it is totally wrong. I think they might

have been arranged and encourage marriage as it brought out in the

aristocracy, if they are complicit in it, then fine, but I think

anything that leads to other crimes come of violent crimes like rape

and assault and things we have discussed, which are illegal,

arranged marriage isn't. If there isn't and that leads to those

things, should be in writing. not get bogged down in arguments

about legality and make a litter, it is a crime against human rights,

it needs to be stamped out and people need to be told, this is

wrong, don't do it. You don't think it is about culture, race, you

think it is about law? It is about any groups that want to entertain

the idea of forced marriage. Thank you to all of you who have taken

part today. We have been discussing sporting boycotts and a range of

other things. Thanks to all of my guests. Dope text or call the phone