Episode 6 Sunday Morning Live

Episode 6

Samira Ahmed and guests discuss whether racial insults should be illegal, should we promote contraception in the developing world and is snooping on your partner wrong?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Episode 6. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Samira Ahmed is joined by former BBC correspondent Jennie Bond, feminist writer Bidisha, lawyer Abhijit Pandya, Catholic blogger Caroline Farrow and journalist Andy Jones.Topics include should racial insults be illegal, should we promote contraception in the developing world and is snooping on your partner wrong?

Download Subtitles