Episode 6 Sunday Morning Live

John Terry was found innocent of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand

this week, but he should he have ended up in court a tall? -- should

he. Should racial insults be a crime? Good morning and welcome to

Sunday Morning Live. John Terry's supporters cheered as they cleared

him of racism this week. Anti- racism campaigners say racial

insults must be illegal because they encourage hatred and violence.

But lawyer Abhijit Pandya things they have got it wrong. This only

victimise his ethnic minorities further and gives the impression

they are sensitive. Is more access to contraception the best way to

protect women or is it immoral to try to stop people in poorer

countries having lots of children. Jamie Oliver's wife, Jules, has

admitted she slips on his e-mails and texts even though she has --

says their marriage is rock solid. Is it wrong to snoop on your

partner's e-mails and messages. Jenny Bond is one of our favourite

broadcasters, she has been reported on a roll family for over 20 years

and was locked into a coffin of rats for the show I'm a celebrity.

Abhijit Pandya is a lawyer and blogger for the Daily Mail. He led

the fight to allow a right-wing politician to be allowed to speak

in the UK. And Bidisha is a novelist and broadcaster, a leading

expert on women's right and has written from every -- one of thing

from Venice to cultural identity in It was the court case that divided

a nation. John Terry was cleared of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand in

a heated row on the pitch. But the Football Association are still

investigating his behaviour and a number of black players have

expressed concern over the verdict. They're worried it encourages

racist abuse. But lawyer Abhijit Pandya says its time we stopped

being so sensitive. This is his Sunday stand. As you would expect,

in the debate that follows you may hear some examples of racial

language that may offend you. Criminalising racial insults only

victimise his effing minorities further by giving the impression

they are excessively sensitive and -- sensitive. I am baffled.

Criminalising racial abuse is only in the interest of the power.. Our

police, court and prosecutors, instead of spending a necessary

time on this could be dealing with real criminals. Criminalising the

use of speech is not about the defendant of victim, but the state

drawing boundaries between what is right and wrong. I don't believe

those in governance have the right to do this. Freedom of speech is

the most important civil liberty. It has to be kept and restricted

because we use that liberty to defend all our other liberties.

Without freedom of speech democracy simply cannot exist. We need the

unrestricted liberty of freedom of speech, not just to air their views

we want but to also protect tolerance on different points of

view. If we curb speech that is offensive we will not be able to

discuss things and we will weaken ties with other communities. I

would not want somebody who called me a racist names to end up in

court. It is time to rein in the speech police and leave us alone.

Bidisha, does racist abuse language need to be illegal? It does and I

am glad at least this incident got to court and the fact we are

talking about it shows it is not OK to use the language that was used.

That was openly racist, misogynistic, which people have not

mentioned. It was said with aggressive intent. Of course we

should have a free and civil society where people can speak

freely but one of the responsibilities of that is to not

open your mouth and let hate speech about anything, race, sex, ability,

sexuality, anything like that come out. It is deeply offensive. You

can say words are words but they are part of an oppressive and

offensive society. But is the question for the vote. Should

-- insults. A lot of black players have spent years dealing with this

kind of language on the pitch and they have come out and said this

case matters, the issue matters. Are you saying they are wrong?

are all wrong. The great Enoch Powell once said we have gone mad

as a nation. I think we have. Why are we spending thousands of pounds

prosecuting the use of language just because some people happen to

be offended, or might be offended, we don't even know if they have a

vendetta against someone. I think words have to be beyond the remit

of the law. In an ideal society people should say that to somebody

er don't like, he is rude, using foul language, and that is probably

his character. I won't have anything to do with him. It is not

the problem of the state to get involved in it. We have to grow up

on this. I really don't understand this verdict. It seems to me it is

deeply offensive, in my view it is a verbal assault. It would seem it

was held at Anton Ferdinand although John Terry has been

cleared. But the message that has gone out is that it is OK to use

that language, would you use black or white in the middle of the other

words. Enoch Powell was not great, he was a total bases. I want a

second that idea about violence and harassment, hate speech comes from

not just language but animation. Except this is often about a wider

abuse and a boorish and us, but there are specific words which are

not mistaken. The perpetrator has not mistaken that the choice of

words, neither has the victim. There are many campaigns in

football which draw on the testimonies of players who have

experienced multiple of verbal racial attacks. Instead of being

over-sensitive, victims wait and wait until it has happened about 30

times to finally speak out. There are all these campaigns about

racist language in football because it matters, doesn't it? A think it

is misguided. I think the real issues here are victims of real

crime who do not have their cases dealt with because money is being

spent on dealing with whether somebody is offended or not. People

used to throw bananas on the pitch, a player has been reduced to tears

on the pitch. If the club or the FA want to discipline those people,

fine, but the fact the criminal- justice system is involved is

taking up a lot of time and money. It is estimated that trial cost

over �200,000. It is it the money that bothers you? It is the issue

of freedom of speech, that we are treating people like children.

Someone is upset so we spent �200,000 prosecuting it. I do not

think the victims of racial or any other kind of abuse are being

treated as children, or are behaving as children. I think it is

very adult and brave to stand up and say this was said to me and it

and say this was said to me and it is not OK and I will take the

bullets for it by standing up and bullets for it by standing up and

bringing some kind of legal suit, whatever it might be, or lodging a

formal complaint. Not everything has to go to trial but it is very

big of survivors of any abuse to stand up and say this is not OK.

This is the tip of the iceberg of what the state based race industry

has done to this country, it has put people into the mindset of I am

a victim. A except for you? I think there are many like me who thing

for goodness sake, you cannot possibly be offended by that. You

have to just bounce off words. surely would be offended if

somebody said that you? I would not. Even at work, at court? And no.

when does it become a legal? At no stage. Employers can discipline

people internally but as for the state getting involved in making

this criminal, a man has been made criminal for use of language. That

is absurd! Let me make it clear to potential perpetrators and victims,

don't go up to people, open your mouth and say something

misogynistic, racist, sexist or in any other way bigoted, and then we

will be fine, not use up any court time or money, let's just agree on

that. I want to bring a contributor from the Web cam. Simon organises

people getting politically Good morning to you all. Sadly, the

reality is that gross racial insults are often followed by acts

of violence. Last year alone there were 51,000 serious racial

incidents, many of which were violent. It depends on what kind of

society we want. If we were listening to Planet Abhijit Pandya,

then we have racism but no racists. We have victims but no perpetrators.

So we have to say do we want to live any decent society? If we do,

there are standards and if you break those there are sanctions, if

they are gross then you go to the courts. If they art work, you lose

your job. It is about what type of society we want to live in. How do

you want that? It is not clear whether criminalising racial

language would change opinions on race. If I commit assault on the

back of that then the criminal- justice system will act on that, I

have interfered with somebody's bodily integrity. They can draw a

boundary between words and assault. The point about it is that one

follows the other. If you have the former, you are less likely to have

the latter. It makes sense. We don't want people to have to go

about their law-abiding business being grossly insulted. That is not

the type of society I want to bring my child into, neither do many

black or white families. I want to bring in a lecturer in

criminology who is on the phone. Simon is saying extreme language

normalises racism and kind of set a tone to encourage actual violence.

It is a good question because it reflects the sentiment behind the

law in this case. It is a very patronising, almost anti-

democratic sentiment which suggests we really can't allow people to say

certain things because there will be a trigger in the minds of some

white working-class people. I think there is something very worrying

and anti- democratic about a sentiment where we tried to, in

essence, make certain words and ideas illegal. It is profoundly

authoritarian and elitist. A so you think it is parley discriminating

against working-class people. You don't think Posh white people can

be racist? I think a whole think -- it is a cosmopolitan form of

snobbery which automatically thinks there is a problem with white

working-class people who were either racist or potentially racist

and therefore potentially violent and we need to have more and more

laws and regulations to try to prevent that. I just don't see

where the class issue comes in at all. I simply been the message is

now being sent out, particularly to young people, for which John Terry

is a role model, that this kind of language is OK. It is not. That is

why I think the law should have been brought into force. Hasn't

there been a change over time? Are we a very sensitive which is being

implied there? I think there are all sorts of defences for abusive

language and that whenever someone brings it up the tendency is to

victim blame, to say you made a mistake, you were over-reacting,

you don't understand, this is about free speech, of course we should

have a society with free speech but we should also live in a society

which is not abusive. I think the courts are actually lagging behind

society on this issue because it has stirred up so much controversy

that here we are talking about it, which is a good thing. To say

nothing, to say it is OK and sit back in silence is to simply pass

it off as normal which it is not. Many feel it is not normal, or

write to be completely abusive. think there is something in sticks

and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I think a

mature society does not react will get upset because somebody calls

them a name. You think that person is an idiot, fine, but we don't

want to get lawyers and legislation involved where we had just dealing

with words. We need to understand they are just words. Anton

Ferdinand said when someone brings your colour into what it takes it

to another level and is very I think he proves my point, you

have made people over-sensitive by encouraging these people -- these

kinds of prosecutions. That statement is a reaction took 30

years of oversubscribed racial equality legislation. This is not

about the sensitivity of victims. We need to put the focus on the

perpetrator. What did John Terry think he was doing? When I get

angry, which is frequently, I don't run into the street and verbally,

racially or sexually or in any other way abuse my colleagues, even

when angry and spouting off. We need to put the responsibility

where it belongs, on to the perpetrators. I want to bring in

another contributor on the webcam. Ricky Gervais came out with a so-

called joke about people with Down's syndrome and used an

offensive word, there was a huge backlash. Would you say that is OK

and is it not similar to the row about racist language? It is

similar in one sense, you're talking about a attributes that

people can't help, race, disability, security. The problem with Ricky

Gervais, one of the major problems, was that the joke he tried to make

wasn't in any way funny. He was trying to say that the use of the

word had moved on and he wasn't being offensive, but he clearly

thought he had made a great joke. The fact was it wasn't funny and it

felt like bullying. I would worry that we should shut down any jokes

that bringing characteristics, because we can't shut down these

arguments completely. Sometimes jokes can be very funny that

involve transgressive ideas. On the issue of bullying, people look at

the John Terry case and this kind of incident and say that it

intimidate black players. Maybe you have to be a black player to know

what it feels like. Possibly. Bullying is bullion but when we

start -- bullying is bullying but when we start worrying about

specific words and fetish Freising those words, which seems to happens

Racism will not go away if certain words are banned. We need to look

at attitudes and education. race Relations Act came in in 1976.

My parents can remember some dodgy sitcoms that was supposed to be

funny about race. People would find this hard to watch now, not just

people who are black or Asian. Perhaps we don't know -- don't need

to prosecute, we know where the line is. I don't think that is the

case, I am glad this incident came to court. It is about society's

attitudes and if we had all the time and money in the world, we

would educate from a very young age that this is not OK and there would

not be the need for it to come to when we are in our 30s and coming

to court. This is about a deep social education for everyone.

may want to programme children Orwellian style... I'm talking

about teaching children not to be total racers, actually. I think it

is sad that we don't have people like Tommy Cooper around. He was

not racist. It's depends on your opinion. I think racial jokes are

OK and the fact that society has to think, oh I have got to edit that

programme, it is a backward step, not a Ford's step. Some people --

That this says I am black, I don't think racial insults should be made

illegal. What do you think? You can text us to the number below. Or you

can vote online. You have 20 Melinda Gates from the Gates

Foundation charity was fund-raising in London this week. She wants to

provide access to birth control, including contraceptive injections

to millions of women in developing countries. She says giving women

control over their fertility will empower them and save millions of

lives. Has easy access to contraception being unanimously

good for British society, and is it right to promote those Western

G one of the world's most powerful couples is challenging the Kathleen

-- the Catholic church on one of its core teachings, contraception.

Melinda Gates, herself a practising Catholic, wants to bring artificial

birth control to 120 million of the poorest women in the world and our

government is helping to fund it. Every year, 100,000 women die in

childbirth, who say they didn't want to be pregnant in the first

place. They also lose 600,000 babies every year from women who

say it was unintended pregnancy. We can save those lives by giving them

the modern tools that we have today, in the UK or the US. The Catholic

church disputes her calls. They say promoting contraception would

increase promiscuity. The Vatican says that sex should only be for

procreation within the bonds of marriage. Across the world,

Catholic clergy teach this as a fundamental part of their pace --

their faith. It is not the business of the government to be promoting

contraceptive devices. It would be like saying, the government will

pass a law which will fund the promotion of poor eating among the

Muslims -- pork beating. Is it time the Catholic Church changed its

stance on contraception? Would it empower women and change population

growth? Or is there something immoral about trying to control how

many children people have been poorer countries? Are we imposing

secular values on people who may believe children are a gift from

God? You can join the conversation on

Twitter, phone, text or e-mail. We are joined in the studio by

Caroline Farrow from the group, Catholic Voices. You are also

expecting a child, congratulations. Thank you. People like Melinda

Gates, who happens to be Catholic, a lot of people in this country say

that contraceptives are a force to good, why do you object so

strongly? We don't object to women being in charge of their own

fertility, and being empowered. But there is no evidence to suggest

that contraceptives actually have any life-saving effect. Melinda

Gates says she wants to save the lives of women and babies. That is

a very laudable goal and we would agree with that. But providing

contraceptives, particularly to women in the developing world, will

not impact on maternal mortality rates. Real? Why are women dying in

childbirth? Because they don't have decent basic medical care. They

don't have doctors, midwives, they are not giving birth in sterile

conditions, they don't have any antenatal care. We need things like

road to clinics, emergency mobile phones. There is a whole lot of

provision that is to be given to women who are expecting, and to

newborn babies and infants. Providing contraception

circumnavigates the issue. Really? It adds to it. Obviously we need

those other measures, but to not allow women to have the right to

have contraception, not to educate them into contraception, not to

limit the number of children, kids of 12 years old in Sierra Leone, as

soon as puberty hits, they are pregnant. I cannot understand your

viewpoint at all. It is not about limiting women's rights to

fertility. 12 year olds in Sierra Leone having children, no one can

condone that at all. So let's give them contraception. Surely that

just empowers the man who want to exploit them. 12 year-olds should

not be having sex. The problem is that with young marriages and with

rape... What we need to be doing is clamping down on those people who

want to exploit the women. course, no one would argue against

that. We can't give a 12-year-old contraception and say, it is OK.

would second everything you have said, it is also about access to

childcare, access to hospitals and emergency doctors and assistance.

It is also about saying that if you have a situation, life is not ideal,

life is what it is. If you have a situation where there are 12, 13,

14 year-olds giving birth, not having the education to know that

this is how babies are made, this is what you can do and you don't

have to do, we must give them contraception. A lot of these women

are having 10, 11, 12 babies. goes to the question of what

happens in the immediacy of a pregnancy. If you have large

families, as the woman, how do you pay for them? Can you educate them?

It is about resources and this creates a tremendous strain

financially, socially, personally, psychologically, in the years to

Nobody is arguing that women shouldn't be educated about sex.

The Gates Foundation is going to do that, too. A much better way would

be to empower women with something like natural family planning which

according to the World Health Organisation has success rates. I

know you are laughing. I am just smiling. It really doesn't work.

does. This is no longer the Vatican roulette. The World Health

Organisation report success rates of 97%. One about safe sex?

Contraceptives provide safer sex. Have you been to Kenya, Uganda,

seen women dying of AIDS with hundreds of children who are going

to be orphaned? His even if we give all the education in the world,

women within relationships don't always have the power to say, can

you please use a condom? Can we do it like this? It is very difficult.

Given that this is a crisis situation, I absolutely by what you

are saying but this is a crisis situation that is not to do with

just contraception, it is about consequences. The evidence shows

that condoms, believe it or not, don't actually work. What is your

source for that? Professor Edward Green, head of HIV and AIDS

prevention at Harvard University, he is an atheist and a liberal, he

has no Catholic agenda, he was on the ground in Africa for 20 to 25

years, giving out condoms. He said the evidence showed it did not work.

There is a phenomenon known as risk compensation. People feel they are

protected, so they engage in riskier behaviour. This is what I

was talking about about the empowerment of women. Even if you

have condoms, you don't always have the power within the relationship

to make sure they are used properly and that they serve the purpose

they were designed for. This is why I am pro- contraceptive injections.

A contraceptive injection on its own will not protect against

disease. That does natural child contraceptive methods -- neither

does. You need a condom and an injection. We also need education.

I have another contributor, Father John Redmond. Forgive me, it read

for it. Women like Caroline who live in Britain, they can choose

not to use contraception for their faith, but why should women in

poorer countries be denied that choice? Can I congratulate your

Catholic contributor, being attacked from all sides, she is

doing very well. We brought you in to back her up. I would like to

emphasise very much, the Church does not say that people should

have as many children as possible. There is natural family planning

and a research group called Natural procreation technology. In the

recent conference that there was, David Cameron put his oar in here,

why was the subject of natural family planning not discussed? As

this good lady said, many scientists are saying it is

possible. That was not the question, we have moved on. Tell me why women

in the developing countries should not be given the choice, in the way

that Caroline has a choice not to use it? Because it is wrong. She is

given the choice, you can use natural family planning. What is

not permitted is to make a sexually immoral decision, which is to

separate the sex act from the procreative act. Just a moment, I

want to bring in the country director for Marie Stopes

International in Senegal. What do the women you meet say to you about

it? Mostly, the women just say thank you. Marie Stopes

International Senegal is a new programme. We have been running

services for eight months and we have already had a massive impact,

serving 6,000 women. Most of the feedback I have heard is thank you

very much for providing the services that we do not have access

to. Only 12% of women have access to a modern contraception method.

30% of women express a desire to use family-planning methods. We are

going for these women, we show up and they show up because they want

this and they need this. I can give you an example, last Monday Melinda

Gates came to visit our programme. We spoke to a 19-year-old called

Bernadette, who had been married for a year. She was carrying her

newborn child and was breast- feeding while we were talking to

have. We asked her, why are you here? She said, I have had this one

child and I want to do the best for this child, I want to give her the

best future possible and I want to give my children that I hope to

have in the future, the best education and start in life. For

that, I need to space my pregnancies. I think that is key to

I want to bring in a Catholic physician in Nigeria. Are you

saying all these women are choosing to have babies without the power to

say no to their husbands? Don't they need contraceptive choice?

answer to that is not all of these women would have the opportunity to

say I don't want to have this particular child at this particular

time with their husband. There is a lack of power in the dynamics of

relationships here in Africa. However, to say that they need

contraception as their answer is not right, it is not the answer. We

have been told that women need education. Most of the women are

you will stop on the street, if you ask them when was your last

menstrual period? Why is it important? How does it help you

stay healthy? They don't have that basic knowledge to know why they

need that information. Caroline is saying we need to put more money

into roads and health care, it is not just about contraception but

better health care for women. think it is a question of both. We

need better health care in countries like Senegal with low

resource settings. I fundamentally do not agree with saying

contraception is not part of that because in a recent Lancet study we

showed if this need for family planning, just giving women what

they have already expressed they want, we can reduce maternal

mortality and infant mortality by 10%. We can reduce children

mortality by 21%, so these are massive health impacts that are due

and linked to contraception. There are measurable health impacts by

offering the advice and support as well. I am very sorry I have to

strongly disagree. Contraception is a big distraction from maternal

mortality. Women at die every day in this country do not have the

ability to get from where they are having an emergency to the hospital

because of roads. When they get to the hospital there are so many

delays because the health service is badly put together and there are

no resources or personnel to take care of their problem.

Contraception is the biggest distraction to helping women stay

alive. It is not the answer. have to leave it there. I want talk

about need. A World War -- World Health Organisation report says 89%

of women without partners have ready access to contraception and

can use it. When they talk about unmet need, they are including

women who are already pregnant, breast-feeding, that figure would

include the 65,000 Roman Catholic nuns in Africa who do not want to

use contraception. Following on from that, we need everything, the

contraception, education, access, raising of consciousness, I am glad

about what Melinda Gates said. appalled anybody even questions

this is necessary. Of course it is. I am horrified that a bunch of male,

cellar but, childless people in the Vatican continued to try to rule

over half the population. It is dreadful.

Time for some comments... Demetrius in London, a child has a gift of

God but should not pay the price of being born when parents do not have

the resources to give it a good life. Another viewer, women should

have access to contraception, they can choose not to use it due to

religion, but they should have the choice. Later... What would you do

if you suspected your partner was being unfaithful? Rebecca Jane

spied on her own husband and discovered he was cheating, now she

runs a private detective agency to unmask love rats. We'll be speaking

to Rebecca later, but what would you have done in her position?

Would you have broken into his e mail, spied on his texts? Or would

that be an invasion of privacy? You can join in by webcam. Or you can

make your views known by phone, e mail or online. You've been voting

in our poll this morning - should racial insults be illegal? You have

Moral moments now. Jenny, you have spotted a story about parking for

men and women. -- Jennie Bond. These is outrageous. A mayor in

generate -- Germany has decided women cannot park so in the car

park in the town he has allocated male and female spaces. The spaces

for men are more tricky to get into, you have to reverse into them.

Reverse ladies, how dreadful! The women's spaces are large and you

can go straight in. How ridiculous. If you cannot reverse into a space,

you should not be driving. Don't you think? Quite so. I want to see

men had sat-nav taken away because then they will never ask for

directions, will they? They should add to the women's parking spaces,

make them pink with cushions, because we love that. With a little

cupcake at the end. A little reward if you can do it! Caroline, this is

the interesting story, it is a face and female issue about hotel

Bibles... There is a hotel manager in Devon who has decided to replace

all the copies of the Gideon Bible which are normally free in a hotel

with 50 shades of grey instead. knew that would get a mention. A

marketing gimmick? -- gimmick? Parley. I can't help thinking it is

excluding 50% of the population -- party. -- partly. It is marketed as

mummy born, so what is Daddy born? More seriously, it is a big mistake.

The Bible has been around for 2000 years, it has more staying power

and... It has some sexy bits! incredibly erotic. This chap is

saying the Bible is inaccessible but I think we can learn more about

the human condition from the Bible than we can about some a man with

psychological issues. You have read the book. I am enjoying it and

subsequent books. I can't imagine a book I would one less in a hotel

than the Bible. I've never understood it. I don't want it. I

find it boring. Irrelevant to my life. So much of our literature,

tradition and culture is based on the Bible and without it you are

missing a whole level of richness. Even Richard Dawkins support the

Bible being given out because leading cities good literature.

think we should have a copy of both books, the hotels can delay poll to

see who likes it. The hotels make a lot of money from Hotel born on

their TV so all they had to do is keep the pornography on the

television free. -- porn. And will people still be reading 50 shades

of grey in 50 years? The hunt for UFOs caught your eye. It turns out

The National archives have released the details of the fact that the

MoD have been lobbying strange flying objects for the last DEC --

last few decades. I am surprised by this because the hunt has been

going on for a while and nobody has found any evidence that across

billions of light years advanced light spacecraft have made their

way into our solar system to be spotted. The MoD have said they are

either forms of plasma or possibly military vehicles. This makes me

sound mad but I saw a peculiar floating object above the horizon

me where I live and it was indeed a semi circular thing would like us

along the rim. Then it turned out there is an RAF base there. As a

reporter, Jennie Bond, have you been struck by them? Why are we so

obsessed with them? It a assassinating that there is life

out there. I am distressed the MoD should be spending money on this

because we do not have any money. Not any more. I doubt we had the

funds even when we were doing it so I think it was misappropriation of

funds. The have cities people who don't have faith, they look for

something else in the sky. A Paris Tony Blair was extremely concerned

about it and insisted one briefings. He is into crystals and things, too.

Who knows? Thank you. You have been voting in our poll, should racial

insults be illegal. It is closing now so do not text. The on line

voters' closing as well. We will bring you the results at the end of

the show. If your partner fancies being unfaithful then the internet

has made their life much easier, giving them the opportunity to

flirt and hook up with old flames. Facebook is even being cited in

divorce cases. So what do you do about it? Well, this week the wife

of celebrity chef Jamie Oliver said she regularly snooped on his texts

and e mails and she considers their and e mails and she considers their

and e mails and she considers their and e mails and she considers their

12 year relationship is a sound one. So

So is it OK to snoop on texts and e mails to see if your partner is

cheating? This week Gill's Oliver described her marriage to Jamie it

as solid. Then she followed it up with an admission - - she rifles

through his texts and e-mails, and she is not alone. According to

recent serve one-fifth of married couples are guilty of the same

behaviour. Is it morally wrong to snip? Some psychologistss say

spying on your partner is betrayal, you are reading their private

messages, what would happen if they call you and they are innocent? And

if you break into someone's of e- mail account without permission,

that could be a crime. Many people who do slip-on partners say they

only do so with good reason. In a world of intimidating and racy

texting, it is easier to cheat so they say reading private e-mails

and text or even hiring a private investigator is justified, it is

their way of protecting themselves against potential infidelity. So

are they right? Is it OK to spy on your partner, perhaps even break

the law to find out if they are cheating on you? Or is it always

wrong, even if it turns out your partner was unfaithful? You can

join in on the Web can all by phone, online, text or e-mail. We are

joined by Andy Jones, a columnist often found giving it love advice.

You went on a Tantric sex retreat to research one of your latest

articles. I did. I am very embarrassed to mention it. My

mother has not seen it but she now knows about it so I am delighted!

You are an expert, we are glad to have you. Jenny Bond, let's start

with you. Do you slip on your husband? I would not call it

snooping. It is entirely natural to want to see what their

communications are. We share e- mails at home, my husband and I, we

have been married for many years, we have no secrets and a sound

marriage. So it is safe. So you leave things open? We do. He reads

my Facebook. It is like wandering round the house naked with the

windows open. The do that, too! think they could be consequences

and you must be prepared for those. If you read something you do not

want to see, it is your fault. You should probably keep quiet about it.

My secret cyberspace, Twitter, I do regard that as mine but my husbands

see some of it. Tweeds with Oliver Reed. A that's right. He has passed,

it occasionally but do not criticise me. Andy, you were caught

sending an appropriate message. A girlfriend caught you? Next

girlfriend went through my phone and that the message I should not

have sent but I was not offended she had breached my privacy. I was

Was it an appropriate message to another woman? It wasn't that

inappropriate, but it is probably something I should not have said. I

feel we live in a culture with this vanity society, we are projecting

so much of ourselves online, it has never been easier to cheat. You

have Facebook, you have friends reunited which will look you up

with your former crush. You have e- mail, text, a service on our phone.

It has never been easier to cheat but never easier to get caught. We

leave an imprint on everything we do online. It is not light

footsteps in the sand. We leave these trails all over the place and

we can check on our partners. morally OK to go through your

partners e-mails, deceit who he is no sitting just in case. I think it

is there matter of great importance, these days. It has never been more

expensive to get married, buy a house, raised kids. If you are

going to invest that much time, you need to know that person is in it

for the long haul. Would you do it to girlfriends, then? I know full

well never to go into a lady's handbag, which is where my

girlfriend always keeps her phone. But I am daft enough to leave my

phone all over the place and I am always asked, why are you speaking

to each other? If you're in a marriage, you probably spend less

time than ever speaking to each other, you spend more time talking

on mobile phones, Twitter, Facebook. To people who have never even met

that your husband doesn't know. It creates intrigue and suspicion.

remember films in the 50s, wives would be smelling their husband's

shirts for perfume or checking for lipstick, isn't this the same but

with technology? I am not sure if that has made a huge change. You

raise a point which has worried me, the idea that because you're

spending so much time and investment, it gives you a right to

have a surveillance operation over the other person. I think it is

slightly deplorable. I think relationship is built on trust and

there is a degree to which... Each relationship has a different

pattern. There is a degree to which you have got to trust the other

person. To carry out what seems like a monitoring exercise, simply

because you have invested so much money and time and effort... It is

uncomfortable but a relevant point. Hundreds of thousands of couples in

the UK want to get divorced, but can't afford to divorce. They can't

afford to separate and move out. It does become a point. People at home

are watching, they have a mobile phone in front of them, their

partner has there I put -- iPad or e-mail, it is easy to have a look.

It might not feel like you are snooping but we are all private

snoops. What about you? No, it wouldn't occur to me. Is the

question, you would only do it if you have a sense of distrust? Or

whether you are excessively jealous? Wouldn't it be better to

just come from the person? Jules Oliver's idea is that my marriage

is solid, he is out all the time and I need to be reassured. You

don't buy that? No. I have some expert advice, a psychotherapist

joints on the phone. How do you feel about all of this snooping?

Andy Jones is saying it is reasonable. It is if you have pre-

existing suspicion, I suppose. Or if you want your relationship to

die. Because marriage is neither ownership and or slavery. It

shouldn't resemble living with a stalker. I think marriage is more

of an alliance than a takeover. I think it is right to be aware of

what you ask for. But -- beware. The essential point is that you are

living with an individual. If you don't have any degree of trust with

them, your marriage is in trouble already. Unfortunately, I would

have to say to Mrs Oliver, I think there is an existing difficulty for

which you may need help. Only the other side of the coin is

that you have so much trust that it doesn't matter -- surely the other

side. Jenny says that she and her husband leave their e-mails Open,

is that a problem? She has reached a stage of Serenity, if I may say

that! Are used to work with her husband -- I used to work with her

husband and he is an excellent Chapel up a private investigator

joins us on the phone now. I gather you have and it partner who was

cheating on you, you caught him out and you help other people find out

if their partners are cheating. His I think there is a fine line with

all kinds of snooping. I think there is an acceptable level and

then a point where it is just wrong. That point is when you have to

start having to hack things. Like Jennie Bond, I am the same with my

husband now, our e-mails go through to our direct computer. I don't

care if we see each other's because I have got nothing to hide. I also

think there is a very big difference between being governed

and boy from, and then being married. I think when you get

married, -- being girlfriend and boyfriend. When you get married and

you have something to hide, don't get married in the first place.

lot of people don't marry. He they have a relationship, they may have

children together. Are there signs one can look for, short of hacking

into someone's own question -- phone. You might see their phone

lying around. The bare all sorts of legalities. -- there are all sorts.

We always hoped people, it is a long succession of small dishes.

They are not coming home on time, not been and where they are when

they say, hiding things, being secretive and a change in behaviour,

is pretty much what we always say. If you have problems and you can't

talk to the person, he person won't talk to you, I think it is a naive

view to say, let's talk. Thank you. I want to bring in a journalist who

wrote a piece about how you have been going through your husband's

e-mails and texts and thought it was no big deal, and people thought

it was outrageous. What was your experience and why did you do it?

He that is right. Nobody would say that snooping is an admirable

quality but I think it is something that increasing numbers of people

do, and many feel the need to hide it. My point, kudos to Jules, for

admitting to something that lots of us do and pretend we don't do. The

most important thing is that it is not rational. It is the equivalent

of a parent who bills the need to check that their sleeping child is

still breathing -- who feels the need. It does not make you a

paranoid parent, it is an instinctive thing that you do,

compelled by the bomb the ability that you feel for loving somebody.

-- compelled by the vulnerability We haven't quite worked out how to

have relationships in this increasingly connected world.

People sign of e-mails and text messages with kisses, two people

whom they would never dream of kissing in real life. It is

interesting. A worry about too many kisses on too many e-mails. You

don't always get contact with social networking. Years ago --

don't always get context. Years ago a guy would be able to complain

about his marriage, let off steam and then go home. People go into

the pub less and less and have these conversations online, they

leave this imprint. He might complain but he might not actually

believe it, but because he has written it down it is there in

black and white. More than that, you can float on line, with Old

Flames... It is a dangerous world we're living in. I draw a different

line between my husband and myself, and myself and my daughter. I don't

snoop on her. I am tempted, but I don't. She leaves her Facebook page

open, I know that is wrong, but it is OK with my husband. Don't ask me.

I speak to people through work. Women e-mail me and say, high, Babe,

what are you up to? These are people I have never met. It is

almost common parlance. Lots of love, kiss, hug. It is this kind of

internet language. If you friend that on its own, it looks like...

What is he up to? Who is this woman he has never spoke to? Actually, it

can be someone you spit it through work. Modern -- you speak to.

Modern etiquette has got very complicated. Have you rethought

your attitude, hearing all this? I think out of respect, you

should... It depends on the relationship but you should keep

what is private, private. Sue says, I never snooped on my husband of 46

years and he had an affair for 18 months before the other woman made

certain I found out about it, my advice is to snoop. Jean says, I

never feel I have to hide anything from a boy from, that is how a

relationship should be. -- anything from my boyfriend. We have to leave

it there. The vote is in. The question is, should racial insults

be made illegal? Interestingly, 79% said no. I'm interested in whether

there is a generational thing about... Are we too sensitive about

racist language? There is a difference between racial language

and racial insults. It's something is outrageously offensive, which

should protect a person from that crime -- if something. It is

difficult to sanction against the use of certain words. Every hip-hop

album I have bought has had the N- word. And probably the age word as

well. Exactly, equally offensive to women. You have to have -- do we

have to have some sort of hip-hop amnesty? Do we have to double over

certain words in certain films... We are talking People to People.

People are strongly against prosecuting. I think it is context.

In certain situations, I suppose the language is OK, but when it is

done offensively and abusively, and in my view as a verbal assault,

think there is a criminal element. Abhijit Pandya, they seem to have

back due. What is your view? What -- I think we need to grow up,

realise that words are just words. I think what we have done it,

pursuing an agenda of racial equality, has legislated for

language. I think it is terrible, as a modern democratic country.

note those disagreement on this, we have to leave it there. Thanks to

everyone who has taken part. He don't text or call the phone lines