Episode 13 Sunday Morning Live

A new law coming into force tomorrow allows teachers accused of

misconduct a period where their identity will be protected. But

will this really help teachers or simply undermine vulnerable

children? Should accused teachers be given anonymity?

Good morning. I'm Samira Ahmed and welcome to Sunday Morning Live.

Should teachers and no other profession be ganted anonymity to

protect them from false accusations? Tomorrow, a new law

comes into play to do just that. Will it have protected Jeremy

Forrest. And with Rowan Williams unable to resolve the row over

women, what will the Church of England do?

And with a seemingly constant stream of apologies from the lips

of politicians, is repentance real or has saying sorry lost its

meaning? Sorry used to be the hardiest word. Not any more. It's

now become the easiest and, at times, one of the most

inappropriate. Well, a very warm welcome to my

guests this week. Rosie Millard is a journalist and broadcaster. She

writes for the Times and recently competed in a triathlon alongside

David Hasselhoff. Stephen Glover is a Daily Mail

columnist. And Simon Warr was famously the headmaster in a

reality TV show, "That'll Teach 'Em, and he joins us. If you want to

join in, you can give your views on So, a lu law comes into force

tomorrow that gives teachers accused of abuzing their position

of trust a right to anonymity. The law is designed to protect

teachers against a grow problem of false and malicious accusations:

But do teachers need anonymity. Why not doctors or others? And is there

a danger that children's rights to be undermined. We've come a long

way from when children felt the cane on the back of their hand.

Today, with teachers open to a lot more scrutiny children are

protected more than they have ever been. But has the protection of

pupils come at the debt am of protecting teachers? Today, if a

teacher is accused of committing a criminal offence against a child,

they can be named and accused even before they are tried and teachers

say it is their careers that have been ruined. Under the new

legislation, Jeremy Forrest would have had his anonymity protected

until an arrest warrant was formally issueed, which was not

until last Tuesday and people would have been banned from revealing his

identity. The newspaper society say that it

has not been thought through. Sometimes there is need for

publicity and media attention before a warrant is issued, as

became evident in Megan Stammers case. The police say it will hamper

missing persons investigations and freedom of speech. So is the new

legislation an important way of protecting our teachers, or is it

overthe top and threatens freedom of speech.

Vital protection for teachers or the danger of being over the top?

think we have to make exceptional circumstances for teachers, because

we're dealing with children first and foremost on a daily basis and

not only are we imparting information, but we're also holding

a disciplinary role. And that will lead to conflict, telling children

what te don't want to do. So I think there should be special

circumstances for teachers. That is Should teachers be given special

anonymity? Simon, there is this real unease

among people that there is a danger this law could be protecting

abusers? It can't probably protect abusers because first and foremost,

we have an understanding that people are innocent until proven

guilty. Well, as the law stands, actually, once a teacher has been

charged with an offence, when the Crown Prosecution Service believes

there is some case to answer, then a teacher loses his anonymity. But

I don't see that just because somebody accuses somebody of

something else, that immediately, and of course, teachers are fair

game. The newspapers love allegations, I say love allegations

against teachers, they think it's good copy. So we have to beware of

that. Rosie, as a parent, it is a recent issue, but teachers do feel

undermined? I don't see why there is a special case for teachers.

We're deeing with children that's why. You could have this for

parents or social workers. There are a lot of people who could lose

their careers if something malicious is claimed against them.

Last year 2% of claims were regarded as malicious and there

have only been 15% of successful claims over the last number of

years. So I don't think it's a flood. Perhaps we should look at it

more counter intuitively and say why if these claims are happening,

why are children making these claims. And maybe this is food with

the traditional respect between pupils and teachers which may have

broken down. I am not against teachers, I think they do a

fantastic job and I have four children at school and maybe they

need to repair the breakdown of the relationship between the teachers

and pupils. We're not saying that somebody should be let off. All

we're saying that unless there is a case to answer - an accusation

against a teacher is a devastating one, not only does it ruin the

career but the life. What about men accused of rape? You're always

talking about the need for traditional values and old 46

fashioned discipline to some extent and isn't there a need for this law

because many teachers feel they are undermined and easy prey? I agree

with Rosie, why not policemen or doctors? I could make an accusation

against a doctor which is very damaging to him. Doctors are not in

a disciplinary role, that's the point. Well, a policeman is. They

don't deal with only children? deal with children and 58 kinds of

people and a policeman might argue that it would be better for him to

be anonymous because he might be targeted by criminals. People have

many reasons for wishing to remain anonymous. The point is accusation,

well-founded accusations can be made against teachers that can't be

proven in a court of law or for one reason or another there is no

charge, but they are discreditedable to the teacher in

question, and people have a right to know about that. Also, if

someone makes an accusation and it's all hushed up and no-one is

allowed to say anything, not even parents outside the school gates,

and that teacher moves on to another place, if there are grounds

to the accusation, then no-one is ever going to know and that's

surely the much more dangerous thing? Who are the vulnerable

people here, the teachers or the children, and I would suggest the

children. Tony, you are with the Irish national society for teachers

organisation. What is your view? First of all, from my position is

our members wish - I mean, they're in teaching because they respect

children and they want children to be safe. However, we do deal with

malicious allegations against teachers and that, as has been said

by your panellists, is devastating for them. Not just personally and

professionally, but for their families. If I can give you one

example, I had a member who, in his university career, was accused of

rape and that's the issue one of your panellists raised. That member,

the police decided there was no prosecution. The member continued

on, went to teach Eritreaning college, got married, had a

teaching career as a subject teacher in a school and then found

themselves later on they applied for a permanent position. The

principal encouraged them, given their performance in the school.

This issue came to light in a police check. And that teacher was

then, effectively, had to leave the school. He was hounded out of his

profession. Without having been convicted of anything?

unfortunately he has never taught again. His career was lost, and

there were implactions for his family and no-one ever went back to

look at it again. In one case, the organisations were more interested

in protecting themselves than even more the issue of the child. Thank

you, Tony. Pete Saunders is from the National Association for People

abused in childhood. You had an awful experience yourself in school.

Now you support others who have been through this. Do you believe

that nowadays there are more children making up casual

allegations without thinking through the risks, and what is the

risk of anonymity, in your view, for teachers? Good morning. I think

what is crucial is the state that nobody wants - injustice. That is

clear. None of us want injustice, apart, of course, from abusers,

rapists, et cetera, because they don't want to be caught. And very

few will ever put their hands up and admit that they did it. I think

what is crucial is that a proper and thorough investigation is

always undertaken when there is an allegation of bad behaviour of

abuse. We're talking about anonymity, what difference would

that make? Would it make a difference to other victims coming

ford or does it protect adults? think in the early stages of an

allegation then there isn't an issue with anonymity. I think that

is attitudely fine at the very early stage of talking to the

person making the accusation and making it very clear to the person

- we're talking about a child here, the consequences of making a false

accusations. And people who are prr plea trained in investigating these

things and -- properly trained in investigating these things and

interviewing both perpetrator and victim. They would know Qichenly

whether or not it is a credible allegation and if they feel it is a

credible allegation they dig into the background of the perpetrator.

And who should be doing this? Because the trouble is now the

police have to make a decision and once they go in with a warrant or

they make a request at a Magistrates, that anonymity can be

lifted. But you are saying potentially it should be lifted

earlier? Oh, I think it should, because if a teacher - let's be

honest, most teachers are faced - they're in the profession, as your

colleague in benefits described, because they want to teach and they

want to work with children, et cetera and very few put themselves

in a position where there would be an allegation. But where it happens

a full investigation has to happen. In our society we hear about the

consequences of afalseity that has consequence for life. Yes, we must

have a robust investigation. If an allegation is made, of course a

robust investigation should go ahead, but at that stage, until

someone in authority, the police, decide there is a case to answer,

until that point, then I think in some ways it is a private matter,

until someone decides, yes, what that child is saying, actually

there are some grounds here and we think this person has a case to

answer. Then, then I think that person's name should go public.

is interesting that Tony from the union said earlier that the school

has a vested interest in keeping it quiet and both the children and the

teacher can suffer as a result of that? Yes, but we have to think

about freedom of speech and look at the libel laws which are already in

place. You can't go around libeling and slandering people any way. And

we really have to say teachers are not unique individuals. It's not a

unique institution and many people - It is in terms of dealing with

children and in a disciplinary role day after day. Parents do too.

all due respects, a couple of children, we're talking about

hundreds of children. At some point there is bound to be conflict.

Parents can mistreat their children. I can't understand why teachers

have been singled out. Do you think other professions might start to

adopt this? Yes, it could slip under the carpet and nobody really

- we're only talking about this really because of the recent case.

I object to you say" slippery slope." It could be a slippery

slope. It is a corrective thing in all our behaviour if we think that

what we do wrong, which is not necessarily criminal, but what we

do wrong can be talked about by our clegs and in the press, subject to

the laws of libel, if we know that exists that is a corrective

mechanism of how we behave and the idea that teachers are exempted

from that. What about university lecturers, they deal with children.

I want to bring in a viewer. Do you think the law will work better or

worse as a result of this change? The simple answer is yes it would,

but in practice it couldn't because in this proposed legislation the

anonymity can be lifted. An application can be made by anyone

for a hearing to take place and if that was not accedeed to, and the

test would be whether it was in the problem interest, then an appeal

can be made to a Crown Court judge. So the veil of anonymity would be

lifted and we'd get to know about the criminal allegations and they

have to be criminal allegations for this anonymity to apply. It's not a

case of libel or civil matters, it's purely criminal matters. So

any teacher who is investigated for a criminal matter would be entitled

to remain anonymous until such time as proceedings are instituted.

Thank you. I want to bring in Bob who is the director for the Society

of Editors. Now you are worried about anonymity. There is an

accusation that the press can jump on these cases before there is any

substance and teachers' careers are ruined as a result of it. It is

wide of the mark that the media jumps in before there is an

accusation, because of libel laws, obviously and a lot of other

accusations. This is not about the media, it's about everybody.

Parents at the school gates cannot discuss it and even teachers and

head teachers, as we've heard, you get a case where a teacher is

accused of an offence is actually allowed to resign and move on to

another school and no record goes with them because no-one is allowed

to talk to them. In the end, somebody could in fact be fined and,

indeed, worse than that, for simply telling the truth. It's not as

though these things are common. Certainly the Government, when

we've been discussing it with them, couldn't find huge numbers of cases.

Obviously, we have sympathy for teachers but you don't solve one

problem by inventing another one which is surely far more dangerous

because most people think it is children who matter more than the

teachers. Thank you, Stephen? more I hear the more I'm amazed

that this has happened and I'm flabbergasted that teachers should

have been singled out in this way and I only hope that now we're

talking about it's not extended, certainly not extended to any over

profession, but people think again about teachers. Do you accept there

could be unaccepted consequences? don't think anyone will be

prosecuted for talking about it at the school gates. All the law is

concerned about are the headlines, about a teacher who has had an

allegation made against him or her. But it's not about the newspaper

headlines, as ef we've just heard. On a practical level, I can tell

you on behalf of teachers, all that is concerned about if an allegation

is made against a teacher then I think it is only fir not to have

his or her name put in the local paper without some at least

some...I Think it's an incredibly defensive move by the teaching

profession, it's almost like "we know it's going to happen, so we'd

better put this law in place" please.

I think we will have to see what happens.

A couple of your comments. Susanna, "I support anonymity as my father

was wrongly accused and his case was splashed across the papers with

devastating consequences for him and our family." And Kirsty says,

"When I was a teacher. I had pupils make false allegations against me,

and it was difficult to do anything about it." Thank you for all your

You can text or vote on-line. You have around 20 minutes before the

poll closes. Now, the Church of England is in

the process of selecting a new Archbishop of Canterbury. Following

Rowan Will yams' tenure, should the Church revert to traditional

conserve core values or take a more liberal path which might reverse

declining congregations? Archbishop women yams has struggled

to keep divisions closed in the Church of England. 20 years after

women priests were first allowed, it seems this is ago organisation

struggling with its identity. The Church of England of 2012 is a very

different organisation than that established by Henry IV, but with

the world evolving around it and congregations declining, is it

losing its core values as it seeks to stay relevant to modern Britain?

Many argue that the Church of England has to move with the times

or risk losing its membership in an increasingly secular world. In

today's society it's simply not acceptable to deny gay marriage or

female bishops. However, there are many people in the church opposed

to such changes. They say the Church of England has already

become too liberal and should stop trying to please everyone. Hundreds

of members of the Church of England have left and joined a section of

the Catholic church, a structure within Roman Catholic Church that

allows people to enter full communion whilst retaining some of

the Church of England heritage. So, should the Church of England move

with the times or stay true to more conservative values? And you can

join the conversation via Twitter, text or on-line, from home.

Joiny me 1 the Vice-President of both the British Humanist Society

and the national secular society. Simon, what kind of leadership do

you want from the Anglican Church? Let's understand what the Anglican

Church is, it's not top-down like the Catholic, where the Pope says

what should happen. It is very difficult for any Archbishop to

keep the whole Church happy. But in a way that's a the Church's problem.

It's always inward looking and discussing the issues itself.

know the problem, what would you like to see? Afterall, it is the

country's established church, whether one is an atheist or

whatever you are, the Church of England is the established church

in England. And people want some kind of moral guidance on

incredibly complicated moral problems. And the church tends to

look inwards on its own debate and does not give that guidance. I have

no idea, even though I regularly attend church, what the Church of

England's line is on abortion. I just don't know. Don't count me in

as wanting moral guidance from the church. Isle' make up my own mind.

Let me make my point. I don't think that the Church has any monopoly on

more 589, -- morality, nor that the scripture has the best way to deal

with moral questions. So I just think that if I were the church I'd

want to - and I wanted to say established, I wouldn't retain its

discriminatory position on gays and women, because why should this

country constitutionally be bound to an organisation that

discriminates against women and gay people? I think most people would

say that's wrong. Rosie, what's interesting is there are many

people who feel loyal to the church and say they don't want to keep up

with the current fashion and what's wrong with the idea of going back

to core traditional values? Well, because if you have a church which

is also part of the state and which has guidance on public policy, that

is a problem. I'm with Evan here. If you have Bishops in the House of

Lords and politicians who are in the church, you have to look at

what it is saying. And if it is saying gay marriage is not on in

the church, how can it be in civil partnerships? And the Church of

England seems to have accepted quite a lot of stuff, it's noted

for its tolerance on divorce and all sorts of things have changed.

What you're saying because it is established it has to adopt secular

values? No, it can do what it wants, but it is part of the state.

position is worse than Rosie says. It's not part of the estate, it's

established but it's not any sort of form part of the state. Then why

did Ed Miliband say he's going to whip his MPs into line and vote

absolutely for gays marriage in church, because he wants equality

across the board. Can I just bring in Suzy. You are a

female lay member and some viewers would think you would surely be

very keen to see women bishops and equality with the outside world at

last, but is that how you feel? I'm afraid those assumptions would

be wrong. I'm one of the thousands of women who signed a pettition for

proper provision in the Church of England for those who can't accept

the innovation of women Bishops. We wanted the leaders of the Church of

England to understand that the bishop liberal views of men and

women being equal but different were really important and that our

churches were flourishing under male leadership and responsibility.

Are you saying that the church would probably flourish now if it

went back to a harder line of interpretation and stopped trying

to be liberal, dare I say it? don't know it is about being hard

line. But is it about being more popular? Oh, it's certainly not

about being popular. Jesus Christ was not popular, he caused a lot of

controversy, and if all the church does is reflect society back to

itself we'll have no impact at all and no relevance. This is exactly

the point. It is entirely up to the Church of England what it chooses

to do and I think they should make up their own decision. I personally

hope that they will go for women Bishops and zop discriminating

against gay people. But that isn't the position. -- stop. The problem

is that they oppose even secular, civil equal marriage. But isn't her

point like Stephen's idea, maybe there is a need for stronger moral

leadership and you can join it or not if you like. Evan has a good

point about gay marriage. I mean, the Church of England says, as does

the Roman Catholic church says, that marriage is for the pro-

creation of children. It may be wrong, it may be right, but that is

what it believes. It fears that if you have secular gay marriage it

will be forced to introduce it in church and that is the line it is

trying to draw. If the Church of England can be absolutely sure that

it will only happen in a secular context and it will never happen in

church...It Will never be forced. What is your view on what Susie had

to say and she is loyal to the Anglican Church and these people's

views matter. Yes, if people get more and more tolerant with, hay,

the virgin birth and resurrection, I'm not sure. You leave big holes

through which very, very hard-line evangelical groups come, because

people want certainty. But the problem is, people also like

tolerance, and the fact that the Church of England is not tolerant

about women Bishops and gay marriages. It is the most tolerant

institution in the world. Well, not in the world, I think you'll find.

In England. 9% of the population go to church regularly, it is apuling.

And I would like to bring in an example of the skouts. The scouts

ocean -- scouts. The scouts association had terrificly falling

numbers, but then it allowed girls and gays in. I am a Brownie leader.

We'll have a debate about the skouths another time. I can assure

you, the Church of England, which I probably know better than you.

had a huge growth in response to this tolerance. The church is full

of gays, half the priests are gay. Let me bring in the Reverend Colin

Coward, who lobbies for more inclusiveness for gay Anglicans.

Don't you have to accept that whatever is going on in society,

the script Ural teaching, which many loyal Anglicans believe in do

not accept homosexuality and it is not a battle worth pursuing,

because it is tearing the church apart? I think the Bible has a much

bigger view of the nature of people and it's about love and justice and

truthfulness. And the tragedy is the church is becoming obsessed

with issues like women as bishops and homosexuality. Why do you think,

in your words, there is an obsession in the country with

things like women bishops and homosexuality? I think it's because

people are afraid of change. They're afraid of difference in

society. People are always afraid of difference, whether it is race,

gender or sexuality. Thank you. We also have the Reverend Chris

suggest den who is a -- another member of the Church of England. Do

you feel that the CofE is in danger of appearing out of touch and being

discriminatory against large groups in society, women and gay people by

keeping up what some say is a hard- line position? Well, I think an

example of the church's contribution to truth and justice

has been, for example, the Bishop of Liverpool's independent panel on

the Hillsborough disaster, and it took a Bishop and his personal

commitment to those issues to expose much of the hypocrisy of the

police, of the media, of politicians, over that terrible

tragedy and I think that gives an example that the church is

concerned with much wider issues. And I would want to suggest that it

is activists, often one-issue groups, that are continually

pushing forward an ideological position that gives the impression

that the church is obsessed with these issues. It is not, the church

is getting on with issues right across the board. That's

interesting. Do you think the church then made an error of how

they handled the St Paul's anti- capitalist protest when many people

thought they were out of touch with the public mood by trying to clear

the protesters a -- away. I was very supportive of the Chancellor

and the stance he took by inviting the protesters into the church in

the beginning. -- cathedral in the beginning. I think he was right to

show the church's siding about the big questions about the way in

which our financial sectors are managed. I think they were right.

Evan? There are people in the Church of England, good people who

do good things, but I don't think they should claim a monopoly. It

just needs an independent person. Really? Yes, because remember the

churches are good as covering up as well. The child abuse scandal,

which is not restricted to The Catholic Church, is a good example

of that. So I don't think you can make a generally rule that just

because there is a Bishop chairing an inquiry there are good people in

the church. But this is an example, where people in the church made a

huge difference to who emerged over Hills borough in the end? Yes, and

whether you are an Anglican or an atheist, the Bishop resided over a

process and could be trusted in a way that perhaps even judges cannot

be trusted. We have a long history in this country of judges in public

inquiries coming up with a solution for the Government of the day.

I don't I the work of the Hillsborough commission relied on

the faith of the person who was the chair of it. There was a good panel.

It relied on his reputation. Any way. People trust less now, but

still trust quite highly, doctor, like me, but deference is reduced,

which is rightly so. We shouldn't trust people purely on the basis of

their title or whether they wear a collar. Rosie, maybe one could

stick to the old-fashioned teaching, but clearly compromise has not

worked for Rowan Williams. No, I think modernise or die. I like

Christ, it's Christians I have a problem with. And there are some

tricky Christians in the Church of England. Thank you all very much

indeed and later on Sunday Morning Live, actually first of all, a

couple of comments. "The church should choose what it wants to do

and not be turned by a few secular societies.

And one say, "Let's accept the Church of England as an inclusive

and modern church for modern views. Thank you very much. And later on,

saying sorry is easy but meaning it and making amends is more difficult.

Has the recent flood of public but partial apologies shown that

increasingly such words are meaningless? You can join in my

webcam or make your views known by You have about five minutes before

the poll closes or you can vote on- line by visiting our website.

It's time for our moral moment of the week. The first story is chosen

by you, Rosie, it is a story about how teenagers are using cannabis or

not. Well, not, apparently. Many less teenagers are using cannabis

than in past years. In fact, the big addiction now is more for

texting and BBMs and being on their screens. And as a mother of a 15-

year-old daughter, I have to stay she is hopefully not addicted to

anything illegal, substances, but is quite addicted to her BlackBerry

and texts all the time. Including during meals and it drives me mad.

The interesting thing is that young people were questioned about this

and they said, "We don't want to be using drugs and be wasted all the

time because we're worried about getting our exams and getting a

job." Yes, do you believe this? checked the data because I don't

trust headlines, even from Stephen's paper, over drug use.

There has been a slow decline over the years. The cannabis figures

show a small decrease on last year, but the biggest drop was following

the declassification from class B to class C, which the experts call

called for, because it deglamorised the drug. It is generally good news.

What worries me more is the destruction of clinch's lives by

the criminalisation, rather than the treatment, of people who use

drugs. And another factor suggested in the article is that it is

cheaper to buy alcohol, which has a different set of social coasts.

Stephen, you chose the ongoing debate about Freedom of Information

Act and whether we should have access to politicians' e-mails and

texts? I have no desire to have access to e-mails and texts of

politicians, but it is trying to put private e-mails and private

texts between ministers on the same level as when they use official e-

mail. A couple of years ago, Michael Gove started sending people

e-mails privately and the reason he did that was presumably he didn't

want people in his office to read them and the information commission

didn't like that. Nor for the public to get access to them.

Eventually get access to them. If we accept as a principle that the

public have a right to access to Government e-mails, and I suppose

it makes sense to include private e-mails. But have to to think about

the text between Jeremy Hunt. we're talk being E mails which are

sent on a private network. There is no reason, logiccally that they

should be excluded if the others are included. It is vital to have a

transparent Government and after the Iraq War business, Tony Blair

said he wished he had never introduced it, and that is probably

the best reason to introduce it. And Gus O'Donnell said it was a

huge regret because one should have honest debate in Cabinet which will

be released in due course. That is the argument where why there is

still Cabinet secrecy. So people who just don't like the public to

know often fall back on these excuses, but they're not real or

valid. John Terry's �2 to,000 fine and a four-match ban for racist

language? Yes, people are confused as to why he was cleared in a court

of law but found accused in the other court. The reason is they

were different charges. He was cleared because it was not shown

that he had the relevant mental element, which was to intend to be

racialy insulted. It was on a football pitch. But I'm not going

to second-guess the Magistrates who heard all the evidence. But the FA

have a different standard and say you should never use that language

regardless of your intentions. So if you have different charges you

have different verdicts. So, how can he still be captain of Chelsea?

How can you. If you've already stepped down from your England

position and notified by the FA that they're going to continue

charges, how can you captain a team in the Premier League? That is an

ongoing debate about the morality of the football world. We have to

leave it there. You have been voting in our poll this morning:

Should accused teachers be given anonymity. The poll is closing now,

so please don't text as the votes are closed, but you may still be

charged and we'll bring you the results at the end of the show. It

seems as if the news is dominated by public figures apologising. Nick

Clegg for making promises he couldn't keep and Andrew Mitchell

apologising to the police. But repentance is a central ten yet of

all major religions, but it is an ease yes get out of jail card?

Rosie Millard takes this stand. Sorry used to be the hardest word.

Not any more. It's now become the easiest and, at times, the most

inappropriate. Do we really want to hear Nick

Clegg apologising for tuition fees? No. Do we want to hear Andrew

Mitchell apologising for "loosing his rag" a little? Not really.

There seems to be a sort of growing trend of world leaders going around

the place apologising for things which really had nothing to do with

them. Pope John Paul II apologised for The Crusades. Tony Blair

apologised for the Irish potato famine. Sorry has become a sort of

white bucket of paint - sling is over there and everything is going

to be OK. What these apologies appear to be are sincere apologies

of regret or consolations to relatives and distant relives of

people who have been 35ly treated it does not make amends or

corrections. It seems dishonest that we could do it again, it lets

the apologisers off the hook. As Oscar Wilde said "when we blame

ourselves we feel that no-one else has the right to blame us"

apologies do more for the perpetrate are than the victim.

Surely that's the wrong way round. If you really mean sorry, it means

you have to change something you are responsible for and you won't

do it again. Will Lee Clegg carry on being hapless? Most likely: If

we want sorry to start meaning anything again, we have to have

fewer apologies. You can join in my webcam or make

your point by phone, text, e-mail or jonk line. We're joined by

Hardeep Kohli. And he cooks. Sorry about that. A lot of people feel

that Nick Clegg apology really wasn't a proper one. Some people do,

some people don't. I think it's quite clear, from what he said

actually in the video, that he really regrets what has happened

and indeed he and his party have said that they're going to do

things differently. They're not going to claim that they can

deliver on pledges that you can really only deliver in Opposition

or you have an outright majority when you're in coalition. And it's

likely you're going to be in coalition. So that was what he

apologised for. Whether it is accepted or not remains to be seen,

but it is better that he tried. What happened in the almost two-

and-a-half years between the policy appearing not to have legs and

between when Nick Clegg actually said sorry. Does that not matter.

He made the point that if he a apologiesed -- apologised at the

time it would not have been heard. So you have to wait until people

want to hear. But it was at the party conference. I think it

dominated it. But it brought it back into the public domain. It is

a way, an apology, of bringing the argument back and having it all

over again. Taking control over it again. In terms of timing, there's

no good time, is there. There are better times than others. I want to

bring in the President of the Sheffield University student union.

Students at your university were directly affected. He's your local

MP. What did you make of the apology? To be honest, I don't

think there was a single student who actually thought it was sincere.

In order to have a sincere apology you have to have a sincere pledge.

And from documents that have come out it was obvious that a few

months before the elections the Liberal Democrats had already

decided they weren't going to keep their word and yet still Lee Clegg

came out and said on video," I will resist, and campaign and vote

against any rise in fees." So actually there is a genuine

deception going on here and it is unambiguous deception and I don't

think there is anything at all sincere about that. And let's

remember one other thing which is that if Nick Clegg genuinely did

want to keep his word - and he isn't actually resisting the

marketisation of university or apologising that students are

�30,000 or �40,000 in debt. And until he apologises for this, I

don't think think is anything sincere in it. I was on the policy

committee, I signed that pledge smech. And did you recognise it was

undeliverable No, what it said that was if we won power over six years,

not instantly, it could be afforded to be got rid of. As opposed to the

Conservatives and the Labour who said we don't agree. At the time it

was made it was sincere had we won and indeed we would have voted

against an increase had we been in opposition. But when you're in

coalition and there's only 50mpts who -- MPs to actually share our

views, so that is a little unfair. Rhodesy, you talked about -- Rosie,

you talked about there being an ulterior motive in some of these

apologies, what about some people who are back in Government? Yes,

this is a way of people thinking it draws a line under the event. Bob

Diamond, I'm really, really sorry. Are they sorry for being found out

or are they really sorry? Do they hope that this apology says, "I'm

really sorry" bang, let's carry on." Rosie's point taken further,

the notion that an apology is the end, an apology should be the

beginning and then go on to an explanation of why they should be

what they are. Mitchell was very clear to say, "I didn't say X, Y

and Z and I will apologise." That's not an apology, it should have been

"this is what I said and I apologise." The first point is,

crime or sin, punishment and then remorse. So now some of these

people are punished and you still want a restorative justice. I want

to move on from the politicians because some of the big apologies

you talked about Rosie was that when politicians apologise for the

big problems, like salivary or the hollow kauts, -- Holocaust, there

is a place for that, isn't there? can't see anything in Tony Blair

aprolgising for the potato famine. Or David Cameron for Hills borough,

for the failure of the system to do the right thing by those families.

It helps. But I find a quirk of our political system I admire but don't

understand at the same time, that David Cameron wasn't in power,

didn't even have aspirations for politicians, was probably

qualifying SAM champagne. No, you can say he's speaking as Prime

Minister, he's not speaking as David Cameron. But I admire a

system that holds the current Prime Minister to account but I do think

there is a slight seventy ation of improbability. Tony Blair has

apologiesed for Bloody Sunday but never for the Iraq War. But that is

the point about the potato famine. Yes, because it wasn't him. Quite.

The Rabbi Alexandra Wright, the Jewish community has been

celebrating atonement recently. What is your view on this idea that

modern-day politicians shouldn't be apologising for things like the

Holocaust, it is somehow meaningsless? I think historical

apologies are complex. Jewiaism would say that the apology must

come from the perpetrator. But what if those people are no longer

alive? Can the Vatican offer an apology for the Holocaust, where

there are Catholics who had no part in killing Jews and only families

not affected by it. So we have to ask what it means and I'm unshern

about the effectiveness of those -- uncertain about the effectiveness

of those kind of apologies. They might help, but equally they might

do far more damage and far more effective, I would say is the re-

building of the relationship that has broken down. The absence of the

perpetrator and the victim doesn't mean that there can't be renewal

and restoration subsequently. you very much. I want to bring in

an exoffender and you are now a big campaigner for restorative justice.

Can you explain how it has worked for you and why you think apologies

are an important part of paying back when you've been a criminal.

Well, with regards to the word" sorry" I think sorry is fast

becoming a five-letter word in the British language and it's become

quite meaningless. I think for me, sorry is an action. You have to

demonstrate the sorryness. Tell us briefly what you did. Because you

said you used to think sorry was like a piece of paper in court, but

your life as changed and you've met some of our victims and saying

sorry was important, wasn't it? say saying sorry was important, but

more important is that the victims were able to ask me questions and

get closure on the things that harmed them the most. More

importantly, it's not just about sorry. Sorry is such an easy word.

I've said it a thousand times in the past, but actually standing

face-to-face with the person you've harmed and hearing exactly how

you've harmed them, it's totally different. In a court of law it's

just a piece of paper read out, a victim's statement. And it's very

meaning less. Peter, thank you. Rosie? Peter is absolutely right,

it has to be that way. It's difficult to institute it but when

it happens it's remarkable. My brother-in-law and sister were

blaeinged recently and a few things were stolen. They got them --

burgled recently and a few things were stolen and they got them back

and the man was convicted. A few months later there was a knock on

the door and it was the burglar holding a precious box that was

stolen and he said, "I felt so bad about this I wanted to give it back

to you." That was remarkable. They were both crying. That was being

genuine in your piece. pollingies are crucial but it has

been devalued. With John Profumo, when he was humiliated, he went off

to do charity work in the East End and one can't imagine a politician

kwhran today doing that. Is there a -- politician today doing that. Is

there a shamelessness about modern politicians? The problem is,

everyone is being watched 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because

the community service has a purpose. Mitchell, for example, if he was to

go off and do community service, he should go off and be a community

police man for a few weeks. The Peter case is fascinating, I know

it well. Sorry was the beginning of the process. He's now made it his

life's work. This notion that Rosie said about people turning up to the

door with stuff that is stolen. I want to see where Nick Clegg goes

with the notion of making Promss before elections. If we can't even

trust our politicians to carry out the Promss they've made how can we

trust them to say "we're not going to make Promss because we can't

keep them." What is left? Rosie?Y well, Nick Clegg, it was the

nearest to power he was ever going to get, and frankly if he couldn't

do anything about it then....? We have to end that discussion, thank

you very much. Your votes are in and we asked should accused

teachers be given anonymity. 80% of people who voted in said yes.

You've got a lot of teachers watching. I'm astonished. I really

am. And I think it's a shame. I think it shows a breakdrown.

think it's absolutely right because I don't accept there are other

professions at the same risk. I had case in my constituency of

malicious allegations being made and all it says is that until an

investigation has come out, unless a child is at interest or the

interests of justice require it, there should be protection for that

teacher. I think the public are absolutely right on this one.

in a classroom for a week with allegations hanging over you and

see how you are undermined as a teacher. It would be idealistic to

think that teachers ignore these allegations. Teachers' lives are

hard enough as it is. For stuff to go public prematurely, it is

untenable. This is a solution. law has been two years in the

making. It was not casually brought in. Yes, but if it had been

existing in the last week, would Jeremy Forrest's name been allowed

to be...Yes, We checked that out and clearly if a child is a risk, a

single Magistrate can lift the anonymity. So the police and the

while protection people are satisfied. You have to be careful

not to draw legislation on extreme cases. This is an extreme case.

That has to be the final word. Thank you all so much.

My thanks to everyone who has taken part in today's progress.

And to all our contributors vie ray webcam. Please do not text or call