Episode 15 Sunday Morning Live

Tommy Robinson, founder of the EDL, has quit the organisation. Welcomed

by some, greeted with scepticism and sometimes anger. Tommy Robinson

himself says he wants to pursue a more constructive approach to the

Muslim community, but one critic said he would be singing the same

song in a different key. An upcoming BBC documentary has been following

Tommy Robinson as he met leading UK Muslims and came up with his

decision. Some background now, and a warning that there is flag

photography in this report you are about to see. -- flash photography.

Tommy Robinson, who uses that name as an alias, formed the English

Defence League with others in 2009 in his hometown of Luton because, he

says, they were concerned about what they called growing Islamic

radicalisation. The movement staged a demonstration around the country,

which sometimes ended with clashes with police or antifascist

demonstrators. There is no such thing in this

country as... Robinson led from the front and became the most visible

face of the EDL. But he claims his front and became the most visible

initial enthusiasm became tempered by the actions of some who attach

themselves to the movement. We will take our shoes off year and then go

through. Robinson agreed to take part in a BBC documentary in which

he was introduced to members of the part in a BBC documentary in which

Muslim community. Muslims are intimidated, Muslims are in fear?

Our country is in fear, people are in fear, daughters are in fear,

armed forces are in fear. That was followed by his surprise news

conference on Tuesday, staged by the Quilliam Foundation, an organisation

which seeks to counter extremism. He and his cousin, Kevin Carroll,

another EDL leader, announced they were quitting the movement. I

apologise for the fact that what I represented and said has not

resonated individually with Muslims. represented and said has not

I do not hate Muslims. The EDL went ahead with a planned rally in

Bradford yesterday, despite losing Tommy Robinson. But it was a low-key

affair, with more police there than demonstrators.

So does the EDL represent a constituency with a voice that needs

to be taken into account? Do you think it does? In a democracy, all

of us have the right to freedom of expression. The EDL have that

right, and they have been exercising that right for four years. I would

argue that they have been very busy fomenting divisions in our society,

and in particular targeting bigotry towards British Muslims. That is not

acceptable. The question for our text vote, does the EDL represent a

view that needs to be heard? Text the word vote followed by yes or

no, text will be charged at your standard message rate. You can only

vote once, go online to Bolt for free. Visit the website to read full

terms and conditions. Tommy, you will know a lot of people are very

cynical about you saying you are not a racist. Given some of the things

the EDL has done over the past few years, and that you have been

leading them on at times. Piping for four and a half years we have been

battling from within to make it an all inclusive organisation with

everybody that is threatened by the problems of Islamist ideology. -- I

think. From the outside, people have been telling anti-racist and Nazis

that this organisation is for them, by labelling it as a racist and Nazi

that this organisation is for them, organisation, which it is not. Since

I have left, you had a homosexual speaker at the demonstration, you

had the people wishing to continue the foundation. It has been a

struggle for me as the public face of it. I am not willing to be a

public face for some things that go on at the demonstrations. With a

working class voice that has been created, it must be listened to.

Yes, there has been problems, but people have been on the streets

because there is no voice. If you look at why no politicians and won

dares say the things that need to be said, I walked from my hometown of

Luton a few days ago, the first time since this decision. I was punished

to the floor, all on camera, this will be in the documentary. I had

Muslims come over to say I should be decapitated. Another Muslims said

that it is like an anaconda that will squeeze the country. There are

serious problems, and no-one dead voice them. If you look at what has

happened to myself for trying to, with plots and everything, it is

unfair and not right to be labelling an entire group of people as

extremists and races, which is what we are seeing now. Esther Rantzen,

where people in Luton saying that Islamic radicalisation is a problem

and a concern for them? I met all kinds of people when I was in Luton,

I really enjoyed it. My most worrying moment is when two veiled

women were very angry with me for encouraging people to vote, and it

was at that stage that I thought to myself, everyone has a democratic

right to speak, but do we have a democratic right to stop other

people? Why did they object? Because elections are not Islamic, they do

not approve of it. These were Muslim women? Absolutely. The EDL was set

up because Islamic radicals were protesting against British soldiers

returning from Afghanistan - do you accept that ordinary people are

offended by fundamentalist behaviour? Go blue I was offended by

offended by fundamentalist that as well, March 2009. A very

tiny group of people leafleted all the mosques in the area, and

lewdness and 2/30 30,000 Muslims. -- and Luton is home to over 30,000

Muslims. Less than 20 people turned up to that demonstration. It would

be wrong to blame the other Muslims for this. Can I just come back to

Tommy's point? If he is genuinely repentant of the actions that he has

been engaged in, please, it would be nice to see him taking personal

responsibility for some of those statements, instead of saying it was

other elements within the EDL. You describe Islam as a disease. Do you

apologise for those remarks? Go You will be able to understand

it has become as an them, and when you are talking about the whole of

Luton being leafleted. The Muslim you are talking about the whole of

community knew they would attack our armed forces, what did they do about

that, did they come out and try to stop them? Did they show their

that, did they come out and try to disgust or let it happen? Just as

you have the right to demonstrate, the extremists have the right to

demonstrate peacefully, do you accept that? If members of our

community were outside of a mosque, people opposed them, and when you

look at what has happened since they done that to our troops, look at

what has happened. When Muslims are going to burn poppies, we are both

from Luton... That was condemned by Muslims all around this country, why

do try to label all Muslims? I have made this movie so I do not label

and blame. You are trying to tarnish an entire community for this small

group. I have made this move... He has become a public face of Muslims

in my town. He sat on local radio and said in an ideal world

homosexuals should be executed, women should be lashed for adultery.

This is my local radio, he is the local face. Can we just establish

things like, in mosque building, you said there should be no new mosques,

do you feel that? I believe we are adding to a problem that no-one is

solving. Until mosques are regulated and moderated, every religious

institution needs to be moderated, in the way that schools are. We do

not know who was funding them or speaking at them. We see hatred in

documentaries, and no-one is making an attempt to deal with those

issues. We have laws in this country on incitement to religious hatred,

and if Tommy has any evidence of hatred being espoused in mosques,

take that evidence and give it to the police. Mosques are liable under

the law. When we look at his view, and he believes in an ideal world,

we need to look at who is funding... If we want a cohesive society that

will succeed, we don't want Saudi Arabia, Iran or Qatar manipulating

their form of Islam, in this country, where their books are

educating children in a un-inclusive way, and someone has to be brave

enough to speak about that. This is very polarised, what are your

thoughts? Tommy, I think you are extremely brave to us that up

against the extreme elements in your own former party, and it cannot be

easy, and it means that people who regard you as a friend, they will

turn against you. At the same time, no Muslim is going to support what

you say, because it feels like racism, even of what you are saying

is not racist. That is what I'm saying, my message has not resonated

with Muslims. I know Luton Muslims will be sitting there like this when

they hear him saying these things. What you want them to do? Do you

want to walk arm in arm with Muslims? Yes, I do. I walk through

Luton, and I know his views are not representative. Stop a second, they

prepared to have you as a moderate spokesman for what, integration of

great religions? I believe the news we are making, Muslims are

contacting me to say they have been fed up... The Muslim Council of

Britain are representative of 6% of Muslims in the country, but they are

the voice on TV, Islamists are given a voice across the country... You

are talking awfully fast! It is because I am passionate about what

I'm saying. This passionate Muslim regards you with the greatest

suspicion. He set up an Islamist organisation. Tommy, labelling lots

of people... These people are not all here to defend themselves,

including the person you mentioned on local radio. I do not want you

making comments that people cannot respond to. When you were on the

Muslim Council of Britain, the second-in-command said British

troops were justified for attack. The government withdrew their

commitment. Let's move the discussion on to where we are,

because you have said... You representative of English people? If

you genuinely want to engage with the Muslim community, do you regard

the Koran as an evil book? I believe that if it is interpreted in one

way, it is extremely... People are quoting verses and murdering people,

and other Muslims are completely devastated that it has been minute

elated in that way. It is a very complex issue. How do you feel about

one of your children, if they wanted to marry a Muslim? And many girls

that have converted to Islam, and we have a problem here. And many girls

that have converted to Islam and that is what has happened to their

family. Is it with their mothers who have cried their eyes out because

they had not seen their daughters. If there were not these problems,

would not mind at the RBC race issues. We're not going to solve

these problems by labelling anyone who mentions these issues as

Islamification. Jamie Bartlett joins us from the think tank, Damos. You

have been doing research on violence and extremism. Tommy Robinson has

said PETA was setup to represent the authentic voice of working-class

people. -- the EDL. What is your thought on the discussion? I think

all democracies are chaotic and difficult and it is vital that

people feel that they can express themselves, even if we find it

offensive. Insofar as the English Defence League claims to be fighting

a big problem in society, that of Islamist extremism, in some cases

they have a point. We have a problem, a small problem than Tommy

thinks, but we have a problem in some sections of the community. I

think the problem has been that too often the English Defence League has

not focused on that target. And too often, and this is partly a result

of the way the EDL is setup with formal membership structure, it has

attracted lots of people with more radical and extreme views and so too

often you see the EDL are all Muslims with the extremist brush,

and try to express themselves through violence on the streets,

throwing bottles and the rest of it, and that is not for me. Briefly,

if we look at Europe where there have been issues with campaigns

against Islamic radicalism, is there any difference there or is there

always a problem with far right racism being part of any movement

against Muslim radicalisation? We racism being part of any movement

have definitely seen over the last 20 years an increase in the far

right across Europe and, compared to much of Europe, the UK does pretty

well. We are a very tolerant society. If you look at lots of

different polls, the public as a whole thinks that Muslims are

extremely important as a part of society and very welcome here. And

they have as much right to be here and contributing as anybody else. If

you look at the far right in other European countries, France, Greece,

Italy, Hungary, we actually do not have as big a problem. Thank you.

I'd like to bring in Osam. We will come back to you, Jimmy, if we can.

Osama Hassan joins us. You have heard the discussion we have had so

far. We have had this deadlock about radicalisation. I see some of the

debate since Tommy Robinson left the EDL has been to say that the

Quilliam foundation does not represent Muslims. I would like to

thank the contributors so far for having a civilised debate. I'd agree

that the UK is more tolerant than parts of Europe. We should value

that. We do not attack Muslims and we do not represent all Muslim

communities. Nor does any group that claims to. We are a think tank and

we work on ideas. There is no doubt that Islamist extremism has become a

national security concern. Dozens of terror plots have occurred during

the last 15 years. The EDL has struck a chord because is phobia has

passed the intake test. We have an explosive situation now because over

the last few years, there have been a number of mosques attacked with

arson bonds and firebombs at by people linked to the EDL. It is an

explosive situation threatening to get out of control. We are very

proud to be working with Tommy and Kevin Carroll to defuse the

situation and calm things down. We hope we can have a civilised and

constructive dialogue and not have violent street or test and attacks

on mosques in the future, just as we hope there will be no more terrorist

plots. I think we need to see genuine change. Sam seems to be

encouraged by what Tommy is doing. Most Muslims are sceptical until he

genuinely chains -- changes. I've heard a significant number of

Muslims think that they do not believe the Quilliam foundation

represents Muslims. Is there a sense of victimhood among some Muslims? I

think this is very similar, a similar organisation to certain

outfits that appeared in the wake of McCarthyism. Osama, there is

suspicion about your motives. When people are unable to deal with

arguments... Where does your money come from, Osama? We were set up a

few years ago. Lots of Muslims -- muzzle Morgan positions taken

funding is from the government. Including corrupt governments. But

where does your funding come from? Let me say something... Thank you. I

where does your funding come from? want to deal with this. Esther

Rantzen, can ask you? Any democratic government in this country will want

tolerance, multiculturalism, for the society to get on together. If you

find an organisation which appears to be espousing discussion between

groups who otherwise would not agree, that has to be a good thing.

It would be. I'd agree. If you tell agree, that has to be a good thing.

him that whatever he says, you do not believe them and you think that

he is making it up in order to dispose of the causes, then you give

him know where to stand. That is not true. In the 30s, this rhetoric was

directed towards British Jews. We have every right to expect Tommy to

behave with civilisation and not target British Muslims, saying there

should be no more mosques. That is a political view. To say that Mohammed

is a paedophile, that is extremely offensive to every Muslim. And the

reason why I have made my break from the endless defence league is

because I wish to work with Muslims to solve these problems. But we have

to max sort of Muslims in this country, radicals and streamers and

apologists. Apologists like yourself country, radicals and streamers and

who are not willing to accept that there are problems. And to solve the

problem is, someone is going to have to come out and reach out. I've

reached out to Quilliam because I believe what they say. Would you

mind your kids being educated next to Muslims? Of course not. I am from

Luton. My mixed with Muslims when I grew up, and I have no problem with

them. There might be many EDL people who think that they disagree. Should

they disband? Has it lost its way, lost its purpose? I was concerned

about where it was going. I see this as the way forward. I see that we

have created a voice and we're channelling it positively. Some

people may not see that and they may feel angry and frustrated. But what

I was encouraged by was what SO yesterday. A homosexual speaker

objecting to Nazis and racism and that is what the media should be

reporting. Not once has the EDL be reported as having non-white

members. I went to the demonstration to see what they get up to. I saw

them starting off, drink heavily. Lots of beer cans and lager cans. As

the demonstration went on, number of the supporters were urinating on a

church. Which demonstration? Twice in Luton in 2011 and 2012. We

marched near a church. -- we did not march. Would you condemn her

masculine act of course. I condemn any act of terrorism. If you

gentlemen can get together, I see hope for the future. The crucial

thing is that you live and let live. It is easy to say that until people

are trying to push views upon you. The last words to Esther Rantzen.

You both need more women in your various sectors. I would second

that. Saying that women, whose focus is that their children can grow up

in peace and prosperity. -- sane women. What you have in common is

more important than what divides you. We will return to discuss this

when we have our vote at the end of the programme. The vote is very much

open. The question, does the EDL represented view that needs to be

heard? Remember, you can only vote once. If you think it does, text

BOAT -- VOTE. Still to come, we hear about one way of tackling

loneliness. This is wonderful axeman absolutely wonderful! What an

eye-opener. -- this is wonderful! . Newspaper editors and politicians

are deadlocked over future regulation. The papers say the

freedom of the press is at stake. Politicians say the papers have to

put their house in order after the intrusions that led to the latter is

enquiry. Lord Justice Leveson said these activities have wreaked havoc

with the lives of innocent people and included the hacking into the

phone of Milly Dowler by the News of and included the hacking into the

the World. That was nearly a year ago. The newspapers came up with

their version of regulation, which was rejected. Another plan put

forward by the politicians has achieved short shrift from the

papers with the newspaper Society saying it amounted to

state-sponsored regulation. Mark Lewis, the wire who represented the

Dowler family and others, says that the press needs tough control. This

is his Sunday Stand, delivered from the setting of a print museum.

is his Sunday Stand, delivered from Britain has a proud history of free

press. Our newspapers used to be a beacon to the world. Too often, it

has misused its readers and it needs to face the consequences. Press

regulation should have been in place by now. It has been over two years

since the News of the World close-down and was one year since

Lord Justice Leveson delivered his enquiry into press ethics. So why

are we still waiting? Journalists will have you believe that some sort

of regulation is a Stalin list controversy and they complain that

control is being taken away from them. Sadly, I know how low some in

the British press will stoop after the hacking into Milly Dowler's

phone. But the papers have been censured over other issues. For

long, they will be back to their old tricks. There is a fundamental

problem at the root of this. The British press is in the control of a

handful of individuals. These powerful owners are not the

guardians of our democracy as they would have you believe. Instead,

they are peddling a vision of the world that they would like to see.

The newspapers they control can present opinion as fact. It happens

every day. I believe the British press can play a vital part in our

future but only if things change. Full changes will not happen unless

newspapers are forced to accept them. -- those changes. A strong

system of regulation is essential. them. -- those changes. A strong

Until that happens, I believe that Britain will still have an immoral

press. Can the press be trusted to clean up

its act? You can take part in this debate by webcam or make your point

by phone, e-mail or text. We're joined by Mark Lewis and a Professor

of journalism at the University of Kent and former editor of the

Scotsman newspaper, Tim Buckhurst. The press are really mistrusted

since the hacking scandal. People wonder, has anything changed? That

is true. It is a case of lack of trust. Largely brought about by a

campaign which has misrepresented most newspapers by suggesting that

campaign which has misrepresented they are responsible for the

behaviour of a minority of badly behaved newspapers. Letter member

that the British press are moral and revered around the world for setting

a standard of freedom of speech, for the certification of expression and

holding power to account. British newspapers are not regarded as evil

institutions which have harmed individuals. Most newspapers are

held up as symbols of liberty and the excellence of a democratic

system in which journalism holds power to account. We have to start

the debate by saying that we need to move away from the idea that we have

a free press because if you think we have a free press now, then helping

anybody can say to suggest we need to change it is moving away from the

free press. What we have now is a few individuals who run very big

companies and have some control. I am saying, let's move away from that

and have proper freedom where people can say their views. And if you work

for one newspaper, you want to express an opinion that is different

to the owner, you would not be allowed to do that. That is not

freedom. By bringing Esther Rantzen? You are a journalist and you also

want a successful libel action against the newspaper. What is your

view about whether they can run themselves? I believe and

investigative journalism and I have written for tabloids and

broadsheets. I believe in the role but journalists have to play. They

do not agree full stop I do not think that the nation trusts

newspapers or trust journalists. In every poll you see journalists come

below estate agents. It is a problem because many people have either

themselves been written about or had friends and family written about and

have seen them reduced. It is a failure to understand that lesson

was also guilty of. -- Leveson. The people you say do not trust the

newspapers are the public to buy them in their millions. And big by

the very papers that Brian Levenson was so critical of. We have to be

careful to say that we know what public opinion believes because it

tends to believe two different things. One that sometimes these

papers behaved badly, and they think they need to be regulated, but also

that the newspapers do a fantastic job and that they are entertaining

and hold power to account. And finally, the notion that all

Buddhist newspapers are owned by a few individuals is completely

untrue, illegal, because we do not allow such concentration of

ownership under law, and designed predominantly to make a propaganda

point. Self-regulation is what existed when all these problems

happened. The press has been regulating itself for decades, and

every 20 years or so there is a politician or someone who speaks out

and says, you are in the last chance saloon, David Mellor 1980s, he said

the press was in the last chance saloon. I want to bring in Bob

Satchwell from the Society of editors, the organisation which

represents much of the print industry. You know, there is this

question of, you know, is it really about powerful newspapers having

things their own way, or is it about holding the powerful to account,

people are not sure it is one or the other? It is totally wrong to

suggest that just a few papers, there are 1100 regional papers, 20

national, and hundreds of magazines affected by this, and they all have

different views. The point that Mark is missing, well, two points. Why

was Leveson and the committee set up? It was to look into the

behaviour of a tiny number of journalists and investigators on one

paper. That was not the culture and practice of the whole of the press.

And journalists across the country were just as horrified as the public

by the behaviour that came out there. But that was already covered

by law. The second point he misses is just how far the industry has now

moved, and the new system will be much tougher, with £1 million fines

and so on. That is what you have got to look at. You cannot give away

300-year-old principles about freedom of the press because of the

behaviour of a tiny number of newspapers. Thank you. I would like

to bring in the former deputy features editor of the News of the

World, and he was a witness at the Leveson earring. You have been very

honest in the past about your use of Leveson earring. You have been very

intrusive reporting techniques, that hacking was widespread. Do you still

think that is acceptable? Yeah, I have done many disreputable and

underhanded things, things that are currently illegal, but I have got a

new book out that really makes the point that all this gagging of the

new book out that really makes the press is being driven by celebrities

who have been caught in the past by us taking cocaine, using underage

girls, and also hand-in-hand with MPs who have been caught lying and

cheating and stealing. Without mentioning any names, we all know

who they are. The number one story in today's papers that I saw, and

there is no decent investigation, because there are no surveillance

vans in the south-east of England, so if you want to do it, you can get

away with it. The only story in today's papers, I do not not sure if

you can see this, Savile abused children at NHS hospitals. I was

sued successful by Jimmy Savile in 1992, and my editor then told me to

back up and leave him alone, and not only did I act his phone, I was

outside his house, went through his bins, I might have saved a number of

children from being abused... Let me put that to Mark Lewis. That is an

children from being abused... Let me interesting issue, with people

suspected of serious wrongdoing, he is saying that justifies extreme

investigation. I agree that there ought to be proper investigative

journalism, and that is what journalism is about. It checks

things, it counters things. But what we are talking about is lazy

journalism, and what Bob was saying before, just briefly, was that

Leveson was said to look at skewed system, a police that was not

prosecuting, was not enforcing the laws against them. It is

prosecuting, was not enforcing the interesting, the issue

intimidating room, and most of the people being intimidated were

members of the public, people who happens to be famous. Absolutely

right, and I don't think anybody would take on a major newspaper

because they knew it was a hiding to knocking. They knew that once you

because they knew it was a hiding to stick your head up above the

parapet, you would be in the target area, probably for the rest of your

life, and we have seen that happen. I think readers are aware of this,

too. Newspapers have to be very careful, because we are not all

stupid, we might read a newspaper that we don't agree with. While we

admired the work that great newspapers do. There is a real

problem again, because it is the newspapers that do the very best

work, the top-quality investigative broadsheet newspapers, who now

object most strenuously to the form of regulation being proposed by

politicians. We have found ourselves in the situation where we are not

implementing anything that Leveson recommended. What we are

implementing or being asked to comment is a rail charter, a

medieval instrument... I do not want to get too bogged down, viewers will

not want the details. We cannot replace newspapers who have too much

influence with politicians with politicians having power over

newspapers. I just want to bring in someone to respond to that very

issue, and we are joined on webcam by Professor Steven Barnett,

professor of communications at the university of Westminster. Do we

really to replace a system where newspapers are too powerful with a

system where politicians are too powerful? Is politicians having a

say in proving things? Well, I'm afraid that very question is a

reflection of the propaganda and scaremongering amongst editors and

proprietors. They are desperate to portray this as some kind of state

censorship, statutory control. It is absolutely not think of the sort,

and I absolutely understand we do not want to get into the detail of

the Royal Charter, and I promise I won't, but your viewers must

the Royal Charter, and I promise I understand one crucial thing about

what is being proposed. What Parliament has put forward in that

charter is a system that explicitly excludes politicians from any point

in the process, they cannot sit on the board of a regulator,

self-regulating, they cannot sit on the body that appoints the board,

they cannot sit on the panel that will recognise the regulator. In

stark contrast, ironically, to be very charter the breast themselves

put forward, which incidentally is allowed now, which allows

politicians at any stage of the process. -- be very charter the

present themselves put forward. Do not be misled by this attempt to

mislead people by portraying this as political control, it is precisely

the opposite. Steve is the one who political control, it is precisely

is guilty of propaganda. I admire him greatly, but this is nonsense.

Everybody from Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian to Paul Dacre of the

Daily Mail to the international committee coordinating organisations

in favour of press freedom, to campaigners for press freedom in

Africa agrees that what the Royal Charter that is being proposed does

is to place politicians over the press. That is an appalling shift.

You have the position, you ask the question - give me a country where

it has been useful. How about America? The first Amendment says

politicians cannot control the press, no difference at all Watt it

says Congress may make no law restricting the free press. It is no

difficult to what is being proposed here. What is being proposed in the

Royal Charter would be illegal in the United States. It is exactly the

same. Do you approve of self-regulation in other trades,

because my problem is, much as I am concerned about the freedom of the

press, I have never found that self-regulation works, not in any

arena. You always have to have an independent arbiter, an independent

regulator. Journalism is not a profession. Journalism is the

exercise of a fundamental human rights, the freedom of speech. Do

you approve of self-regulation? Does it work? I do not approve of sulphur

elation is profession is, but of a fundamental human rights which under

plans all other human rights. -- I do not approve self-regulation of

professions. Not everyone who practices journalism is a

professional journalist. I just want to bring in some comments from

viewers, and Jonty says it is outrageous that we are talking about

regulating the press. Pam says, certain elements of the press have

shown time and again that they cannot be trusted to

self-regulation. James says, of course the press is not going to

change, extravagance sells newspapers. If you do not like it,

do not read it. You have been voting at home on the question we set at

the start of the programme, does the English Defence League represent a

view that needs to be heard? The vote is closing now, please do not

text, it will not count. This week the charity Age UK said

that new research revealed the numbers of reports of abuse against

people over the age of 65 had risen by 28% in the last year. The

revelations come in the same week that councils in England have faced

criticism of the number of flying care visits made to elderly and

vulnerable people. Esther Rantzen is here to talk about what she plans to

do to help alleviate loneliness amongst older people, but first the

story of one group of pensioners who have discovered a way of finding

companionship and having their voices heard.

# Why, why, why Delilah? Golden oldie started six years ago

in response to what its founders saw as a growing problem of loneliness

among the elderly. -- Golden Oldies. We have got the growing elderly, a

lonely population in this country. We have got the growing elderly, a

We know for a lot of them, coming to our sessions is the only time, the

only time that they meet with other people. They have about 70 groups at

the moment, holding monthly sessions were elderly people are brought

together to sing and just have a good time. Certainly, the people in

the group we visited in Devizes in Wiltshire recognise the value of

getting out and forming new friendships. I shall be 94 in two

months' time. I think it is good for the community. I have a good time, I

could not care less what people think. As regards my singing! Often

when you are alone, you feel really alone, by myself, sort of thing, and

that is when you get a down day. Two, beer and meet people, we have

such a laugh. -- to come up here. What we try and do is get people out

to sit down with others, to smile, have a cup of tea, and friendships

are made. We are not a choir, we press a button on the CD player, and

we have a good old singsong. It is wonderful! Absolutely wonderful.

The golden oldies there. Is Britain failing its elderly? Maybe we should

concentrate more resources on older people? We are joined by Shiv Malik,

concentrate more resources on older author of Jilted Generation: How

Britain Has Bankrupted Its Yout. You are setting up this telephone

helpline for older people, why? When I wrote about my own feelings of

loneliness, living alone for the first time at the age of 71, it's

got such a huge response from readers of one of the newspapers we

have been discussing that I suddenly realised that where a helpline has

been very useful in breaking down the stigma of abuse in children,

ChildLine, maybe a helpline might be equally useful in breaking down the

stigma which exists for loneliness among older people. I am happy to

tell you that because the big lottery fund has agreed with us and

has decided to give us an award, a grand, it means that we are going to

launch on November the 25th nationally. Shiv Malik, there is so

much concerned about vulnerable older people living on their own,

they are not getting support, and this report of 15 minute flying

visits, people think that is where we should be targeting resources. I

do not think anyone is denying that we have a problem with old age care

and social care, and we are clearly not doing enough, that is a massive

problem. But we have known about this for years, 20 years, really,

because we have known that people are going to live longer, and this

gets to the heart of the problem in this country, where we have a

massive problem with a lack of planning. We don't seem to care

about our future, and now we are passing it on to our children. The

Observer has a front-page story that the next generation will have a

lower standard of living than this generation of adults, which is a

terrible indictment on our economy, our civilisation, our ethics in

terms of what we want to do for the future. So if you want to put it

this way, while we are worrying about problems now of old age care,

we are not wearing at all or beginning to think about the

problems that we will face for old age care for people who are 30 or 40

now. A lot of benefits have been cut for younger people. Some of those

now. A lot of benefits have been cut non-means tested benefits. Do we

assumed that all elderly people are the same and they all need extra

support? I think one of the problems we face is that political planning

for this problem has been based on the electoral cycle. It has been

over five years rather than long-term planning. It has also been

based on the assumption that we are getting richer. We have a big

problem. We are getting error. And we may well not be as prosperous as

we have been again. -- poorer. That confronts us with an obligation to

say that we need to do the very best we possibly can for elderly people

who need help. But can we afford universal benefits which are payable

also to people who simply do not need it? Such as? I am reluctant to

also to people who simply do not use personal examples but I will

give you an example. My mother is not rich remotely but she has a

professional pension and she has also got my father's professional

pension. And she believes that she can afford to support herself. She

does not understand why she is entitled to benefits that she can

afford to do without. The winter fuel allowance, free television

licences, the bus passes. They are very nice and it is a wonderful idea

in a society getting wealthier all the time, but there are people out

there who can afford to. Everyone knows that these benefits introduced

by the Labour government are junkets to give away to a class of people

who they hoped would vote for them. So we spend £1 billion of free bus

passes and £2 billion on winter fuel payments for all over 60. We also do

not tax people who work over 60. That is another junket. To reverse

that would be problematic. It means two things, but we do not actually

solve any of the social care problems. Pensioners can travel on

buses, which is helpful and useful, but not as pressing or problematic

social care. But we also cut things like university fees for younger

people which means that younger people are not getting educated and

end up with massive debt. There is an issue of then -- them and us.

Have you met many people over 50? Of course. I'll work with people over

50. That is unusual in this medium. Let's not get into that debate. I

think about attitudes. The free bus pass is very different from the wood

of your payments. The free bus pass actually encourages older people who

are isolated to move into communities and continue their links

and they are crucial. There are plenty of pensioners who could

afford this. Most moving. The thing is, loneliness is a health risk. It

has been shown to be serious. What is, loneliness is a health risk. It

we need to do is make sure that older people stay linked. Otherwise,

you get letters like I have got from a terrifically articulate elderly

lady in her 70s who said that she feels her life is pointless and she

is a waste of space. And we do not want that. Is there a cultural

problem, not just about whether we see all the people on television but

about families expecting the state to do the things that families used

to do for older relatives. There is a cultural problem in that we still

regard them as invisible and inaudible. We do not regard older

people as having opinions worth consulting. When I was talking about

an absence of people over 50, I was not thinking front of camera, I was

thinking back of camera as well. I think people feel that they are past

their sell by date at a time where other cultures think they are at

their most useful. I think we have got better at those attitudes. A lot

better in the last 15 years. Most of culture is devised around selling

things to over 60s, because they have the cash. I'd beg your pardon?

Do you think you should get winter fuel payments, which mean that

people your age and above do not get drop social care? -- get decent. I'd

distinguish between those benefits because all the people would give

our winter payments, because we would prefer them to be targeted to

the people who need them most. I'm joined by a contributor from

webcam, representative from AgeUK. A lot of people were saying, if you

are under 30, people might think we have nothing like the pensions many

currently retired people have the benefits of, and you have lost a lot

of the benefits that older people have. There is concerned that they

are to fund benefits for a generation and that they themselves

might have the worst situation -- a worse situation when they reach

retirement age. A lot of older people do not have decent pensions.

More than a fifth are living below the poverty line. Many old people do

not own their old home. We starting this debate in the wrong place. --

on that own home. Starting an argument of who is the purest is not

productive. When it comes to looking at the savings we could make in bus

passes and winter fuel payments, by taking it away from those who do not

need it, we're going to come up with disappointing numbers which do not

do anything terribly useful. £2 billion on winter fuel payments and

£1 billion for the bus pass, by the time you're protected those who need

it, and the bus pass is important to maintain social mobility as Esther

Rantzen says, for people to enjoy their life, then you are not going

to be left with very much to get lived of the social indignities like

the 15 minute visits. Surely, no one in our civilised society would hope

for that for themselves if we became vulnerable in old age. I'm going to

bring in Canon Paul Hatfield. And would like to ask, have we become to

individualistic? What happened to the days when the neighbours or your

family came round to visit, and kept an eye on new? Why is loneliness

family came round to visit, and kept such a big part of the problem? It

is important not to see things through the prism of state funding.

How do we create a society with stronger intergenerational

connections? We have done a lot of work of bringing people together and

there have been some significant pieces of work that address

isolation and to build confidence for young people. Young people?

Young people have been helping elderly people. Can you give me an

example? What have you done and how has it engaged younger people into

looking after older people? We have a project in Durham with a club run

by one of our workers were lots of the young people in the community

volunteer to be part of providing support. It is crossgenerational,

and it is that kind of thing that brings about the possibility of

change. We will leave it there, partly because the sound quality is

not brilliant. But we did hear you and thank you so much. What are your

thoughts on this dilemma? There is a real neglect and people wonder how

to tackle it. It is not just about money, it is about a change in

society but we have to face up to the reality and that reality is that

we have a younger generation who will probably not finished paying

off their student loans until they are in their early 40s. Are we going

to ask them to then spend a large chunk of their income to subsidise a

generation who have retired. It is a horrible social problem and it

involves an enormous amount of long-term thinking. If we had got

the planning right, Esther Rantzen would have been paying for my

pension and eye would be paying for my children's pension. Instead, it

has gone the opposite way. I want to know what the government is on to do

about 40-year-olds now and the social care plan. We need an

intergenerational compact in this country and we are so far away from

that this point. The younger generation is suffering and will

have worse standards of living than their parents. We need nor want to

listen to that. We do not want the younger generation setting

themselves against the older generation. We want to work

together. I do not think he was saying that. He was saying that

young people will pay for older people. Yes, and that is a problem.

Wait a minute. I am asking for a people. Yes, and that is a problem.

change of attitude. Of course, money is crucial. Funding will not be

easy. There are many people looking at this very problem right now,

particularly in the insurance business. But I am asking for

something now, which is that if you have an older person living on your

street and you think that they might be living alone, have the courage to

bang on the door and say, would you like a cup of tea? It is Sunday and

I have just been listening to these people argue and it has made my

stomach turn. We can all agree with that. Thank you all very much. Brian

from London says, I have worked all my life and all get for free is my

winter fuel allowance, prescriptions and pension. Why should I not be

able to enjoy that? Michaela says, our attitude and care of older

people is worse than pure cultures. But it should be ashamed. Alex says

the way that the elderly are treated in this country is patronising.

Thank you for your comments. Just a little bit of information. Next

Sunday, Radio 2 launches a series of programmes called Living Alone

Well. You have been voting in our text for today. Does the EDL point

of view deserve to be heard? 95% of you who voted said that yes, it does

and 5% said that it does not. We know it is not a scientific poll but

it expresses people's opinion. What is your thoughts about this issue? I

think that is a remarkable vote. Clearly, we have gone through a long

think that is a remarkable vote. process in this country in the last

15 years. We have every considered what multiculturalism means. We have

got to the point were we all refined enough to realise that big religious

groupings have variants within them. And we have seen the Muslim

community come out with the last five years and tackle problems,

cultural and ledgers problems, internally. We have not heard from

Tommy today an apology for causing fear. Fear is what is... If I have

caused any fear to any Muslim, I sincerely apologise. But ask them to

understand that people in our communities feel fear. That poll is

it never can. 45% of people in the Guardian said that they thought this

will end in a Civil War with Muslims and Christians. The only way to

bring that down is where people see action. That is a scary statistic.

Maybe some people will start preparing for that Civil War. That

is worrying. Are you going to cooperate with the police in terms

of bringing prosecutions for racist behaviour? People within the EDL?

That is the police's job. But if you have information is it not your

responsibility? Thigh had information on terrorist activity,

of course, that is the first thing how would do. But with regards to

giving information on EDL supporters, that is not my job. It

was my family and I feel like I have lost my family this week. At the

same time, I have done it for the right reasons. But you have been

given a platform for a crucial discussion. What this platform is

saying is, please, let's talk about this. It is only by recognising a

problem that we can begin to solve it. Thank you very much. Thank you

to everyone who has taken part. There is more on the Silver line

website that we were discussing. To all of my guests, many thanks. Do

not text or call the phone lines any more. Continue the conversation

online and we will see you again next week. Bye-bye.