Episode 15 Sunday Morning Live

This week, the new Justice Secretary called for prisons to get

tough with inmates. With one of the highest and most overcrowded jail

populations in Europe, do it Good morning. Welcome. This week,

the new Justice Secretary called for prisons to get tough with

inmates. Are our prisons rarely the holiday camps they are sometimes

made dared to be? With revelations in the Jimmy Savile case touring a

worrying spotlight uncle Chet in the 70s and 80s, do we need female

quotas? Things have gone too far at work. There has been a huge

cultural shift. Women have become empowered. Some women still lose

sympathy by taking offence at the slightest bit of banter. The short-

term cash loans company are sponsoring Newcastle. Is it morally

right to promote such companies? Julie Bindel is a writer, feminist

and co-founder of the group, Justice for Women. David Dance is

an economist and businessman. -- Vance. Don Macintyre is an

investigative reporter. We want to know what he's think. Call-in have

to challenge our guests. -- what you think. Calls from mobiles may

cost considerably more. Texts will be charged at your standard message

rate. At the Conservative Party Conference this week, the new

Justice Secretary promised to put punishment for repeat offenders

back at the heart of the criminal justice system. With prisons

overcrowded, she could jail conditions be made harder? --

should jail conditions? Chris Grayling says it is time to get

much tougher on criminals. If you commit two serious violent or

sexual offences, you will get an automatic life sentence. He pledged

to stop chairs being like holiday camps for inmates. He said that

prisons are not tough enough. Some other politician share that view.

Lord Justice Davies was appalled that to British prisoners complain

that having to slop out in cells was demeaning and infringed human

rights. Does last month the Daily Telegraph reported that ministers

admitted nearly 3000 prisoners were eligible to access subscription

channels provided by Sky. Games consoles, gym facilities and free

education are all provided in some prisons. Privileges can motivate

good behaviour and can be taken away. Defenders of the system argue

that by going to jail, both your loved ones and independence are

taken away. -- and the more we treat people as such, the more

likely they are to come out angry and more likely to reoffend. Should

they be places of rehabilitation or should we get tougher on criminals

and make prison have feared institution it once was? Should

prisons be tougher? Absolutely not. They are horrific already. Prisoner

should, of course, have television, three meals a day, human rights and

basic education. If we do not do this, prisoners will come out angry

and the violence, abuse and disruption within the prisons will

be far more serious than it is already. Should we make our prisons

You can also vote online on the website. We will show how you voted

at the end of the programme. We still have things like slopping out.

You cannot say that is not tough, can you? In the first instance,

prisons are most definitely not tough. We have just seen a

wonderful gymnasium facilities. Prisoners are being given access to

education facilities. What we have done is lost track of the central

point of prison. Essential point of prison, to my mind, his punishment

for those who wilfully choose to commit a crime, break the law and

are sentenced under due process to go to a prison. They should not

have the indulgences we have seen over the last few decades of

liberal intervention. It is very timely we deal with the issue of

making prisons tough. They should be places to which no one ever

wants to go in the first instance and no one ever wants to go back to.

That is an interesting point. the prison Revolution started, in

Victorian times, it was about rehabilitation. Now it is about

punishment and rehabilitation. Talking to prisoners in prisons at

the moment, they talk about it being a tinderbox and the risks of

riot. They are tender boxes. There are suicides, abuse and violence.

There are not enough staff. We owe it to our cells to try to

rehabilitate and educate. I do not believe we do. -- ourselves. We

have put their knees before those of victims. -- their needs. I do

not feel it is appropriate that tax payers should be funding their

requirements in terms of plasma screen televisions and all the rest

of it. Those stories are happening. I have just been over to Florida

and doing some research on death row. People are very aggrieved that

prisoners on death row are given three meals a day. We hear this in

the UK where we do not have the death penalty. The way you are

talking, it is as there when someone commits a crime, many women

are in prisons for non-violent crimes - none serious crimes. It is

as though, what we need to do is to strip every single piece of

humanity away. These human beings need to be distracted and educated.

Often they have had no education. If you look at the prison

population, offer may have had the most horrific backgrounds. We have

to address that the offending behaviour but we must not strip

away humanity and further punish them. Many of these prisoners will

go back had been society. Therein lies the hub of the argument. The

fact that so many people going to prison, go out, go back in again,

demonstrates what we have does not work. It demonstrates they clearly

have no fear of prison. Prison should not be a destination that

they ever want to go to. That remains, I think, a concern for

many people throughout the UK. original point was your concern

that the victims of crime are being treated less well than the

perpetrators of crime. Having been a victim and had to put guys in

jail, I am hugely sensitive to the fact that victims are not being

looked after. It has to be a separate argument. Victims of crime

are not looked after sufficiently. It does not mean we dehumanise all

genuine principles. If you let people out within six months, 12

months of going in, you are letting down the victims of crime. There is

a logical continuum between them requirements and those of prison.

lot of kids have been so brutalised that they do not care if they live

or die. You only live once, this is the way a lot of these guys live.

Prison will never be a deterrent. Can I say, Lord Ramsbottom was the

chief inspector of prisons. We have spoken this week to victims who

feel the prison system lets them down. They see people who murdered

loved ones, having plasma televisions, mobile phones and

having access to a gym. What about the idea that we need to make it

tougher? Prison is punishment and it is punishment awarded for an

offence. It is very important that the people who receive punishment

are kept awake so that the public is protected from them. -- away.

Virtually everyone is going to come out again. What prisons have to do

is do everything they possibly can to make certain that when they come

out, they do not do it again. Should they have television

packages where they can watch all the sports matches? Is that

rehabilitation? There is a perception there are too many home

comforts and not enough rehabilitation. Absolutely right.

There is not enough rehabilitation. This is one of the problems.

Hospitals are the acute part in the health service where people go for

treatment. You only go there if you need that treatment. Prisons are

the acute part of the justice system. You should only go there if

you need the treatment they give, which means keeping the protection

of the public at heart. If you crowd the prisons with far too many

people, it isn't possible to do the rehabilitation. You saying we

should lock-up fewer people? Those we lock up, we should do more work

with? Of course. I would much rather that prisoners had a fall,

purpose full and active day, where the day was spent teaching them to

live a more law-abiding life when they come out. That is not

happening because prisons are crowded with masses of people who

should not be in prison, with the result but limited resources cannot

do what should be done. Thank you so much. I want to bring in Mark

Williams as well. He is very relevant to our discussion. You are

an X offender. What made you stop offending? I went in prison about

five times on different occasions. What stopped me from defending his

bat, in the course of me coming out, I worked in a few charities. --

from off fending is that. It was that kind of process that helped me

changed a lot of my behaviour. you are honest, which you say there

are times when you thought this is quite cushy? I have never thought

prison was a sheep. It is a tough place. -- was cushy. You meet a

violent criminals. All kinds of people. You have to deal with the

bureaucracy of the prison. It is a tough place. I do agreed with the

comment about it being a structured place. I've tried to find some kind

of structure. When I came out it meant I had something to provide.

want to also bring in Jean Taylor. He founded families fighting for

justice and you'd want tougher sentences. Have you lost -- you

have lost members of your family through violent homicides. How do

you feel? In this country, there is no deterrent for those who commit

serious crimes. We need to get have. We need to put the deterrent that.

With that deterrent coming back and getting tough on crime, with the

most serious crimes, only then will respect comeback. Regarding prisons

in this country, they are like three-star hotels. The more serious

your crime going into prison, the better your facilities will be. You

can have curtains to match your bedding. You can have a television

in your room. You have had freedom taken away but that is not enough.

Prisons must be seen as a place of punishment and some where you would

not want to go back into. This is how people feel who have lost loved

ones. That is right. I have interviewed her. Her story is

tragic. My heart goes out to all victims of serious crime. I had

interviewed people in prisons and they are not three-star hotels.

These places are brutal. People do not get out of their cell for more

than three hours a day. I take the point that the more serious your

offence, the more comfortable it is. That is absolutely right. I do not

think that having a matching bedspread with curtains would

necessarily encourage you to go back into prison, up or not deter

David what is your view? They are more like four-star hotels. I agree

with what Jean said. Prison is about punishment and until we do

that, we are going to have overcrowded prisons because frankly

criminals are quite happy to go back and as to the argument that

our prisons are overcrowded and overflowing. There is an easy

solution to that - just build bigger prison.

I want to bring in Philip Davis MP. I heard these discussions with MPs

about we mead to make prisons tougher and we have a situation

with overcrowding. I understand you have done research into the prison

system, but where is the evidence that getting tougher will make them

work and how do you get around the issue of overcrowding. Is America a

model for us? We have been here before and I went with Julie to

Florida to visit Death Row and the prison system there and it is a

tougher regime than in the UK, that is for certain. Prisons should be a

punishment, David is right. We have lost sight of that to a certain

extent, but we should rehabilitate people while in prison. This idea

that you are for punishment or for rehabilitation, it is a false

argument. We have got to rehabilitate people, people like

Lord Ramsbotham and Julie duck the question when Sky TV is brought up.

3,000 prisoners have got Sky Sky TV. How does that anything to

rehabilitate people? My constituents would love to have Sky

TV. It can not be right that people in prison have a better regime than

they do on the outside and the problem we have prison inspectors,

people like Lord Ramsbotham, they come in from their countryside

mansions and go into prison and say, "It is jolly awful in here, isn't

it?" Compared to their five bedroomed mansions in the

countryside, it is awful, but cleared to the crim ridden estates

that many people come from, prison is easy. Just one final. Briefly.

police custody sergeant said, the biggest deterrent to people people

committing was the prospect of going to prison for the the first

time. People were afraid of that, but once they saw how curby it was

-- cushy it was, it wasn't a deterrent.

This comes up at the time of political conferences and when Tony

Blair, when he was the Shadow Justice Minister in the 1990s to

today you, you always know these arguments and the sad thing is this

is not the time to have a debate. To rev up the party faithful, it

requires more thoughtful thinking. Briefly, some of your views, Helen,

"Many prisoners are victims in many ways." Emsays, "Why do we offer

privilege to those who are depriving of their Human Rights.".

Another viewer says "prisoners should not live better on the

inside than on the out." Our text number is:

Texts will be charged at your standard message rate. Or you can

You have 20 minutes before the poll The ongoing revelations that Jimmy

Savile and other powerful men in the 70s and 80s sexually abused

under-age girls has thrown a spotlight. What lessons can we

learn from the past and have attitudes towards him and behaviour

at work changed for the better today? What quotas allow more women

to rise to the top. Angela Epstein reports.

For past generations things have gone too far at work. But that's

not the case. Women have have become empowered by performance.

Some women lose grounds for sympathy by taking offence at the

slightest bit of banter. In an age where girls outperform

boys at school and where women made their mark in all areas of

professional life, surely we have achieved too much to be rattled by

some boyish builder making play at the top of his scaffolding or some

male boss making some light sexual comment. Yet it amazes me that the

same feminist detractors have so little to say about the sexism of

women only quotas and female shortlist, the bigoted notion this

for women to be fairly represented in the highest etch Londons of

business and -- echelons of business and finance.

This sex sexism is is endemic. If we are going to talk about equality,

let's judge each other as equals. I want to get a job on my own

merits. A fewer than a third of the most senior jobs in Britain are

held by women. Many there aren't enough women to fill them. Some

women get distracted by family commitments or having children and

want to work part-time. Today's women are treated equally in the

workplace. They are respected for the work they do and the results

they achieve. Implementing quotas and shortlist would set us apart as

a group of second-class citizens who need to be treated differently

in order to succeed. If we are the fairer sex, treat us fairly.

Otherwise, our gender will be the biggest handicap of all.

If you have a webcam, you can make your point on Skype or join in the

conversation on Twitter. The details are on the screen. We are

joined by the journalist and broadcaster Angela Epstein, Julie

Bindel, she is right, who wants to be there as the token woman? What

is interesting about the idea of quotas and all women shortlist,

neither the left or the right like it. Neither men nor women like it.

What I would say as a feminist, we have come out of 200 years of all

male quotas really where you know, culturally in the workplace it is

almost impossible to change the the culture, to change the dynamic and

to get women in that culture so they can role model younger women

who come up behind them. If you don't have female management then

what you have is a sexist assumption that women are not as

easy to employ as as men because of pregnancy, maternity leave,

etcetera and therefore, nothing will change. So I reluctantly

support the idea of quotas for women because I think that until we

get more women in the workplace where they have been excluded,

nothing will ever change and it will stay a boys club which leads

to awful power dynamics and sexual harassment which is still rife.

Where are all the executives now? These are women that were coming up

the career ladder in the 7 os and 80s and a lot quit because it was

not worth staying in there? I don't agree. If you are focused and women

can be focused about the things they want. We are wired to multi-

task. The fact is that we are good at focusing on what we need to do

and what we want to do and all the more so in the 70s if they have got

themselves into a junior executive position when things were working

against them then they are going to be all the more determined to

achieve what they want to achieve. What I was going to say. This idea

if we have more women at the top they will be in some kind of

educational position. It doesn't matter if there are women in the

workplace or not, men are surrounded by women having babies

and taking time off and they are attuned to the idea that women are

made that way. So I don't think we necessarily need the tokenism of

women at the top in order to make it easier for other women to come

through. I would rail against the idea that I'm only where I am or I

have got where I wanted to go to because there was no amenable

female boss at the top who thought "well, she wears a skirt, we will

let her have a leg leg up the career ladder." Women were thwarted

by sexism and inappropriate behaviour and Jimmy Savile...

mean they quit because of that? course. I am with you as we both

are. We are against quotas for quotas sake and in America,

positive discrimination, that school of thought is ebbing away.

It was affirmtive action and they don't have quotas and it is

misunderstood here. In broadcasting, it moved on and it

is a female dominated industry. Female dominated is a der a

derogatory term. I am making the point that women

have achieved the right for potential and they are better

communicators. There are certain sectors like in medicine,

particularly in financial markets where they should look at quotas

because they are areas where sexism is rife and some of the worst of

the harassment that have been brought up relating to the Savile

issues can be found on the floors of financial markets.

You see civil cases that don't always win, but what emerges of the

behaviour in the City. In the Police Service and in all

the emergency services. If you look back 30 years to the Police Service,

it was horrific for women. We talk about racism within the police

which of, of course is a problem, but less so now, but we have never

heard about the endemic sexism, the the institutionalised sexism in the

workplace such as the police. The Jimmy Savile case, where the

police listening? Life On Mars, we we nos tal jized the sexism and the

flip side is that whole culture in the BBC and in the forces there is

a dark side to it too. And it took the racism out of Life On Mars.

Siobhan is a quality officer for Unite. It is one of the largest

unions in the UK. We have been discussing looking back at the 70s.

People feel we have come a long way, do you think the idea of talking

about female quotas is necessary now?

Well, talking about sexual harassment, it is still prevalent

in the workplace and the idea that it went out in the 70s is a myth.

As a union, we help women tackle harassment and the best way is if

there is a senior management that is prepared to foster a culture of

zero tolerance of bullying. If there are women at the top of the

company who understand that harassment is bad for business and

bad for employees. Businesses should have boards that reflects

all the stakeholders, the shareholders and the customers and

the employees and if there are women on the board, it brings

experience of half the stakeholders so it has to be good for business

and it has to be a better environment and a better culture at

work. You are trying to promote the right

culture to knuckle harassment and harassment is terrible. But the

fact is that it also wipes away the ability to have some kind of

meritcratic situation where the best person gets the job.

No, it doesn't. You have to be employed for your

skills because you are appropriate for that job and then you have to

rise to the top because you are good. You don't get promoted

because you are a woman. That is a myth about quotas. What you have to

do... You have to open the door and say, "This time, we are not going

to employ a man who has equal merit. We are going to employ a woman."

That's what you do... That's discriminating.

Where you have industries and public and private sectors that are

dominated by men, where that will never change and let's face t we

have waited for long enough to see if it changes naturally then you

are always going to have the same culture, the same situation and

what you suggested Angela in your piece about women who fight and

stay in there and we are biologically programmed to multi-

task. That's nonsense. I think that working class women, rather than

prif lujed women, are the ones that lose out. Yes, you can be at the

anyway be ta anyway shus. I went to a school, I was a

scholarship girl, I didn't come from a privileged background. The

idea was instilled upon us if you could focus on what you wanted, you

could achieve what you wanted to have. This was at the end of the

70s. There was no question of try and focus on what you want, but you

may find somebody that may try and pinch your bottom.

Don't learn to type. Many grammar school women told me in the 70s,

"Don't learn to type." There is an awareness that you are fighting the

odds. If you a load of women executives in the BBC in the 70s

and 80, are you seriously telling me it would not have made a

difference to the culture to which people turned a blind eye? Female

executives would have stamped out that. Not every woman can be a

Margaret Thatcher and bully their way through and manage. You can

rest assure, as the yooU night representative -- Unite

representative said and it reflects on big institutions and the

Catholic Church when allegations come about sexism and bullying, the

one thing the organisation always does and it is its first step is to

protect the organisation and HR will protect the individual. So So

whistle-blowing is a concern? Whistle-blowing is a factor. You

have to protect those who make genuine complaints. You know that

pim are afraid -- people are aid frayed in any organisation, from

the bank to the police, if they make a complaint, their career is

marginalised and they will suffer You had spent 20 years in the Royal

Corps of Signals. Were you ever harassed? What is your view on our

discussion about quotas? They are an absolute nonsense. Was I ever

sexually harassed? No, I was not. I have always thought it was a state

of mind. Was I upset by hearing guys talking about women and their

attributes? Was I upset by hearing swearing or seeing girlie posters?

No, I was not. But, fairly early on, I decided I was not to be messed

with. I do remember, up on an adventure training exercise, in the

first month when I took over, aware Cup at 2am and banned a man beside

me. -- I woke up at 2am and found a man beside me. I just said, get

out! A lot of people watching we think we wish you were working at

the BBC in the 70s and 80s. If you cry wolf too much over the little

stuff Dom let me finish. -- little stuff... It if someone wolf-

whistles at me, I am actually flattered by that. I think this

whole notion that it is stuff and nonsense and you tell them to go

away it is an appalling attitude to take. I have been sexually harassed

in the workplace and I'll make tough woman. It nearly destroyed me.

-- I am a tough woman. There are dozens and dozens of vulnerable

women who do not have that power or fear they will lose their jobs.

set up the every day sexism project website. What do you make of the

claim that these days anything is misconstrued and you should leave

it for the serious stuff - the serious harassment? Women are still

experiencing the serious stuff in the workplace. We have received

thousands of stories appertaining to experiences in the workplace.

They range from what you would consider less important all the way

up to stories of sexual assault and raping, similar to the ones we have

heard back to the 70s. It is all very well to say one should not cry

wolf. It is not just about the reaction of the individual involved.

We should not say that women have to put up with things. Women

perceive things in different ways. It is about people seeing women in

that way. If you say women should accept sexual harassment because it

is not a big deal cut what message does that send to the rest of the

workplace and the men in the workplace if that is OK? That is a

very interesting point of view. Might is an author. -- Mike. She

said all the attitudes in the workplace matter. I work in a

number of major businesses -- I worked in a number of major

businesses for 30 years. I never encountered a single case of a

woman taking a case of sexual harassment in the workplace. You do

not think they kept it quiet because they were not in an

embalmer where they could not talk? I do not think that at all. -- and

environment. When more women get on to the boards of companies,

performance improves. Academic studies showed that performance

declines when women are put on two boards. A lot of research says

women do not like working for women. That is absolutely beside the point.

We need to look at figures of how many women are in senior positions.

There is serious discrimination. Thank God for feminism. When you

look now at what was happening in the 70s, 80s and 90s with Jimmy

Savile and other men, when you see the fact it is still happening out

and women are more able to speak out about it... You cannot compare

that to women in the police blog in the bank who are not good enough to

get to the top. -- who are in the bank. The idea that men got where

they are on their own merit is preposterous. Julie Bindel says

nothing will change without quotas but a vast amount has changed and

is changing. Is it morally wrong for a short term cash loans company

to sponsor football clubs? You can join in on that. Remember to keep

voting on our poll. Should we make You have about five minutes before

that closes or you can vote online by visiting the website. Time for

our moral moments of the week. You have chosen the remarkable

uncovering of the Lance Armstrong doping story. It is an

extraordinary story. It is explosive for a couple of reasons.

There was an extraordinary uphill battle he had as a cancer survivor.

He came from moments close, hours to death. He struggled against

impossible odds to become the greatest cyclist of all times. In

relation to the bullying and the battles he had against journalists

and two women in particular who were on the team, who had

admissions. He was directly accusing them of being drunk and

prostitutes. We can talk about parallels with the Jimmy Savile

case. It was a massive bullying conspiracy. Do you think you could

have uncovered the Lance Armstrong thing? David Walsh did. Brilliant

sports journalists did and they were faced with legal action and

threats. In relation to the Jimmy Savile case, the allegations have

been placed against the International Cycling Union, who

were presiding over it. How much did they know? People said they

disclose the information about the extensive doping of Lance Armstrong

as early as 2000 and still it was denied. It is about whistle-blowing

and bullying. It is the end of the dream. If it looks too good to be

true... Jimmy Savile, Lance Armstrong. He was still an amazing

cyclist and drugs have destroyed it all. The Tour de France is not easy.

It is all being investigated now. You have chosen to Julia Gillard,

the Prime Minister of Australia. Let's have a look at what she said

in Parliament. I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny

by this man. I will not. The Government will not be lectured

about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now. Not ever. The leader

of the opposition says that people who hold sexist views and are

misogynists are not appropriate for high office. I hope the leader of

the opposition has a piece of paper and is writing at his resignation.

They say revenge is a dish best served up cold. What did you make

of it? This woman is the most inspiring person I have seen in

politics to date. Not just ricocheting about Australia. We

talk about Australians as their men are more sexist. Men are more crude

about women. The examples that have come out with these accusations

towards the leader of the opposition. They are appalling.

Talking about ditch the bitch! We are as bad. When you look at how

Margaret Thatcher was described because she was a woman, that was

appalling sexism. Australians have a particular turn of phrase but it

is as bad in Westminster with the calm down, dear, that David Cameron

said. The you have chosen the remarkable protests that greeted

Angela Merkel with people dressing up as Nazis. I was horrified. She

returned to Greece to try to thrash out another package of budget cuts.

A group of dustbin men decided to register their protests for the

continued intervention by Germany as -- by dressing as it Nazis. I

have a lot of warmth and empathy for the Greek people. I go there a

lot. It is warm and hospital. I say this as a Jewish girl, there is

never any grounds for using the not see context for expressing their

outrage. The Greeks were brutalised during the Second World War. All

the Greek people. They were treated abominably and savagely. It does

not give them the right to say we can ace you now with that historic

wrong to show at outrage. There is never an excuse for this. -- our

outrage. You have been voting this morning on, should we make our

prisons tougher? The polls are close now. The online vote is

closing as well. We will bring you the result at the end of the show.

It is normal for the football teams to have big-name sponsors. Is it

different when this onset is one there? They are a short term cash

loans company. -- sponsor is Wonga. It is thought to be one of the most

controversial deals in history. Is it anything new? Alcohol and

gambling firms also sponsor major tournaments and teams and tobacco

firms used to. Pay-day lenders have been accused of targeting the most

vulnerable and desperate. A 30 day length if not paid off could accrue

over 1,000% interest. The Office of Fair Trading launched an

investigation into the entire sector. It is said they are happy

to offer money without checking that loans can be repaid. The

companies said they offer a service to those unable to get credit.

Those left behind by an ailing banking system. They say the

industry is regulated and licensed. Supporters of the deal, including

the managing director of Newcastle, say the plan to invest �24 million

into the community and young players set their deal apart.

Critics, including the leader of Newcastle City Council said the

North East already represents a hires level of insolvency in the UK.

He thinks this sends a message of endorsement. With drinks companies

and gambling firms already at the game, is singling out this deal

hypocritical? Is it now time to blow the final whistle on these

types of sponsors? You can join in by webcam or make your points

online. It has been claimed a sponsorship deal is immoral. Many

football teams are sponsored by alcohol companies and alcohol

companies. Why make a fuss about We should be making a fuss about

the other transactions especially in our country and in parts of our

country which have been hit by poverty. The north of our country

is struggling and the promotion of these pay day loans, short-term

loans in a way in which it becomes so easily accessible to the

struggling families means that they might find short-term respite, but

long-term harm and effects of which they will never recover from. We

are now into a situation where the second generation is carrying the

debt of the first generation in those parts of the country. Not

only is this something that from a religious prospective I disagree

with, but we need to look at this also from a more aland ethical

point of -- moral and ethical point of view.

Angela, you don't have to be Muslim to feel anxiety about this?

might feel that the desperate are being exploited, but would we

prefer loan sharks that went around and knocked down your door and said,

"I'm going to break your legs if you don't pay us back." These

companies are legal and they operate within the rule of law, we

not like them, but they are not doing anything illegal and if they

are fulfilling a role that other financial sources are not for

people who are in need they exist. If they exist, they are entitled to

be used as an endorsement. They are operating within the law.

The law needs to change and across the banking sector because, of

course, unarranged loans can end up costing as much as some of the pay

day loans. I am from the north-east and we have had a recession right

back from the the Thatcher days and we have never recovered from it.

Including members of my family, they have had to take out loans

that enup growing and -- end up growing and everything is out of

control. You mention the loan sharks that threaten breaking your

legs etcetera. Well, this is really no no better because if you can't

pay this money back then nur trouble. But -- you are in trouble.

A Premier League football team, where their players are pampered

and massively over paid having this signature on their shirt. Barclays

and banks like that have been sponsoring football and you don't

object. Why make a distinction? are right. Unarranged loans can

cost people as much. There is a problem across the whole

sponsorship area because people worship, they idolised the

Newcastle players and if they are endorsing something like Wonga,

they are more likely to think it is all right to take a loan with them.

Football lost its sole and I agree on these pampered and highly paid

footballers distracts us from the main core of the debate. We have a

bloated welfare system where benefits seem to be angled and

directed to the wrong recipients. We are hearing stories for those

whom it is easier to the to work than work because of the welfare

system. We have people in genuine situations of need and we have a

bloated welfare system as well. That is not our discussion here.

makes people less sympathetic to the fact there are loan companies.

They are legal. They are regulated and if this is what people have to

go to because the welfare system is not fair then what else are people

supposed to do? Regulation could help, but I don't believe any law

will help morality. Morality should come from individuals themselves.

These are people who are in need of some cash for example and because

these companies are aware of people's desperation, they have

found a gap in the market and dare I say, they are they are taking

advantage of the recession. Russell, your organisation

represents a number of pay day lenders, but not Wonga. What do you

say to the argument that you are taking advantage of people who are

clearly vulnerable? There are misconceptions about it and I don't

accept that statement that we are taking advantage of vulnerable

people. And that's for three reasons. Only 6% of us have

actually used a short-term loan, but everybody has got an opinion

about themment they are not loans for people without jobs or on low

incomes. We don't set out to people who can't pay back. Why would you

do that? There is to business -- there is no business sense. 3% are

in the lower half the income brackets. The average salary of

people using them are �17,000, a third of people are earning more

than �24,000. There is more that can be done and we have introduced

a voluntary code. You have talked about the level of regulation, we

go beyond what is required of credit card companies. It is simple,

it is trance parp and legal -- transparent and legal. It is chosen

by a variety of people for lots of different reasons.

I want to put that to Kathleen Carter and you got into trouble

through doorstep lenders. Go ahead. You say 6% of the people use these

services, but what percentage do you charge them? We are talking of

thousands? I don't want to get bogged down. People don't have to

do it. We talk about the fact that footballers influence everything.

If footballers advertise a bar of chocolate, are they responsible for

the obesity crisis in the country? We should look at this from a moral

and ethical point of view. People are living beyond their means for

example, perhaps that's what leads to desperation. People are being

extravagant. There is a lot of wastefulness. We don't cherish what

we have and we use it in a way that we don't think of a tomorrow. If

you look at how our financial sector tries to tweak the knobs to

balance the rate of interest with inflation and all that, all the the

knobs we keep turning, we don't examine ourselves as to what we can

do to help the poor and the needy people.

One question quickly, the idea that it normalises something which

vulnerable people shouldn't do. Angela, that's an argument that is

made. Do you accept that? It normalises something which is

questionable? But it is lawful. It is legal. It is Allowable. If it is

on abfootball shirt... Is it moral? Is it lawful to sell a bar of

chocolate to a really fat person? The fact is if you are a shopkeeper

and a really obese person comes in and says, "Can I have two bars of

chocolate?" What do you do? There is a role that the law can play in

this. I think that laws set a standard and I think that with it

comes often an understanding of how wrong it is to peddle to the

vulnerable and to the relatively poor something that will get them

into further trouble.. I want to turn to Luke Edwards, a

reporter from The Daily Telegraph. I understand that some fans are

uneasy about this, are you uneasy? Am I uneasy about a company that

charges over 4,000% interest. Am I uneasy about a football club that

sponsors them? Not really. Wonga advertise on television in between

Coronation Street. It is a society problem. Companies shouldn't be

able to charge 4,000% interest, but Newcastle United haven't done

anything wrong. It is not the first controversial sponsorship deal.

McDonald's sponsored the Olympics and Barclays sponsored the Premier

League and they were fined �290 million for fixing loan rates. You

know, Manchester City are owned by a ruling regime that it is illegal

to be homosexual. Trying to bring the morals into football clubs, you

are trying to hold football as being able to solve society's ills.

Newcastle United has done nothing wrong. It is up to the Premier

League and the Football Association to decide whether these companies

are aloud to sponsor them as it is with cigarette companies. When I

was growing up the cigarette companies were advertising over

Formula One and over snooker and you know that was a product that

killed you. We have got a moral hysteria about this deal and Wonga

received more publicity than they would have done with their name...

Thank you. You have given us so much food for thought.

The 4,000% interest is theoretical. There is no evidence that anyone is

paying thinking like that. Wonga chose not to take part in the

discussion or give us a statement. John Kirkby. Take the argument that

that is patronising to say, "You can't be trusted to use a loans

company.". It is not anything to do with patronising people. Lives are

devastated by poverty and debt. Peoples lives are devastated by

these loan companies. People are not stupid. They do it because they

have no other option. These companies are taking millions of

pounds out of some of the most deprived communities in our country.

These APRs are scandalous. It is nothing to do with a bar of

chocolate... Thud they be sponsoring football teams or not,

yes or no? They are naive. If the Chairman of Newcastle came out and

spent time with us and he saw the effects of children not being fed

and homes being repossessed, he would not let Wonga sponsor his

football club. Because it is legal, it doesn't mean to say it is moral.

It is the wrong thing to do. The last word to you, Shaykh

Ibrahim Mogra. It is legal and why should footballers carry the can

for society's ills? We need to think about what kind of society do

we want to have? What stopped cigarette advertising from Formula

One racing? It is the concern that people shared. We do not allow

alcohol advertisements on children's shows, for example,

Formula One no longer advertises cigarettes. We need to talk about

these issues and create a society which is based on moral and ethical

principles. Thank you for your thoughtful

contributions. Now, are you passionate about a a

topic and keen to share your views? We would like to invite you at home

to submit your own film. It doesn't need to be longer than a minute and

we will select the best and broadcast them on future programmes.

We have popped simple instructions The system will go live after

today's programme. We look forward to viewing your work and hearing

your views. Your texts and online poll votes

are in. We asked should we be making our prisons tougher? 89%

said yes, they should and 11% said they shouldn't.

People feel they want them them tougher, don't they? Prison has to

be what it is supposed to do. A place where you lose some of your

day-to-day privileges and you need to feel that pain that you have

lost something and you don't want to go back again.

Angela. Prisons should be hard work,

capable of reforming, but only by putting people in the most

difficult of situations and removing the liberties they would

have out of prison. We have enough violence and

suicides in prisons. They need to be places that people are kept from

causing further harm. We need to rehabilitate and give people a

second chance. Punishment has been taken away from their families and

loved ones and not seeing a star in the sky. Stroking a cat or being

able to a switch a light on or off for how many years of their

sentence. Thank you very much indeed. Thank

you to everybody who has taken part in today's programme.

Don't text or call the phonelines anymore. They are now closed. You