:00:12. > :00:17.John Terry was found innocent of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand
:00:17. > :00:27.this week, but he should he have ended up in court a tall? -- should
:00:27. > :00:38.
:00:38. > :00:43.he. Should racial insults be a crime? Good morning and welcome to
:00:43. > :00:47.Sunday Morning Live. John Terry's supporters cheered as they cleared
:00:47. > :00:53.him of racism this week. Anti- racism campaigners say racial
:00:53. > :00:59.insults must be illegal because they encourage hatred and violence.
:00:59. > :01:04.But lawyer Abhijit Pandya things they have got it wrong. This only
:01:04. > :01:14.victimise his ethnic minorities further and gives the impression
:01:14. > :01:14.
:01:14. > :01:18.they are sensitive. Is more access to contraception the best way to
:01:18. > :01:22.protect women or is it immoral to try to stop people in poorer
:01:23. > :01:27.countries having lots of children. Jamie Oliver's wife, Jules, has
:01:28. > :01:31.admitted she slips on his e-mails and texts even though she has --
:01:31. > :01:36.says their marriage is rock solid. Is it wrong to snoop on your
:01:36. > :01:39.partner's e-mails and messages. Jenny Bond is one of our favourite
:01:39. > :01:46.broadcasters, she has been reported on a roll family for over 20 years
:01:46. > :01:51.and was locked into a coffin of rats for the show I'm a celebrity.
:01:51. > :01:55.Abhijit Pandya is a lawyer and blogger for the Daily Mail. He led
:01:55. > :01:59.the fight to allow a right-wing politician to be allowed to speak
:01:59. > :02:04.in the UK. And Bidisha is a novelist and broadcaster, a leading
:02:04. > :02:14.expert on women's right and has written from every -- one of thing
:02:14. > :02:28.
:02:28. > :02:32.from Venice to cultural identity in It was the court case that divided
:02:32. > :02:35.a nation. John Terry was cleared of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand in
:02:35. > :02:38.a heated row on the pitch. But the Football Association are still
:02:38. > :02:40.investigating his behaviour and a number of black players have
:02:40. > :02:44.expressed concern over the verdict. They're worried it encourages
:02:44. > :02:49.racist abuse. But lawyer Abhijit Pandya says its time we stopped
:02:49. > :02:52.being so sensitive. This is his Sunday stand. As you would expect,
:02:53. > :03:00.in the debate that follows you may hear some examples of racial
:03:00. > :03:03.language that may offend you. Criminalising racial insults only
:03:03. > :03:09.victimise his effing minorities further by giving the impression
:03:09. > :03:14.they are excessively sensitive and -- sensitive. I am baffled.
:03:14. > :03:16.Criminalising racial abuse is only in the interest of the power.. Our
:03:16. > :03:21.police, court and prosecutors, instead of spending a necessary
:03:21. > :03:24.time on this could be dealing with real criminals. Criminalising the
:03:24. > :03:28.use of speech is not about the defendant of victim, but the state
:03:28. > :03:32.drawing boundaries between what is right and wrong. I don't believe
:03:32. > :03:36.those in governance have the right to do this. Freedom of speech is
:03:36. > :03:39.the most important civil liberty. It has to be kept and restricted
:03:39. > :03:46.because we use that liberty to defend all our other liberties.
:03:46. > :03:49.Without freedom of speech democracy simply cannot exist. We need the
:03:49. > :03:54.unrestricted liberty of freedom of speech, not just to air their views
:03:54. > :04:01.we want but to also protect tolerance on different points of
:04:01. > :04:05.view. If we curb speech that is offensive we will not be able to
:04:05. > :04:09.discuss things and we will weaken ties with other communities. I
:04:09. > :04:17.would not want somebody who called me a racist names to end up in
:04:17. > :04:22.court. It is time to rein in the speech police and leave us alone.
:04:22. > :04:26.Bidisha, does racist abuse language need to be illegal? It does and I
:04:26. > :04:31.am glad at least this incident got to court and the fact we are
:04:31. > :04:35.talking about it shows it is not OK to use the language that was used.
:04:35. > :04:39.That was openly racist, misogynistic, which people have not
:04:39. > :04:41.mentioned. It was said with aggressive intent. Of course we
:04:41. > :04:45.should have a free and civil society where people can speak
:04:45. > :04:50.freely but one of the responsibilities of that is to not
:04:50. > :04:55.open your mouth and let hate speech about anything, race, sex, ability,
:04:55. > :04:59.sexuality, anything like that come out. It is deeply offensive. You
:04:59. > :05:04.can say words are words but they are part of an oppressive and
:05:04. > :05:14.offensive society. But is the question for the vote. Should
:05:14. > :05:32.
:05:33. > :05:36.-- insults. A lot of black players have spent years dealing with this
:05:36. > :05:41.kind of language on the pitch and they have come out and said this
:05:41. > :05:45.case matters, the issue matters. Are you saying they are wrong?
:05:45. > :05:49.are all wrong. The great Enoch Powell once said we have gone mad
:05:49. > :05:53.as a nation. I think we have. Why are we spending thousands of pounds
:05:53. > :05:57.prosecuting the use of language just because some people happen to
:05:57. > :06:02.be offended, or might be offended, we don't even know if they have a
:06:02. > :06:06.vendetta against someone. I think words have to be beyond the remit
:06:06. > :06:10.of the law. In an ideal society people should say that to somebody
:06:10. > :06:15.er don't like, he is rude, using foul language, and that is probably
:06:15. > :06:19.his character. I won't have anything to do with him. It is not
:06:19. > :06:24.the problem of the state to get involved in it. We have to grow up
:06:24. > :06:33.on this. I really don't understand this verdict. It seems to me it is
:06:33. > :06:37.deeply offensive, in my view it is a verbal assault. It would seem it
:06:37. > :06:42.was held at Anton Ferdinand although John Terry has been
:06:42. > :06:46.cleared. But the message that has gone out is that it is OK to use
:06:46. > :06:52.that language, would you use black or white in the middle of the other
:06:52. > :06:58.words. Enoch Powell was not great, he was a total bases. I want a
:06:58. > :07:04.second that idea about violence and harassment, hate speech comes from
:07:04. > :07:07.not just language but animation. Except this is often about a wider
:07:07. > :07:12.abuse and a boorish and us, but there are specific words which are
:07:12. > :07:20.not mistaken. The perpetrator has not mistaken that the choice of
:07:20. > :07:24.words, neither has the victim. There are many campaigns in
:07:24. > :07:28.football which draw on the testimonies of players who have
:07:28. > :07:32.experienced multiple of verbal racial attacks. Instead of being
:07:32. > :07:38.over-sensitive, victims wait and wait until it has happened about 30
:07:38. > :07:42.times to finally speak out. There are all these campaigns about
:07:42. > :07:45.racist language in football because it matters, doesn't it? A think it
:07:45. > :07:49.is misguided. I think the real issues here are victims of real
:07:49. > :07:56.crime who do not have their cases dealt with because money is being
:07:56. > :08:00.spent on dealing with whether somebody is offended or not. People
:08:00. > :08:04.used to throw bananas on the pitch, a player has been reduced to tears
:08:04. > :08:07.on the pitch. If the club or the FA want to discipline those people,
:08:07. > :08:12.fine, but the fact the criminal- justice system is involved is
:08:12. > :08:16.taking up a lot of time and money. It is estimated that trial cost
:08:16. > :08:23.over �200,000. It is it the money that bothers you? It is the issue
:08:23. > :08:28.of freedom of speech, that we are treating people like children.
:08:28. > :08:31.Someone is upset so we spent �200,000 prosecuting it. I do not
:08:31. > :08:35.think the victims of racial or any other kind of abuse are being
:08:35. > :08:39.treated as children, or are behaving as children. I think it is
:08:39. > :08:42.very adult and brave to stand up and say this was said to me and it
:08:42. > :08:45.and say this was said to me and it is not OK and I will take the
:08:45. > :08:48.bullets for it by standing up and bullets for it by standing up and
:08:48. > :08:54.bringing some kind of legal suit, whatever it might be, or lodging a
:08:54. > :08:59.formal complaint. Not everything has to go to trial but it is very
:08:59. > :09:04.big of survivors of any abuse to stand up and say this is not OK.
:09:04. > :09:09.This is the tip of the iceberg of what the state based race industry
:09:09. > :09:15.has done to this country, it has put people into the mindset of I am
:09:15. > :09:19.a victim. A except for you? I think there are many like me who thing
:09:19. > :09:23.for goodness sake, you cannot possibly be offended by that. You
:09:23. > :09:31.have to just bounce off words. surely would be offended if
:09:31. > :09:36.somebody said that you? I would not. Even at work, at court? And no.
:09:36. > :09:45.when does it become a legal? At no stage. Employers can discipline
:09:45. > :09:49.people internally but as for the state getting involved in making
:09:49. > :09:55.this criminal, a man has been made criminal for use of language. That
:09:55. > :09:59.is absurd! Let me make it clear to potential perpetrators and victims,
:09:59. > :10:04.don't go up to people, open your mouth and say something
:10:04. > :10:08.misogynistic, racist, sexist or in any other way bigoted, and then we
:10:08. > :10:18.will be fine, not use up any court time or money, let's just agree on
:10:18. > :10:28.that. I want to bring a contributor from the Web cam. Simon organises
:10:28. > :10:29.
:10:29. > :10:33.people getting politically Good morning to you all. Sadly, the
:10:33. > :10:38.reality is that gross racial insults are often followed by acts
:10:38. > :10:42.of violence. Last year alone there were 51,000 serious racial
:10:42. > :10:48.incidents, many of which were violent. It depends on what kind of
:10:48. > :10:55.society we want. If we were listening to Planet Abhijit Pandya,
:10:55. > :10:59.then we have racism but no racists. We have victims but no perpetrators.
:10:59. > :11:03.So we have to say do we want to live any decent society? If we do,
:11:03. > :11:07.there are standards and if you break those there are sanctions, if
:11:07. > :11:14.they are gross then you go to the courts. If they art work, you lose
:11:14. > :11:17.your job. It is about what type of society we want to live in. How do
:11:17. > :11:22.you want that? It is not clear whether criminalising racial
:11:22. > :11:27.language would change opinions on race. If I commit assault on the
:11:28. > :11:31.back of that then the criminal- justice system will act on that, I
:11:31. > :11:38.have interfered with somebody's bodily integrity. They can draw a
:11:38. > :11:43.boundary between words and assault. The point about it is that one
:11:43. > :11:47.follows the other. If you have the former, you are less likely to have
:11:47. > :11:51.the latter. It makes sense. We don't want people to have to go
:11:51. > :11:55.about their law-abiding business being grossly insulted. That is not
:11:55. > :12:03.the type of society I want to bring my child into, neither do many
:12:03. > :12:07.black or white families. I want to bring in a lecturer in
:12:07. > :12:13.criminology who is on the phone. Simon is saying extreme language
:12:13. > :12:20.normalises racism and kind of set a tone to encourage actual violence.
:12:20. > :12:24.It is a good question because it reflects the sentiment behind the
:12:24. > :12:32.law in this case. It is a very patronising, almost anti-
:12:32. > :12:37.democratic sentiment which suggests we really can't allow people to say
:12:37. > :12:47.certain things because there will be a trigger in the minds of some
:12:47. > :12:50.white working-class people. I think there is something very worrying
:12:50. > :12:57.and anti- democratic about a sentiment where we tried to, in
:12:57. > :13:01.essence, make certain words and ideas illegal. It is profoundly
:13:01. > :13:05.authoritarian and elitist. A so you think it is parley discriminating
:13:05. > :13:12.against working-class people. You don't think Posh white people can
:13:12. > :13:16.be racist? I think a whole think -- it is a cosmopolitan form of
:13:16. > :13:20.snobbery which automatically thinks there is a problem with white
:13:20. > :13:24.working-class people who were either racist or potentially racist
:13:24. > :13:30.and therefore potentially violent and we need to have more and more
:13:30. > :13:34.laws and regulations to try to prevent that. I just don't see
:13:34. > :13:39.where the class issue comes in at all. I simply been the message is
:13:39. > :13:45.now being sent out, particularly to young people, for which John Terry
:13:45. > :13:52.is a role model, that this kind of language is OK. It is not. That is
:13:52. > :13:57.why I think the law should have been brought into force. Hasn't
:13:57. > :14:01.there been a change over time? Are we a very sensitive which is being
:14:01. > :14:05.implied there? I think there are all sorts of defences for abusive
:14:05. > :14:09.language and that whenever someone brings it up the tendency is to
:14:09. > :14:13.victim blame, to say you made a mistake, you were over-reacting,
:14:13. > :14:17.you don't understand, this is about free speech, of course we should
:14:17. > :14:21.have a society with free speech but we should also live in a society
:14:21. > :14:26.which is not abusive. I think the courts are actually lagging behind
:14:26. > :14:30.society on this issue because it has stirred up so much controversy
:14:30. > :14:35.that here we are talking about it, which is a good thing. To say
:14:35. > :14:39.nothing, to say it is OK and sit back in silence is to simply pass
:14:39. > :14:46.it off as normal which it is not. Many feel it is not normal, or
:14:46. > :14:51.write to be completely abusive. think there is something in sticks
:14:51. > :14:54.and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I think a
:14:54. > :14:59.mature society does not react will get upset because somebody calls
:14:59. > :15:03.them a name. You think that person is an idiot, fine, but we don't
:15:03. > :15:08.want to get lawyers and legislation involved where we had just dealing
:15:08. > :15:12.with words. We need to understand they are just words. Anton
:15:12. > :15:21.Ferdinand said when someone brings your colour into what it takes it
:15:21. > :15:25.to another level and is very I think he proves my point, you
:15:25. > :15:29.have made people over-sensitive by encouraging these people -- these
:15:29. > :15:35.kinds of prosecutions. That statement is a reaction took 30
:15:35. > :15:39.years of oversubscribed racial equality legislation. This is not
:15:39. > :15:43.about the sensitivity of victims. We need to put the focus on the
:15:43. > :15:48.perpetrator. What did John Terry think he was doing? When I get
:15:49. > :15:52.angry, which is frequently, I don't run into the street and verbally,
:15:53. > :15:56.racially or sexually or in any other way abuse my colleagues, even
:15:56. > :16:01.when angry and spouting off. We need to put the responsibility
:16:01. > :16:08.where it belongs, on to the perpetrators. I want to bring in
:16:08. > :16:11.another contributor on the webcam. Ricky Gervais came out with a so-
:16:11. > :16:15.called joke about people with Down's syndrome and used an
:16:15. > :16:19.offensive word, there was a huge backlash. Would you say that is OK
:16:19. > :16:24.and is it not similar to the row about racist language? It is
:16:24. > :16:34.similar in one sense, you're talking about a attributes that
:16:34. > :16:34.
:16:34. > :16:40.people can't help, race, disability, security. The problem with Ricky
:16:40. > :16:47.Gervais, one of the major problems, was that the joke he tried to make
:16:47. > :16:50.wasn't in any way funny. He was trying to say that the use of the
:16:50. > :16:55.word had moved on and he wasn't being offensive, but he clearly
:16:55. > :17:02.thought he had made a great joke. The fact was it wasn't funny and it
:17:02. > :17:09.felt like bullying. I would worry that we should shut down any jokes
:17:09. > :17:13.that bringing characteristics, because we can't shut down these
:17:13. > :17:17.arguments completely. Sometimes jokes can be very funny that
:17:17. > :17:21.involve transgressive ideas. On the issue of bullying, people look at
:17:21. > :17:24.the John Terry case and this kind of incident and say that it
:17:24. > :17:30.intimidate black players. Maybe you have to be a black player to know
:17:30. > :17:33.what it feels like. Possibly. Bullying is bullion but when we
:17:33. > :17:38.start -- bullying is bullying but when we start worrying about
:17:38. > :17:48.specific words and fetish Freising those words, which seems to happens
:17:48. > :17:50.
:17:50. > :17:58.Racism will not go away if certain words are banned. We need to look
:17:58. > :18:02.at attitudes and education. race Relations Act came in in 1976.
:18:02. > :18:08.My parents can remember some dodgy sitcoms that was supposed to be
:18:08. > :18:13.funny about race. People would find this hard to watch now, not just
:18:13. > :18:17.people who are black or Asian. Perhaps we don't know -- don't need
:18:17. > :18:21.to prosecute, we know where the line is. I don't think that is the
:18:21. > :18:24.case, I am glad this incident came to court. It is about society's
:18:24. > :18:29.attitudes and if we had all the time and money in the world, we
:18:29. > :18:34.would educate from a very young age that this is not OK and there would
:18:34. > :18:41.not be the need for it to come to when we are in our 30s and coming
:18:41. > :18:46.to court. This is about a deep social education for everyone.
:18:46. > :18:51.may want to programme children Orwellian style... I'm talking
:18:51. > :18:58.about teaching children not to be total racers, actually. I think it
:18:58. > :19:03.is sad that we don't have people like Tommy Cooper around. He was
:19:03. > :19:07.not racist. It's depends on your opinion. I think racial jokes are
:19:07. > :19:14.OK and the fact that society has to think, oh I have got to edit that
:19:14. > :19:24.programme, it is a backward step, not a Ford's step. Some people --
:19:24. > :19:37.
:19:37. > :19:47.That this says I am black, I don't think racial insults should be made
:19:47. > :19:48.
:19:48. > :19:58.illegal. What do you think? You can text us to the number below. Or you
:19:58. > :20:04.
:20:04. > :20:07.can vote online. You have 20 Melinda Gates from the Gates
:20:07. > :20:11.Foundation charity was fund-raising in London this week. She wants to
:20:11. > :20:15.provide access to birth control, including contraceptive injections
:20:15. > :20:18.to millions of women in developing countries. She says giving women
:20:18. > :20:22.control over their fertility will empower them and save millions of
:20:22. > :20:26.lives. Has easy access to contraception being unanimously
:20:26. > :20:35.good for British society, and is it right to promote those Western
:20:35. > :20:39.G one of the world's most powerful couples is challenging the Kathleen
:20:39. > :20:44.-- the Catholic church on one of its core teachings, contraception.
:20:44. > :20:49.Melinda Gates, herself a practising Catholic, wants to bring artificial
:20:49. > :20:53.birth control to 120 million of the poorest women in the world and our
:20:53. > :20:56.government is helping to fund it. Every year, 100,000 women die in
:20:56. > :21:00.childbirth, who say they didn't want to be pregnant in the first
:21:00. > :21:05.place. They also lose 600,000 babies every year from women who
:21:05. > :21:09.say it was unintended pregnancy. We can save those lives by giving them
:21:09. > :21:14.the modern tools that we have today, in the UK or the US. The Catholic
:21:14. > :21:18.church disputes her calls. They say promoting contraception would
:21:18. > :21:22.increase promiscuity. The Vatican says that sex should only be for
:21:22. > :21:28.procreation within the bonds of marriage. Across the world,
:21:28. > :21:32.Catholic clergy teach this as a fundamental part of their pace --
:21:32. > :21:36.their faith. It is not the business of the government to be promoting
:21:36. > :21:45.contraceptive devices. It would be like saying, the government will
:21:45. > :21:53.pass a law which will fund the promotion of poor eating among the
:21:53. > :21:57.Muslims -- pork beating. Is it time the Catholic Church changed its
:21:57. > :22:02.stance on contraception? Would it empower women and change population
:22:02. > :22:06.growth? Or is there something immoral about trying to control how
:22:06. > :22:10.many children people have been poorer countries? Are we imposing
:22:10. > :22:14.secular values on people who may believe children are a gift from
:22:14. > :22:19.God? You can join the conversation on
:22:19. > :22:24.Twitter, phone, text or e-mail. We are joined in the studio by
:22:24. > :22:28.Caroline Farrow from the group, Catholic Voices. You are also
:22:28. > :22:34.expecting a child, congratulations. Thank you. People like Melinda
:22:34. > :22:37.Gates, who happens to be Catholic, a lot of people in this country say
:22:37. > :22:41.that contraceptives are a force to good, why do you object so
:22:42. > :22:46.strongly? We don't object to women being in charge of their own
:22:47. > :22:50.fertility, and being empowered. But there is no evidence to suggest
:22:51. > :22:56.that contraceptives actually have any life-saving effect. Melinda
:22:56. > :23:01.Gates says she wants to save the lives of women and babies. That is
:23:01. > :23:04.a very laudable goal and we would agree with that. But providing
:23:04. > :23:11.contraceptives, particularly to women in the developing world, will
:23:11. > :23:17.not impact on maternal mortality rates. Real? Why are women dying in
:23:17. > :23:20.childbirth? Because they don't have decent basic medical care. They
:23:21. > :23:25.don't have doctors, midwives, they are not giving birth in sterile
:23:25. > :23:30.conditions, they don't have any antenatal care. We need things like
:23:30. > :23:34.road to clinics, emergency mobile phones. There is a whole lot of
:23:34. > :23:38.provision that is to be given to women who are expecting, and to
:23:38. > :23:45.newborn babies and infants. Providing contraception
:23:45. > :23:49.circumnavigates the issue. Really? It adds to it. Obviously we need
:23:49. > :23:53.those other measures, but to not allow women to have the right to
:23:53. > :23:57.have contraception, not to educate them into contraception, not to
:23:57. > :24:01.limit the number of children, kids of 12 years old in Sierra Leone, as
:24:01. > :24:06.soon as puberty hits, they are pregnant. I cannot understand your
:24:06. > :24:12.viewpoint at all. It is not about limiting women's rights to
:24:12. > :24:18.fertility. 12 year olds in Sierra Leone having children, no one can
:24:19. > :24:24.condone that at all. So let's give them contraception. Surely that
:24:24. > :24:28.just empowers the man who want to exploit them. 12 year-olds should
:24:28. > :24:33.not be having sex. The problem is that with young marriages and with
:24:33. > :24:36.rape... What we need to be doing is clamping down on those people who
:24:37. > :24:43.want to exploit the women. course, no one would argue against
:24:43. > :24:46.that. We can't give a 12-year-old contraception and say, it is OK.
:24:46. > :24:51.would second everything you have said, it is also about access to
:24:51. > :24:56.childcare, access to hospitals and emergency doctors and assistance.
:24:56. > :25:01.It is also about saying that if you have a situation, life is not ideal,
:25:01. > :25:05.life is what it is. If you have a situation where there are 12, 13,
:25:05. > :25:09.14 year-olds giving birth, not having the education to know that
:25:09. > :25:14.this is how babies are made, this is what you can do and you don't
:25:14. > :25:20.have to do, we must give them contraception. A lot of these women
:25:20. > :25:24.are having 10, 11, 12 babies. goes to the question of what
:25:24. > :25:29.happens in the immediacy of a pregnancy. If you have large
:25:29. > :25:33.families, as the woman, how do you pay for them? Can you educate them?
:25:33. > :25:36.It is about resources and this creates a tremendous strain
:25:37. > :25:46.financially, socially, personally, psychologically, in the years to
:25:47. > :25:47.
:25:47. > :25:51.Nobody is arguing that women shouldn't be educated about sex.
:25:51. > :25:55.The Gates Foundation is going to do that, too. A much better way would
:25:55. > :25:58.be to empower women with something like natural family planning which
:25:58. > :26:04.according to the World Health Organisation has success rates. I
:26:04. > :26:10.know you are laughing. I am just smiling. It really doesn't work.
:26:10. > :26:16.does. This is no longer the Vatican roulette. The World Health
:26:16. > :26:21.Organisation report success rates of 97%. One about safe sex?
:26:21. > :26:25.Contraceptives provide safer sex. Have you been to Kenya, Uganda,
:26:25. > :26:32.seen women dying of AIDS with hundreds of children who are going
:26:32. > :26:35.to be orphaned? His even if we give all the education in the world,
:26:35. > :26:41.women within relationships don't always have the power to say, can
:26:41. > :26:45.you please use a condom? Can we do it like this? It is very difficult.
:26:45. > :26:49.Given that this is a crisis situation, I absolutely by what you
:26:49. > :26:55.are saying but this is a crisis situation that is not to do with
:26:55. > :27:00.just contraception, it is about consequences. The evidence shows
:27:00. > :27:06.that condoms, believe it or not, don't actually work. What is your
:27:06. > :27:09.source for that? Professor Edward Green, head of HIV and AIDS
:27:09. > :27:14.prevention at Harvard University, he is an atheist and a liberal, he
:27:14. > :27:18.has no Catholic agenda, he was on the ground in Africa for 20 to 25
:27:18. > :27:23.years, giving out condoms. He said the evidence showed it did not work.
:27:23. > :27:30.There is a phenomenon known as risk compensation. People feel they are
:27:30. > :27:34.protected, so they engage in riskier behaviour. This is what I
:27:34. > :27:37.was talking about about the empowerment of women. Even if you
:27:37. > :27:41.have condoms, you don't always have the power within the relationship
:27:41. > :27:51.to make sure they are used properly and that they serve the purpose
:27:51. > :27:51.
:27:51. > :27:54.they were designed for. This is why I am pro- contraceptive injections.
:27:54. > :28:01.A contraceptive injection on its own will not protect against
:28:01. > :28:11.disease. That does natural child contraceptive methods -- neither
:28:11. > :28:13.
:28:13. > :28:17.does. You need a condom and an injection. We also need education.
:28:17. > :28:22.I have another contributor, Father John Redmond. Forgive me, it read
:28:22. > :28:27.for it. Women like Caroline who live in Britain, they can choose
:28:27. > :28:35.not to use contraception for their faith, but why should women in
:28:35. > :28:38.poorer countries be denied that choice? Can I congratulate your
:28:38. > :28:44.Catholic contributor, being attacked from all sides, she is
:28:44. > :28:47.doing very well. We brought you in to back her up. I would like to
:28:47. > :28:52.emphasise very much, the Church does not say that people should
:28:52. > :29:02.have as many children as possible. There is natural family planning
:29:02. > :29:11.and a research group called Natural procreation technology. In the
:29:11. > :29:17.recent conference that there was, David Cameron put his oar in here,
:29:17. > :29:21.why was the subject of natural family planning not discussed? As
:29:21. > :29:27.this good lady said, many scientists are saying it is
:29:27. > :29:30.possible. That was not the question, we have moved on. Tell me why women
:29:30. > :29:35.in the developing countries should not be given the choice, in the way
:29:35. > :29:39.that Caroline has a choice not to use it? Because it is wrong. She is
:29:39. > :29:47.given the choice, you can use natural family planning. What is
:29:47. > :29:53.not permitted is to make a sexually immoral decision, which is to
:29:53. > :29:58.separate the sex act from the procreative act. Just a moment, I
:29:58. > :30:04.want to bring in the country director for Marie Stopes
:30:04. > :30:12.International in Senegal. What do the women you meet say to you about
:30:12. > :30:15.it? Mostly, the women just say thank you. Marie Stopes
:30:15. > :30:19.International Senegal is a new programme. We have been running
:30:19. > :30:24.services for eight months and we have already had a massive impact,
:30:24. > :30:27.serving 6,000 women. Most of the feedback I have heard is thank you
:30:27. > :30:32.very much for providing the services that we do not have access
:30:32. > :30:38.to. Only 12% of women have access to a modern contraception method.
:30:38. > :30:42.30% of women express a desire to use family-planning methods. We are
:30:42. > :30:46.going for these women, we show up and they show up because they want
:30:46. > :30:52.this and they need this. I can give you an example, last Monday Melinda
:30:52. > :30:58.Gates came to visit our programme. We spoke to a 19-year-old called
:30:58. > :31:00.Bernadette, who had been married for a year. She was carrying her
:31:00. > :31:06.newborn child and was breast- feeding while we were talking to
:31:06. > :31:10.have. We asked her, why are you here? She said, I have had this one
:31:11. > :31:15.child and I want to do the best for this child, I want to give her the
:31:15. > :31:19.best future possible and I want to give my children that I hope to
:31:19. > :31:24.have in the future, the best education and start in life. For
:31:24. > :31:34.that, I need to space my pregnancies. I think that is key to
:31:34. > :31:36.
:31:36. > :31:43.I want to bring in a Catholic physician in Nigeria. Are you
:31:43. > :31:50.saying all these women are choosing to have babies without the power to
:31:50. > :32:00.say no to their husbands? Don't they need contraceptive choice?
:32:00. > :32:00.
:32:00. > :32:03.answer to that is not all of these women would have the opportunity to
:32:03. > :32:11.say I don't want to have this particular child at this particular
:32:11. > :32:15.time with their husband. There is a lack of power in the dynamics of
:32:15. > :32:24.relationships here in Africa. However, to say that they need
:32:25. > :32:29.contraception as their answer is not right, it is not the answer. We
:32:29. > :32:35.have been told that women need education. Most of the women are
:32:35. > :32:39.you will stop on the street, if you ask them when was your last
:32:39. > :32:44.menstrual period? Why is it important? How does it help you
:32:44. > :32:54.stay healthy? They don't have that basic knowledge to know why they
:32:54. > :32:56.
:32:56. > :32:59.need that information. Caroline is saying we need to put more money
:32:59. > :33:05.into roads and health care, it is not just about contraception but
:33:05. > :33:09.better health care for women. think it is a question of both. We
:33:09. > :33:13.need better health care in countries like Senegal with low
:33:13. > :33:18.resource settings. I fundamentally do not agree with saying
:33:18. > :33:22.contraception is not part of that because in a recent Lancet study we
:33:22. > :33:29.showed if this need for family planning, just giving women what
:33:29. > :33:35.they have already expressed they want, we can reduce maternal
:33:36. > :33:40.mortality and infant mortality by 10%. We can reduce children
:33:40. > :33:48.mortality by 21%, so these are massive health impacts that are due
:33:48. > :33:54.and linked to contraception. There are measurable health impacts by
:33:54. > :33:58.offering the advice and support as well. I am very sorry I have to
:33:58. > :34:03.strongly disagree. Contraception is a big distraction from maternal
:34:03. > :34:08.mortality. Women at die every day in this country do not have the
:34:08. > :34:13.ability to get from where they are having an emergency to the hospital
:34:13. > :34:18.because of roads. When they get to the hospital there are so many
:34:18. > :34:21.delays because the health service is badly put together and there are
:34:21. > :34:25.no resources or personnel to take care of their problem.
:34:25. > :34:34.Contraception is the biggest distraction to helping women stay
:34:34. > :34:41.alive. It is not the answer. have to leave it there. I want talk
:34:41. > :34:45.about need. A World War -- World Health Organisation report says 89%
:34:45. > :34:50.of women without partners have ready access to contraception and
:34:50. > :34:57.can use it. When they talk about unmet need, they are including
:34:57. > :35:01.women who are already pregnant, breast-feeding, that figure would
:35:01. > :35:07.include the 65,000 Roman Catholic nuns in Africa who do not want to
:35:07. > :35:12.use contraception. Following on from that, we need everything, the
:35:12. > :35:17.contraception, education, access, raising of consciousness, I am glad
:35:17. > :35:22.about what Melinda Gates said. appalled anybody even questions
:35:22. > :35:26.this is necessary. Of course it is. I am horrified that a bunch of male,
:35:26. > :35:29.cellar but, childless people in the Vatican continued to try to rule
:35:29. > :35:33.over half the population. It is dreadful.
:35:33. > :35:37.Time for some comments... Demetrius in London, a child has a gift of
:35:37. > :35:41.God but should not pay the price of being born when parents do not have
:35:41. > :35:44.the resources to give it a good life. Another viewer, women should
:35:44. > :35:50.have access to contraception, they can choose not to use it due to
:35:50. > :35:52.religion, but they should have the choice. Later... What would you do
:35:52. > :35:56.if you suspected your partner was being unfaithful? Rebecca Jane
:35:56. > :35:59.spied on her own husband and discovered he was cheating, now she
:35:59. > :36:02.runs a private detective agency to unmask love rats. We'll be speaking
:36:02. > :36:06.to Rebecca later, but what would you have done in her position?
:36:06. > :36:11.Would you have broken into his e mail, spied on his texts? Or would
:36:11. > :36:15.that be an invasion of privacy? You can join in by webcam. Or you can
:36:15. > :36:25.make your views known by phone, e mail or online. You've been voting
:36:25. > :36:31.
:36:31. > :36:41.in our poll this morning - should racial insults be illegal? You have
:36:41. > :36:47.
:36:47. > :36:52.Moral moments now. Jenny, you have spotted a story about parking for
:36:52. > :36:56.men and women. -- Jennie Bond. These is outrageous. A mayor in
:36:56. > :37:00.generate -- Germany has decided women cannot park so in the car
:37:00. > :37:06.park in the town he has allocated male and female spaces. The spaces
:37:06. > :37:10.for men are more tricky to get into, you have to reverse into them.
:37:10. > :37:14.Reverse ladies, how dreadful! The women's spaces are large and you
:37:14. > :37:21.can go straight in. How ridiculous. If you cannot reverse into a space,
:37:21. > :37:24.you should not be driving. Don't you think? Quite so. I want to see
:37:24. > :37:29.men had sat-nav taken away because then they will never ask for
:37:29. > :37:35.directions, will they? They should add to the women's parking spaces,
:37:35. > :37:43.make them pink with cushions, because we love that. With a little
:37:43. > :37:47.cupcake at the end. A little reward if you can do it! Caroline, this is
:37:47. > :37:52.the interesting story, it is a face and female issue about hotel
:37:53. > :37:57.Bibles... There is a hotel manager in Devon who has decided to replace
:37:57. > :38:04.all the copies of the Gideon Bible which are normally free in a hotel
:38:04. > :38:13.with 50 shades of grey instead. knew that would get a mention. A
:38:13. > :38:23.marketing gimmick? -- gimmick? Parley. I can't help thinking it is
:38:23. > :38:26.
:38:26. > :38:32.excluding 50% of the population -- party. -- partly. It is marketed as
:38:32. > :38:38.mummy born, so what is Daddy born? More seriously, it is a big mistake.
:38:38. > :38:48.The Bible has been around for 2000 years, it has more staying power
:38:48. > :38:50.
:38:50. > :38:54.and... It has some sexy bits! incredibly erotic. This chap is
:38:54. > :39:00.saying the Bible is inaccessible but I think we can learn more about
:39:00. > :39:06.the human condition from the Bible than we can about some a man with
:39:06. > :39:10.psychological issues. You have read the book. I am enjoying it and
:39:10. > :39:14.subsequent books. I can't imagine a book I would one less in a hotel
:39:14. > :39:22.than the Bible. I've never understood it. I don't want it. I
:39:22. > :39:27.find it boring. Irrelevant to my life. So much of our literature,
:39:27. > :39:32.tradition and culture is based on the Bible and without it you are
:39:32. > :39:35.missing a whole level of richness. Even Richard Dawkins support the
:39:35. > :39:41.Bible being given out because leading cities good literature.
:39:41. > :39:46.think we should have a copy of both books, the hotels can delay poll to
:39:46. > :39:50.see who likes it. The hotels make a lot of money from Hotel born on
:39:50. > :40:00.their TV so all they had to do is keep the pornography on the
:40:00. > :40:01.
:40:01. > :40:09.television free. -- porn. And will people still be reading 50 shades
:40:09. > :40:12.of grey in 50 years? The hunt for UFOs caught your eye. It turns out
:40:12. > :40:18.The National archives have released the details of the fact that the
:40:18. > :40:22.MoD have been lobbying strange flying objects for the last DEC --
:40:22. > :40:26.last few decades. I am surprised by this because the hunt has been
:40:26. > :40:33.going on for a while and nobody has found any evidence that across
:40:33. > :40:37.billions of light years advanced light spacecraft have made their
:40:37. > :40:46.way into our solar system to be spotted. The MoD have said they are
:40:46. > :40:51.either forms of plasma or possibly military vehicles. This makes me
:40:51. > :40:56.sound mad but I saw a peculiar floating object above the horizon
:40:56. > :41:04.me where I live and it was indeed a semi circular thing would like us
:41:04. > :41:09.along the rim. Then it turned out there is an RAF base there. As a
:41:09. > :41:12.reporter, Jennie Bond, have you been struck by them? Why are we so
:41:12. > :41:15.obsessed with them? It a assassinating that there is life
:41:15. > :41:21.out there. I am distressed the MoD should be spending money on this
:41:21. > :41:25.because we do not have any money. Not any more. I doubt we had the
:41:25. > :41:28.funds even when we were doing it so I think it was misappropriation of
:41:28. > :41:33.funds. The have cities people who don't have faith, they look for
:41:33. > :41:41.something else in the sky. A Paris Tony Blair was extremely concerned
:41:41. > :41:47.about it and insisted one briefings. He is into crystals and things, too.
:41:47. > :41:54.Who knows? Thank you. You have been voting in our poll, should racial
:41:54. > :41:58.insults be illegal. It is closing now so do not text. The on line
:41:58. > :42:05.voters' closing as well. We will bring you the results at the end of
:42:05. > :42:08.the show. If your partner fancies being unfaithful then the internet
:42:08. > :42:12.has made their life much easier, giving them the opportunity to
:42:12. > :42:16.flirt and hook up with old flames. Facebook is even being cited in
:42:16. > :42:19.divorce cases. So what do you do about it? Well, this week the wife
:42:19. > :42:22.of celebrity chef Jamie Oliver said she regularly snooped on his texts
:42:22. > :42:26.and e mails and she considers their and e mails and she considers their
:42:26. > :42:31.and e mails and she considers their and e mails and she considers their
:42:31. > :42:36.12 year relationship is a sound one. So
:42:36. > :42:40.So is it OK to snoop on texts and e mails to see if your partner is
:42:40. > :42:47.cheating? This week Gill's Oliver described her marriage to Jamie it
:42:47. > :42:51.as solid. Then she followed it up with an admission - - she rifles
:42:51. > :42:54.through his texts and e-mails, and she is not alone. According to
:42:55. > :43:01.recent serve one-fifth of married couples are guilty of the same
:43:01. > :43:04.behaviour. Is it morally wrong to snip? Some psychologistss say
:43:04. > :43:08.spying on your partner is betrayal, you are reading their private
:43:08. > :43:12.messages, what would happen if they call you and they are innocent? And
:43:12. > :43:16.if you break into someone's of e- mail account without permission,
:43:16. > :43:20.that could be a crime. Many people who do slip-on partners say they
:43:20. > :43:23.only do so with good reason. In a world of intimidating and racy
:43:23. > :43:28.texting, it is easier to cheat so they say reading private e-mails
:43:28. > :43:33.and text or even hiring a private investigator is justified, it is
:43:33. > :43:36.their way of protecting themselves against potential infidelity. So
:43:36. > :43:40.are they right? Is it OK to spy on your partner, perhaps even break
:43:40. > :43:47.the law to find out if they are cheating on you? Or is it always
:43:47. > :43:55.wrong, even if it turns out your partner was unfaithful? You can
:43:55. > :44:01.join in on the Web can all by phone, online, text or e-mail. We are
:44:01. > :44:06.joined by Andy Jones, a columnist often found giving it love advice.
:44:06. > :44:10.You went on a Tantric sex retreat to research one of your latest
:44:10. > :44:15.articles. I did. I am very embarrassed to mention it. My
:44:15. > :44:20.mother has not seen it but she now knows about it so I am delighted!
:44:20. > :44:24.You are an expert, we are glad to have you. Jenny Bond, let's start
:44:24. > :44:32.with you. Do you slip on your husband? I would not call it
:44:32. > :44:36.snooping. It is entirely natural to want to see what their
:44:36. > :44:40.communications are. We share e- mails at home, my husband and I, we
:44:40. > :44:47.have been married for many years, we have no secrets and a sound
:44:47. > :44:50.marriage. So it is safe. So you leave things open? We do. He reads
:44:50. > :44:55.my Facebook. It is like wandering round the house naked with the
:44:55. > :44:59.windows open. The do that, too! think they could be consequences
:45:00. > :45:06.and you must be prepared for those. If you read something you do not
:45:06. > :45:11.want to see, it is your fault. You should probably keep quiet about it.
:45:11. > :45:20.My secret cyberspace, Twitter, I do regard that as mine but my husbands
:45:20. > :45:28.see some of it. Tweeds with Oliver Reed. A that's right. He has passed,
:45:28. > :45:32.it occasionally but do not criticise me. Andy, you were caught
:45:32. > :45:35.sending an appropriate message. A girlfriend caught you? Next
:45:35. > :45:39.girlfriend went through my phone and that the message I should not
:45:39. > :45:49.have sent but I was not offended she had breached my privacy. I was
:45:49. > :45:49.
:45:49. > :45:53.Was it an appropriate message to another woman? It wasn't that
:45:53. > :45:57.inappropriate, but it is probably something I should not have said. I
:45:57. > :46:02.feel we live in a culture with this vanity society, we are projecting
:46:02. > :46:07.so much of ourselves online, it has never been easier to cheat. You
:46:07. > :46:13.have Facebook, you have friends reunited which will look you up
:46:13. > :46:18.with your former crush. You have e- mail, text, a service on our phone.
:46:18. > :46:22.It has never been easier to cheat but never easier to get caught. We
:46:22. > :46:28.leave an imprint on everything we do online. It is not light
:46:28. > :46:34.footsteps in the sand. We leave these trails all over the place and
:46:34. > :46:39.we can check on our partners. morally OK to go through your
:46:39. > :46:44.partners e-mails, deceit who he is no sitting just in case. I think it
:46:44. > :46:48.is there matter of great importance, these days. It has never been more
:46:48. > :46:52.expensive to get married, buy a house, raised kids. If you are
:46:52. > :46:59.going to invest that much time, you need to know that person is in it
:46:59. > :47:02.for the long haul. Would you do it to girlfriends, then? I know full
:47:02. > :47:06.well never to go into a lady's handbag, which is where my
:47:06. > :47:10.girlfriend always keeps her phone. But I am daft enough to leave my
:47:10. > :47:14.phone all over the place and I am always asked, why are you speaking
:47:14. > :47:17.to each other? If you're in a marriage, you probably spend less
:47:17. > :47:23.time than ever speaking to each other, you spend more time talking
:47:23. > :47:30.on mobile phones, Twitter, Facebook. To people who have never even met
:47:30. > :47:34.that your husband doesn't know. It creates intrigue and suspicion.
:47:34. > :47:38.remember films in the 50s, wives would be smelling their husband's
:47:38. > :47:43.shirts for perfume or checking for lipstick, isn't this the same but
:47:43. > :47:46.with technology? I am not sure if that has made a huge change. You
:47:46. > :47:50.raise a point which has worried me, the idea that because you're
:47:50. > :47:54.spending so much time and investment, it gives you a right to
:47:54. > :47:59.have a surveillance operation over the other person. I think it is
:47:59. > :48:03.slightly deplorable. I think relationship is built on trust and
:48:03. > :48:06.there is a degree to which... Each relationship has a different
:48:06. > :48:11.pattern. There is a degree to which you have got to trust the other
:48:11. > :48:16.person. To carry out what seems like a monitoring exercise, simply
:48:16. > :48:20.because you have invested so much money and time and effort... It is
:48:20. > :48:24.uncomfortable but a relevant point. Hundreds of thousands of couples in
:48:24. > :48:31.the UK want to get divorced, but can't afford to divorce. They can't
:48:31. > :48:34.afford to separate and move out. It does become a point. People at home
:48:34. > :48:40.are watching, they have a mobile phone in front of them, their
:48:40. > :48:44.partner has there I put -- iPad or e-mail, it is easy to have a look.
:48:44. > :48:51.It might not feel like you are snooping but we are all private
:48:51. > :48:55.snoops. What about you? No, it wouldn't occur to me. Is the
:48:55. > :49:00.question, you would only do it if you have a sense of distrust? Or
:49:00. > :49:06.whether you are excessively jealous? Wouldn't it be better to
:49:06. > :49:09.just come from the person? Jules Oliver's idea is that my marriage
:49:10. > :49:17.is solid, he is out all the time and I need to be reassured. You
:49:17. > :49:21.don't buy that? No. I have some expert advice, a psychotherapist
:49:21. > :49:25.joints on the phone. How do you feel about all of this snooping?
:49:25. > :49:29.Andy Jones is saying it is reasonable. It is if you have pre-
:49:29. > :49:35.existing suspicion, I suppose. Or if you want your relationship to
:49:35. > :49:38.die. Because marriage is neither ownership and or slavery. It
:49:38. > :49:44.shouldn't resemble living with a stalker. I think marriage is more
:49:44. > :49:52.of an alliance than a takeover. I think it is right to be aware of
:49:52. > :49:55.what you ask for. But -- beware. The essential point is that you are
:49:55. > :50:02.living with an individual. If you don't have any degree of trust with
:50:02. > :50:06.them, your marriage is in trouble already. Unfortunately, I would
:50:06. > :50:13.have to say to Mrs Oliver, I think there is an existing difficulty for
:50:13. > :50:19.which you may need help. Only the other side of the coin is
:50:19. > :50:25.that you have so much trust that it doesn't matter -- surely the other
:50:25. > :50:30.side. Jenny says that she and her husband leave their e-mails Open,
:50:30. > :50:36.is that a problem? She has reached a stage of Serenity, if I may say
:50:36. > :50:40.that! Are used to work with her husband -- I used to work with her
:50:40. > :50:45.husband and he is an excellent Chapel up a private investigator
:50:45. > :50:49.joins us on the phone now. I gather you have and it partner who was
:50:49. > :50:59.cheating on you, you caught him out and you help other people find out
:50:59. > :50:59.
:50:59. > :51:03.if their partners are cheating. His I think there is a fine line with
:51:03. > :51:06.all kinds of snooping. I think there is an acceptable level and
:51:06. > :51:11.then a point where it is just wrong. That point is when you have to
:51:11. > :51:16.start having to hack things. Like Jennie Bond, I am the same with my
:51:16. > :51:21.husband now, our e-mails go through to our direct computer. I don't
:51:21. > :51:25.care if we see each other's because I have got nothing to hide. I also
:51:25. > :51:27.think there is a very big difference between being governed
:51:27. > :51:32.and boy from, and then being married. I think when you get
:51:32. > :51:35.married, -- being girlfriend and boyfriend. When you get married and
:51:36. > :51:41.you have something to hide, don't get married in the first place.
:51:41. > :51:44.lot of people don't marry. He they have a relationship, they may have
:51:44. > :51:53.children together. Are there signs one can look for, short of hacking
:51:53. > :52:02.into someone's own question -- phone. You might see their phone
:52:02. > :52:07.lying around. The bare all sorts of legalities. -- there are all sorts.
:52:07. > :52:13.We always hoped people, it is a long succession of small dishes.
:52:13. > :52:18.They are not coming home on time, not been and where they are when
:52:18. > :52:23.they say, hiding things, being secretive and a change in behaviour,
:52:23. > :52:27.is pretty much what we always say. If you have problems and you can't
:52:27. > :52:35.talk to the person, he person won't talk to you, I think it is a naive
:52:35. > :52:38.view to say, let's talk. Thank you. I want to bring in a journalist who
:52:38. > :52:41.wrote a piece about how you have been going through your husband's
:52:41. > :52:48.e-mails and texts and thought it was no big deal, and people thought
:52:48. > :52:53.it was outrageous. What was your experience and why did you do it?
:52:53. > :52:56.He that is right. Nobody would say that snooping is an admirable
:52:56. > :53:03.quality but I think it is something that increasing numbers of people
:53:03. > :53:06.do, and many feel the need to hide it. My point, kudos to Jules, for
:53:06. > :53:11.admitting to something that lots of us do and pretend we don't do. The
:53:11. > :53:16.most important thing is that it is not rational. It is the equivalent
:53:16. > :53:21.of a parent who bills the need to check that their sleeping child is
:53:21. > :53:24.still breathing -- who feels the need. It does not make you a
:53:24. > :53:31.paranoid parent, it is an instinctive thing that you do,
:53:31. > :53:40.compelled by the bomb the ability that you feel for loving somebody.
:53:40. > :53:44.-- compelled by the vulnerability We haven't quite worked out how to
:53:44. > :53:48.have relationships in this increasingly connected world.
:53:48. > :53:56.People sign of e-mails and text messages with kisses, two people
:53:56. > :54:02.whom they would never dream of kissing in real life. It is
:54:02. > :54:06.interesting. A worry about too many kisses on too many e-mails. You
:54:06. > :54:10.don't always get contact with social networking. Years ago --
:54:10. > :54:14.don't always get context. Years ago a guy would be able to complain
:54:14. > :54:18.about his marriage, let off steam and then go home. People go into
:54:18. > :54:23.the pub less and less and have these conversations online, they
:54:23. > :54:27.leave this imprint. He might complain but he might not actually
:54:27. > :54:31.believe it, but because he has written it down it is there in
:54:31. > :54:38.black and white. More than that, you can float on line, with Old
:54:38. > :54:42.Flames... It is a dangerous world we're living in. I draw a different
:54:42. > :54:47.line between my husband and myself, and myself and my daughter. I don't
:54:47. > :54:56.snoop on her. I am tempted, but I don't. She leaves her Facebook page
:54:56. > :55:01.open, I know that is wrong, but it is OK with my husband. Don't ask me.
:55:01. > :55:06.I speak to people through work. Women e-mail me and say, high, Babe,
:55:06. > :55:13.what are you up to? These are people I have never met. It is
:55:13. > :55:16.almost common parlance. Lots of love, kiss, hug. It is this kind of
:55:16. > :55:22.internet language. If you friend that on its own, it looks like...
:55:22. > :55:29.What is he up to? Who is this woman he has never spoke to? Actually, it
:55:29. > :55:32.can be someone you spit it through work. Modern -- you speak to.
:55:32. > :55:40.Modern etiquette has got very complicated. Have you rethought
:55:40. > :55:43.your attitude, hearing all this? I think out of respect, you
:55:43. > :55:49.should... It depends on the relationship but you should keep
:55:49. > :55:52.what is private, private. Sue says, I never snooped on my husband of 46
:55:52. > :55:57.years and he had an affair for 18 months before the other woman made
:55:57. > :56:01.certain I found out about it, my advice is to snoop. Jean says, I
:56:01. > :56:05.never feel I have to hide anything from a boy from, that is how a
:56:05. > :56:11.relationship should be. -- anything from my boyfriend. We have to leave
:56:11. > :56:21.it there. The vote is in. The question is, should racial insults
:56:21. > :56:24.be made illegal? Interestingly, 79% said no. I'm interested in whether
:56:25. > :56:29.there is a generational thing about... Are we too sensitive about
:56:29. > :56:32.racist language? There is a difference between racial language
:56:32. > :56:36.and racial insults. It's something is outrageously offensive, which
:56:36. > :56:40.should protect a person from that crime -- if something. It is
:56:40. > :56:47.difficult to sanction against the use of certain words. Every hip-hop
:56:47. > :56:54.album I have bought has had the N- word. And probably the age word as
:56:54. > :56:58.well. Exactly, equally offensive to women. You have to have -- do we
:56:58. > :57:04.have to have some sort of hip-hop amnesty? Do we have to double over
:57:04. > :57:10.certain words in certain films... We are talking People to People.
:57:10. > :57:14.People are strongly against prosecuting. I think it is context.
:57:14. > :57:18.In certain situations, I suppose the language is OK, but when it is
:57:18. > :57:26.done offensively and abusively, and in my view as a verbal assault,
:57:26. > :57:34.think there is a criminal element. Abhijit Pandya, they seem to have
:57:34. > :57:42.back due. What is your view? What -- I think we need to grow up,
:57:42. > :57:46.realise that words are just words. I think what we have done it,
:57:46. > :57:52.pursuing an agenda of racial equality, has legislated for
:57:52. > :57:57.language. I think it is terrible, as a modern democratic country.
:57:57. > :58:06.note those disagreement on this, we have to leave it there. Thanks to
:58:06. > :58:13.everyone who has taken part. He don't text or call the phone lines