Episode 9 Sunday Morning Live

This week, the Sun defied the Press Complaints Commission and the

wishes of the Palace and splashed the pictures of Prince Harry naked

in Las Vagas on their front page. They claimed it was in the public

interest and that millions worldwide had already seen the

images on the internet. Has the press gone too far and does it need

Good morning. I'm aneedia rany. Welcome to Sunday morning live.

This week, the Sun newspaper published pictures of Prince Harry

naked in Las Vagas, claiming it was in the public interest to do so. It

sparked a huge public row. Is the Sun pursuing a just cause in

standing up for freedom of the press or has it breached the

industry's own code on privacy and should the press now face tougher

regulation. Anders Breivik, who last year killed 77 fellow

countrymen has been sentenced to jail having been expressed as sane

and therefore responsible for his outrage. Many claim his sentence

was to lenient, but Ken Roach disagrees. Although we are pure

love, some people express this as violence. And it's important that

we send them even more love. Many believe that marriage is a holy

union, a relationship bound together bisexual fidelity. But

there are new arguments that say affairs could be a good thing. Do

they wreck marriages are can cheating of a positive outcome. A

warm welcome to our guests, actor William Roach, also known as Ken

Barlow. He is in the Guinness Book of Records as the longest-serving

actor on the famous streets. Sna Carole Malone is a Fleet Street

journalist and is a broadcaster. She was team captain on Celebrity

Fit Club losing three stone, but she fared less well on Celebrity

Big Brother. Francis Bennett is an author and

broadcaster. He wrote What Did The Baby Boomers Ever Do For Us?

We want to know what you think. Now, you could not have failed to

notice Prince Harry dominating the headlines this week. Unfortunately,

what goes on in vagueious does not stay in vagueious. He must have

woken up with a massive hangover, and naked pictures of him appearing

on the internet. But only one national newspaper, the Sun printed

the pictures, but they appeared on- line.

Once again, the conduct of the British media is in public debate.

Both the Daily Mirror and the Independent said they would not use

the photos because they breached the Prince's privacy. But the Sun

said it was in the public interest to publish them. There is some

sympathy within the industry for the Sun. Senior newspaper figures

have expressed concern that the Press Complaints Commission were

too heavy handed when it argued for the non-publication of the pictures.

And many believe editors are now far too worried about what the

Leveson Inquiry will find. problem is, in this post Leveson

era, where newspapers are simply terrified of their own shodeo, they

darpt do things that most of the country if they saw it in the paper

would think it was a bit of a laugh. The Leveson Inquiry was set up to

examine the culture, practice and ethics of the British press

following revelations of phone hacking at the News of the World.

Many people testified over the undue intrusion into their private

lives. Many people will be pleased to see

new-found restraint over the photos of the Prince but representatives

of freedom of the press will worry that the pendulum has swung too far.

So, Carole, does our press need tougher regulation? Not if it means

our newspapers look cowed and neutered in the way they did last

week. There is a world of difference between being regulated

and being neutered. The former means that we have a possible media,

the latter means we have a toothless and pointless one. I

think the British press looked silly and insignificant in the eyes

of the world and because of it I fear for the newspapers. Thank you

very much. That's the question for You can also vote on-line.

We'll give you how you voted at the end of the programme. Now, Francis,

you're a journalist, surely the last thing you want is more

regulation? No, I want to see proper regulation of the press. I

don't think our press looked neutered last week. I think the

editors who decided not to print the pictures, did so because of

Leveson, I think they did it because they thought "are we grubby

enough?" I think you're loving in cloud cook you land? Let me finish.

These pictures were taken in a man's private hotel room. That

could be my hotel room or yours. That's not what investigative

journalism is about. Prince Harry lost his right...Please,

Investigate gative journalism at the moment has been killed. No it

hasn't. It has by things like that. Nothing has stopped any newspaper

investigating anything. Before you jump down each other's throats, I

want to bring in William about this. You have been in the heart of this.

Does the press need curtailing? I believe in total freedom of the

press with one rule only that it should be true. If they're being

untrue they should be clobbered. And let their readship monitor them.

Nothing else. You've worked for the News of the World, Carole. They're

economical with the truth. No. I'm not saying there are not legitimate

concerns in some sections of the media, that is absolutely true and

Leveson has highlighted that and that's true. But I think the Prince

Harry story was in the public interest. Who's interest. Let me

finish my point. Well, answer the question. I will, if you let me.

One because he's in line to the throne and two he's a senior

working Royal and three, he represents the Queen around the

world. People were saying he's like any other 27-year-old. No he isn't.

I red one point that said, "He's a red-blooded male." No he isn't.

He's blue blooded and with that comes responsibilities.

But these photos were already out there. And 30 million had already

seen them on the internet. Yes, I know. The argument that somebody

has already done something they shouldn't have done on the internet

therefore we ought to do it in the newspapers is exactly the same

argument that people gave during the riots. They said, "Other people

were rioting, so I thought it was all right to riot." The fact that

somebody else has sneaked naked pictures from a hotel room, it

might have been your room or my room and put them on the internet

doesn't mean it's right to do. the accusation that he had his

privacy invaded, he had an all-day party around a very public pool

were people were taking photos all the time That's different. Those

pictures were OK. When you invite 25 strangers into your bedroom all

with cameras, you forfeit the right to privacy. One of the...Francis,

Let Bill have his say. If you have a full-blooded guy enjoying himself,

what's wrong with nakedness? Let me bring in Professor Steven Barnet

from the Univsity of Westminster. Will this cast rate the press?

it won't. I get cross with columnists who are scaremongering

about state intervention. All we're talk being is trying to find a way

of persuading the press to implement its very own code of

conduct. The Press Complaints Commission has a code of conduct.

The clause 3 makes it clear it is unacceptable to photograph

individuals in private places without their consent. This is a

clear breach of that code. Newspapers have not been prepared

to follow their own code now for over 20 years. Time and again

they've used their corporate power, and this is what it's really about,

it's about corporate power, to trash other people's lives when

they feel like it. It's nothing to do with investigate gative

journalism, it's simply about holding that power to account.

Anyone who wanted to, could see the pictures on the internet. They

didn't have to be published in the Sun. These are spurious arguments

being put forward by large media conglomerates who are terrified

that they will not be allowed to publish pictures that sell

newspapers. Isn't this what it's about, selling newspapers. You say

that like it's a crime. Newspapers are a business. But isn't it about

investigative journalism? everything is about that. One of

the things I feel is important here is the fact that this story, the

fact that somebody set a honey trap for Harry. That is a news story in

itself. If this isn't a news story I don't know what is. Every paper

around the world thinks it is, it's only in this country we don't think

so. One of the consequences was, a honey trap was set up for the third

in line to the throne. That is news. It may not be the kind of news you

like, but it is news. But you can report it without printing the

pictures. Steven, do you think it's right that the people who have

trashed newspaper journalism in the past few years are the editors

themselves. Do I think it's right? Do you think it's the case. Yes, I

think that's absolutely right. And when people talk about better

regulation of the press, what I want to see is that better

regulation of the press will mean better investigate gative

journalism. Absolutely. Because what you can do whilst we've seen

some of the worst abuses over the past few years, you can protect and

preserve the better journalism. We've seen abused cepgs and the

treatment of elderly people in homes. That's the kind of

journalism that we want and the kind that the kids I teach want to

But all of those stories that Steven has just spoken about, have

been covered in tabloids as well. want to bring in another journalist,

Paul McMullan. There's lots of points there, but some would say

all you did was push sleaze. Yes, very much so. The professor, I

don't know, he may not have been a journalist because his point is

idiotic. I have a journalist friend whose had a surveillance van that

is parked outside his house for three months and I sold my own van

about six months ago, because it is expensive to do an investigation. I

gave an example, where I had to go to knock on a door in Switzerland

just to see if something was true and that cost �2,000. So we spr

desperately need all the sleazy titilating articles just to pay for

this. Do we? Why? Because we need to make millions of pounds a year

to put someone in a surveillance van like me because it costs �400 a

day to do that. And already Leveson has had an impact on it because

people are selling their equipment because there is no need for us any

more, but the MPs have free rein to do what they want. The best

investigative journalists I know don't use surveillance or phone

tapping. They find things out that the rich and powerful would rather

we don't know. Nick Wright in the Guardian who found out about the

expenses affair, never used anything like that, and I know

others who are the best investigate gative journalists but it's not

about these sorts of things, it's about finding out things that the

rich and powerful would rather we didn't know and telling us. But

you're right to say investigate gative journalism is expensive and

that's why it's being got rid of by national newspapers because they

would vther have -- they would rather have the cheap sleaze.

about cheap sleaze, like Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan they complain the

loudest because they've been caught with their pants down. Those who

aren't caught don't complain. why catch them. Because you need

the money. Again, it's about the money and selling newspapers.

Matthew Taylor, on the one hand we have a proud tradition of

investigate gative journalism in this country, but there you have

Paul McMullan saying you have to push the sleaze to generate the

income what is the solution to this? Newspapers as a whole are in

trouble. They do not have a business model. So there is a

background to this whole conversation that we may not have

any newspapers at all in ten or 15 years. I love the argument that we

take photographs of naked celebrities in order to subsidise

powerful investigate gative journalism into the rich and

powerful. That's nonsense. The newspapers that do that kind of

thing are not interested. Let's take one example. Banking. The

British and world economy was screwed up by banking. Where were

the investigate gative journalists exploring what was taking place in

those banks? All those surveillance banks why were were they not doing

work over a group of people who were about to drag the entire world

economy into the state it is in. We need investigations into people who

control our lives and people who are running around trapping people

just to sell newspapers shouldn't be happy. So how do we regulate it?

Have a standards agency? Yes, I think we can. Any form of

regulation is tantamount to returning to the Soviet union.

Ultimately there is a power, but you don't use legal power it's a

system of self-regulation, but in the end, as we've seen from self-

regulation in this country, unless ultimately you have the possibility

of the Government saying, "I'm sorry you're not regulating

yourselves we're going to have to do something" unless you have that

power there will be no regulation and that's what we've seen.

Let me bring in Patrick Hayes who is for freedom of speech. So this

is about self-regulation? That's what people say, it ultimately

comes down to self-regulation, but we have the state to prosecute if

we don't like it. People don't seem to have much faith in the public to

decide for themselves what they choose to buy or see. I would say

the problem in the UK is not too little regulation but too much. We

already have the worst liable laws in the country and a nosey Press

Complaints Commission and now the Leveson Inquiry, which even Michael

Gove said is having a chilling effect on freedom of speech. We're

increasingly trusting the media to faceless unelected authorities when

we should be leaving it to society to decide what they're interested

in. This is about an illegal activity, phone hacking which came

out in a public way and it's surely gone too far now? No decent

journalist should ever hack a phone and search right about that. The

people in this country have been used to a free press. Most of them

have never known anything else. God help us if they don't have that

because there's only one reason the laws will be set is because

politicians have to be accountable to the people who vote for them,

and we're starting with this, the Harry story is the frivolous one in

the scheme of things, but if politicians are not accountable to

us and we're not allowed to know what they're doing and how they do

it, God help us all. Yes. Francis is agreeing with you? I am. That's

why I'm for the regulation from the National Association of Journalists.

It requires a body with statutory powers but a body that is not

responsible to Government or answers to politicians. The one

thing you have to do with regulation is to ensure that

politicians cannot dictate what goes into it. Absolutely. And it is

quite clear to me that self- regulation has now completely

failed. As I said earlier, I believe in total freedom provided

they're not breaking the law and it is truthful and then let the

readers decide. Let's see what the readers think. Cliff has said, "How

many men have been naked in a hotel room? The question should be about

the creep who took the photos. Colin says, "As a 30-plus reader of

the Sun I thought it was were pretty to print the photos of

Prince Harry, they need to grow up or they'll lose readers like me.

And another one says, "The people should vote by going or not to

their newsagents. You have around 20 minutes before

the poll closes. Now, this week mass murderer Anders

Breivik was sentenced to 21 years in Prince for killing 77 people

last year in Norway. Was that the right response? William Roach, star

of Coronation Street has a unique perspective. He thinks we should

forgive and even be able to love such evil men. Although we are pure

love, some personalities, through their free will can express this as

hate and violence. And it's important that we send them even

more love to get them back on track. Love is the light and energy of the

Creator. It is the life force. It is the source that creates the

atoms and all that is. We live through the energy of love.

Mass murderers, like Anders Breivik ja -- and James Holmes who recently

opened fire in a cinema in Denver. And Peter West have all committed

heinous crimes. They need more love than anyone. That love that can

turn even the most abhorrent murderers into meaningful members

of the society. People talk about the death sentence, but humans

should never kill. Not even in the name of the State. We should love,

whatever our fellow humans have per traited. Cause and effect should

teach them to change their ways, but it is teaching that helps them

change. Kindness and forgiveness are things in action. Forgiveness

can be difficult. The idea of forgiving a person who has killed

on a mass scale is not easy. But by forgiving, you can change the

offender. Love solves all. Love is everything.

And no matter how hard a choice, it's important that we express that

love and forgiveness, especially to those who need it the most.

Controversial stuff. If you have a webcam you can make your point on

Skype or join the conversation on Twitter. Phone, text or e-mail.

Francis, surely love is another way? No, I'm sorry, Bill. I think

that's the most awful rubbish I've heard in ages. It's a collection of

feel-good words. It's the largest possible number of feel-good words

crammed into the smallest possible amount of meaning. It's verbal

candy floss. With Breivik, let me take that, there is grounds for a

little bit of hope in the Breivik story and it is this, that since

the shooting, the organisation, the youth Labour organisation in Norway,

where he -- 47 members of which he 8, has grown by 50%. That's young

people in Norway saying, "To hell with you, Breivik, we don't care

about -- we have now looked at this organisation. Quite often that

happens with an idea that you try to kill by killing people, that the

idea is strengthened. As for Breivik himself, let him go to

prison and let him rot. Obviously Francis completely disagrees with

Bill, but you only have to look at South Africa, that is an entire

country that decided to deal with what happened to them in an

entirely different way. Norway should be applauded for the calm

and dignified way they've handled this. They decide the attention

should be on the victims and not the perpetrator. And it is

interesting that Breivik was protesting against multi-cut

Uralism, pro-immigration has grown. What do you think about the idea of

love. With the greatest of respect, who looks like a heart-throb on

that film. He's sitting next to you. I know. Forgiveness is a very

special and precious thing and why would you give it to a man who

doesn't want it or deserve it. Jis it is people like Ken...Bill.

Sorry. It's the liberal views that Breivik hates. He doesn't want

forgiveness. He made it perfectly clear in that courtroom. He wanted

people to know he was absolutely sane when he slaughtered those

people. Bill, they're not buying it. You don't understand me. I'm not a

liberal person and I'm not sanctimonious. I'm not saying let

him off. In fact, that 21 years doesn't mean that. No, he probably

will never get out. I'm not talking about that. Forgiveness is

important because by not forgiving you restrict yourself and you're

not a loving person. Breivik is initially and essentially pure love.

His persona and ego, through free will has made him behave in this

way. Let me make my point. So what I'm saying, forgiving, by the way

is universal, you can forgive all the time you don't run out of it.

And by forgiving him, if you send love to someone like that, the love

that is inside will radiate out and he'll be gin to say" yeah, what I

did was wrong" and he will know that by receiving love he will stop

it. I'm not, when I say there's no punishment, there's only teaching,

sometimes the teaching can be far tougher than the punishment and I'm

not saying he should be released at all. I'm going to bring in Marion

Partington and Marion's sister was murdered by Fred and Rosemary West.

Have you managed to forgive? Well, first of all, I'd like to say thank

you to William for what he said because it really rings true in my

own experience. I've had to look deep within me to move towards a

place of healing and I come to know the truth through a Chinese saying

which is, "He who cannot forgive must dig two graves." So it's very

much a matter of life and death, not just for me or the Wests, but

the whole of society that we actually look within us and realise

our own capacity for evil and our own capacity for love and the

choice that we can make. But you're talking about forgiveness. What

about this idea of loving them? Well, forgiveness is a very complex

word that needs untag aming. It's very -- untangling. It's very close

to love. It's about realising the power of love and realising that

attitudely fear is the opposite of love and when you say things like,

"Lock them up and throw away the key" that is actually coming from a

position of fear and our society, the question also is why are people

behaving like this? We need to move towards trying to understand them,

not cut them off and try and write them off. It helped you, didn't it.

By forgiving you released something within yourself and you open up and

become more loving. Marion, thank you very much. I want to bring in

Erik Dale, who is from Nora and two friends died in the attacks. It's

two years on, can you ever imagine be stowing love on Anders Breivik?

Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me on the show and

for Mr Roach for his interesting point of view. I think we need to

see what we expect society can do and what individuals can do. People

deal with pain differently. Perhaps on a personal level perhaps I have

forgiven him. Like everyone else my shock and disbelief went into anger

and then compassion and now I don't feel very much at all, only loss

for my friends who will never come back again. So what I do as an

individual may be different from what I hope society would do. As a

society, it would be difficult for us to except that everyone would be

stow love on someone who has taken away 77 of the finest people in our

country. Carole. That's true. I think it was the scale of what

happened. 77 is a huge number of people. I think Breivik would have

liked to have caused a bigger furore than he actually has. Nar

way is happy with the laws they have and they will deal with this

man, but I think it's a big ask of the Norwegian people to ask hem not

just to forgive this man but to love him. He doesn't deserve love.

And the lady before, Marion was saying..But Both of them have been

able to say they forgive? Yes, but Marion was saying the phrase, "Lock

him up and throw away the key" is borne out of fear, that's right.

People have a right to be scared of Anders Breivik, he could shoot more

if he was let out. Now, you have managed to forgive your son's

murderers, who was shot, ray, why? Well, many say that when you

forgive you're set free yourself. And I'm forgiving because I'm not

letting those boys have a hold over me. But you must have felt so angry

at the time, why did you decide that forgiveness was the way

forward? It was easy for me, but my wife it was harder. For me, being

from the area, I knew those boys killed him fuelled by drink and

drugs. Ray, do you now go into prisons and talk to offenders?

I do. I heard an amazing radio interview with you recently where

you and your wife were talking about you couldn't begin to get

over our son's death until you forgave the people who killed him.

This is my point exactly. It is what it does to you. Not him, not

Breivik or anything that has happened. You release yourself and

then you find inside, if everybody in the world realised they were

pure love inside all the problems with be resolved. I'm talk about

love, not a sanctimonious sentimental.....That's A step too

far. It's not enough to say we're pure love I'm sorry, I cannot allow

that. Every human being is a spiritual being which is pure,

unconditional love our ego that is built a cloud around it. The three

people, who, for their own reasons, have managed to forgive what was

done, but what we're talking about...But Hasn't it proved that

forgiveness has worked? Having spoken to these three people hadn't

it proved that forgiveness has worked? No. We're talking to three

people who, for their own reasons are themselves immediately affected.

We have to talk about what we do as a society. That's different. It's

not. It's exactly the say. There are an awful lot of people in the

world who are in serious trouble who need our love and help and none

of us should be wasting any of that on the likes of Anders Breivik.

oh, oh. Sorry. But you've made your point, Francis, we can't hear

either of you. We might as well say, "Look, Adolph, that was really very

naughty. Jgs No, Francis, I'm going to get my word in. Bill, has he not

got a point. Surely they have forgiven because it's their

personal experience. Why should we, as a society forget the likes of

Fred and Rose West. Just a minute. Can we not love the people who have

had a closer experience than we have. Love releases you. Love is

universal. We're all beings of love and if we go inside and ratade that

out to everybody, the poor, wherever you go, but forgiveness

releases you from that. We have a choice whether to give forgiveness

and love, don't we? And some might choose not to fer give Anders

Breivik. Right. Right Let's see what the audience has to say on

this. One says, "Bill is right. Hatred will damage us. We should

love the person and detest the crime. Another says, "Some mass

murderers have to be punished" and another says, "The only people who

have the right to forgive are the victims' families.

Now can can having an affair be a recipe for a good marriage?

You can join in to the conversation in these ways.

Remember, keep your voting coming You have five minutes before the

poll closes. It's time for our moral moment of

the week. Francis, you first. mine's really, politicians never

say they were wrong and so my moral accolade of the week, really, goes

to the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, who, this week, announced

that Governments for the past 30 years have been wrong to assume

that the private sector can always do everything better than the

public sector. That when the public sector goes wrong all you have to

do is springle a little commercial gold dust. He's looked at what

happened to G4S and this week when the private company that now owns

and maintains London's fire engines handed them all over for �2 to a

venture capital company created last month. And he has said,

"Actually, maybe this dogma that we've had for the last 30 years,

governments of New Labour and Conservative governments, maybe

it's wrong." Conservatives requesting privatisation, bill?

but it's balance. Are you saying privatisation is good or

nationalisation is good, no, it's a balance. But if a Government lets

out a concern to a private company, there should be some regulation.

Carole? Mine is about a soldier who served in the British army and he's

from Botswana. And he has a wife in this country. But he is about to be

thrown out of Britain because he got stopped on a motorway at 1.30

in the morning doing 80 miles an hour and he got a speeding ticket.

He was doing 80 miles per hour an hour in a 50 mile an hour area of

road works and he got fined, but he's going to be thrown out of the

country because of new laws. Even though he's prepared to die for

this country. And there was another story about a Fijiian soldier who

served in Afghanistan and Bosnia, and throw him out because he had a

fight with another soldier in the mess. We don't want people in this

country who come here and do nothing. We want people who love

Britain and want to be here and who are prepared to die for this

country. And it's almost like slavery, fight for us but don't

imagine you can have any of 9 benefits. I don't disagree with

that Carole is saying, but I'd like to embark on an investigation of

why this is happening. And the reason it is happening, is there is

an awful lot of immigration hysteria. And people like Carole.

How dare you accuse me about being biased about immigrants. You wrote

about them being give cards, but that's not the case. It is the case,

but that is by the by. This will stop happening if a large number of

people on right-wing national newspapers stop targeting

immigrants. No, this is happening because the Government changed the

rules about soldiers in 201. Because they were influenced by the

newspapers. They were not influenced by tabloids, that's

ridiculous. Bill, now your moral moment. I'd just like to mention

Neil Armstrong who has just died, aged 826789 I remember in 1969,

because I'm very old, sitting in front of the television riveted and

watching every moment as the first man actually set on the moon with

those immortal words "one small step for man, one great leap for

mankind." And he is a total hero. And he was always very modest as

well. A very modest man and a lot of them had almost a spiritual

experience, it was the first time we saw pictures of the world.

it inspire you, Francis? Yes, it was very inspiring. It was a

wonderful moment. I always suspected that those words were

scripted by someone in the White House. Even if they were, who

cares? I just want to add a rider to that. I played golf in the Bob

Hope Classic many years ago, and the guy in the main mother ship

going round while he landed, he was playing and I was asking him about

the trip to the moon and whether they had a religious moment and I

asked, "What was your overall feeling?" and he said, "Fear, from

the moment we set off to the moment we got home." So they are very

brave people. Thank you very much for those. You h you have been

voting in our poll this morning, does our press need tougher

regulation. The polls are closing now, so please do not text as you

may be charged. We'll bring you the results at the

end of the show. Now, new research claims that the

secret to a long and happy marriage is to have affairs. It argues that

a puritanical approach to marriage only leads to divorce or miserable

sell bait unions. One of the findings of this new research shows

that many people are unfaithful because their marriage is not

providing them with an active enough sex life. The research

argues that we need to rethink our terms-of-marriage and allow

playfairs or marriage holidays free from the notion of betrayal.

Religious groups argue that the commandment Thou shalt not commit

adultery remains the bedrock of our society and the moral glue that

holds families together and psychologists say affairs cause

severe emotional stress and shatter the trust in a shelgsship. Is there

such a thing as good infidelity and we can have successful affairs

where both parties are happier and no-one gets hurt and we lower the

divorce rate, or do affairs just cause misery and heartache. Are we

fundamently far too jealous for an open relationship and the fear we

could be ditched for a new model. I bet that's got your attention. You

can join in by webcam or make your point by phone, text or exmail.

We're joined by Rosie Freeman-Jones of Illicit Encounters iflt, a

dating website for married people. Rosie, - come on. Illicit affairs.

That can't be good for marriage? Well, my research shows that it is.

I've been at the site for four years now, it's been running since

2003 and essentially we're a website running for people wanting

extramarital affairs. And are they admitted it to their partners?

are, and we're seeing a lot more open relationships. Snix you're

really going to have to sell thousand is beneficial. It is a

huge stress reliever. If people decide they want to have an

extramarital affair they can come to our website and they know it

will be stkpwret. These are people who are seeing their lovers once or

twice a month, if that. And these are people who are married, it's

not like they're going to work colleagues and choosing to destroy

relationships, they're isolating it. It is a huge stress reliever. And

it means they can be the spouse they want to be at home and not nag

the person they're with for something they don't want to give.

Bill. You've been married twice and you've had affairs. TVs a stress

releaver? In the '60s. I was totally promiscuous and horrendous.

But then I've had a 35-year, very successful marriage to Sarah. So

I've seen both sides. I think it's wonderful. People shouldn't feel

tied. But if you say is infidelity the key to a good marriage, I'd say

no, because it indicates there is something wrong with the marriage

or something missing. If they can make their marriage work because of

this, good. Everything is individual and we shouldn't

moralise or judge. If it helps them. Did it help you? No, it didn't. My

first marriage was totally ruined by my behaviour. But if I'm given

the choice of being a free loving promiscuous guy, or a faithful

marriage, I would choose the faithful marriage. Carole? No, I

don't buy it. It's betraying the people you're supposed to love. And

it's all very well to say it makes the person who is cheating feel

better, but it's not good for the person who is cheated upon, because

they start feeling worse about themselves and taking the blame for

what has happened. I think it's nonsense. Ask Clive James how he

feels this week. Tell that to Demi Moore. Let me give you a scenario.

If you're in a mature relationship and you've been married for 20

years and for whatever reason one person isn't interested in sex and

you allow that other person could it work? If it's an open marriage

where both parties agree and there are no secrets and lies, and they

both decide on it, that's fine. But my problem is when one person is

cheated upon and what happens when they find out. It's a very one-

dimension view of sex. It's not about sex, it's about love.

some people it is. Maybe for men. agree, the only bad thing...

have pretty much equal numbers, so gendering it is wrong. But do they

think it's OK to lie to the other person? This happens and it's been

happening for centuries and we have to think about how we deal with it.

Infidelity is a fact of life. Now we can choose to conduct these

relationships stkpwretly, and in an ideal world I agree. In an ideal

world we would have open relationships and people would

communicate openly and speak to our spouse and say, "I'm not happy" and

I think that happens in some instances. But those people when

they are not able to follow those channels they can come to our

website. Yes, you should be able to say I'm not happy and I want to end

the relationship and start another one. Clare-Ann, welcome to the

programme. If Monday knoll me is not a good state, and we should let

everyone go get on with what they want to do. Why are we imposing it

on snerch Well, I think monogamy is one where the human heart can find

true happiness. It is self-giving. It is not for self-gain and this

constant perpetual seeking of self- satisfaction is, on the contrary,

drives people to misery. Constantly seeking themselves or looking at a

spouse who is meant to be like your own flesh and blood is purely an

object for gain. And people enter into marriage for the exclusivity

that it brings and the thrill of 100% of someone's love and giving

100% of your love to one person. And let's not forget about the

broader picture, it has been proven time and time again that the best

place for bringing up children is in a stable relationship. What will

be the dome know effect on society if this is what is encouraged for

supposedly fixing the problems in snaerge

Stay there, I want to bring in ant knee cristofani, who has been in a

poly velgs-for years. And you and your wife are about to marry your

girlfriend. How does that work? It's kind of like a single person

deciding to fall in love and make a commit but you're adding to it. And

all that is required is realising that love is not, it's not a

scarcety that we tend to think it is. We have more love I think than

most people have to give. Think of a mother. She has a kid and thinks,

"I could never love anything more than this" and then she has another

kid and she loves them both. And we do that with our friends and kids

and poleyam rus people think we can do it with our lovers. Clare-Ann,

that is working for Anthony, what do you think? Well, I agree with

them that of course we all have a lot of love to give and everyone

aims to find happiness. I just believe that the key to finding

that happiness is giving 100% of oneself. True happiness comes from

giving, we hear that time and time again and what is more than giving

100% to another person. Not revving something for yourself or another

partner. I can't see how this can lead to true happy snns Anthony?

Did Jesus give his love to only one person? I'm not saying that you

have to...no, there's obviously lots of kinds of love everywhere in

the world. But you can't love everyone in the marital sense. That

has to be preserved for one person. Well, I love two. But we're talking

about sex here, Anthony? We're talking about sex? I thought we

were talking about love. You're living a lie if you're saying to

someone in the sexual act, "I'm giving 100% of myself," when you're

not. Dr Meg Barker is a relationship therapist. Deceit is

wrong, so therefore surely affairs are wrong? Hello. Yes, it's the

deceit that troubles me and it's the seeing of people struggling

with the sense of betrayal and hurt afterwards that affects me.

I think research has found that people often assume they have the

same rules of monogamy in a relationship and find out later

they don't. For example, one person might think it's possible to have a

friendship with an expartner and the other doesn't. So there are

many situations across the board. Really, it's about encouraging

communication at the start of the relationship, whatever kind of

relationship it is. Surely, if you're having a secret affair and

you're found out if that hurts somebody it's wrong. If the person

who finds out is hurt it has to be wrong. If anyone went out and got

laid whenever they felt like do it, it would destroy family life in

this country at a stroke. Surely this is about cashing in for you.

You're making money from this? are a business. I don't shy away

from that, but people are coming to us. But it doesn't necessarily help

their relationship? I think society is dictated by our own rules. We

are not naturally anything other than monogamous, but history shows

we used to live in tribes where we had lots of lovers all the time and

we shared childcare and sex and there were no rules around who we

slept with. Now, that's a long time ago, but it shows that human beings

as a species are not naturally monogamous. Thank you very much. We

have to leave it there. Your results are in:

67% of you who voted said yes and 33% said no.

That's interesting. 67% of the audience watching this say tougher

regulation, Carole. I'm not surprised at that vote but I think

people should be scared if the regulations get tougher. Most of

the people who have voted have known nothing but a free press all

their lives. I fear they should be very scared if the Government

passes rules. What should they be afraid of. Restriction of the

freedom of press is not good. I agree with that, but I think the

readship should dictate. But the audience are so shocked by the

phone hacking. That's illegal, that's nothing to do with it.

that's not going to happen again. In terms of regulation that's

stopped and finished. That will never happen again. But you try and

muzzle the press in the way it has been tried this week. People might

not like to see the photos, but if they're out there, her they should

be there. And millions of people are buying the papers every day on

the stories of sleaze. That's true. What do you think? Personally, I

think it's to do with the fact that we have a celebrity-focused culture

in this country, that the press isn't covering what is happening.

I'm really not interested in Prince Harry being naked in this private

place, rather than any more legislation I'd see a move

towards...Quickly, Should they have printed them? I think so yes.

should be free to do what they want. O oh, no, no. Thank you very much

for all your thoughts. Many thanks to all of you have who taken part

today. To our guests and the viewers. Don't text or call the