Episode 7 Sunday Morning Live

There are 120,000 dysfunctional families in England according to

the Government's figures. Their own adviser says they need tough

intervention to break the cycle of failure. Is it simply a waste of

time? Should we just remove the children from really troubled

Good morning. Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. This week, the head

of the Government's troubled families unit, Louise Casey, said

the state needs to intervene swiftly with troubled families to

turn their lives around. Is this state interference demonising the

poor? James O'Brien thinks we are too soft on failed parents. We need

to take more children away from inadequate parents. We need to cut

all biological ties and give them as soon as is humanly possible to a

mother and father who really, really want them. In the beginning

God created the heaven and the Earth, the opening words of the

Bible. Some creationists believe it literally took six days and rules

out evolution. The green light has been given to creationists to set

up their own free schools, but should the state be funding

religious groups like that to educate children?

Faster, Higher, stronger. That is the Olympic motto, which you may

have forgotten in the latest furore over branding and censorship of

everything from footwear to French fries. The alembics are meant to be

the purest expression of athletic endeavour. -- the Olympics. But has

it lost its soul? A very warm welcome to my guests.

George Hargreaves is a religious minister and political campaigner

who leads the Christian Party. In a previous career in the music

business, he wrote many hits. Angela Epstein rides for the Jewish

Chronicle. She has written for many publications over 20 years and is

known for her outspoken views about hating dogs and hating dog owners

even more. James O'Brien is a radio presenter

and journalist. His controversial style led to the rapid Dizzee

Rascal declaring him as bad bloke who beat people up on the radio. --

that bloke. You can give your views The Government says that we have

got a core problem with 120,000 families in England. They are

dysfunctional and they carry out a high proportion of anti-social

behaviour and crime and their children are trapped in a cycle of

criminality. What should we do about it? The Government says it is

time the state intervened in a more robust way. Few would argue that

the child at risk of sexual or physical abuse should not be taken

away, but is it right to take them away from families that just cannot

cope? James O'Brien thinks so. need to take more children away

from inadequate parents. We need to cut all biological ties and give

them as soon as is humanly possible to a mother and father who really,

really want them. And I am talking about children who are being

neglected or living in a family that is clearly failing them, not

just the children that are being abused. We live in a country where

a child identified as neglected, endangered or even abuse is forced

to endure concerted and often desperate efforts to keep him or

her with precisely the people who have let them down so badly and so

often. I was 28 days old when I was adopted and there is not a person

on the planet with parents more loving were devoted than mine. That

is more important than blood, surely? They would be the luckiest

doctors in the land if they took delivery of their son at two or

three years old. Even then a reputable damage would have been

done to my basic nutrition and cognitive ability. -- irreparable

damage. It chilled my blood to say so, but you should not get a

limited chances to be a decent parent. The state has got to

intervene more. This is not about the rights of adults. It is about

children's welfare. The tyranny of biology that enslaves our social

services actively ensures that hundreds of children have their one

chance at a decent life taken away from them at birth. Let's give it

back to them. Let's give them to people who can care for them.

is the question. Should we be taking more of these children are

away? No, we should be trying to empower the families. It should be

a last resort to take children away from their natural parents. That is

the question for our vote today. Should we take children away from

problem families? If you think that we should, text the word yes and if

no, a text the word no. You can also vote online on our website.

Please visit the website for full terms and conditions and we will

show you how you voted at the end of the programme. I suppose the

concern is that you are keeping the family together, which has to be

better than putting them into children's homes which is the only

option in the short term. In the short term possibly, but the

children's home can be seen in an ideal world as a very brief

stopover before being placed in a proper adoption. What happens at

the moment is that these children, because they are trying to enter

our families, and enabled the natural link to be sustained, these

children get shunted about from pillar to post. I am not buying

into the Government's numbers on the 120,000 problem families. The

specific cases that most people that look into this have knowledge

of are the beginning and the end of the argument for me. Children

identified at three months old, brought to the attention of

potential are dog days before they are one, and not actually placed

for two years. -- potential adoptive parents. I am aware of a

case because the mother had had a second child by a different father,

they reset the test of whether she was going to provide a decent home

or not, even though the second father was not present. It is

chance after chance, what is up to a point of wonderful thing, but

that point needs to be lowered. They need to recognise what is best

for the child, not the tyranny of biology that says that the natural

link is better than putting a child with a demonstrably loving and

functional family. Tyranny? I am a local Reverend in the East End of

London in a black majority church and this thing of taking children

away is ruining family after family. We have case after case, even last

week, a woman in the maternity ward was threatened to have a child

taken away if she did not answer the question in the way the social

services wanted. It is a tyranny not happening just two children but

to families and communities. That is a systemic problem. And it needs

to be addressed. You cannot just take them away. In the black

community, this is an epidemic that has got to stop. We don't need this

nanny state, this nationalisation of child care. We need to start

working with families and communities. Who is going to

empower the families if not the nanny state? I think the word

family is bandied around by such easy grace by everybody. What is a

family? It is parents offering unconditional love and putting the

welfare of the child before anything else. It is not happening

and it is tantamount to abuse. If the child is not getting that a

list of kindness, love, food, biological care, cognitive to care,

call it what you want, then it is tantamount to abuse. By withdrawing

the child from that family, we do not have to put a time lock on that.

Maybe it is shocking the parents into seeing what the ramifications

of if they continue in the way they have been conditioned to behave. It

also gives the child some respite care. If you have a situation where

somebody is drinking, using drugs, whatever it is that is collapsing

the infrastructure of that family, then obviously they need a chance

to regroup. The child needs to have a chance to have that respite care

so that the whole situation can be looked at. When it is this horrible

mish-mash of parents and children, how can you do that? You are not

denying that parents have sometimes had every chance and they are

neglecting their children? Yes, and this is a last resort. Parents have

been disempowered. They do not know how they are supposed to discipline

their kids and set the boundaries. Rear early? Absolutely. We have had

the laws against smacking. So you make children safer by letting

their parents had then? That his genius. What happens in Hackney,

and children of smut. Let's not say they are hit. They are beaten by

policemen with truncheons. I am saying let's be consistent. If I

cannot use Corporal punishment on a child, then tell the police there

cannot be to my children as well. Parents are disempowered by their

own behaviour. It becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. If you give

that responsibility to others rather than parenting, for which

there is no manual, they will book, I have four children of my own, all

by the same father and after marriage. -- no rule book. The fact

is that there was no rule book and I was as clueless with number four

as I was with number one. Do you think parenting classes will solve

this? I used to work in Barnardo's and we put together parenting

classes. They are part of the solution but the main solution is

the community itself. What used to happen and what can still happen is

parents taught their children. In the community. That has been

fragmented by so much intervention by social services whereby parents

do not know what they can teach. That system comes back and if that

community is re-established then we do not need to take children away

from parents that are not providing basic care. You have just establish

the fact that children are not growing up in that wonderful world

and they should be given a chance to grow up in better circumstances.

The reason why... I do not like the phrase respite care particularly

because this is not about chances. This is not about giving someone a

brick. This is taking a child and giving it two loving parents who

are desperate, desperate to increase their family and having a

baby that is wanted. If you have got somebody at the age of two, one

of the first pieces of advice you are given by social services is not

to go on holiday for a year. Do not go away overnight? Do you know why?

The child does not think it will be coming home. That is the system as

it stands. It is not about the family from which the child has

been taken away. It is about the bureaucratic nightmare motivated by

this tyranny of biology to which the child is then subjected. Show

me a society which operates as you have just described and I will show

you society which does not need to take children away. That is the

society that we are seeking to build three churches and community

programmes and action. What you do not see is the parents, the

families, the extended families, fighting to get their children back.

I want to bring in a contributed joining us on webcam. Nicola, thank

you for speaking to us. Your mother was an alcoholic and you had real

problems in your childhood. Some would say you and your siblings

would have been better off taking out of the home. What was the

reality for you and what did you feel? I think that would not have

helped us, the problems that we encountered, and the problems that

still plague us in adulthood. They would not have been resolved by

ripping our family apart. Even though you had real problems as a

child at home, do think there is a case for others that did need it?

What did you think you needed from the state if not to be taken away?

What would have made a difference for us would have been support for

my mother so we could have done something about resolving her

alcoholism. The problems we had as children, not being able to express

and deal with our emotions, not being properly cared for, would not

have been resolved by putting us into a respite care situation. It

would have been just as bad and we would still have emotional problems

today. The only difference is that we would have been cleaner and

better fed. My siblings helped me to get through that situation and

without them I do not know how I would have survived. James, where

there are siblings, they do feel that it is important to keep them

I am not here to say that you should have been put in a

children's home, but I do think you should have had the chance to be

raised by a mother or father, rather than by your siblings. The

siblings issue is all about people who have not got anything to

compare it to. What is more valuable, to keep children in care,

as happens now, for two or three years, because you can place the

younger one but not the older one, so that neither of them get placed?

How can that possibly be preferable, no children with improvement or

some children with improvement? What Nicholas said was that what we

really would have helped would have been her mother to have the right

sort of support. Just looking at it objectively, I'm not sure how the

mother is supposed to get the right sort of support, when she is in the

very eye of her personal storm. Surely, you have to deconstruct

that situation, give her the support she needs, absolutely. We

are not just looking at the children in a vacuum, we have to

look at how we can help the parents, too. But the two cannot co-exist,

when they are all together. I want to bring in another contributor on

the phone. We are joined now by an or foreign journalist. We know that

the state has made big mistakes in breaking up families, and we know a

lot about what has happened in care homes are - what is your view on

the right thing to do with children? I think we have to apply

common sense. Louise Casey, who are the government person responsible

for families, I think has a lot of common sense. I agree with some of

what has been said. There have been social workers who did not know

what they were doing, who wrenched children away and put them into

care homes and destroyed their lives. I think the biggest problem

is that social workers have not got the responsibility, too many people

are involved. For instance, that mother, who needed help with

alcoholism, in a proper system, there would be one social worker

allocated to a problem family, whose job was to help them through

the system. The real problem is the mother's alcoholism. At the same

time, that person would need to keep an eye on the children. This

brings us on to the question of resources. If I can just say one

thing, it is just that there is an enormous waste of resources. If you

have got up to 10 officers of the state getting involved with one

family, and passing the buck from one to the other, it is just as

expensive as having one social worker, with sense and experience,

who knows about being a parent, dealing with that family and taking

a degree of personal responsibility. We are joined as well by a social

worker and Labour councillor from Norwich. Every time we have looked

at social care, we keep finding the same things - social work is low-

paid and low status, and there are not enough of them. Is the reality

not that you should be taking many more young infants away from their

families, but you do not, because you have not got the money or the

expertise? Yes, that is one factor. However, listening to the very

interesting contributions here, James, I very much understand your

compassion around the welfare of children, but I fall very much in

the same camp as George, because I, like George, have the personal

experience of being out there in the field, and wherever possible, I

believe that children should stay with their biological parents. As a

social worker, I have seen very few positive outcomes for children that

have been taken away from their biological parents. That is what

the research tells us a. That's precisely for the reasons I have

been detailing, because the system is a busted flush, because you're

trying too hard to retain contacts after the children have been taken

away, that's because you're giving grandma more contact with the child,

instead of placing a child with proper new parents. I am happy to

sit here as someone who was raised by non- biological parents, and do

battle with anybody who claims that I could have been raised in a more

loving and devoted environment. That is my personal experience. It

is possibly more pertinent than yours. Is it the case that people

are leaving children in miserable homes rather than daring to take

them away from the biological parents? I have been part of

removing children from homes, I have been part of removing them on

the very day that the referral has come in. I am not anti-removal.

What I am saying is that knee-jerk reactions to certain cases which

have been big in the media, resulting in the removal of

children, is not the answer. These children belong with their

biological parents, it is their biology. This is not about abuse,

it is about neglect. Can I just put a Christian perspective, a Jewish

one as well, the Ten Commandments, it is central to our faith that

there should be a relationship between the child and its parents.

And that should be an honourable relationship. So, we would resist

the idea, from a faith standpoint, of ripping away any biological link.

I'm afraid, but if you want to put a religious perspective on it, the

central tenet of Christian and Jewish faith is the sanctity of

life, the protection of life. course! How can you on a rei mother

and father who have been in some way threatening that life? -- how

can you honour a mother and father? What children need above everything

else is continuity. I know that James takes issue with me about

respite care, but if parents cannot give children the continuity they

need, you need somebody who will provide that. You spoke about my

family live somehow breaking the 10 Commandments, because I was adopted.

Let me just point out to you that becoming a mother or father is not

just simply about having a baby. It is about how you nurture that child.

You do not have to be biologically related to be a mother or father,

and you not have to be biologically related to honour your mother and

father. We need to end the discussion then some. I would just

like to point out that you made some comments about policing in

Hackney, and obviously, all of that is unsubstantiated. We need to

leave that discussion there. I want to bring in some comments from our

viewers. This one says, a child should only be taken away from its

biological family if there is a proven risk. This one says, we as a

society have let down children in various ways. Feckless parents are

just a small part of the problem. This one says, has James worked on

the ground with families? I have worked with hundreds and I have

seen their lives turned around with support. You can vote by texting

us... Or you can vote online. You have about 20 minutes before the

The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has approved the setting up

of three free schools, run by Christian groups, which held

creationist use. Many scientists are at the forefront of a campaign

against such schools. -- creationist views. But with many

parents seeking to send their children to such schools, should a

parent not have the right to choose? The British Humanist

Society, which opposes all faith schools, says any teaching of

creationism is unacceptable in a state funded school in the 21st

century. Creationism is the belief that God created the universe. Some

Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in a literal six-day

creation, as in Genesis, rejecting the idea of the Big Bang creating

the universe over billions of years. But others have a more allegorical

view, and some say that evolution is part of God's plan. But some

creationists like to emphasise that evolution is only a theory,

regarding creationism as a valid alternative, which should be taught

not just in religious education, but in science. Many atheists and

scientists are appalled at the idea, saying science teaching must be

based on the mainstream consensus, not on faith. Under government

rules for free schools, creationism cannot be taught in science. So, if

it is taught only in religious education, where is the harm? Is it

dangerous to allow children to be taught in schools run by

creationists? Or has society evolved to such a point where all

such things can be debated in schools? You can make your point on

Skype, or on Twitter, phone, text, or e-mail. George, you're a

creationist, and you tried to set up a school. I believe in a God

which does not need anything to be God. Creation and evolution - a

evolution takes lots of time, maybe no God, according to the humanists.

Creation needs lots of God, and a little bit of time, maybe no time.

I am on that side of the argument. This is why it is a great way to

get involved and science. You have dropped your plan to set up the

school, have you not? I asked David Cameron personally, are you going

to allow me to teach creationism in science classes? He squirmed and

told me to speak to Michael Gove. So that's the reason you dropped it.

Yes, I cannot do it. Have a listen to what I'm about to say. I used to

run a school for eight years. You can engage children in the question

about time. One of these theories has a lot of time, one has a little

bit of time. Let's have the discussion about this - why can't

you just tee in religious education? You have got all sorts

of professors who will say, actually, science has always been

about the contesting of arguments. When the Government starts to say,

you cannot teach this in science... James, your kids go to a Catholic

faith school... I went to a Catholic school as well. I was

taught biologically -- biology and the theory of natural selection by

a Benedictine monk. He did not believe that the world was conjured

out of nothingness in six days, and on the 7th day, God rested. He saw

the Old Testament as, at best, an allergist. The reason we teach

science in science and these things in religious classes is that you're

opening the door to literalism and fundamentalism. If you argue that

every single word in the Old Testament is historical fact, and

the code by which we must live, then you're doing that thing which

we are all familiar with, you're opening the door to slavery, to

homophobia, to not eating shellfish, to not being allowed to touch

animals. The problem with biblical literalism is that first of all, it

worries me, because there is a certain amount of evangelism about

it. It is too or over-enthusiastic. Secondly, the great minds who have

studied Christian or Jewish scholarship do not actually know

whether, when God created the world in six days, what a game meant.

We're just giving it a modern-day interpretation. Six days could mean

six epochs of time. One great rabbinic philosopher said, there

will be men who will know all about science, and there will be men who

know all about religion. The men that know about only one of them do

not know anything, he said. George, why would you want to bring that

into a science class? Science and education is about enabling people

to question things. What the Government have done here is to set

a precedent, of saying, you may not ask this question in a science

class. What is going to be the next question you cannot ask in a

science class? You cannot do French in a science class! We are not

talking about languages. You're talking about teaching a myth.

Scientists have written about creation. They are scientists.

is a demonstrable fact... It can be proven, which is what science is

about. You have got two kinds of science, the science of origins,

and the science that you can demonstrate. If you put phosphorus

in water, it will explode. And then you have got the science of

origin... That's not science. It happened. What did? You can't prove

it. So, everything that cannot be proved cannot be discussed in a

scientific way? It would not be science! You could not prove, until

somebody prove it, that you could not split and aplomb. -- you could

not split an atom. So, your point is that all scientific argument is

the same as theological argument? It is not the same, but I am sale,

there is a place... You would be telling children, in a school, that

this was a fact, if this is what you believed? We will take the

Bible as fact in religious education, in science, if we take

the creation of a tree as a fact, we will on pack it in a scientific

argument, and there are scientists out Benz and doing it. -- unpacked.

It is about civil liberties, apart from anything else. We have James

now, a lecturer in science education. At the moment, these

free schools can only teach creationism in re-use education,

Well, the problems that you have got is not what is being taught and

where, it is how it is being taught. I think George is mixing up science

and religion. Science is about the explanation of the natural world.

It does not consider the metaphysical. It does not consider

the supernatural. You have got to remember that when you start

undermining the theory of evolution, as I think may well happen in

creationists schools, it then leads to children... I believe it is an

intellectual abuse of children. You end up with children not

understanding science, not being able to articulate the central

tenant of biology. I think the creation schools and certainly the

six-day biblical creationists are more harmful to religion than a

theism or any other form of an to Christianity. -- atheism or any

other form of anti- Christianity. What he is saying is that there is

an abuse that happens if you have creationist teaching that makes

them somehow not able to articulate. There are creationists that cannot

tier their own shoelaces? We are talking about science here. Correct

me, but James is saying that if we teach creation in the science class,

it will somehow muddle that person up and they will not be able to

articulate and grapple with science? Children become adults. I

can give you names and addresses of children who have become adults and

scientists and not gone to creationist universities, Warwick

and Oxford, and got PhDs. That is because they start to think and

grapple. That is what you have got to do. Go-ahead, James. You cannot

just turn around and no 100 scientists. In America, yes, they

have got there because scientists. They have 600 PhD scientists who

believe that evolution is very dodgy and creationism is correct.

In America, they created a list and you could only draw in that list if

you were a scientist called Stephen or something like that, and they

immediately had thousands. -- only joined that list. It is not a

question of numbers, they had thousands. It is mixing up the

natural with the supernatural. If you have children in the classroom,

they are very impressionable. If you implant the misconception about

science as a child, it is almost impossible to remove that

misconception and creationism is a misconception. I want to bring in

another contributor on webcam, Professor of thermodynamics at

Leeds University. You are a scientist but you also support

George's position. Shouldn't creationism be kept in church?

Thank you. I am actually a professor of something else. You

have to follow where the evidence leads. You cannot, as your previous

caller was suggesting, suddenly ban Christians. Christians have

believed in the Bible for centuries and actually they represent the

ethos of a halt vast tranche of people, not necessarily Christians,

but to accept that you have got to allow a genuine debate following

where the evidence leads and the science in the classroom, and

obviously the religious knowledge classroom, it goes without saying

that when it comes to Christianity, you teach with what the Bible says

and it speaks about creation. you and apologies for the confusion

on the technical side. We have Professor McIntosh now, a

creationist and a professor. Can somebody correct me? Can I see

Professor McIntosh now? Are you looking at me at the moment? Right,

Professor McIntosh, produce say hello, please? Hello. Can you hear

me? I can. I had confusion in my ear. Have you just been speaking?

was just speaking. Can I just say, we are talking about Christian

teaching in the Bible. As a Jewish woman, the central point of our

faith is the Bible, the Old Testament, and it talks about

creation. That does not negate scientific teaching. We do not know

ritually what the teaching, the words of the Bible, mean. --

literally. Greater minds than ours created the world. Who knows what

six days constitutes? As an orthodox Jewish girl who believes

in the Bible and is up holding her faith, to negate any scientific

rationale in the world, I just see it as articulating the work of God.

I would be appalled if my children were not allowed to consider all

the possibilities that science brings. Science may demand proof,

but the fact is that it articulates what creation does. It does not sit

as something that goes beyond the creationist argument. The two are

inextricably woven. Apologies for the confusion. You are an

educationist and Anglican priest. Should creationists be running

schools? I have no objection to them running schools, but the

important thing is that in science lessons, creationism is not

presented as valid science because the reality is that it is only a

minute minority of scientists but are comfortable with creationism.

It is fine to discuss it in schools. And nearly always the best place to

discuss it is in a religious education lesson. But in science,

it is not a good idea to give the impression that we understand

everything and know everything. Basically we want to present what

is widely accepted and then encourage children to discuss

uncertainties. Briefly, why do you object to his way of doing it?

Science has always been low voices. Stephen Hawking for 40 years had a

theory about black holes that was the accepted norm and one man in

California said that you were wrong. And to know what, he was right. A

small number of people, sometimes they are right. That is because

they are allowed to have... talking about the theory of the

paradigm shift? Even he would not recognise what you have just said.

Paradigm shift is about the best observation of the observable

evidence and evolution is the best solution of the observable evidence.

It was John Paul II who apologised posthumously for Galileo for

rendering him a heretic for arguing that the Earth resolved around the

Sun and of the other way round. Just because it has happened for

100 years does not mean it is right. Exactly and even if it has gone on

for decades... It is about observable evidence. We do it in

science class. That is what I am as before. Thank you very much for

that spirited discussion. -- that is what I'm asking for. George

needs to understand the nature of teaching. It is about young people

exploring ideas and making up their own minds. Do not believe science,

it has been proved wrong. And this woman says that creationism should

be taught alongside Darwinism and children can make up their own

minds. Thank you to our contributors. Later on Sunday

Morning Live, blue skies are forecast for the opening of the

Olympic Games, we think, but has the whole event been overshadowed

by negative coverage and whingeing? Could the British just be Olympic

complainers? Have the Games been tarnished by the sponsorship? You

can keep voting in our opinion poll, about taking children away from

problem families. If you think that we should, text yes, and if you

think not, text no. Text messages will be charged at the standard

message writ. You have five minutes before the opinion poll closes. --

at the standard message rate. It is time for our moral moments of

the week but I feel we have had plenty already! James, you have

chosen a story about milk. Yes, the milk of human kindness! Real milk.

Dairy farmers have protested at various processing plants around

the country because they claim they cannot make one penny profit of one

pint of milk because the supermarkets have squeezed until

the pips are not squeaking but popping. Some supermarkets have now

yielded. Morrisons is the latest, following the Co-op in simply

raising milk payments among the protests. What is tragic is that

they would not do so without the exercise of pressure by the farmers.

It seems to be an increasingly common trend across the country

that under the regime of uncontrollable capitalism, you are

not allowed to object, strike, take industrial action, protest, without

being labelled as some sort of enemy of the stick by vast swathes

of the media. But it is working... This is why people do it because

they are being treated unjustly. It is dairy farmers today, doctors

last month, students last year. Slowly but surely, especially in

the context of banking scandals and rampant commercialism by

supermarkets, we are waking up to the fact that they are not going to

look after us unless we jolly well make them. Interesting. Now, at the

acquittal of PCTs Simon Harwood. -- PC Simon Harwood. My concern is

that he was a policeman at the time. With his record in other police

forces, how did this man get the job in a Met Police? They are

talking about total policing, being professional. Surely this man

should never have been a policeman. The issue if the disclosure of

previous records of complaints about his behaviour. That was not

taken to the jury. I am taking it one step further. There are issues

of law there, but why was he a policeman on the day? The thing is

that justice has to be done at the point of sale and this happens all

the time, only after he and his crime has been committed, it turns

out that the person has got form. Are we going to continue the

process of justice just looking at the crime in a vacuum, isolation,

or do we look at the person in terms of their criminal profile and

make that known to the jury? Particularly as a police officer.

Nine of the complaints were not upheld and something was something

on a police. I think that George is quite right to identify his

presence in the police service on that day as the bone of contention.

The verdict was arrived at by a jury who had every single word of

evidence and saw every moment of footage. This tide of disapproval

of the verdict is not only ridiculous but quite insulting to

the notion of trial by jury. There was a protest and I tweeted them.

Are you asking for no more trial by jury, fair trials but not for cops?

Where does that then? But he should not have been there. And your

Storry is about a Nazi. -- your story. Yes, at a 97 year-old war

criminal arrested in Budapest and charged with war crimes after a

tip-off by one of the notorious Nazi hunting centres. There will

always be the clarion call of protest about the fact that this

man is very elderly. When you look at him, there is visual sympathy

because you see this Bente, greying figure. He is accused of complicity

in sending 16,000 young people to their deaths in Auschwitz in 1944.

These are crimes against humanity on the most enormous scale and we

cannot say that justice cannot be done because this man has reached...

He has had the great fortune to live his life in freedom over 60

years. 6 million victims did not have that opportunity and they

should not be the tiniest protest that we are taking this man it to

trial because he is 97. There should be everything that can be

thrown at him. Do you agree? agree with Angela. That is nice! He

has committed an allegedly heinous crime and if you do that, there are

consequences. Judgment and mercy go together. The Dutchman should be

that he will go to prison and die in prison. -- the judgment. The

merciful thing is that he will not be killed. I think he said he was

only following orders. That is not good enough. Thank you very much

indeed. You have been voting in our opinion poll about taking children

away from problem families. The opinion poll is closing now so

please do not text because you could be charged. We will bring you

London's Olympic organisers have assured us that it will be a

glorious festival of sporting culture. But a lot of news coverage

has been negative. So, are we being too negative, or has the London

Olympics lost its soul? Serving years of waiting will end this week,

when the Olympics get under way in London. Yet the nation remains

divided between a sense of pride, and one of moral indignation.

Traditionally, the Olympic message has been one of promoting peace,

participation and understanding to sport. Many feel this message has

now been lost to commercialisation, with corporate sponsors calling the

shots. Some of the most highly visible sponsors are fast food

corporations, in a country where one in three children are

overweight. Some people feel this is sending a worrying message.

People have been moved from their homes, and others have had missiles

placed on their roofs. Soldiers back from Afghanistan are filling

in for private firms, who were paid millions, but failed to recruit

enough staff in time. Supporters of the Games same money from the

massive sponsorship deals is what makes the Olympics possible, and

the spectacle of world record- breaking athleticism will be the

lasting memory from the Games. They say the legacy of urban

regeneration will benefit the country in the long term. But will

that got away our current concerns about short-term commercial

exploitation? -- outweigh. I am very excited to J -- to say that we

are joined by the Olympic champion Kriss Akabusi, and also by the

author Mark Perryman. James O'Brien is still with us as well. Kriss,

you were at Los Angeles, which is when many people say the Olympics

got transformed into this big, commercial enterprise. London does

not seem to be excessive, in comparison to that, does it?

could say that, and quite clearly, for a successful Olympic Games, you

do need commercial activity. The capital was bankrupt, the taxpayers

were paying ad infinitum. In 1984, America showed that actually, you

could have a vibrant Olympic Games and make sure that you had a

lasting legacy, and that the state also had a few bob as well. But to

mini-states end up out-of-pocket, so is it really worth it? It is

definitely worth it. If you think about it, in the Olympic Games, we

have got 26 World Championships happening at one moment. You have

got young people from across the globe expressing themselves in

terms of their physical prowess, and you're trying to find the best

of human endeavour in one moment. Quite clearly, it is a moment where

the world lays down its arms and comes together to show all that is

best about human beings. If London went the way that Montreal went, in

that case, it would not be about the Endeavour, would it? They it is

why it is important in a capital society that you have the public

will, and the business will, to make sure that this is one of the

greatest, most passionate events ever seen. We are British, and a

lot of the journalism has been British, it has been negative, is

that the problem? I think the journalism is reflecting some

anxieties. The anxieties are that all the claims made for the

Olympics, that they would deliver sustainable jobs, lift

participation in sport, increased tourism, have not got a scrap of

evidence, from all that groups, dating back to 1984. -- from all

the Games. Secondly, if you watch the Home Games from your sofa, in

what sense is it a home Games? My argument is to open up the model of

the Olympics, so it is a Games for all, not just for the few. I am a

cheerleader, but you have got me on with Kriss Akabusi, the most

cheerful man on the planet! To me, speaking as a former newspaper

journalist, it is about getting up in the morning and looking for

something to throw tomatoes at. It is what they do. Even with soldiers

from Afghanistan sleeping rough? you have paid �700 million to have

your logo on the screen, and therefore insulate London against

the kind of bankruptcy which Montreal suffered, you would be

pretty peeved if Tom Daley was then accidentally photographed walking

past someone wearing a T-shirt of one of your main commercial rivals,

after he had had a gold medal, touch wood, put around his neck. So,

I think a lot of people are focusing on the frame, it is an

ugly frame, but the Mona Lisa does not become a less beautiful picture

because it is in an ugly frame. The Olympics will be a beautiful,

beautiful picture. I am not a romantic, clearly the Olympics

needs sponsors. But let's not forget who the number one sponsor

is, us, the British taxpayer. We are meeting today on the day that

Bradley Wiggins will win the Tour the France. My mission is for an

Olympics which goes all round Britain, we have a yachting race,

cycling race, all around Britain, which is free to watch. How do

Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester, Sheffield, feel that they are part

of these pimps? Open it up for the whole country, not just a

relatively small numbers, who have got these high-priced tickets. --

these games? We have been talking about how far journalists are

knocking the Olympics - are you one of the haters? No, not at all. You

say it is a British thing that we're complaining about this, I

think every single Olympics that I can remember has gone through

something like this. I was in Sydney in the year 2000, and it was

exactly the same, in the build-up. They were saying, the security has

gone too far. People were saying, it has sold its soul, we're not

going to be ready in time. When it happened, everybody had a fantastic

time. It was the most extraordinary time to be in Sydney. The whole

city had a wonderful party. Every single event, everyone got involved

in, and there was an amazing feeling of unity. It may or may not

happen in London like that. But I want to say, everyone should hold

off on doing it down. Let's see what happens first, it might be

absolutely wonderful. One of the concerns is that athletes

themselves are arguably being turned into commodities, and there

have been used but the stories about athletes wearing certain

brands, dressing in a certain way, so surely, that is more commercial

than in your day? It is certainly more commercial than it was in my

day. We were at the back end of amateurism, moving into

professionalism, so I did earn a few bob, but nothing compared to

what they can get today. We have got a young man in London, called

Dai Greene, who hopefully we'll break by a British record and will

become British champion. A guy called David Emery, he had to

retire at 28 years old, to go and look after his family. Hopefully

Dai Greene has got another 10 years, because of that commercial aspect,

that his talent deserves to give him. It is really important that

when you're at the top of your tree, in any sphere, but you have an

opportunity to maximise it, in the Western world. In the Western world,

the value is measured by pounds, shillings and pence. Yes, in

athletics, the people who put the most bums on seats will inevitably

make the most money. We have looked at athlete, but I want to bring in

a contributor, a butcher from Weymouth, where the sailing events

are taking place - you tried to get into the Olympic spirit a couple of

years ago, tell us what happened. Actually, it was about six years

ago, when we first earned writes for the Olympics. We got all

excited about having the sailing in Weymouth. I put a sign up above the

shop, saying, 2012 underneath, with five rings made out of sausages.

And you got no end of grief from the brand police over this, didn't

she? Actually, it set up there minding its own business for about

18 months. Everybody walked past and smiled. We never sold any more

sausages, but it was entering into the spirit of things. But then

somebody came along and said, you could get into a lot of trouble

over that. I said, why is that? Because of your Olympic sign. I

said, but it is made out of sausages. What is the end

situation? Well, now, we have got five frying pans up. That solved it,

then! This is about security, and individual businesses. This is the

real scandal. The reason we need tens of thousands of security staff

in the first place is to defend the interests of sponsors. I have got

my list of banned objects, which I cannot take into the Olympic Park,

and it includes an extra packet of sandwiches. Trained soldiers will

be preventing me going to the Olympic park with too many

sandwiches, because they do not want me eating cheese and pickle,

they want me to be eating a Big Mac. We are joined now by a coach, who

has got concerns over the key sponsors, and what they say about

the state of our health? Definitely. We all know that some of the

sponsors are companies which produce products full of sugar and

fat. It was not that long ago that tobacco was a major part of

sponsorship for the Olympics. We knew even then that tobacco was not

good for our health. The legacy from the Olympics might be that

some athletes have done really well, but it will also be that companies

which produce projects which are not particularly good for us, their

profits will be increasing, because more children, more people, will be

eating and drinking their products. Very briefly, that is a concern,

surely, Kriss? Yes, it takes massive commercial companies to get

involved in the Olympic Games. Perhaps certain sponsors it

shouldn't have been considered, or do you think anything-goes?

anything goes, for example, certainly cigarettes should not be

involved. But where do you draw the line? There is a fine line, but I

don't know where it is. Thank you all very much indeed. This one on

Twitter says, the Olympics is an amazing event. It brings everybody

together. It is athletes who are not on �200,000 a week. Next week,

we will be back. But turning to our vote for today, here's what you

James, the public mood is obviously on your side, so what does this say,

do you think? It is important to clarify a couple of things. I am as

much accelerating massively accelerated adoption, as I am the

removal of children. It is a government policy, too. It is, so,

fingers crossed. Yes, it will involve breaking some adult hearts,

but the life of the children will be massively improved. What is your

view on this? I am a recent parent, looking forward to taking a three-

year-old to the Olympics, and a loving parent is probably the most

important job in society, never mind Olympic athletes, with all due

respect. The loving parents are the people who deserve a gold medal,

and we need more loving parents. Kriss, it concerns people that

there are so minutely affected children, and yet it is a large

number, who are in unsuitable families? I would agree that the

best place for any child, first and foremost, is with their natural

parents. But sometimes, it cannot always be. It depends on the level

of abuse which is going on. But I know that when I was in a

children's home, the majority of the children that were taken from

abusive parents still wanted to go back home to their parents at the

weekend. I was a child who was left in the children's home at the

weekend, when all of those are the kids went back to their mums and

dads. Thank you very much all of you. Do not texted or call, the