:00:12. > :00:16.A new law coming into force tomorrow allows teachers accused of
:00:16. > :00:21.misconduct a period where their identity will be protected. But
:00:21. > :00:31.will this really help teachers or simply undermine vulnerable
:00:31. > :00:39.
:00:39. > :00:44.children? Should accused teachers be given anonymity?
:00:44. > :00:48.Good morning. I'm Samira Ahmed and welcome to Sunday Morning Live.
:00:48. > :00:54.Should teachers and no other profession be ganted anonymity to
:00:55. > :01:02.protect them from false accusations? Tomorrow, a new law
:01:02. > :01:07.comes into play to do just that. Will it have protected Jeremy
:01:07. > :01:13.Forrest. And with Rowan Williams unable to resolve the row over
:01:13. > :01:18.women, what will the Church of England do?
:01:18. > :01:22.And with a seemingly constant stream of apologies from the lips
:01:23. > :01:27.of politicians, is repentance real or has saying sorry lost its
:01:27. > :01:31.meaning? Sorry used to be the hardiest word. Not any more. It's
:01:31. > :01:35.now become the easiest and, at times, one of the most
:01:35. > :01:39.inappropriate. Well, a very warm welcome to my
:01:39. > :01:46.guests this week. Rosie Millard is a journalist and broadcaster. She
:01:46. > :01:54.writes for the Times and recently competed in a triathlon alongside
:01:54. > :02:00.David Hasselhoff. Stephen Glover is a Daily Mail
:02:00. > :02:08.columnist. And Simon Warr was famously the headmaster in a
:02:08. > :02:18.reality TV show, "That'll Teach 'Em, and he joins us. If you want to
:02:18. > :02:26.
:02:26. > :02:31.join in, you can give your views on So, a lu law comes into force
:02:31. > :02:36.tomorrow that gives teachers accused of abuzing their position
:02:36. > :02:44.of trust a right to anonymity. The law is designed to protect
:02:44. > :02:49.teachers against a grow problem of false and malicious accusations:
:02:49. > :02:55.But do teachers need anonymity. Why not doctors or others? And is there
:02:55. > :02:58.a danger that children's rights to be undermined. We've come a long
:02:58. > :03:02.way from when children felt the cane on the back of their hand.
:03:02. > :03:06.Today, with teachers open to a lot more scrutiny children are
:03:06. > :03:11.protected more than they have ever been. But has the protection of
:03:11. > :03:16.pupils come at the debt am of protecting teachers? Today, if a
:03:16. > :03:22.teacher is accused of committing a criminal offence against a child,
:03:22. > :03:27.they can be named and accused even before they are tried and teachers
:03:27. > :03:34.say it is their careers that have been ruined. Under the new
:03:34. > :03:38.legislation, Jeremy Forrest would have had his anonymity protected
:03:38. > :03:44.until an arrest warrant was formally issueed, which was not
:03:44. > :03:48.until last Tuesday and people would have been banned from revealing his
:03:48. > :03:52.identity. The newspaper society say that it
:03:52. > :03:56.has not been thought through. Sometimes there is need for
:03:57. > :04:03.publicity and media attention before a warrant is issued, as
:04:03. > :04:07.became evident in Megan Stammers case. The police say it will hamper
:04:07. > :04:12.missing persons investigations and freedom of speech. So is the new
:04:12. > :04:16.legislation an important way of protecting our teachers, or is it
:04:16. > :04:22.overthe top and threatens freedom of speech.
:04:22. > :04:26.Vital protection for teachers or the danger of being over the top?
:04:26. > :04:31.think we have to make exceptional circumstances for teachers, because
:04:31. > :04:36.we're dealing with children first and foremost on a daily basis and
:04:36. > :04:40.not only are we imparting information, but we're also holding
:04:40. > :04:45.a disciplinary role. And that will lead to conflict, telling children
:04:45. > :04:55.what te don't want to do. So I think there should be special
:04:55. > :05:02.
:05:02. > :05:12.circumstances for teachers. That is Should teachers be given special
:05:12. > :05:17.anonymity? Simon, there is this real unease
:05:17. > :05:21.among people that there is a danger this law could be protecting
:05:21. > :05:24.abusers? It can't probably protect abusers because first and foremost,
:05:24. > :05:29.we have an understanding that people are innocent until proven
:05:29. > :05:32.guilty. Well, as the law stands, actually, once a teacher has been
:05:32. > :05:38.charged with an offence, when the Crown Prosecution Service believes
:05:38. > :05:42.there is some case to answer, then a teacher loses his anonymity. But
:05:42. > :05:47.I don't see that just because somebody accuses somebody of
:05:47. > :05:51.something else, that immediately, and of course, teachers are fair
:05:51. > :05:55.game. The newspapers love allegations, I say love allegations
:05:55. > :06:01.against teachers, they think it's good copy. So we have to beware of
:06:01. > :06:07.that. Rosie, as a parent, it is a recent issue, but teachers do feel
:06:07. > :06:11.undermined? I don't see why there is a special case for teachers.
:06:11. > :06:16.We're deeing with children that's why. You could have this for
:06:16. > :06:21.parents or social workers. There are a lot of people who could lose
:06:21. > :06:27.their careers if something malicious is claimed against them.
:06:27. > :06:30.Last year 2% of claims were regarded as malicious and there
:06:30. > :06:36.have only been 15% of successful claims over the last number of
:06:36. > :06:40.years. So I don't think it's a flood. Perhaps we should look at it
:06:41. > :06:46.more counter intuitively and say why if these claims are happening,
:06:46. > :06:51.why are children making these claims. And maybe this is food with
:06:51. > :06:55.the traditional respect between pupils and teachers which may have
:06:55. > :07:00.broken down. I am not against teachers, I think they do a
:07:00. > :07:05.fantastic job and I have four children at school and maybe they
:07:05. > :07:09.need to repair the breakdown of the relationship between the teachers
:07:09. > :07:13.and pupils. We're not saying that somebody should be let off. All
:07:13. > :07:18.we're saying that unless there is a case to answer - an accusation
:07:18. > :07:24.against a teacher is a devastating one, not only does it ruin the
:07:24. > :07:28.career but the life. What about men accused of rape? You're always
:07:28. > :07:32.talking about the need for traditional values and old 46
:07:32. > :07:39.fashioned discipline to some extent and isn't there a need for this law
:07:39. > :07:45.because many teachers feel they are undermined and easy prey? I agree
:07:45. > :07:49.with Rosie, why not policemen or doctors? I could make an accusation
:07:49. > :07:54.against a doctor which is very damaging to him. Doctors are not in
:07:54. > :07:59.a disciplinary role, that's the point. Well, a policeman is. They
:07:59. > :08:03.don't deal with only children? deal with children and 58 kinds of
:08:03. > :08:07.people and a policeman might argue that it would be better for him to
:08:07. > :08:13.be anonymous because he might be targeted by criminals. People have
:08:13. > :08:17.many reasons for wishing to remain anonymous. The point is accusation,
:08:17. > :08:21.well-founded accusations can be made against teachers that can't be
:08:21. > :08:25.proven in a court of law or for one reason or another there is no
:08:25. > :08:30.charge, but they are discreditedable to the teacher in
:08:30. > :08:35.question, and people have a right to know about that. Also, if
:08:35. > :08:38.someone makes an accusation and it's all hushed up and no-one is
:08:38. > :08:43.allowed to say anything, not even parents outside the school gates,
:08:43. > :08:47.and that teacher moves on to another place, if there are grounds
:08:47. > :08:50.to the accusation, then no-one is ever going to know and that's
:08:50. > :08:55.surely the much more dangerous thing? Who are the vulnerable
:08:55. > :09:05.people here, the teachers or the children, and I would suggest the
:09:05. > :09:06.
:09:06. > :09:10.children. Tony, you are with the Irish national society for teachers
:09:10. > :09:15.organisation. What is your view? First of all, from my position is
:09:15. > :09:20.our members wish - I mean, they're in teaching because they respect
:09:20. > :09:24.children and they want children to be safe. However, we do deal with
:09:24. > :09:29.malicious allegations against teachers and that, as has been said
:09:29. > :09:33.by your panellists, is devastating for them. Not just personally and
:09:33. > :09:39.professionally, but for their families. If I can give you one
:09:39. > :09:44.example, I had a member who, in his university career, was accused of
:09:44. > :09:48.rape and that's the issue one of your panellists raised. That member,
:09:48. > :09:56.the police decided there was no prosecution. The member continued
:09:56. > :10:01.on, went to teach Eritreaning college, got married, had a
:10:01. > :10:06.teaching career as a subject teacher in a school and then found
:10:06. > :10:09.themselves later on they applied for a permanent position. The
:10:09. > :10:14.principal encouraged them, given their performance in the school.
:10:14. > :10:21.This issue came to light in a police check. And that teacher was
:10:21. > :10:24.then, effectively, had to leave the school. He was hounded out of his
:10:24. > :10:29.profession. Without having been convicted of anything?
:10:29. > :10:35.unfortunately he has never taught again. His career was lost, and
:10:35. > :10:41.there were implactions for his family and no-one ever went back to
:10:41. > :10:45.look at it again. In one case, the organisations were more interested
:10:45. > :10:50.in protecting themselves than even more the issue of the child. Thank
:10:50. > :10:55.you, Tony. Pete Saunders is from the National Association for People
:10:55. > :10:59.abused in childhood. You had an awful experience yourself in school.
:10:59. > :11:02.Now you support others who have been through this. Do you believe
:11:02. > :11:05.that nowadays there are more children making up casual
:11:05. > :11:11.allegations without thinking through the risks, and what is the
:11:11. > :11:17.risk of anonymity, in your view, for teachers? Good morning. I think
:11:17. > :11:23.what is crucial is the state that nobody wants - injustice. That is
:11:23. > :11:26.clear. None of us want injustice, apart, of course, from abusers,
:11:26. > :11:31.rapists, et cetera, because they don't want to be caught. And very
:11:31. > :11:36.few will ever put their hands up and admit that they did it. I think
:11:36. > :11:43.what is crucial is that a proper and thorough investigation is
:11:43. > :11:46.always undertaken when there is an allegation of bad behaviour of
:11:46. > :11:50.abuse. We're talking about anonymity, what difference would
:11:50. > :11:55.that make? Would it make a difference to other victims coming
:11:55. > :11:59.ford or does it protect adults? think in the early stages of an
:11:59. > :12:04.allegation then there isn't an issue with anonymity. I think that
:12:04. > :12:08.is attitudely fine at the very early stage of talking to the
:12:08. > :12:14.person making the accusation and making it very clear to the person
:12:14. > :12:19.- we're talking about a child here, the consequences of making a false
:12:19. > :12:27.accusations. And people who are prr plea trained in investigating these
:12:27. > :12:31.things and -- properly trained in investigating these things and
:12:31. > :12:38.interviewing both perpetrator and victim. They would know Qichenly
:12:38. > :12:42.whether or not it is a credible allegation and if they feel it is a
:12:42. > :12:45.credible allegation they dig into the background of the perpetrator.
:12:45. > :12:49.And who should be doing this? Because the trouble is now the
:12:49. > :12:54.police have to make a decision and once they go in with a warrant or
:12:54. > :12:58.they make a request at a Magistrates, that anonymity can be
:12:58. > :13:03.lifted. But you are saying potentially it should be lifted
:13:03. > :13:08.earlier? Oh, I think it should, because if a teacher - let's be
:13:08. > :13:12.honest, most teachers are faced - they're in the profession, as your
:13:12. > :13:15.colleague in benefits described, because they want to teach and they
:13:15. > :13:20.want to work with children, et cetera and very few put themselves
:13:20. > :13:27.in a position where there would be an allegation. But where it happens
:13:27. > :13:32.a full investigation has to happen. In our society we hear about the
:13:32. > :13:36.consequences of afalseity that has consequence for life. Yes, we must
:13:36. > :13:41.have a robust investigation. If an allegation is made, of course a
:13:41. > :13:45.robust investigation should go ahead, but at that stage, until
:13:45. > :13:50.someone in authority, the police, decide there is a case to answer,
:13:50. > :13:55.until that point, then I think in some ways it is a private matter,
:13:55. > :13:58.until someone decides, yes, what that child is saying, actually
:13:58. > :14:04.there are some grounds here and we think this person has a case to
:14:04. > :14:08.answer. Then, then I think that person's name should go public.
:14:08. > :14:15.is interesting that Tony from the union said earlier that the school
:14:15. > :14:19.has a vested interest in keeping it quiet and both the children and the
:14:19. > :14:24.teacher can suffer as a result of that? Yes, but we have to think
:14:24. > :14:28.about freedom of speech and look at the libel laws which are already in
:14:28. > :14:34.place. You can't go around libeling and slandering people any way. And
:14:34. > :14:39.we really have to say teachers are not unique individuals. It's not a
:14:39. > :14:45.unique institution and many people - It is in terms of dealing with
:14:45. > :14:49.children and in a disciplinary role day after day. Parents do too.
:14:49. > :14:54.all due respects, a couple of children, we're talking about
:14:54. > :14:57.hundreds of children. At some point there is bound to be conflict.
:14:57. > :15:02.Parents can mistreat their children. I can't understand why teachers
:15:02. > :15:07.have been singled out. Do you think other professions might start to
:15:07. > :15:12.adopt this? Yes, it could slip under the carpet and nobody really
:15:12. > :15:18.- we're only talking about this really because of the recent case.
:15:18. > :15:23.I object to you say" slippery slope." It could be a slippery
:15:24. > :15:28.slope. It is a corrective thing in all our behaviour if we think that
:15:28. > :15:33.what we do wrong, which is not necessarily criminal, but what we
:15:33. > :15:39.do wrong can be talked about by our clegs and in the press, subject to
:15:39. > :15:45.the laws of libel, if we know that exists that is a corrective
:15:45. > :15:51.mechanism of how we behave and the idea that teachers are exempted
:15:51. > :15:58.from that. What about university lecturers, they deal with children.
:15:58. > :16:02.I want to bring in a viewer. Do you think the law will work better or
:16:02. > :16:06.worse as a result of this change? The simple answer is yes it would,
:16:06. > :16:10.but in practice it couldn't because in this proposed legislation the
:16:10. > :16:16.anonymity can be lifted. An application can be made by anyone
:16:16. > :16:20.for a hearing to take place and if that was not accedeed to, and the
:16:20. > :16:26.test would be whether it was in the problem interest, then an appeal
:16:26. > :16:29.can be made to a Crown Court judge. So the veil of anonymity would be
:16:29. > :16:34.lifted and we'd get to know about the criminal allegations and they
:16:34. > :16:39.have to be criminal allegations for this anonymity to apply. It's not a
:16:39. > :16:44.case of libel or civil matters, it's purely criminal matters. So
:16:44. > :16:49.any teacher who is investigated for a criminal matter would be entitled
:16:49. > :16:55.to remain anonymous until such time as proceedings are instituted.
:16:55. > :17:01.Thank you. I want to bring in Bob who is the director for the Society
:17:01. > :17:05.of Editors. Now you are worried about anonymity. There is an
:17:05. > :17:09.accusation that the press can jump on these cases before there is any
:17:09. > :17:14.substance and teachers' careers are ruined as a result of it. It is
:17:14. > :17:19.wide of the mark that the media jumps in before there is an
:17:19. > :17:23.accusation, because of libel laws, obviously and a lot of other
:17:23. > :17:29.accusations. This is not about the media, it's about everybody.
:17:29. > :17:34.Parents at the school gates cannot discuss it and even teachers and
:17:34. > :17:38.head teachers, as we've heard, you get a case where a teacher is
:17:38. > :17:43.accused of an offence is actually allowed to resign and move on to
:17:43. > :17:48.another school and no record goes with them because no-one is allowed
:17:48. > :17:55.to talk to them. In the end, somebody could in fact be fined and,
:17:55. > :18:00.indeed, worse than that, for simply telling the truth. It's not as
:18:00. > :18:05.though these things are common. Certainly the Government, when
:18:05. > :18:10.we've been discussing it with them, couldn't find huge numbers of cases.
:18:10. > :18:15.Obviously, we have sympathy for teachers but you don't solve one
:18:15. > :18:19.problem by inventing another one which is surely far more dangerous
:18:19. > :18:24.because most people think it is children who matter more than the
:18:24. > :18:27.teachers. Thank you, Stephen? more I hear the more I'm amazed
:18:27. > :18:32.that this has happened and I'm flabbergasted that teachers should
:18:32. > :18:37.have been singled out in this way and I only hope that now we're
:18:37. > :18:42.talking about it's not extended, certainly not extended to any over
:18:42. > :18:46.profession, but people think again about teachers. Do you accept there
:18:47. > :18:51.could be unaccepted consequences? don't think anyone will be
:18:51. > :18:55.prosecuted for talking about it at the school gates. All the law is
:18:55. > :19:00.concerned about are the headlines, about a teacher who has had an
:19:01. > :19:06.allegation made against him or her. But it's not about the newspaper
:19:06. > :19:11.headlines, as ef we've just heard. On a practical level, I can tell
:19:11. > :19:15.you on behalf of teachers, all that is concerned about if an allegation
:19:15. > :19:21.is made against a teacher then I think it is only fir not to have
:19:21. > :19:26.his or her name put in the local paper without some at least
:19:26. > :19:31.some...I Think it's an incredibly defensive move by the teaching
:19:31. > :19:34.profession, it's almost like "we know it's going to happen, so we'd
:19:34. > :19:41.better put this law in place" please.
:19:41. > :19:47.I think we will have to see what happens.
:19:47. > :19:52.A couple of your comments. Susanna, "I support anonymity as my father
:19:52. > :19:58.was wrongly accused and his case was splashed across the papers with
:19:58. > :20:05.devastating consequences for him and our family." And Kirsty says,
:20:05. > :20:11."When I was a teacher. I had pupils make false allegations against me,
:20:11. > :20:21.and it was difficult to do anything about it." Thank you for all your
:20:21. > :20:25.
:20:25. > :20:32.You can text or vote on-line. You have around 20 minutes before the
:20:32. > :20:36.poll closes. Now, the Church of England is in
:20:36. > :20:42.the process of selecting a new Archbishop of Canterbury. Following
:20:42. > :20:49.Rowan Will yams' tenure, should the Church revert to traditional
:20:49. > :20:54.conserve core values or take a more liberal path which might reverse
:20:54. > :20:57.declining congregations? Archbishop women yams has struggled
:20:57. > :21:02.to keep divisions closed in the Church of England. 20 years after
:21:02. > :21:08.women priests were first allowed, it seems this is ago organisation
:21:08. > :21:13.struggling with its identity. The Church of England of 2012 is a very
:21:13. > :21:18.different organisation than that established by Henry IV, but with
:21:18. > :21:26.the world evolving around it and congregations declining, is it
:21:27. > :21:31.losing its core values as it seeks to stay relevant to modern Britain?
:21:31. > :21:36.Many argue that the Church of England has to move with the times
:21:36. > :21:40.or risk losing its membership in an increasingly secular world. In
:21:40. > :21:45.today's society it's simply not acceptable to deny gay marriage or
:21:45. > :21:49.female bishops. However, there are many people in the church opposed
:21:49. > :21:52.to such changes. They say the Church of England has already
:21:52. > :21:56.become too liberal and should stop trying to please everyone. Hundreds
:21:56. > :22:04.of members of the Church of England have left and joined a section of
:22:04. > :22:08.the Catholic church, a structure within Roman Catholic Church that
:22:08. > :22:12.allows people to enter full communion whilst retaining some of
:22:12. > :22:19.the Church of England heritage. So, should the Church of England move
:22:19. > :22:28.with the times or stay true to more conservative values? And you can
:22:28. > :22:35.join the conversation via Twitter, text or on-line, from home.
:22:35. > :22:45.Joiny me 1 the Vice-President of both the British Humanist Society
:22:45. > :22:53.and the national secular society. Simon, what kind of leadership do
:22:53. > :23:00.you want from the Anglican Church? Let's understand what the Anglican
:23:00. > :23:05.Church is, it's not top-down like the Catholic, where the Pope says
:23:05. > :23:12.what should happen. It is very difficult for any Archbishop to
:23:12. > :23:15.keep the whole Church happy. But in a way that's a the Church's problem.
:23:15. > :23:21.It's always inward looking and discussing the issues itself.
:23:21. > :23:26.know the problem, what would you like to see? Afterall, it is the
:23:26. > :23:30.country's established church, whether one is an atheist or
:23:30. > :23:35.whatever you are, the Church of England is the established church
:23:35. > :23:39.in England. And people want some kind of moral guidance on
:23:39. > :23:44.incredibly complicated moral problems. And the church tends to
:23:44. > :23:48.look inwards on its own debate and does not give that guidance. I have
:23:48. > :23:53.no idea, even though I regularly attend church, what the Church of
:23:53. > :23:58.England's line is on abortion. I just don't know. Don't count me in
:23:58. > :24:05.as wanting moral guidance from the church. Isle' make up my own mind.
:24:05. > :24:13.Let me make my point. I don't think that the Church has any monopoly on
:24:13. > :24:17.more 589, -- morality, nor that the scripture has the best way to deal
:24:17. > :24:23.with moral questions. So I just think that if I were the church I'd
:24:23. > :24:29.want to - and I wanted to say established, I wouldn't retain its
:24:29. > :24:33.discriminatory position on gays and women, because why should this
:24:33. > :24:35.country constitutionally be bound to an organisation that
:24:35. > :24:40.discriminates against women and gay people? I think most people would
:24:40. > :24:43.say that's wrong. Rosie, what's interesting is there are many
:24:43. > :24:47.people who feel loyal to the church and say they don't want to keep up
:24:47. > :24:51.with the current fashion and what's wrong with the idea of going back
:24:51. > :24:56.to core traditional values? Well, because if you have a church which
:24:56. > :25:02.is also part of the state and which has guidance on public policy, that
:25:02. > :25:06.is a problem. I'm with Evan here. If you have Bishops in the House of
:25:06. > :25:12.Lords and politicians who are in the church, you have to look at
:25:12. > :25:17.what it is saying. And if it is saying gay marriage is not on in
:25:17. > :25:21.the church, how can it be in civil partnerships? And the Church of
:25:21. > :25:25.England seems to have accepted quite a lot of stuff, it's noted
:25:25. > :25:30.for its tolerance on divorce and all sorts of things have changed.
:25:31. > :25:37.What you're saying because it is established it has to adopt secular
:25:37. > :25:44.values? No, it can do what it wants, but it is part of the state.
:25:44. > :25:51.position is worse than Rosie says. It's not part of the estate, it's
:25:51. > :25:57.established but it's not any sort of form part of the state. Then why
:25:57. > :26:01.did Ed Miliband say he's going to whip his MPs into line and vote
:26:01. > :26:07.absolutely for gays marriage in church, because he wants equality
:26:07. > :26:10.across the board. Can I just bring in Suzy. You are a
:26:10. > :26:14.female lay member and some viewers would think you would surely be
:26:14. > :26:19.very keen to see women bishops and equality with the outside world at
:26:19. > :26:24.last, but is that how you feel? I'm afraid those assumptions would
:26:24. > :26:29.be wrong. I'm one of the thousands of women who signed a pettition for
:26:29. > :26:34.proper provision in the Church of England for those who can't accept
:26:34. > :26:39.the innovation of women Bishops. We wanted the leaders of the Church of
:26:39. > :26:42.England to understand that the bishop liberal views of men and
:26:42. > :26:47.women being equal but different were really important and that our
:26:47. > :26:51.churches were flourishing under male leadership and responsibility.
:26:51. > :26:55.Are you saying that the church would probably flourish now if it
:26:55. > :27:01.went back to a harder line of interpretation and stopped trying
:27:02. > :27:08.to be liberal, dare I say it? don't know it is about being hard
:27:08. > :27:13.line. But is it about being more popular? Oh, it's certainly not
:27:13. > :27:16.about being popular. Jesus Christ was not popular, he caused a lot of
:27:16. > :27:22.controversy, and if all the church does is reflect society back to
:27:22. > :27:25.itself we'll have no impact at all and no relevance. This is exactly
:27:25. > :27:29.the point. It is entirely up to the Church of England what it chooses
:27:29. > :27:34.to do and I think they should make up their own decision. I personally
:27:35. > :27:43.hope that they will go for women Bishops and zop discriminating
:27:43. > :27:52.against gay people. But that isn't the position. -- stop. The problem
:27:52. > :27:57.is that they oppose even secular, civil equal marriage. But isn't her
:27:57. > :28:01.point like Stephen's idea, maybe there is a need for stronger moral
:28:01. > :28:07.leadership and you can join it or not if you like. Evan has a good
:28:07. > :28:11.point about gay marriage. I mean, the Church of England says, as does
:28:11. > :28:15.the Roman Catholic church says, that marriage is for the pro-
:28:15. > :28:20.creation of children. It may be wrong, it may be right, but that is
:28:20. > :28:25.what it believes. It fears that if you have secular gay marriage it
:28:25. > :28:28.will be forced to introduce it in church and that is the line it is
:28:29. > :28:34.trying to draw. If the Church of England can be absolutely sure that
:28:34. > :28:39.it will only happen in a secular context and it will never happen in
:28:39. > :28:46.church...It Will never be forced. What is your view on what Susie had
:28:46. > :28:51.to say and she is loyal to the Anglican Church and these people's
:28:51. > :28:55.views matter. Yes, if people get more and more tolerant with, hay,
:28:55. > :29:02.the virgin birth and resurrection, I'm not sure. You leave big holes
:29:02. > :29:05.through which very, very hard-line evangelical groups come, because
:29:05. > :29:09.people want certainty. But the problem is, people also like
:29:09. > :29:14.tolerance, and the fact that the Church of England is not tolerant
:29:14. > :29:20.about women Bishops and gay marriages. It is the most tolerant
:29:20. > :29:24.institution in the world. Well, not in the world, I think you'll find.
:29:24. > :29:31.In England. 9% of the population go to church regularly, it is apuling.
:29:31. > :29:39.And I would like to bring in an example of the skouts. The scouts
:29:39. > :29:48.ocean -- scouts. The scouts association had terrificly falling
:29:48. > :29:53.numbers, but then it allowed girls and gays in. I am a Brownie leader.
:29:53. > :29:59.We'll have a debate about the skouths another time. I can assure
:29:59. > :30:05.you, the Church of England, which I probably know better than you.
:30:05. > :30:13.had a huge growth in response to this tolerance. The church is full
:30:13. > :30:18.of gays, half the priests are gay. Let me bring in the Reverend Colin
:30:18. > :30:22.Coward, who lobbies for more inclusiveness for gay Anglicans.
:30:22. > :30:29.Don't you have to accept that whatever is going on in society,
:30:29. > :30:33.the script Ural teaching, which many loyal Anglicans believe in do
:30:34. > :30:39.not accept homosexuality and it is not a battle worth pursuing,
:30:39. > :30:44.because it is tearing the church apart? I think the Bible has a much
:30:44. > :30:48.bigger view of the nature of people and it's about love and justice and
:30:48. > :30:56.truthfulness. And the tragedy is the church is becoming obsessed
:30:56. > :31:01.with issues like women as bishops and homosexuality. Why do you think,
:31:01. > :31:05.in your words, there is an obsession in the country with
:31:05. > :31:08.things like women bishops and homosexuality? I think it's because
:31:08. > :31:12.people are afraid of change. They're afraid of difference in
:31:12. > :31:17.society. People are always afraid of difference, whether it is race,
:31:17. > :31:24.gender or sexuality. Thank you. We also have the Reverend Chris
:31:24. > :31:31.suggest den who is a -- another member of the Church of England. Do
:31:31. > :31:35.you feel that the CofE is in danger of appearing out of touch and being
:31:35. > :31:40.discriminatory against large groups in society, women and gay people by
:31:40. > :31:43.keeping up what some say is a hard- line position? Well, I think an
:31:44. > :31:51.example of the church's contribution to truth and justice
:31:51. > :31:54.has been, for example, the Bishop of Liverpool's independent panel on
:31:54. > :31:58.the Hillsborough disaster, and it took a Bishop and his personal
:31:58. > :32:02.commitment to those issues to expose much of the hypocrisy of the
:32:02. > :32:06.police, of the media, of politicians, over that terrible
:32:06. > :32:13.tragedy and I think that gives an example that the church is
:32:13. > :32:20.concerned with much wider issues. And I would want to suggest that it
:32:20. > :32:24.is activists, often one-issue groups, that are continually
:32:24. > :32:29.pushing forward an ideological position that gives the impression
:32:29. > :32:34.that the church is obsessed with these issues. It is not, the church
:32:34. > :32:38.is getting on with issues right across the board. That's
:32:38. > :32:42.interesting. Do you think the church then made an error of how
:32:42. > :32:47.they handled the St Paul's anti- capitalist protest when many people
:32:47. > :32:53.thought they were out of touch with the public mood by trying to clear
:32:53. > :32:58.the protesters a -- away. I was very supportive of the Chancellor
:32:58. > :33:04.and the stance he took by inviting the protesters into the church in
:33:04. > :33:09.the beginning. -- cathedral in the beginning. I think he was right to
:33:09. > :33:14.show the church's siding about the big questions about the way in
:33:14. > :33:17.which our financial sectors are managed. I think they were right.
:33:18. > :33:24.Evan? There are people in the Church of England, good people who
:33:24. > :33:29.do good things, but I don't think they should claim a monopoly. It
:33:29. > :33:33.just needs an independent person. Really? Yes, because remember the
:33:33. > :33:37.churches are good as covering up as well. The child abuse scandal,
:33:37. > :33:43.which is not restricted to The Catholic Church, is a good example
:33:43. > :33:47.of that. So I don't think you can make a generally rule that just
:33:47. > :33:53.because there is a Bishop chairing an inquiry there are good people in
:33:53. > :33:59.the church. But this is an example, where people in the church made a
:33:59. > :34:06.huge difference to who emerged over Hills borough in the end? Yes, and
:34:06. > :34:10.whether you are an Anglican or an atheist, the Bishop resided over a
:34:10. > :34:17.process and could be trusted in a way that perhaps even judges cannot
:34:17. > :34:20.be trusted. We have a long history in this country of judges in public
:34:20. > :34:25.inquiries coming up with a solution for the Government of the day.
:34:25. > :34:30.I don't I the work of the Hillsborough commission relied on
:34:30. > :34:37.the faith of the person who was the chair of it. There was a good panel.
:34:37. > :34:44.It relied on his reputation. Any way. People trust less now, but
:34:44. > :34:50.still trust quite highly, doctor, like me, but deference is reduced,
:34:50. > :34:57.which is rightly so. We shouldn't trust people purely on the basis of
:34:57. > :35:02.their title or whether they wear a collar. Rosie, maybe one could
:35:02. > :35:08.stick to the old-fashioned teaching, but clearly compromise has not
:35:08. > :35:11.worked for Rowan Williams. No, I think modernise or die. I like
:35:11. > :35:15.Christ, it's Christians I have a problem with. And there are some
:35:15. > :35:20.tricky Christians in the Church of England. Thank you all very much
:35:20. > :35:25.indeed and later on Sunday Morning Live, actually first of all, a
:35:25. > :35:28.couple of comments. "The church should choose what it wants to do
:35:28. > :35:33.and not be turned by a few secular societies.
:35:33. > :35:38.And one say, "Let's accept the Church of England as an inclusive
:35:38. > :35:43.and modern church for modern views. Thank you very much. And later on,
:35:43. > :35:49.saying sorry is easy but meaning it and making amends is more difficult.
:35:49. > :35:54.Has the recent flood of public but partial apologies shown that
:35:54. > :36:04.increasingly such words are meaningless? You can join in my
:36:04. > :36:12.
:36:12. > :36:20.webcam or make your views known by You have about five minutes before
:36:20. > :36:28.the poll closes or you can vote on- line by visiting our website.
:36:28. > :36:33.It's time for our moral moment of the week. The first story is chosen
:36:33. > :36:37.by you, Rosie, it is a story about how teenagers are using cannabis or
:36:37. > :36:42.not. Well, not, apparently. Many less teenagers are using cannabis
:36:42. > :36:49.than in past years. In fact, the big addiction now is more for
:36:49. > :36:55.texting and BBMs and being on their screens. And as a mother of a 15-
:36:55. > :37:00.year-old daughter, I have to stay she is hopefully not addicted to
:37:00. > :37:06.anything illegal, substances, but is quite addicted to her BlackBerry
:37:06. > :37:10.and texts all the time. Including during meals and it drives me mad.
:37:10. > :37:15.The interesting thing is that young people were questioned about this
:37:15. > :37:19.and they said, "We don't want to be using drugs and be wasted all the
:37:19. > :37:25.time because we're worried about getting our exams and getting a
:37:25. > :37:31.job." Yes, do you believe this? checked the data because I don't
:37:31. > :37:38.trust headlines, even from Stephen's paper, over drug use.
:37:38. > :37:44.There has been a slow decline over the years. The cannabis figures
:37:44. > :37:51.show a small decrease on last year, but the biggest drop was following
:37:51. > :37:56.the declassification from class B to class C, which the experts call
:37:56. > :38:02.called for, because it deglamorised the drug. It is generally good news.
:38:02. > :38:05.What worries me more is the destruction of clinch's lives by
:38:05. > :38:09.the criminalisation, rather than the treatment, of people who use
:38:09. > :38:15.drugs. And another factor suggested in the article is that it is
:38:15. > :38:23.cheaper to buy alcohol, which has a different set of social coasts.
:38:23. > :38:27.Stephen, you chose the ongoing debate about Freedom of Information
:38:27. > :38:32.Act and whether we should have access to politicians' e-mails and
:38:32. > :38:37.texts? I have no desire to have access to e-mails and texts of
:38:37. > :38:42.politicians, but it is trying to put private e-mails and private
:38:42. > :38:48.texts between ministers on the same level as when they use official e-
:38:48. > :38:51.mail. A couple of years ago, Michael Gove started sending people
:38:51. > :38:55.e-mails privately and the reason he did that was presumably he didn't
:38:55. > :38:59.want people in his office to read them and the information commission
:38:59. > :39:04.didn't like that. Nor for the public to get access to them.
:39:04. > :39:10.Eventually get access to them. If we accept as a principle that the
:39:10. > :39:16.public have a right to access to Government e-mails, and I suppose
:39:16. > :39:22.it makes sense to include private e-mails. But have to to think about
:39:22. > :39:27.the text between Jeremy Hunt. we're talk being E mails which are
:39:28. > :39:34.sent on a private network. There is no reason, logiccally that they
:39:34. > :39:37.should be excluded if the others are included. It is vital to have a
:39:37. > :39:41.transparent Government and after the Iraq War business, Tony Blair
:39:41. > :39:50.said he wished he had never introduced it, and that is probably
:39:50. > :39:54.the best reason to introduce it. And Gus O'Donnell said it was a
:39:54. > :40:00.huge regret because one should have honest debate in Cabinet which will
:40:00. > :40:03.be released in due course. That is the argument where why there is
:40:03. > :40:09.still Cabinet secrecy. So people who just don't like the public to
:40:09. > :40:16.know often fall back on these excuses, but they're not real or
:40:16. > :40:22.valid. John Terry's �2 to,000 fine and a four-match ban for racist
:40:22. > :40:28.language? Yes, people are confused as to why he was cleared in a court
:40:28. > :40:32.of law but found accused in the other court. The reason is they
:40:32. > :40:40.were different charges. He was cleared because it was not shown
:40:40. > :40:45.that he had the relevant mental element, which was to intend to be
:40:45. > :40:48.racialy insulted. It was on a football pitch. But I'm not going
:40:48. > :40:53.to second-guess the Magistrates who heard all the evidence. But the FA
:40:53. > :40:58.have a different standard and say you should never use that language
:40:58. > :41:06.regardless of your intentions. So if you have different charges you
:41:06. > :41:10.have different verdicts. So, how can he still be captain of Chelsea?
:41:10. > :41:14.How can you. If you've already stepped down from your England
:41:14. > :41:20.position and notified by the FA that they're going to continue
:41:20. > :41:23.charges, how can you captain a team in the Premier League? That is an
:41:23. > :41:28.ongoing debate about the morality of the football world. We have to
:41:28. > :41:33.leave it there. You have been voting in our poll this morning:
:41:33. > :41:39.Should accused teachers be given anonymity. The poll is closing now,
:41:39. > :41:43.so please don't text as the votes are closed, but you may still be
:41:43. > :41:49.charged and we'll bring you the results at the end of the show. It
:41:49. > :41:55.seems as if the news is dominated by public figures apologising. Nick
:41:55. > :42:02.Clegg for making promises he couldn't keep and Andrew Mitchell
:42:02. > :42:08.apologising to the police. But repentance is a central ten yet of
:42:08. > :42:15.all major religions, but it is an ease yes get out of jail card?
:42:15. > :42:21.Rosie Millard takes this stand. Sorry used to be the hardest word.
:42:21. > :42:27.Not any more. It's now become the easiest and, at times, the most
:42:27. > :42:34.inappropriate. Do we really want to hear Nick
:42:34. > :42:41.Clegg apologising for tuition fees? No. Do we want to hear Andrew
:42:41. > :42:45.Mitchell apologising for "loosing his rag" a little? Not really.
:42:45. > :42:50.There seems to be a sort of growing trend of world leaders going around
:42:50. > :42:55.the place apologising for things which really had nothing to do with
:42:55. > :42:59.them. Pope John Paul II apologised for The Crusades. Tony Blair
:42:59. > :43:03.apologised for the Irish potato famine. Sorry has become a sort of
:43:03. > :43:12.white bucket of paint - sling is over there and everything is going
:43:12. > :43:16.to be OK. What these apologies appear to be are sincere apologies
:43:16. > :43:24.of regret or consolations to relatives and distant relives of
:43:24. > :43:30.people who have been 35ly treated it does not make amends or
:43:30. > :43:35.corrections. It seems dishonest that we could do it again, it lets
:43:35. > :43:39.the apologisers off the hook. As Oscar Wilde said "when we blame
:43:39. > :43:43.ourselves we feel that no-one else has the right to blame us"
:43:43. > :43:48.apologies do more for the perpetrate are than the victim.
:43:48. > :43:52.Surely that's the wrong way round. If you really mean sorry, it means
:43:52. > :44:00.you have to change something you are responsible for and you won't
:44:00. > :44:03.do it again. Will Lee Clegg carry on being hapless? Most likely: If
:44:03. > :44:10.we want sorry to start meaning anything again, we have to have
:44:10. > :44:19.fewer apologies. You can join in my webcam or make
:44:19. > :44:25.your point by phone, text, e-mail or jonk line. We're joined by
:44:25. > :44:29.Hardeep Kohli. And he cooks. Sorry about that. A lot of people feel
:44:29. > :44:33.that Nick Clegg apology really wasn't a proper one. Some people do,
:44:33. > :44:37.some people don't. I think it's quite clear, from what he said
:44:37. > :44:41.actually in the video, that he really regrets what has happened
:44:41. > :44:44.and indeed he and his party have said that they're going to do
:44:44. > :44:48.things differently. They're not going to claim that they can
:44:48. > :44:52.deliver on pledges that you can really only deliver in Opposition
:44:52. > :44:57.or you have an outright majority when you're in coalition. And it's
:44:57. > :45:01.likely you're going to be in coalition. So that was what he
:45:01. > :45:07.apologised for. Whether it is accepted or not remains to be seen,
:45:07. > :45:13.but it is better that he tried. What happened in the almost two-
:45:13. > :45:16.and-a-half years between the policy appearing not to have legs and
:45:16. > :45:25.between when Nick Clegg actually said sorry. Does that not matter.
:45:25. > :45:29.He made the point that if he a apologiesed -- apologised at the
:45:29. > :45:35.time it would not have been heard. So you have to wait until people
:45:35. > :45:40.want to hear. But it was at the party conference. I think it
:45:40. > :45:45.dominated it. But it brought it back into the public domain. It is
:45:45. > :45:49.a way, an apology, of bringing the argument back and having it all
:45:49. > :45:55.over again. Taking control over it again. In terms of timing, there's
:45:55. > :46:01.no good time, is there. There are better times than others. I want to
:46:01. > :46:06.bring in the President of the Sheffield University student union.
:46:06. > :46:11.Students at your university were directly affected. He's your local
:46:11. > :46:14.MP. What did you make of the apology? To be honest, I don't
:46:14. > :46:20.think there was a single student who actually thought it was sincere.
:46:20. > :46:24.In order to have a sincere apology you have to have a sincere pledge.
:46:24. > :46:28.And from documents that have come out it was obvious that a few
:46:28. > :46:32.months before the elections the Liberal Democrats had already
:46:32. > :46:37.decided they weren't going to keep their word and yet still Lee Clegg
:46:37. > :46:41.came out and said on video," I will resist, and campaign and vote
:46:42. > :46:46.against any rise in fees." So actually there is a genuine
:46:46. > :46:50.deception going on here and it is unambiguous deception and I don't
:46:50. > :46:54.think there is anything at all sincere about that. And let's
:46:55. > :47:00.remember one other thing which is that if Nick Clegg genuinely did
:47:00. > :47:04.want to keep his word - and he isn't actually resisting the
:47:04. > :47:11.marketisation of university or apologising that students are
:47:11. > :47:16.�30,000 or �40,000 in debt. And until he apologises for this, I
:47:17. > :47:22.don't think think is anything sincere in it. I was on the policy
:47:22. > :47:27.committee, I signed that pledge smech. And did you recognise it was
:47:27. > :47:33.undeliverable No, what it said that was if we won power over six years,
:47:33. > :47:37.not instantly, it could be afforded to be got rid of. As opposed to the
:47:37. > :47:42.Conservatives and the Labour who said we don't agree. At the time it
:47:42. > :47:46.was made it was sincere had we won and indeed we would have voted
:47:46. > :47:52.against an increase had we been in opposition. But when you're in
:47:52. > :47:59.coalition and there's only 50mpts who -- MPs to actually share our
:47:59. > :48:05.views, so that is a little unfair. Rhodesy, you talked about -- Rosie,
:48:05. > :48:09.you talked about there being an ulterior motive in some of these
:48:09. > :48:15.apologies, what about some people who are back in Government? Yes,
:48:15. > :48:21.this is a way of people thinking it draws a line under the event. Bob
:48:21. > :48:27.Diamond, I'm really, really sorry. Are they sorry for being found out
:48:27. > :48:35.or are they really sorry? Do they hope that this apology says, "I'm
:48:35. > :48:41.really sorry" bang, let's carry on." Rosie's point taken further,
:48:41. > :48:45.the notion that an apology is the end, an apology should be the
:48:45. > :48:52.beginning and then go on to an explanation of why they should be
:48:52. > :48:58.what they are. Mitchell was very clear to say, "I didn't say X, Y
:48:58. > :49:04.and Z and I will apologise." That's not an apology, it should have been
:49:04. > :49:08."this is what I said and I apologise." The first point is,
:49:08. > :49:16.crime or sin, punishment and then remorse. So now some of these
:49:16. > :49:21.people are punished and you still want a restorative justice. I want
:49:21. > :49:28.to move on from the politicians because some of the big apologies
:49:28. > :49:34.you talked about Rosie was that when politicians apologise for the
:49:34. > :49:41.big problems, like salivary or the hollow kauts, -- Holocaust, there
:49:41. > :49:47.is a place for that, isn't there? can't see anything in Tony Blair
:49:47. > :49:51.aprolgising for the potato famine. Or David Cameron for Hills borough,
:49:51. > :49:56.for the failure of the system to do the right thing by those families.
:49:56. > :50:01.It helps. But I find a quirk of our political system I admire but don't
:50:01. > :50:09.understand at the same time, that David Cameron wasn't in power,
:50:09. > :50:14.didn't even have aspirations for politicians, was probably
:50:14. > :50:18.qualifying SAM champagne. No, you can say he's speaking as Prime
:50:18. > :50:22.Minister, he's not speaking as David Cameron. But I admire a
:50:22. > :50:30.system that holds the current Prime Minister to account but I do think
:50:30. > :50:33.there is a slight seventy ation of improbability. Tony Blair has
:50:34. > :50:41.apologiesed for Bloody Sunday but never for the Iraq War. But that is
:50:41. > :50:48.the point about the potato famine. Yes, because it wasn't him. Quite.
:50:48. > :50:53.The Rabbi Alexandra Wright, the Jewish community has been
:50:53. > :50:57.celebrating atonement recently. What is your view on this idea that
:50:57. > :51:03.modern-day politicians shouldn't be apologising for things like the
:51:03. > :51:08.Holocaust, it is somehow meaningsless? I think historical
:51:08. > :51:14.apologies are complex. Jewiaism would say that the apology must
:51:14. > :51:19.come from the perpetrator. But what if those people are no longer
:51:19. > :51:24.alive? Can the Vatican offer an apology for the Holocaust, where
:51:24. > :51:29.there are Catholics who had no part in killing Jews and only families
:51:29. > :51:35.not affected by it. So we have to ask what it means and I'm unshern
:51:35. > :51:40.about the effectiveness of those -- uncertain about the effectiveness
:51:40. > :51:44.of those kind of apologies. They might help, but equally they might
:51:45. > :51:49.do far more damage and far more effective, I would say is the re-
:51:49. > :51:55.building of the relationship that has broken down. The absence of the
:51:55. > :51:59.perpetrator and the victim doesn't mean that there can't be renewal
:51:59. > :52:05.and restoration subsequently. you very much. I want to bring in
:52:05. > :52:09.an exoffender and you are now a big campaigner for restorative justice.
:52:09. > :52:14.Can you explain how it has worked for you and why you think apologies
:52:14. > :52:18.are an important part of paying back when you've been a criminal.
:52:18. > :52:23.Well, with regards to the word" sorry" I think sorry is fast
:52:23. > :52:29.becoming a five-letter word in the British language and it's become
:52:29. > :52:35.quite meaningless. I think for me, sorry is an action. You have to
:52:35. > :52:41.demonstrate the sorryness. Tell us briefly what you did. Because you
:52:41. > :52:45.said you used to think sorry was like a piece of paper in court, but
:52:45. > :52:53.your life as changed and you've met some of our victims and saying
:52:53. > :52:57.sorry was important, wasn't it? say saying sorry was important, but
:52:57. > :53:01.more important is that the victims were able to ask me questions and
:53:01. > :53:06.get closure on the things that harmed them the most. More
:53:06. > :53:11.importantly, it's not just about sorry. Sorry is such an easy word.
:53:11. > :53:14.I've said it a thousand times in the past, but actually standing
:53:14. > :53:19.face-to-face with the person you've harmed and hearing exactly how
:53:19. > :53:27.you've harmed them, it's totally different. In a court of law it's
:53:27. > :53:32.just a piece of paper read out, a victim's statement. And it's very
:53:32. > :53:36.meaning less. Peter, thank you. Rosie? Peter is absolutely right,
:53:36. > :53:42.it has to be that way. It's difficult to institute it but when
:53:42. > :53:47.it happens it's remarkable. My brother-in-law and sister were
:53:47. > :53:51.blaeinged recently and a few things were stolen. They got them --
:53:51. > :53:55.burgled recently and a few things were stolen and they got them back
:53:55. > :54:00.and the man was convicted. A few months later there was a knock on
:54:00. > :54:05.the door and it was the burglar holding a precious box that was
:54:05. > :54:13.stolen and he said, "I felt so bad about this I wanted to give it back
:54:13. > :54:22.to you." That was remarkable. They were both crying. That was being
:54:22. > :54:26.genuine in your piece. pollingies are crucial but it has
:54:26. > :54:31.been devalued. With John Profumo, when he was humiliated, he went off
:54:31. > :54:39.to do charity work in the East End and one can't imagine a politician
:54:39. > :54:44.kwhran today doing that. Is there a -- politician today doing that. Is
:54:44. > :54:52.there a shamelessness about modern politicians? The problem is,
:54:52. > :54:59.everyone is being watched 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because
:54:59. > :55:04.the community service has a purpose. Mitchell, for example, if he was to
:55:04. > :55:10.go off and do community service, he should go off and be a community
:55:10. > :55:15.police man for a few weeks. The Peter case is fascinating, I know
:55:15. > :55:21.it well. Sorry was the beginning of the process. He's now made it his
:55:21. > :55:25.life's work. This notion that Rosie said about people turning up to the
:55:25. > :55:30.door with stuff that is stolen. I want to see where Nick Clegg goes
:55:30. > :55:35.with the notion of making Promss before elections. If we can't even
:55:35. > :55:40.trust our politicians to carry out the Promss they've made how can we
:55:40. > :55:45.trust them to say "we're not going to make Promss because we can't
:55:45. > :55:52.keep them." What is left? Rosie?Y well, Nick Clegg, it was the
:55:52. > :55:58.nearest to power he was ever going to get, and frankly if he couldn't
:55:58. > :56:03.do anything about it then....? We have to end that discussion, thank
:56:03. > :56:10.you very much. Your votes are in and we asked should accused
:56:10. > :56:17.teachers be given anonymity. 80% of people who voted in said yes.
:56:17. > :56:22.You've got a lot of teachers watching. I'm astonished. I really
:56:22. > :56:26.am. And I think it's a shame. I think it shows a breakdrown.
:56:26. > :56:31.think it's absolutely right because I don't accept there are other
:56:31. > :56:35.professions at the same risk. I had case in my constituency of
:56:35. > :56:38.malicious allegations being made and all it says is that until an
:56:38. > :56:43.investigation has come out, unless a child is at interest or the
:56:43. > :56:51.interests of justice require it, there should be protection for that
:56:51. > :56:56.teacher. I think the public are absolutely right on this one.
:56:56. > :57:02.in a classroom for a week with allegations hanging over you and
:57:02. > :57:07.see how you are undermined as a teacher. It would be idealistic to
:57:07. > :57:14.think that teachers ignore these allegations. Teachers' lives are
:57:14. > :57:18.hard enough as it is. For stuff to go public prematurely, it is
:57:18. > :57:23.untenable. This is a solution. law has been two years in the
:57:23. > :57:29.making. It was not casually brought in. Yes, but if it had been
:57:29. > :57:34.existing in the last week, would Jeremy Forrest's name been allowed
:57:34. > :57:39.to be...Yes, We checked that out and clearly if a child is a risk, a
:57:39. > :57:43.single Magistrate can lift the anonymity. So the police and the
:57:43. > :57:47.while protection people are satisfied. You have to be careful
:57:47. > :57:51.not to draw legislation on extreme cases. This is an extreme case.
:57:51. > :57:59.That has to be the final word. Thank you all so much.
:57:59. > :58:04.My thanks to everyone who has taken part in today's progress.
:58:04. > :58:09.And to all our contributors vie ray webcam. Please do not text or call