Episode 16 Sunday Morning Live

A new report calls for the decriminalisation of cannabis,

recognising that too many people are being criminalised, or a get

way to harder drugs and frightening Good morning. Welcome to Sunday

Morning Live. A major report by scientists and police calls for the

decriminal idesation of cannabis. But with concern s of the strength

of it is it right to make life easier for cannabis smoking. With

an ageing population, is it triem toration - to ration treatment for

the eld will and is comeenian Rowan Atkinson to say that religious

groups are part of the outrage industry. Even if it hurts people,

even fit offends people, speech must be free. Welcome to my guests,

Germain Greer is a feminist author and Peter Hitchens is the author of

the War We never Fought. And James O'Brien is a radio presenter on

London talk station LBC. We want to know what you think. Call in to

challenge our guests, you can get It is one of the most hotly

contested issue, should cannabis be decriminalised. Some see it as

harmless and others as a dangerous get way drug. But after a six year

study the drugs policy commission has concluded decriminalisation is

overdue. This isn't the first call from scientists for

decriminalisation and a greater distinction to be made between

drugs. Professor David Nutt lost his job as a government advisor on

drugs after claiming ecstasy was no more dangerous than horse riding.

They point out that legal cigarettes and alcohol cause more

deaths and in the case of drink, violent crime. The Home Office said

two million people in the UK use cannabis. 42,000 in England and

Wales are sentenced each year for possession and 160,000 are given

warnings. The commission argues that cannabis should be regarded as

a personal choice. Some regular users include people with long-term

illnesses, such as multiple sclerosis, taking it for pain

releaf. They're unhappy that current law forces them to seek out

drug dealers to buy what they regard as essential medication. But

some doctors say it causes physical harm, including cancer, because of

how cannabis is often smoke without a filter. Some sigh sky tourists

point to studies linking the drug with mental illness. -- some

psychiatrists. What about the claim that it is a gate way drug that can

lead to harder substances? Opponents of liberalised drug laws

say decriminalisation would normalise drug use. It is ludicrous

that we arrest individual and jail them over private choiceser or

would decriminalisation send out a dangerous message that cannabis is

safe and socially acceptable? So should cannabis be decriminalised.

Well that is the problem, it has been decriminalised, it should be

recriminalised. That is a question for today's vote. Should cannabis

I was wondering, James you're a parent now, do you think it would

be a big deal if your teenage child was to start to smoke cannabis.

Only because it is illegal and the trouble they may get into for the

law. It strikes me that the argument shouldn't even be carrying

on now. You refer to a six-year study by an independent commission

and the government's own advisor on drugs. All the consensus, you will

always finds some lone voice, suggests our position is ludicrous.

You were expelled from school. flung out of school 20 year ago and

that experience was a horrible experience that involved policemen

and the most horrible was my parents' reaction. They belonged to

a similar mind set. The idea that I may have revealed myself as a crack

addict. It criminalised me and criminalised a couple of my school

friends and it was ludicrous when you consider what goes on legally.

I reminded of MMR when we decided to give them that the jab, we

followed the scientific consensus. We didn't follow scaremongering

journalists and we didn't hang upon the word of a lone scientist trying

to draw attention to themselves for being at odds with the prevailing

wisdom. I would say the attitude to cannabis for a parents is similar

to MMR when it comes to who you decide you will trust. Is there a

moral panic about it? There should be a panic, because of the dangers.

The difficulty with cannabis there is no measure of mental illness. So

it is difficult to say that cannabis leads to mental illness.

The correlation is extraordinary. And eminent sky Kye tourists --

eminent psychiatrists say the correlation is strong enough to not

be dismissed. What about the health risks, Germain Greer you're from

the generation that promoted the use of drugs like cannabis. As

being something positive and beneficial. What is your position

now? We're still having this debate. Well unfortunately I'm consistent,

I seldom change my minds about anything. In 1968 I wrote a piece

for Oz magazine called flip top legal pot. Saying while the nower

children were floating around dreaming when cannabis could be

decriminalised, that actually they hadn't figured out what was going

to happen was that corporations were going to copy right the names

of drugs, the different kinds of drugs that they were going to give

them back to us with additives and cripple us with huge taxes. And

they will exploit us the way they did with tobacco. My worry if a

child of mine was smoking cannabis would be as you would have seen in

the clip, that most of the time there is more tobacco than cannabis

in the cigarette. And there are other ways of taking your cannabis

and I remember the old days when we eat cookies. I have a checkored

career with cannabis, because it gives me a mass reflex. I hate it

and can't use it. But people close to me are users. What I will say is

that it doesn't seem to have done them any good. But you could say

that about lots of other things. This six-year commission addressed

that point. You are worried about the wrong people getting involved,

one of the elements that has been ignored by the media is the

criminalisation or the decriminalisation of growing a

small amount yourself, which leads you to a cottage garden approach,

which flies in the face of a lot of this. I don't seem to be getting

much part in this discussion and I think I know more about it than

James. First, the dangers of cannabis are considerable. And it

would be very irresponsible of a parent to think tobacco was more

dangerous. All you need to do is turn to experience of Patrick

Coburn's son described in his book. He was exposed to cannabis at

school 5 ended up in a mental hospital. It won't happen to

everyone, but you don't know who it will happen tofplt but young people

are vulnerable to it. Secondly, James said he was criminalised, he

wasn't. He criminalised himself by obtaining and using a drug which he

knew to be illegal. Wait a minute you have had a long say. I'm

talking and pointing to this... Use of word criminalise. You will

respond when your words comes. Use of the word criminalise is a tricky

dodge to complain of some persecution. The drug is illegal.

And this independent commission. Of whom is it independent. Nobody on

that commission was conservative about morals of drugs. A former

chief of the constabulary. police are one of the principle --

principal lobbyist for decriminalised. Put on this matter,

they dangerously wrong. Your scientific qualifications are?

your qualifications are? I want to bring in a scientist. Peter. Just a

moment. I want to bring in a profess, David Nutt, the Labour

Government's drugs advisor, who fell out with them and was sacked.

I want to mention, bring you in professor David Nutt. You spoke out

about your views on the scientific evidence. I understand that have

said you think alcohol consumption might go down if we were to

decriminalise cannabis. Can you tell us what your view is now?

Alcohol is the biggest problem we have in terms of harms from drugs

in the UK at the moment. It is the leading cause of death. In between

between 18 and 60. The deaths from alcohol have been rising in the

last 40 years. As we have increased the availability and reduced the

price. A lot of people would prefer to use cannabis rather than alcohol.

And we now have evidence from the US today where increasing

availability of medicinal cannabis has led to a reduction in alcohol

intake and road traffic accident deaths from alcohol. I want to ask

your opinion of what you have heard with the claim that scientist who

is call for decriminalisation are biased. What is your view on what

Peter has been saying? We are not biased. That he have written three

major reports over ten years, which took place evidence from people

like me and it's clear that the contribution of cannabis is at best

a minor contribution. In fact many people, many schizophrenics use

cannabis to help them deal with their illness in an unofficial way.

We have problems with the quality of line. Well the professor said

that the more alcohol was used the more damage it does. Of course.

That would be the same with cannabis were legalise and went on

commercial sale and were as prevalent as alcohol, we would have

disastrous consequences. No one is arguing that alcohol is good. How

anyone is could argue because alcohol does harm it would be sane

or scientific to relax the laws against another dangerous drug.

Stop heckling. How it would be... How you can argue and I will say

this again, because I'm sick of being heckedled -- being heckled by

this person because the danger o's of alcohol are the reason to

unleash another drug. The fact he is qualified does not make him a

guru on cannabis. Can we have another response. This a all right

Peter. May I speak now? Professor David Nutt was not arguing for the

alcohol is somehow a comparison that you drew. He was arguing that

cannabis is less harmful and your position leads to legislating for

alcohol by looking at people sleeping under bridges existing on

a diet of electric soup. The examples you point to are not

representative or indication kiv of the use of something that is almost

always harmless. The smoking element can be dealt with by a

frank and open conversation. That is extraordinary. It is responsible

to refer... Because you stopped. It is extraordinarily for any person

to claim that cannabis is harmless. We do have objective evidence from

the study that among the young cannabis can reduce intelligence.

That is -- has been established. What is it also doing to you. Would

it be likely that a mind bending It encourages people to look for

ways out it difficult take That are drug-related. -- always out of

difficulty that curb drug-related. Speaking it -- speaking from

experience, in my family, the use of Mepham threatening has caused

devastation. You have heard the discussion. There are scientists

who say that taking cannabis is just like gambling or eating junk

food. Would decriminalisation make your job easier, you would not have

to run a project like this? I am not an advocate of the

decriminalisation of drugs. Whether it would make my job easier is

another matter. I am a frontline worker in the drug and alcohol

field in Liverpool. My experience is that this drug destroys

individuals who habitually use. The difference between today and 30

years ago is that the strains are a lot more powerful. It not only

destroys the individual who is walking the cannabis, it destroys

the families. How young are these people using it? I have worked with

children from the age of nine, up to 26. I have worked with families

whose sons have committed suicide. They have experience psychosis,

paranoia. You think there is a direct link between heavy cannabis

use of Porton strains? Yes. Thank you for what you have told us.

Clark French is someone who has used cannabis for medical reasons,

is that correct? Yes, I have multiple sclerosis. I have used it

to treat my symptoms. It gives me a much better quality of life.

Cannabis has been known to have medicinal properties for thousands

of years. The Chinese and the Romans have used it. It is part of

our history and our culture. It is ridiculous that I am denied a

medication that has been scientifically proven to work.

is your experience of getting it, given that it is illegal, is that

the issue? That is part of the issue. I am forced to deal with the

black market, with criminal gangs. The different strains are a product

of prohibition. They only exist because of probation. It is easier

to sell stronger stuff for more money for profit. Thank you so much.

Peter, if it was medically controlled in the way that eight

days in some states in the USA, would you have a problem with that

form of legalisation? Lots of drugs have beneficial effects, but they

also have side effects which are damaging. Thalidomide was good at

treating morning sickness, but unfortunately it had the side-

effect so devastating that it could not be used. If a drug has a

serious danger of making you mentally ill you will be careful

about using it for anything. The medical cannabis argument was

described by the chief campaigner for cannabis legalisation in the

United States as a red herring. There are actually prescription

drugs available on the NHS. Prohibition, by definition, breeds

ignorance and enhanced corruption, ignorance about what is available

and side-effects. It is the worst sort of exploitation that we have

heard of. In a medical sense, Queen Victoria used it for period pains,

and that is an era that you clearly approve of, Peter! My mother grew

cannabis because it made her popular with her lodgers. Australia

runs in its rather dopey way it on cannabis. You can smoke cannabis

and the Tate and survive. viewer says that alcohol is more of

a gateway drug than cannabis. Another says the his the about

cannabis is crazy. I know people who have smoked it for decades and

all have good jobs and there are no ill-effects. What we see now are

the effects of decriminalisation, people should realise that.

opinion poll question is should cannabis be decriminalised? You can

get in touch with the details on the screen. Text messages will be

charged at your standard rate. You can vote online by going to our

website. You have 20 minutes before the opinion poll closes.

Stories of elderly patients apparently being denied treatment

regularly make the headlines. This week a study by the Royal College

of Surgeons warned that decisions on patients' surgery must not be

made on outdated assumptions of patient fitness. But the difficult

choices need to be made in the face of an ageing population, should

doctors ration treatment for the elderly?

This month, new anti age discrimination laws came into force

in the NHS, but when it comes to treating older patients, is it

being ignored? New research by the Royal College of Surgeons has shown

that treatment for prostate cancer dropped sharply in the over 70s,

even though they make-up the majority of the people with these

conditions. They fear that an NHS efficiency drive is dangerous to

older people. The report says it is often wrongly perceived that it is

less cost-effective to treat elderly patients. They say that a

fit 80-year-old may benefit more from treatment than an unhealthy

person half that age. But some argue that it makes sense to focus

resources and treatment on the young. There has been massive

controversy over GPs being asked to identify the 1% of their patience

expected to die each year and discuss end of life plans. Speaking

about death is something we do not do well in this country.

Campaigners say that the elderly have paid into the system all their

lives. Should they not have right to treatment no matter the

financial cost? There are worries that rash -- there are worries that

rationing treatment devalues senior citizens. Could it be a slippery

slope to euthanasia? Or would allowing doctors to determine who

gets treated allow it the elderly more choice and control over how

they died? If you have a webcam, you can join

in the conversation. We are joined by Richard the North, the author of

several books and a Fellow of the Social Affairs Unit think-tank.

Should doctors be rationing treatment? Yes, rationing is

inevitable in a world where resources are limited. If you have

got to choose between extending an old life, or improving a young one,

I guess it is pretty obvious that the young and make a good claim on

the treatment. But it is more interesting than that. We have

drifted into a situation where torturing old people unnecessarily

has become pretty normal. You are speaking about aggressive medical

intervention? Yes, that has become normal and not compassionate.

think the missing term in the discussion is the patient. In many

cases that I know of, elderly patients have refused treatment but

it was not known what they were doing because they are protesting

the clinical situation was not understood. I watched as someone

refused every drink she was given, but she was trying to say that she

was fed up. That was one way to do it. I understand the question about

investing in expensive treatments that will keep someone in relative

comfort for five years when the same amount of money spent on a

younger person might give you 40 years. When you are speaking about

a national health service that is what you have to deal with, but

there should be another option, which is that the family of that

person can say, can we pay for this operation? I thought the word

missing it from the question was poor. We are speaking about

rationing health care for people who cannot afford to go privately.

There will have to be privatisation. I think it should be taken by

doctors on a case-by-case basis. hear about cases where patients

have found do not resuscitate on their notes. You are relatively

young, you may say that it is a rational decision? It may well be

rational but it needs to be transparent. You can certainly

introduce choice. This all has to be transparent. If I was older and

I was watching this debate, listening to these proposals and

hearing this grim sense of inevitability, I would be terrified.

It is a time of my life when I am probably not at my most robust. The

idea that I am going to you -- that I am going to lose my right to life,

it is terrible. People are being advised that they are approaching

the end of life and are being advised to think about planning

their end. This is saying, let there be a fuller, richer

conversation between more people about the end of life. I think bald

people ought to be thinking about it more carefully. I think that

their children, who often fight aggressively for more treatment

without thinking through what it really means, ought to be thinking

about it. It is a pity that there is not a kind of priest element

around now. But we are speaking about this and I am glad it is

happening. I want to bring in a professor of cancer medicine at

Hammersmith Hospital. People worry that all people are clearly

reaching the end of life, and then there are people who are older and

they are getting second-class treatment for things like cancer.

What is your view about how doctors are treating older patients?

think Richard is spot-on. We cannot do everything. For it is every

health care system in the world, not just the NHS. I think the

difficulty is the scale of things. I have a drug for a type of cancer

that cost �28,000 a shot. Dr I give it to 93-year-old lady who has

profound dementia? Are you really having to make choices like that?

Not between two patients, but you have a budget, and that means that

you have to make choices. It is not just age that matters, it is

everything that goes with it. there cases of some doctors who

have perhaps made an error. Do you think there are cases where doctors

have been too arrogant and sweeping? The whole business of do

not resuscitate, it is a poor communication, it is nothing to do

with judging life and death. Most resuscitation is completely fail,

however all the patient is. I think it is more than that. Doctors take

too much upon themselves, they want to make decisions that they do not

have to live with. You have to consult with the people who have to

live with the decisions, and the first one is the patient. People

think that patients cannot understand risk, but they can. It

is hard for them in a clinical situation, they get flustered. They

need information and time to think. We know that they are going on the

Internet and getting bad information. They need good

Hall hall your father had bladder cancer and one consultant was keen

he shouldn't have surgery. What has been the outcome. He was diagnosed

in September 2008, over a period of weeks he had tests and

investigations which resulted in us being told he had a large

aggressive bladder cancer. From the word go, my first reaction was, are

we going to take his bladder out. To which he said, he is 78, it is

not appropriate surpblrifplt as time went on and with each

consultation, I continued to ask this consultant are you going to

take his bladder out. He became increasingly irritated with me and

told me there was a high mortality, it was major surgery. My father had

no other disease process I, - o' process apart from this. You got a

second opinion? Yes we went a hundred miles away and the

consultant gave him chemotherapy and had his bladder removed and

that was four years ago. Now he is fantastic he was rowing in a

veteran eight, he is in the gym, he has holidays abroad. When they tack

about denying patients surgery or chemotherapy, if he had noted that

that surge tricost implications for the NHS would have been five times

as great. He would had a palliative care team and pain killers. So you

have to be careful when you talk about denying surgery. Karol Sikora

what do you say? I know, the doctor was wrong clearly. Time has proven

it. I think communication is the key. And making a balanced decision.

Doctors are not the enemy. They're not trying to do older people down.

But it is the sense of balance. That is the trick. I don't think

the doctor was necessarily wrong, but that is a tough conversation

and apples and pears are complicated, I could cite a case of

an old man who was told can I get you through this next thing with an

operation and the old boy said, yes I will go through it, he wanted to

say yes to doctors and it was all charming. Except the old boy

actually rather regretted being alive for the next five years.

is proof of the case by case position. What you have when the

word ration appears is the imposition of a threshold. Cross

that and you no longer qualify for this treatment. This a cruel and

unusual. You have to look at the specific circumstances. There is

one thing I would say, the patient himself in this case, he would be

the same age as I am now, knew it was going to be a painful operation

and risky and hard to live with the results, knew the toxics would make

him feel awful and there was a risk of dying and he went for it. That

is the issue. Not all the rest. It is nobody else's decision but the

patient's. If the patient is demented that is a different

problem. Now Nick Bosanquet from Imperial College, co-do you see the

concern that people have and do you think there is a difference between

end of life planning and turning down over 75s for surgery because

you want the save your Budget. I would dress what the position is,

which is that 20 years ago there was a lot of denial of treatment.

There is now more treatment for people in their 80s on dialysis and

all kinds of other things. What we're not doing is offering privacy,

dignity and control in the last phase of life. We are at a stage

where there is a lot of overtreatment and overadmission to

hospitals, which damages the well being quality of life for a lot of

elderly people. We have got to face up to the need of better palliative

care, end of life care and a recent study from Boston has shown that

you can prolong life for longer than you can for using chemotherapy

in many cases, with people with lung cancer. Thank you. Richard,

have you rethought your view, given that individual stories are what it

boils down to. I don't think it I just individual stories. I think

there is a matter of, none of us get out of this alive. Doctors will

make mistakes. Individual cases will go sour. Some will come right

for the wor possible reasons. It is a mess. End of life is going to be

a mess. But I think we're going to get, we are getting better. Our

conversation about this is better. I hope when, it comes to me, I hope

I will be in a better surrounded by good help and better able to

appreciate it. We have to leave it there. But some comments, Martin

what kind of society have we become, putting money before people. Thank

you all very much. Coming up, Issa tire and public protest being -- is

satire being curbed by the worry of causing insult. Remember keep

You have about five minutes before the poll closes. Or you can vote

online. Now time for our moral moment of week. Each has chose an

story. Germain Greer you chose the revelation that the England

football team take sleeping pills to take them down from the caffeine

pills. How shocking is that? They are athlete s who make sure they

pray to -- play to the top of their ant, -- ability, we make them take

caffeine. So they can legally take their caffeine and in order to get

them come down from that, we give them I imagine some sleeping

tablets. They were taking sleeping pills, when the match got post

poned, none of them could sleep. They are all wired on caffeine

tablets, that is why they played so badly. I thought they had given

them the sleeping tablet and they were too sleepy. Your concern this

a athletes expect to take these? Look, I have a prejudice against

medication. And drugs generally. I think there is usually as much in

the way of undesirable effect as is there is in desirable. And we're

getting more and more into the way of thinking that all you need to do

to deal with life is to change your body chemistry by eating something,

or sticking in your body or smoking something. I think it's... That is

your slippery slope. And now George Osborne interesting ticket

situation. The first class ticket that he had to buy and I don't know

what we can call it. It has been a weird week for the Government. And

then Andrew Mitchell and what he said to that police officer. It is

odd that we have got a millionaire Tory Chancellor, of one of the

richest countries on earth. It seems as long as there is a first

class carriage left, he is the prime candidate to live in it, be

in it. Was it just about the way he handled it. Eno nothing of how he

handled that. I know we are in an absurd moment where the knobs are

calling the plebs plebs, the plebs are calling everyone posh and out

of touch. The Andrew Mitchell thing, I rather sympathise with people who

reach into old fashioned language from their class background when

they're angry. We all do it. Do you you? Everyone does. If you lose

your rag, awful stuff comes out. That is just life. We should all

grow up about it. What about the broader picture. Are we in a class

war, or is it whipped up by the media. The narrative of austerity

is either one adegrees with the notion that people bear no

responsibility for this. The whole pleb issues plays into the notion

that this Government, whether you agree with the position or not,

this Government holds ordinary work people who pay their tax and expect

some protection in the work place and know their place to pick up the

bill for the excesses of bankers. And you have chosen the story of

the scout who is an atheist who has been told he can't be still a scout.

Because he won't take the allegiance to God. He is eleven and

there are two elements. First, his first contribution was not about

the question or faith or religious discrimination, he the lad said I

have never been caving and they are all going caving. Girls can be

scouts and you can different religions. But he refused to do the

oath. I don't know if this will consign me to seventh circle he

could have just crossed his fingers. We never thought to worry. Maybe

Scot HQ will override it. Should he just have taken it. I'm so proud of

him! And if he wants to start his own scout troop, I may scrape about

and find a few quid to send his way. A brave little boy. How

extraordinary. And the other thing is that eight yism is a moral

position. And he should be allowed to hold it. One of things that is

irritated about our society is if you call yourself a religion, its

doesn't matter how ridiculous you get special consideration, you're

tax-free and if your an Airth yist, you're on your own. - o' atheist

you're on your own. Good little buy boy. You may have been voting in

our poll, should cannabis be decriminalised. The polis closing

now, so don't vote. -- the poll is closing now, so don't vote. Rowan

Atkinson is backing a campaign to drop section five of the public

order Act, which he says is being used to stop artists. Protester

have said a fundamentalist group were anti-gay and also a 16-year-

old protester who placard described Scientology as a dangerous cult.

Germain Greer this it is important to stand up for the right to offend.

Whether it hurts people or offends people, speech must be free. The

common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous liable were

abolished in 2008. It so is curious that under section five of the

Public Order Act words or actions likely to cause offence are illegal.

If the police see you giving someone two fingers they could

arrest you. You can't say or do anything that might upset people,

even if nobody is actually upset. It is illegal to take the Micky.

You can't call a spade a spade. Because the spade's feelings might

be hurt. Obviously, sexion five of the Public Order Act 1986 is

asinine. The great and the good who, are the people most likely to be

lampooned have joined forces to get it repeeled. -- repealed. Just

because some people are touchy doesn't mean that the rest of us

should be walk on eggshells. The grander the dignitary, the more he

needs to be reduced to size. If we are to remind him of who is really

boss. So we show Prime Ministers with condoms drawn over their heads

or wearing their jupd pantss outside their trousers. Everyone

can do a par diof the Prince of Wales. I'm sure it hurts his

feelings, but he has to get used to it. Satire and caricature and

decision are all essential for our political health. And while we are

about it, we should repeal the civil law of liable. That prevents

from telling the truth about child abusers until they're dead. Speech

has got to be free. We have a moral duty to bear true witness. You can

join in by webcam or make your point online or on phone. Peter

Hitchens is back and joining us is Tim Stanley a historian who is a

big fan of Doctor Who, who he said is a classic example of Tory an

arkist. Tim you a fan of American hisry, the first amendment is held

up as the idea of free speech. we don't live in America. What I

would say when it comes to freedom of speech and criticising people f

your dealing with civil society, not only is it OK to pill Ore the

police, and doct ors, politician politicianings - politicians, they

have probably got it coming. When it comes to God, I would make a

plea for self sensorship. First, in the age o' of a war on terror F you

Scotlander the prophet mopltd, you don't just put yourself at -- if

you slan Der the profit mod Mohammed, you don't just put

yourself at risk. If you're dealing with religion, your dealing with an

issue that goes to heart of why people are what they are and how

they live their lives. We discussed in the last debate old people at

their most vulnerable when they're dying F you slan Der God, you take

away their hope of a future life and undermine. Assuming they

Obviously you do not like it or enjoy it, but it is something you

have to expect. Our religious opinion is the same as a political

opinion, you choose to have it. If people do not disagree they are

entitled to say so. Blasphemy laws are used in countries like Pakistan

as a pretext for maintaining laws against blasphemy against

Christians, which operate in a savage fashion. In general, if you

hold an opinion, you must expect other people to disagree with you.

What about the argument of thinking about the safety of other people?

In America, people do not make jokes about Christianity because

they know people are religious? is much better for us to discover

good manners than to make brand new laws. For God is not vulnerable.

God is omnipotent. He is not vulnerable. Yes, God may be

offended, but he is not going to be reduced by around Atkinson making a

joke about him, but the face of people might be. Not at all. The

Jesus Christ was derided but that did not reduce the date people had

in him. -- the faith. I am remembering beyond the Fringe. One

of the funniest items in it was a typical church if England sermon

which was drivel from beginning to end. It was absolutely convincing

and hysterical. It would have done the religious people watching it

nothing but good. It did not do them any good. That is satire.

do you think it does no good? Because the church is not stronger

for having gone through the process of being critiques. People do not

take it on the change. They are not more strength and having heard that.

That is not what the marks sermon dead. You can tell people that

their beliefs are rubbish till you are blue in the face, it will not

make them give up their beliefs. Christians have been told in the

Gospel of already that they will be reviled for their beliefs. It is

something they should expect. about the life of Brian? There was

a massive outcry about it at the time. Would you stand up for the

right for it to be made? I would not stand up for it. I think it is

a horrible film, but it is futile calling for it to be banned. I

dislike the people who made it and the message that it carries. There

is another thing about that film, you cannot understand it if you

have not read the Bible. It is not directly attacking Jesus Christ,

when as something like Jerry Springer at the opera at is

directly attacking him. There is a lot of dispute about that. The BBC

chose to broadcast it because they did not believe that it did. Peter

Tatchell is well known for protesting on human rights issues.

Can you tell us the circumstances under which you came to be arrested

under section 5 of the Public Order Act? I was part of a protest

against an Islamist fundamental good. It had expressed extreme

prejudice against Jews and Hindus. Some of its members had advocated

the killing of gay people. Six of us went to a mass rally held by

6,000 of their members and supporters and simply held up

placards stating what they had said and criticising it, and for that,

we were arrested. I find it shocking that the police... That

what we were saying, that the other at group's horrendous incitements

to murder, that in the face of that, we were criminals. What do you

think about that? I am not making a case for legal censorship.

Peter Tatchell not have turned up with those placards because some

people got offended? No. In that case, that is actually rather brave.

I have a great deal of respect for people Tatchell. -- Peter. Rowan

Atkinson is a vaudeville act. There is a great deal of difference. I am

saying that we need to be more polite and well mannered. I want to

bring in Simon Woolley from Operation Black Vote. You think

there might need to be some restrictions on what can be said?

do not think this should be overly complicated. We can pretty much say

what we like, but there are consequences. If you inside

violence, then you may go to prison. As comedians, if you seek to offend

by telling racist or homophobic jokes, then do not be offended a

few are described as a racist or homophobic comedian. It is not

overly complicated. The N-word, the racial word, is that something that

is taboo and it is right that people are arrested if they are

using that in the public arena? What we have to understand is that

often when that term is used, it is often followed by a Punshon the

nose. Josh Howie is a comedian and a practising Jew. You have told

jokes about the Holocaust, but do you think there is a difference

about being able to tell jokes about your own community, and

telling jokes about other people, black people are Muslims? When I

spoke about the Holocaust it was about my experiences as a third

generation due. Sorry, I am being very Jewish with my hands at the

moment, but it was not about denigrating the experience of the

Holocaust, in the same way that I speak about black culture and

Muslims. There is a difference, but I think I would be a hypocrite if I

did not speak about those subjects. I have used the end word on stage,

but it is all about context. 80s the point you're trying to make.

Germaine was saying in her film,, the Serbs a role in our culture.

What about responsibility, the idea that it goes too far? I have a

responsibility as a comic to make people laugh. I have a

responsibility to provoke an challenge and find where the line

is. I think I know where the line is. Some people may disagree and

they are offended, but I never set out to offend anybody. Comedy can

also be cruel, it can also be a weapon. We should be able to

critique what comedians say. I am a fairly conservative person, but I

am a massive fan of political correctness, because for me, it is

a way of codifying good manners. It is right that we ate are removing

sexist and racist basis -- it is right that we are removing sexist

and racist language from our society. But I would like the same

standards of political correctness applied to religion. I am a Roman

Catholic. You have heard comedians saying that it is their job to

satirise, why do you think there should be a need to limit that?

one is without limits in terms of speech because speeches always at

two Way process. You have a speaker and listener. We cannot champion

comedians as having a sort of golden right to offend. What about

your concerns about marketing, that you think that there is a kind of

cynical ploy it behind a lot of this outrage? By creating

controversy, it does a lot of advertising for you. We have got to

have a community response to that, not necessarily allow legal

response. Is that enough, the public react, and the fate has gone

too far, it corrects itself? I hold opinions which are not consensus

opinions, and quite often I get letters written to me by people

saying, you have insulted me by expressing your opinion. People

often viewed non-mainstream opinions as insulting. That is very

dangerous. Thank you very much. We will have a quick look at your

online opinion poll votes. Here is what you told us. 69 % said that

cannabis should be decriminalised. What can I say? It has already been

decriminalised, it has been disastrous. The only place I would

allow it legalise cannabis is in airport departure lounges, where I

really need it! The people have spoken. I do not share that verdict,

but it should mean something to somebody about their. -- somebody

out there. Thank you very much. Thank you to everyone who has taken

part, Germaine Greer, Peter Hitchens, Tim Stanley, and Khieu