Episode 17 Sunday Morning Live

How would you feel it your child was taken away because of the colour of

its hair? That's what happened to two innocent Roma families this

week, after this child in Greece captured headlines around the

world. We ask, are Roma people unfairly stigmatised?

Good morning, I'm Katie Derham. Also today, with a creaking and

cash-strapped NHS, is it time to start coughing up for some of the

treatments we receive? Former the Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie thinks

we should. Motherism, to stay at mums deserve more respect? It's

really important to be there for our children. And we meet the Vicar of

40 years who has an unusual take on religion. I don't think that a god

exists. I believe in God, like I believe in happiness or Geordie or

goodwill, hope or something like that. Joining me this week is the

former editor of the Sun, Kelvin MacKenzie, journalist and writer

Julie Bindel, who set up a group campaigning against violence from a

feminist perspective, and David Vance. We want to know what you

think, too. If you have a webcam you can join us via Skype. You can also

give your views via Twitter or by phone.

The case of a young girl found in Greece with aroma couple to whom she

was not related has raised fears of a backlash against a community that

already feels it's an stay at -- unfairly stigmatised. Two children

from Roma families in Ireland were removed from their homes by police,

only to be quickly returned when it became clear they did belong to

their parents. An organisation in Ireland said the action of the

authorities could fuel racism. The discovery of a young, blonde girl

called Maria in a Roma community in Greece 11 days ago has focused

attention on one of the world 's oldest nomadic peoples. Yesterday it

was revealed that a Roma couple in Bulgaria, the biological parents of

Maria. The authorities there are currently investigating how their

child ended up in Greece. Roma rights organisations are concerned

it will resurrect old prejudices against them. With the Greek case

making headlines, police in Ireland removed two blonde haired children

from Roma communities there. They were returned quickly once their

parentage was concerned, but the families remain outraged. We are

very conscious of the fact that this case has been linked with events in

other countries, which have nothing to do with them. They hope that no

other family has to go through the experience that they have just

suffered. The Irish Justice Minister says they feel sorry for the

distress that was caused to the families, but the police were acting

in good faith, responding to information given by members of the

public. This isn't the first time that prejudices like this have

surfaced. Two years ago, the fiction of travellers on the Dale Farm site

in Essex provoked angry scenes and claims of racial discrimination. So

do we view Roma people unfairly? If people within the Roma and Gypsy

community feel themselves stigmatised, frankly, they've only

got themselves to blame. It is obviously wrong to try and demonise

an entire group of people but, by the same token, it's almost entirely

wrong to stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that section of

that community is up to its neck in every form of criminality,

including, as we've seen in the BT, child trafficking, including, as

we've seen in the courts in England, human slavery, including, as we see

on a frequent basis, occupation of private property. They are their own

worst enemies. This is our question today. Are Roma people unfairly

stigmatised? We want to know what you think.

You can only vote once. Go online to vote for free. The results will be

announced at the end of the show. The full terms and conditions on the

website. We've already heard from David. Julie, these two children who

were taken away rather rapidly in Ireland, then it turned out they

were living with their parents after all, they are quite remarkable. But

the authorities clearly had the children's best interests at heart.

All stigmatisation is fuelled by stereotypes and mythology. I find

David's views abhorrent. Every single community has a section that

is involved in criminality. Not in human slavery. And certainly the

Roma and Gypsy communities are unfairly maligned, stigmatised, have

very low life expectancy, are treated appallingly. I think this is

fuelled by prejudice and racism. It is definitely the last acceptable

racism. If we were to talk about Jewish people the way that we speak

about Roma and Gypsy people, there would likely be an outcry.

Definitely there is an unfair prejudice. Whether or not the

authorities were acting in the best interests of the child is another

matter. But we can't ignore the fact that we are fuelled in terms of

policing and all other escapades in terms of criminal activity. Kelvin,

do you think the authorities would have behaved in this way had they

not been children in a Roma community? It happens all the time.

Social services are moving in to take children away from parents for

much less serious ideas than that children have either been bought or

put into a kind of slavery. I think the issue here is it is difficult to

know whether it is a Roma issue, which may be one issue, or is it a

travellers issue? I know in the UK, a particular case myself. A guy

called me up who actually knows my wife. He has had his health

destroyed, the value of his house completely damaged by the fact that

very cunningly and cleverly and using the laws of its time, these

guys moved onto a piece of land that they either bought secretly from the

farmer or with the farmer's Nord. Came on to this land and it has now

taken years to get them off again. In the meantime, casting of light

across the entire village. That kind of thing... I'm not impugning the

entire community of travellers, nor am I saying this is something Roma,

but what I do know is this man Isner likelihood, health, family and the

value of his house has been destroyed. Literally, it looks as

though nothing can be done about it. I think it's important we hear from

the Roma community at this point. We are joined now from London by Jake

Bowers, a journalist, a representative of the Roma

community. Before we start talking about things like the property

issues and so one that Kelvin has raised, let me bring you back to the

cases of the two children who were taken away in Ireland. How did you

feel, as a representative for your community, did you feel that was a

discriminatory action? Absolutely. We've been demonised by the media

over the last week. What you've seen happen is this old myth has been

resurrected about gypsies stealing children. They used to be an ancient

lugged libel where the Jewish people were represented as people who stole

children so they could drink their blood. That has been updated over

the last week and projected against the entire Romany community in

Europe, that we snatched children. But we have been demonised but we've

also been vindicated. Because in all of these cases, these have been

Romany children that belong to their parents. What has happened in the

process is these parents in Dublin, they were forced through some kind

of Jeremy Kyle type of policing, where they had to give DNA samples

for children which they proved were theirs through passports and birth

certificates. I'm in London, a wonderfully diverse place. You would

never see a white woman who had a mixed-race child dragged off the

street and being forced to give DNA sim - Maggie and a samples for the

children. We are talking about a completely different level of

discrimination, which is medieval. How unusual is it for Romany

children to be quite as blonde as the ones we've seen in the press?

It's not unusual at all. I'm going increasingly grey but I used to have

white blonde hair. My children all have blonde hair. My wife is quite

dark. That's a picture of me with my it isn't unusual at all, but it goes

to show the depth of ignorance which is being perpetuated by people like

Kelvin MacKenzie, which is completely predictable in trying to

divert this to Dale even about the Romany community. All broadcasters

have a moral duty not just to debate this issue, but to provide things

which provide education about who we really are. In 2014, when Romany

citizens from Bulgaria and Romania are finally given chances to flee

the medieval situation that they live in, more of to western Europe

as a whole. The situation there is grinding poverty, people living in

hovels that you would not imagine existed in the EU. I don't want to

create some kind of immigration scare, but if we don't deal with

this issue between now and then, the kind of hate. We are hearing from

David and Kelvin is just going to be spread. You will see more stuff like

as happened in Greece and in to western Europe as a whole. The

situation there is grinding poverty, people living in hovels that you

would not imagine existed in the EU. I don't want to create some kind of

immigration scare, but if we don't deal with this issue between now and

then, the kind of hate. We are hearing from David and Kelvin is

just going to be spread. You will see more stuff like as happened in

Greece and in Ireland. Stay with us, we want to hear more from you.

Kelvin and David, you were both named stay with us, we want to hear

more from you. Kelvin and David, you were both named getting onto land

that they don't own. Don't try and confuse it, just get things My point

was I don't know any Roma gypsies, and talking about the travelling

community and then getting onto land that they don't own. Don't try and

confuse it, just get things the little Maria girl was clearly not

the daughter of the Roma gypsies she belonged to. Because she is blonde?

No. From no less an authority than the BBC, we do read about the fact

that in the Balkans there are criminal gangs involved in human

trafficking, and those gangs are linked to and use the Romas to

advance that most appalling of crimes. We shouldn't deny that.

Those who seek to deny it... Don't interrupt again. You let me have my

say and you have your say. By denying the simple truth that the

BBC no less has observed, that there is a link between the criminality

and human trafficking and the Roma community, you only fool yourself.

That's a fact. This is outrageous prejudice. One thing I do know is

that I know a darn sight more than you do about trafficking of

children, because this is something I've studies out -- I've studies as

an academic and a journalist for a number of years. The communities

involved in trafficking are as widespread as every community in the

world. The Balkans use the Roma community. I've met Roma communities

in the Balkans and the UK. After the Gypsy wedding was broadcast on

Channel 4, I spent some days on a traveller site in the UK whose lives

were made intolerable by this hate created by this TV programme. Where

we were drip fed this insidious load of lies about the community. How are

you expected... That they were leaving, cheating, lying, feckless

scumbags. They were the words I heard over again. And yet these

people are excluded from pretty much the job market, from health, from

accessing education. Yet we blame them for opting out of it.

What community says they are excluded? This gentleman said that

London is a fantastically diverse place and Dagenham is 15 miles from

the centre. And yet those people turned themselves almost into a

criminal organisation. I want a response to the comment David made,

about child trafficking. We do not want to label any community it with

the crimes of the minority, but this is something he feels is

pertinent. It is nonsense. I spoke to a professor yesterday and he

said there has not been a single documented case of the community

trafficking children. There is no way that Kelvin MacKenzie or David

would come on television and talk about Jewish people being like

Fagin, about Italians being Mafia. The fact they can get away with

this shows they are in the Middle Ages in the way they react to our

community. This informs the media. We have a long way to go before we

are treated as equal citizens of Europe. There are 12 million. We

are increasingly educated, some of us are increasingly blonde! We need

to be given the opportunity. There is a Gypsy not in the debate, he is

outside the room. Is it fair to say that as part of the Romany culture,

you are almost living below the radar and that informs the

prejudice? I would not put it in that way. We do not live below the

radar, we are depicted all over the place. What we are is executed from

the editorial process where we can talk about what we are. In real

life, you tend to exist outside the rest of the crew unity. There is a

perception the Romany community does not want to engage with the

rest of the community. I was just watching the Andrew Marr show.

Hollywood is proud of his Romany ancestry. -- Ronnie Wood. Charlie

Chaplin said that is where he came from. He was born in a Gypsy

caravan in Birmingham. The perception is we live outside and

do not want to engage, but big parts of the European cultural

history have had Romany people at the heart of it. I would like to

talk to a resident of Dale Farm. We had spoken about the Troubles that

region had. Can you explain a little bit about how your life was

affected by their travelling community who were at Dale Farm? I

am a resident. My property back on to Dale Farm. It started off with

eight Irish traveller families coming to the site, and it ended up

with 86 families. In that situation, how did it make you feel about that

community? One law for one and another for another. We go through

the courts and the law, I operate within the law myself, and

eventually, with the council, we had them evicted from the site.

When you hear about that experience, do you have sympathy for other

reasons for this? I am not sure what he means about one law for one

and another for another, because they were evicted. It took them

years. I know of lots of middle- class, privileged, graduates, who

squat nice properties in north London. Get them out. In it was my

home, and my land, and if I could not be generous enough to give that

space to people who desperately need it, if they did, to dwell

there, I would say get them out. I know many privileged people who

squat. A often prejudice his best informed by experience. Experience

he talks about is not uncommon. The occupation of the site cost the

ratepayers ?8 million. That is a high price to pay for those who

sought to illegally occupied private property. And we cannot

stick our heads in the sand and pretend all is well when there is a

problem within a section of this community. It is very brave of this

gentleman to take on such a huge number of people and fight their

way through the courts. It took years. I am surprised it is only ?8

million. You had police surrounding them, security people. Why do they

not simply obey the law of the land? Rather than feel they have to

turn themselves into "victims". On the Channel 4 programme, I enjoyed

it. If you view it as entertainment it is fantastic. Every so often,

the male members of the families had pixilated faces. They said they

did not want their privacy invaded! That made me laugh. There are other

ways you could view whether somebody wanted to see their face

on television or not. I salute this gentleman and also the Roma

spokesman. I do not think we are hostile to whoever the Roma

community are. I just want to hear from you before we finished talking

about this. What is the message you would want to give? Having heard

the level of feeling that these topics ignite. You need to call

people buy the right name. The situation at Dale Farm were Irish

travellers, not the Roma community. What we need to get out of this,

the learning, is to do more about the Romany community that is

balanced, not based on entertainment, but based on the

history of genocide, slavery, the torture of Romany people and maybe

one day we will be seen as equal citizens in society.

The vote is open. And the question is whether Roma people are unfairly

stigmatised. A new boss for the NHS in England

has been appointed and he will have a lot on his plate. A review by the

Care Quality Commission revealed more than a quarter of trusts in

England are at risk of providing poor care. A report suggests so-

called health tourists who come to the UK with the intention of using

the NHS for free are costing between ?70 million and ?300

million a year. The new chief executive is Simon

Stevens. He currently is at a private US health firm. NHS England

believes his experience in international health care will be

of benefit. We want the best in the world and I think we have the best

in the world, who has experience of the public health system and of the

best of American health care. The NHS has to be open to ideas.

Nations are facing a crisis in the provision of health care and the

American experience is valuable. Despite the crisis in affordability,

he believes that the NHS is something to be proud about. In it

is the envy of the world in a critical respect because it

provides care free of charge. Funding is its biggest concern. The

Health Secretary has called for foreign nationals to be charged

more to use it, which could earn ?500 million. If we are better at

collecting that money we could have 4000 more doctors, 8000 more nurses

and make a real difference in relieving pressure on the front

line. With the NHS facing financial hardship, it is it time that not

just foreigners, but everybody, pays the treatment we are currently

given for free. The Roger Daltrey has added his voice. He said a

totally free NHS means that we are complacent when it comes to looking

after our own health. What do you think? We are also joined by Anne

Atkins, a Christian commentator and writer. Surely we have to start

from the premise that a free NHS is something we can be proud of. It is

not free, it is paid out of taxation. If you looked at what you

would earn without the NHS and without, it would probably be 9%,

10%. We employ more people than anywhere else in the world, with

the exception of the Chinese army, to supply this rather good... And

Walmart! I spoke to my GP who was complaining that when he goes to

business meetings, and he was complaining he was not the business

man, going to meetings he was told we did not have money for this and

that and the other. It did not surprise me. The local practice I

go to was busy with everybody coughing and throwing up, it was

like Waterloo station. I say the following. That if you are in

education, -- if you are over 65, you have to start paying. In the

late seventies I was in Sweden, which was like a communist country.

I go to the local GP and have to pay 20 kroner. I say people should

pay ?20 to go and it would have two effects. It would stop the idle

going to get sick notes. Secondly, just stopped going to the betting

shop, the pub, the rest of it, they do not mind going to buy food and

the rest of it, but they are not prepared to take a ?20 note out of

their pocket. That has to stop. It would stop the GP surgery being

busy with people who do not need it. What they need is to say they have

a cold, either I go to bed, or I go to work, and I will fight it off.

We have not got enough money for everybody in the world, every time

they have a cold, or whether they are depressed, it is a Monday, I

will go down to the doctor. That is outrageous. You would have people

buy food or go to the GP. Go to the restaurant, to the pub and betting

shop, go to the movies... When you think about it, there is

complacency among some people. I have a fear of going to the doctor

because I do not want the doctor to tell me I am really ill. People who

are concerned about their health, they would not go. It is like

dentistry. The only people these days you have good teeth are the

rich. We have free dentistry for pregnant women, children, the old.

Anybody on benefits. People on benefits have the best teeth!

Deterring people from going to the GP, to look at something that could

become a serious health concern, we would end up with a public health

crisis. Most people do not go with a cold, they actually avoid it. It

comes down to the extraordinary demands on the NHS and then not

been enough money, is there a case for a charge? I love my NHS. The

first time I had to pay for the dentist, I was outraged, but one

gets used to wit. There is free dentistry for those who cannot

afford it. -- used to it. The thing we are not discussing is how the

NHS does not pay for things that I think we need that would save money.

Almost all surgeries, you can get counselling. What you cannot get

his marriage counselling. For every ?1 we spent helping couples stay

together, we spent thousands of pounds as a taxpayer on the fall-

out from broken relationships. Why do we not offer marriage

counselling paid for by the taxpayer? Regardless of the

emotional and psychological richness, we would save so much

money. The same is true of obesity. People say the poor are fact.

Generally speaking, there is truth in that. -- overweight. That is not

because bad food is cheaper. It is more expensive. We had a friend

staying because he had to leave his council flat because he was being

attacked, he was 20. Until he knew us, he had no idea how to cook.

Everything he had to eat he bought from the corner shop, ?5 on a

sandwich. At a slightly tangential issue to

what we are talking about, but we are being a bit head in the sand

here. If you pay for something it has a value. At the moment you do it

through taxation. You think, is my money going on the war, is giving me

free roads, whatever? Until people understand that things do cost

money, they are prepared to pay for everything else... If you look in a

council estate, you can recognise the difference between those that

have bought the house and those that haven't all stop people care about

it more when you have financial ownership. That this generalisation.

I object to council tenants being subsidised when they have a sky dish

on the side costing ?60 to ?80 a month. Why do people talk about

having a sky dish? Because it is 80 quid a month and I'm subsidising

them above my taxation. It isn't. Let's get back to health. People do

pay for the National Health Service. If we impose some kind of fee upon

going to the doctors, then what you are not going to do is find the

conditions and the illnesses that will become a concern, and that will

end up costing us days for being off sick with work. Obviously we need to

make sure that people aren't going to their GPs because they fancy the

morning out. That's a very rare scenario. Wendy Savage is president

of an organisation called, keep our NHS public. We are hearing this

discussion about whether or not they might be some things you should pay

for as somebody using the NHS. Do you think there is a way of using

funds more efficiently? I think there is a way, getting the staff

who work in the NHS to actually point out to the managers how money

could be saved. I don't think we should start charging people because

that will affect those who need the care most. In France, for example,

you have to go and pay when you go to the GP and then it is

reimbursed. If you haven't got the money to go, then you won't go. Our

system is perfectly affordable, we are a rich country and we do pay for

it through our taxes. I think this idea that people abuse the NHS

because they get it for free is complete nonsense. But do you not

accept there is a huge increase in the demands on the NHS building up

as our population gets increasingly old? This has been blown up out of

all proportion by those who don't believe in a national health service

in the first place. Our population is getting older, but it's not a

meteoric rise, it's just a steady rise. Actually, older people, like

myself, are much healthier than I would have been 50 years ago. I

think that this is all part of the neoliberal agenda to get rid of the

welfare state, because they don't think that ordinary people deserve

it. I do think that as a civilised country, we should be able to

provide health care our population. Thank you very much for your

contribution. I'd like to hear from somebody else in the health service,

the oncologist, a professor of cancer medicine. We all agree the

NHS is there to support the vulnerable. Where do you stand on

how best we should be spending the money, because the demands seem to

be untenable? We are all paying about ?1600 a year for our health

insurance. Efficiency savings have been done, there's nothing more you

can get, 20% reduction, we just can't get it from efficiency

savings. The only way is even more tax or paying as you go for certain

services. I think paying as you go for certain services is something

politicians won't talk about, it doesn't win votes. But to me, it's

the only way to go for my generation. I'm in my 60s, I will be

retiring in the next few years. Our generation is going to consume

health care like nobody 's business. We are going to have to do something

to dampen demand, paying is the only way. What would you expect people to

pay for? Pay for visit to a GP for certain services that sort of

outside the essentials. The NHS will always be there to deal with the

essential care, and we've got to have safety nets. We're not going to

punish people for using health care. We've got to make sure kids with

meningitis gets seen immediately. There are all sorts of ways of

developing this scheme, as they have in Europe. All Western European

countries have some sort of copayment structure. I know where

Wendy is coming from, it's just impractical to think that it's a

religion, that we can get charitable money into it. We've got to make it

a business, we've got to make sure it works. The money comes in, the

money goes out, we've got to balance the books. We are hearing from

inside the NHS that the balance of the books has to work. Of course,

and I'm sure that better management could be put in place to save a

fortune, including some of the salaries at the high-end of

managerial positions. But the doctor has said that has all been done. But

whether that's the case across the board is another matter. I'm

concerned about creating a stigmatised underclass of people who

won't be able to attend the GP surgery, who will be told it is not

for them, and therefore our public health will suffer and will become a

crisis. But what you are not really addressing, emotionally I am with

you but we have to face reality. The NHS is just too expensive. You are

not really addressing the fact that we have started paying for certain

things and it is working. We pay for prescriptions now, unless you are on

benefits, pregnant or whatever it is. We pay for dentistry, we've got

used to this. It does work. I really don't think there will be an

underclass that doesn't get health care. Let me give you an example.

When our son was 12 he was invited out on a skiing holiday with a

friend. We forgot, this was in Switzerland, we forgot to take out

health insurance because our daughter was ill at the time and I

just forgot. The inevitable happened, he had an accident and it

was very expensive and took several years to pay off. But there was no

question that he wouldn't get care. There was no question that he had to

prove that he could pay before he was airlifted off on a helicopter,

he was given the best care in the world. We had to spend several years

paying for it but he got it. There was no question, can your parents

afford this? A brief word from Wendy Savage. We've heard from our

panellists saying that something just has to give. Could you not give

a little yourself? Look, we already paid for the NHS through our taxes.

It is an efficient system and it has done very well over the years with a

very small proportion of our gross domestic product. We can afford to

have it. Introducing charges is not a good idea. Dentistry is now out of

the reach of anybody who is poor. The idea that we've been softened up

to pay for things which we all believed should be free... Health

care is not a business. It is a service. We don't want all these

private companies coming in, cashing in on our health service, getting

hold of taxpayers' money to increase their profits. Let's have a quick

look to see what you at home have been saying. Comment from Diane

saying, people who smoke and those who are overweight should pay for

their NHS treatment. That is the Roger Daltrey feeling, we should be

taking responsibility for our own health. Tara says, we already pay

for the NHS, this idea that it is free is silly. Tom says the NHS

means just that, the national health service, it is owned and paid for by

national insurance Contributions Bill. That is quite comforting the

point, but we can discuss that another time. Keep voting in our

text vote. Ah Roma people unfairly stigmatised?

You can only vote once and you have about five minutes or so before the

vote closes. Is it possible to have a church without religion? The

Sunday Assembly believes it is. The atheist organisation stages

gatherings, but it says extract the good things about religion without

making God part of the package. We went to one of their get-togethers

and we also discovered a Church of England vicar who says he doesn't

believe in the existence of God either. They come together regularly

and their numbers are growing. # Don't stop me now, I'm having a

good time... The Sunday Assembly was started ten

months ago. They claim to have over eight conjugations worldwide. Their

main branch is in London. We are a godless congregation that celebrates

life. We are therefore people who want to live better, help often and

more. I felt really excluded because I don't believe in God at church, so

that was no good. I've always been thinking about new ways in which

people can have spirituality and be good and do good things, that don't

necessarily involved in something that was existing 2000 years ago.

The idea of the assembly is to take what it calls the best parts of

church and to use those to celebrate life, from an atheist and secular

perspective. We don't have heaven or hell to get people in the door.

We've got to make sure they are there because they want to be. We

like to think of it as entertaining but not just entertainment. While

many people may find the idea of a godless church strange, one Anglican

vicar has been preaching for over 40 years despite never believing in

God. I don't think that a god exists. I believe in God like I

believe in happiness or Chorley or goodwill or hope for something like

that. There is no need to suppose there is a supernatural being. Even

without God, the reverend David Paterson says they are still many

benefits to being a Christian. Religions tend to get bogged down,

especially Christianity, with thinking they are all about dogmas

and what you believe. Most of the time isn't about that at all. It's

about community and love and social work and it is about ritual,

thinking how wonderful the world is. The Sunday Assembly is an idea

that the reverend Paterson has embraced. He's involved in setting

up an Oxford branch and believes it's key to bringing different

beliefs together. Atheism and religion don't have to be enemies. A

church without God. That same organisation are planning a service

of remembrance next Sunday in order to, as they say, provide an

alternative. This is a bit like deciding to have a wonderful meal

because of all the benefits of taste and the flavour and how it makes you

feel, then vomiting it all up and not getting the nutrition. Of course

we know that they are incidental benefits to faith, such as meeting

with people and getting out in the fresh air. But that isn't actually

what it is about. I have no objection to these people, it's a

lovely idea, but Christianity is not about the incidental benefits, and

they are considerable, of community, belonging and so on. Christianity is

about the essential benefit of eternal life. Sadly, this is only

getting the fringe benefits and not the core benefits. What is

fascinating about this is that Jesus hated religion. He hated the

observance of what man can do, humanity can do to please God or put

the structures in place, which was why he was so scathing about the

really good people of his day, the Pharisees. They were the good

people, the religious people, the people who watch hot on the servants

rather than the belief, rather than the essence of it. An atheist vicar,

he is not alone, I've known a number of them. I believe there is an

organisation, it's not a particularly Christian

organisation, for ordained people in his position. I'd love to know what

Julia and Kelvin think about this. I definitely don't want eternal like

if the coalition Government is going to stay in! As a secular wrist, and

I think secularism is just a start, I'm really interested in the way

things are shifting, so that people are latching onto political beliefs

rather than a faith -based beliefs. I think there's room for all, but I

firmly believe that faith should be religious, conviction should be a

private matter and not in any way linked to the state. Yes, it's an

interesting shift and I'm sure one that will grow.

Kelvin MacKenzie, we do not have time to hear from you on this. You

have been voting on the question of whether Roma people are unfairly

stigmatised. We will bring you the result at the end of the show. The

voting is now closed. The wife of the former Prime

Minister Tony Blair said that women who take a break from work to have

children need more help to return to work and suggests apprentice

style training to bring women back to the workplace. In the same week,

a childcare experts said that mothers who look after children

full-time suffer unfair discrimination. It is described as

motherism. Cherie Blair managed to sustain her career as a barrister

as well as bringing up children and fulfilling her role at Number 10.

But she admits she did not take any real maternity leave. She says that

parents who choose to stay at home when children are young should not

feel charged, disadvantaged by the decision. This woman who works with

the group called Mothers At Home Matter said that she feels that

people like her are judged unfairly. They is a stigma. George Osborne

said it was a lifestyle choice. That we are choosing to stay at

home. But many people are struggling to make that choice.

Childcare expert Dr Aric Sigman also joined the debate and said

that stay-at-home mothers suffer from derogatory attitudes and if

they were applied to a minority group there would be a public

outcry. I just hope that mothers and fathers doing this for their

children candy in some self-esteem from that. We will be back in the

workplace, but it is understanding there is a time for everything in

life and it is important to be there for our children. How do you

feel about the role of stay at home others? We would like to hear from

you. Is raising children undervalued? There are obstacles in

place for parents to raise children and we obsessively focused on

mothers. This was a woman of some privilege, sitting in her nice

kitchen, and good for her. But when we look at single mothers, working

class, living in council houses, maybe, that we often see on

programmes that are there for our entertainment, they are seen as

lazy and irresponsible. Those sorts of stay-at-home mothers are often

completely dismissed. Whereas women who want to go back to the Fifties

and bake, how women can afford this, I do not know, they are seen as

benefiting society. I think it is bad for children, giving them a bad

impression of the role of women in the world if they are brought up by

this baking woman of the 1950s. It is bad for many women who really do

need to be helped back into the workplace. It is something we have

seen rising in the past decade. Women want to work. George Osborne

called it a lifestyle choice, is it? Increasingly, of course, you do

not have the luxury of having one income coming into a house. If you

live in London and the south, the idea of one income sustaining their

house-buying is preposterous. In my lifetime and I have a successful

mother, she went out to work. She had three children and went out to

work back in the Fifties and Sixties. That was considered

disgraceful, leaving the children. Now, 2013, now they are saying, you

can afford to stay at home, you must either be wealthy or idle. The

reality of it is that actually, the truth about the matter is that

women, should, if they can, go out to work. It is good for the family

income and good for them. It gives them a role model. Even if it is

part time, when the father comes in and then they go out, whatever it

is, they should do it. It is a role model for the children. And you

could say... That argument does not sustain. I was doing well up to

that. The reality is that they should go out and work. I cannot

believe how patronising we are being. Who are you to say whether

women should go out to work? It is not contributing to society, you

say, I am shocked by both of you. Another thing that is fascinating

is this is called motherism. What about the fathers staying at home?

Which are about 2%. I find the historic sweep fascinating. If you

go back to the Bible, throughout the scriptures there is an

understanding about three essential roles, earning a living, running a

home, bringing up children. In the Old Testament at New Testament, it

is the egalitarian, particularly about bringing up children. We all

have responsibility for this. When you get the Industrial Revolution,

work moves away from the home and you have to divide the roles.

Somebody has to go out to work. Somebody else has to bring up

children. If you are poor, maybe that is the grandparents, but in

the 19 sentry, men went out to work and women stayed at home. -- 19th

century. Why should any couple not spit that how they like? What I

find obnoxious about the current government and the way it does

things, be saw it with child benefit, taking it away from

couples where one goes out to work and the other stays at home, losing

it at half the rate that your income families do. It is appalling

you cannot transfer tax credit to your code parent. I hate to

interrupt but we have interesting contributors standing by. One of

them is a founding director of Mum and Career. We are saying that

stay-at-home mothers are being stigmatised. Possibly look down on

by career women and the rest of society, do you agree? I speak with

hundreds of career women and I never get anything disrespectful

about stay at home others. Career women talk about how they would

sometimes like to be a stay-at-home mother, because they are juggling,

if they are guilty, you have the constant lack of time and they

dream of giving it up and being there for their children more. They

realise they cannot. It is a personal choice. It is not an easy

choice. It would be easier if parents could do both, mothers and

fathers could be more there for their children. There would be more

flexibility with work and more parents could have more time at

home. You said it was not an easy choice. We have Stacey's standing

by, he decided to stay at home. Why did you choose to be a stay-at-home

mother? It is really important to be there, disciplining and teaching

my children the morals and values that my family has. And seeing what

they do first, kissing them better when they fall over. I have

sacrificed a lot to do that. Do you think that people look down on you?

I feel very proud... I he's still there? -- are you? Working mothers

often feel envious, they feel I am lucky, but we have sacrificed a lot,

we do not have a large house, we buy things second-hand to ensure I

can be there for my children. I think it is about making the choice,

not luck. Your sound and vision were out of sync but we got your

point. It comes down to Joyce, as a feminist, is that what you fight

for? -- down to choice. The pressure is on to contribute to

society, but those who are stigmatised in the debate are those

of us who choose not to have children. We are stigmatise not

even in terms of whether we are lesbian, gay, a civil partnership,

but whether we go down the route of reproducing. Children's homes are

full of unwanted children, but we focus on reproduction. We should

make it easier for parents to go back to work and give better

incentives. David Cameron would not drive women back to work if he did

not want to pay this ridiculous financial incentive for people who

get married. How are you stigmatised if you do not have

children? If people find out I have a female partner, the conversation

goes on to whether I have children. The conversation goes dead. They

look at me with sympathy and pity, or they look at me with anger as if

I am selfish. But having your own child is incredibly selfish, it

only benefits you. That is not true. But that should be a legitimate

choice. I am sad to hear you say you feel you are look down on. We

can hear from Kelvin MacKenzie. I suspect a huge proportion of women

would want to spend more time at home with their children, as would

the fathers. An argument that does not emerge, my experience, I was an

average father. Fortunately, the children had a good mother. I was

always at work. What I notice with my children, they play a much

larger role, my sons. They want to play a larger role. Also, the women

of today are more gutsy than before. They would not allow them to say, I

am all right, I am going to the golf club, drinking with my mates,

that has changed. The real pressure is the financial pressure in all

households. In that comes the problem. That lady said she lived

in a smaller house, those kinds of things. People can make those

sacrifices, but most people I know would rather live in a bigger house

with a nicer car, and in that they go to work and think they are

satisfied in work, but as you say, they have the guilt. You cannot

live off one income. We have to end. At least a woman had the last word.

It will not be the only time! We asked if Roma people are unfairly

stigmatised. 22% to voted said they are, and 78% said no, they are not.

We can look at the comments from home. Jane said they are

stigmatised and the media should not malign groups outside of the

mainstream. Andy said they think they are above the law. Peter said

some communities do not do themselves any favours, and ghetto

themselves in communes. Margaret asks if they will take away

children who do not look like their mother, this is discrimination. An

even split in the Commons, but sent it sent and 22%. I am really

depressed by that finding. This is a terrible discrimination, to take

a child away. As was said, you would not do that, taking a white

child away from black parents and doing a DNA test. That is shocking.

The question that did not arise, which is fascinating, will Maria be

better off now that she has been taken away? She had not been

trafficked, she had not been abandoned. She had not been

kidnapped. She was within her own community. What are the voting

shows, I bet if Nigel Farage is watching this, he is going, roll-on

the May elections. It is prejudice. People's lives are affected

adversely and it is time for proper education about the issue. Thanks

for your contributions. To everybody who has taken part. Do

not get in touch with us, the lines are closed. But you can continue

the conversation online. The links are on the website. Next week there

will be another edition of the programme. But for me, and

everybody in the studio, goodbye.