Episode 12 Sunday Morning Live

On today's programme: Veteran soldiers who served

in Northern Ireland may face questioning over killings which took

A former head of the British Army says it's outrageous.

Ed Skrein pulls out of a big Hollywood movie because he didn't

think it was right to play a character of Asian heritage.

Is it wrong for white actors to take such roles?

Wendy Robbins joins children taking a special holiday away

from their homes near the site of the world's worst

Tell me what you know about Chernobyl. It is a city in the

Ukraine. There was an explosion at the power station.

And the man known as the vicar of Baghdad tells Martin Bashir

what happened when he asked terrorist leaders round for a meal.

I invited Isis round for dinner and they said yes, but we will chop your

head off afterwards. So I didn't take it up.

All that coming up and Emma Barnett is here ready to let

And good morning to you. We want to hear from you on all of our

discussions today. You can contact us by

Facebook and Twitter. Don't forget to use

the hashtag #bbcsml. Or text SML followed

by your message to 60011. Texts are charged at your

standard message rate. Or email us at

[email protected]. However you choose to get in touch,

please don't forget to include your name so I can get you involved

in the programme, including whether you think big bosses

deserve big salaries. First, it was revealed this week

that elderly soldiers who served in Northern Ireland

with the British Army may be called to give evidence on fresh inquests

into deaths during the Troubles, a period of violence from the late

1960s to the late 1990s. Families of some of those who died

will welcome further investigation. But the former head

of the British Army, General Lord Dannatt,

says it's outrageous to expect soldiers,

some now in their 70s and 80s, Is it wrong to pursue soldiers over

actions in Northern Ireland? Joining me now to discuss

that are Dawn Foster, a journalist and broadcaster,

Mark Thompson from the campaign group Relatives For Justice,

Alan Barry, a former soldier from Justice For Northern Ireland

Veterans, and Ruth Dudley Edwards, Mark, many veterans feel that this

is a witchhunt. Can you understand how they feel? Well, there is a

motive at play. It is not a witchhunt. The figures are borne out

that there are only three soldiers subject to potential charges being

taken forward in respect of 400 people killed by so-called security

forces. If you were sitting at home in the north of Ireland today and

your child was killed, and we are dealing with a legacy of impunity

and nobody held into account, then now is the time that we address that

and there is a mechanism to address that. Those governments and all the

political parties have agreed to it. Unfortunately their residual

process. There is a campaign by soldiers and by the British

government to provide a smothering blanket to the truth being told.

Either you believe in justice and you apply it evenly, which has never

happened. A smothering blanket covering something up and they don't

want to talk about it? That is total rubbish. The soldiers were

interviewed at the time of the incidents. This case here relates to

a 74-year-old veteran who was involved in an incident in the

1970s. He was questioned at the time of the incident, as were all the

people on that patrol. He was questioned again about 20 years

after the incident. And then yet again he was arrested about three

years ago, questioned again, and on this occasion, he was held in

detention for three days and questioned 26 times. Harold Shipman

was only questioned ten times. We don't want to get into individual

cases, but the idea that veterans are being hounded? These are people

who have already given evidence. It is an affront. Many of the soldiers

who have bald triggers and killed people were questioned not a suspect

but as witnesses. Questions from 19721973, by their own colleagues.

European Court of Human Rights have found UK Government in violation of

its investigative duties in respect of the north of Ireland in which the

investigations have been partial, perfunctory and have not delivered

accountability, and that is a fact that it is on going out at this

minute and the UK Government are gaining because they have

continually fails. 25,000 Republicans spent over 100,000 years

in jail. A handful of British soldiers were convicted of killing

and then reinstated in their regiments, some promoted and given

back pay. Vindictive message -- the indicative message is not good.

Joining me now is the former head of the British Army General

Good morning. You have said it is outrageous, to use that word, that

people are being investigated again over this. Why is it outrageous? I

think that over the years we have had enough of what is effectively a

witchhunt. Just reflect on the large number of allegations made against

British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast majority of

which turned out to be vexatious and false and now we are going back to

Northern Ireland. I was in command 20 years ago and we were involved in

a number of incidents in intense circumstances but everything was

investigated properly according to the rules and legislation of the

time. People are probably not aware. A soldier on patrol with his rifle

had 20 rounds of ammunition. You had to account for every one of those

rounds of ammunition. If I can just jump in? Are you saying that all of

these cases categorically have been investigated as thoroughly as they

should be? They were investigated thoroughly at the time. When anybody

fired a single round, that round had to be accounted for. The Royal

Military Police and the Royal Ulster Constabulary took statements and the

thing was investigated properly at the time. Are you proud of the way

the British Army acted in Northern Ireland? I am proud of the way the

British Army has acted in all the campaigns that we have been involved

in over an extraordinary period of time. So if everything was accounted

for? Why are the authorities agreeing to the reopening of some of

these cases? The Ministry of Defence is agreeing because it is fearful of

European Court of Human Rights and fearful of Britain coming under

pressure from European legislation. That is understandable. The point I

am trying to make is that many of these incidents took place many

years ago. They were investigated properly and thoroughly at the time

and it is thoroughly unreasonable, and outrageous as an expression I

have used before, to expect soldiers in their 70s and early 80s to have

any kind of recall of what happened at the time. Some people should say

there should be no time limit on justice? I think there is a

practical aspect to this as well. I think a statue of limitations is a

well-known concept. I think something like 30 years is probably

a reasonable length of time. The point I am trying to make is that it

was not lawless, everything up for grabs at the time. Matters were

properly investigated. For example, I gave evidence in several trials

and various coroner courts and things are investigated properly

according to the procedures at the time. It is thoroughly unreasonable

30, 40, 50 years later to start to apply different principles and

procedures in very historic cases now. Lord Dannatt, thank you.

Thoroughly unreasonable to go back to this period of time? Everything

was investigated at the time, according to Lord Dannatt, and he

says it is unreasonable and a witchhunt. Is that how you see it?

Not remotely. It is a small number of people. I don't think it was

properly investigated at the time. It was investigated by the British

state themselves and people need to look at it objectively. If we argue

that we should have a statute of limitations 30 years later, then we

need to look at how the problems in the north are completely different

to rain. We are getting onto 20 years since the peace process began.

If soldiers believe they acted appropriately, they should not worry

and they should actually want to give families the answer is that

they want. They have given the answers. They haven't. A huge number

of families do not know exactly what happened when their relatives and

their children died. They want answers and they want to move on and

they can't do that without proper investigation and soldiers being

questioned at suspect and not just witnesses. There was an

investigation at the time. Do we keep investigating until they die?

Lord Dannatt was only talking about soldiers. The former British soldier

using a pseudonym wrote about faith and duty and in that book he wrote

about the rules of engagement, put them in the bin. We shoot first and

we ask questions later. That man killed the father of two baby

infants and his family want the truth now. The point being that

ammunition was accounted for, but better than that the issue and the

legacy has got to be addressed as part of the transitional process. We

don't have time to go into individual cases. Let me bring in

Ruth. Can we understand the relatives of the victims? There is

no time limit on justice and they want answers for the questions. I

have the deepest sympathy for the relatives of people killed during

the Troubles and I have been involved in the civil case against

the Omagh bombers, for instance. I have been involved with a lot of

these people and I have sympathy with people on all sides about this

but let's be clear. At the beginning of the peace process, Sinn Fein used

to say we don't want a hierarchy of victims. In other words, the bomber

who went out to kill, killed by his own bomb, is on a par with the

victim that he killed at the same time. They have now reached the

stage where there is a hierarchy of victims. For some reason or other

the Republican victims matter and the same is not true of state

forces. Hold on, Mark. That is the case! Let her finish. We will not

say there are two lot of perpetrators. If you are soldier,

there will be papers on you and colleagues at the time might give

evidence against you and you are paramilitary there are no records

anywhere and nobody will give evidence against you because they

could be killed. It puts the troops in a completely impossible position.

There are records of what the troops did and there are no records of what

the Republicans did. That is blatantly not the truth and any

observer would know that the RUC, it just proud of the peace agreement in

1998, destroyed tens of thousands of records that it held of its own

agents involved in loyalist paramilitaries and its own agents in

the IRA. They destroyed them and it is a record in the courts. They

destroyed them because they work stored in a building contaminated by

asbestos but they did not provide a health and safety certificate for

that. There are lots of allegations being made here and I think it is

part of a propaganda campaign. At the end of the day, you have got to

deal in facts. The fact this. Under the terms of the Good Friday

Agreement, where this all started, the Blair government sold at the

British Army, both here on the mainland our colleagues in Northern

Ireland. It was a treacherous agreement were effectively nobody

knew the full details of the agreement and behind closed doors,

effectively we were left open for prosecution. If you release over 300

prisoners who have been convicted of terrorist crimes and murders, and

then issue over 150 on the run letters to people who had not even

been apprehended, and then you have... Can I finish? Gerry Adams

two days ago saying it would be counter-productive to jail the IRA

killers of Tom Oliver, a farmer, who was shot in the back of the head for

being accused of being an informer. Come on, guys, let's get real. That

is what many people are saying. Are we chasing both sides equally?

Republicans who have done a lot of bad things are walking free and they

are pursuing British soldiers. Due process was applied during the

conflict against Republicans. There is a legacy and a deficit of

accountability and justice. I just want to come to your point. If we

follow this logic, we are saying that those that have culpability for

Grenfell Tower or Hillsborough should not be charged. Let me bring

in the views of people at home in a moment but a final word from Lord

Dannatt. If there are family members of victims who feel they are owed

justice and they are watching this, do you want to say anything to them?

I can fully understand if someone wants to know what happened to their

loved one. But I am afraid that is one point. It stands in isolation to

the other point. One of your contributors to the programme has

already made that point. Just because the British Army is an

organised organisation and regiments exist, it is possible to go to

regimental associations and veteran soldiers and ask them for

statements. It is impossible to do that of the provisional IRA. It is

impossible to do that of loyalist terrorists. Just because you can get

access to veterans does not provide an excuse or rationale for doing

that. Frankly, things that happened 30, 40, 50 years ago, I am afraid

were investigated at the time and that is the end of the matter. It is

not reasonable to pursue aged soldiers now just because it is

possible to get hold of them. But darn it, thank for your views. --

Lord Dannatt, thank you for your views. You have been getting in

touch. My father was a policeman and he said three tours and he was

attacked at by a mob, blown out of his bed by a car bomb, and if you

want to apportion blame, look the politicians in charge at the time

and look at their policies then and now. Laura says that soldiers should

not be investigated for doing their jobs. But if they have been

torturing people, whatever they have done, they should be investigated

and punished. Sarah says there is far too much praise of soldiery in

this country. They argument with brains and if they commit dreadful

acts, the weight of the law should be thrown. People cannot respect us

if we act like animals. The actor Ed Skrein has had a lot

of attention this week. Not for a part he's playing,

but for one he isn't. Skrein pulled out of a Hellboy

film because he was cast in the comic book

adaption as a character Skrein said he was stepping down

so that the role can be cast His decision comes

amidst a row about so called "whitewashing" in Hollywood,

using white actors to play First, let's join Mehreen Baig to

see how the controversy is viewed by For over 60 years, the National

youth theatre has been helping launch the careers of young

hopefuls. If she be false, then heaven mocks

itself. They are rehearsing Othello, Shakespeare's tragedy about the

doomed mixed race marriage, with the title role for a black character. In

this version, the action is set in a pub. Not the appetites. Mohammed is

playing Othello in this production. Does Othello have to be played by a

black man? I think if you look at the text that Shakespeare has

written, the depictions and the description of the character as

well, going from bad, I would say yes. And this is the greatest

discord be, that ever our hearts shall meet. Recently, Ed Skrein took

a stand against whitewashing in Hollywood. How do you feel about

that? Incredible. Also, it should happen more often. The fact it was

him, for Hellboy, such a massive film, that obviously got a lot of

attraction, got a lot of people noticing it more. Should it not be

based on merit, rather than looking at the colour of people? I think it

is about the story, the story that the piece of theatre or film is

telling. If you're casting something that needs to represent the

multicultural society wearing, you should cast for that. Desdemona is

honest. Have you seen any of the classic adaptations of Othello? I

have. What is your opinion of them? I think they are terrible. They

rained all kinds of sewers and shames on my bare head. Particularly

actors that decided to black up and play Othello. I do not know why they

thought that was a good decision. The heavens forbid, but that our

lives and comfort should increase, even as our days do grow. Amen to

that. If you've got an offer for a Hollywood lead role that the person

was a different race, a different ethnicity to you, would you consider

it? At the moment, in the current climate of things, no. I am not in a

position to tell that story if the race is of particular importance.

Something I would love to see more of, when main parts are played by

black women or black men, is it not to be about slavery, or about is

being made and butlers. I am very hopeful for my career in the future,

that claims will be changing by the time, hopefully, that I get to that

stage. And this, the greatest discord is be that ever our hearts

shall break. Mehreen Baig with some views

from young actors with the Here to discuss this

further are Kunle Olulode, a film historian and

critic, and Vera Chok, an actress Thank you for joining us today. Can

I come to you first, Kunle. Was Ed Skrein rate to resign this part? I

think for Ed Skrein it is right. It is a gesture. If we are talking

about the underrepresentation of East Asian actors in both film and

theatre, then really it is no more than a token effort. The issues are

much broader than that. To be honest, I think what is exciting

about the current period is the issue is being raised, but also, the

opportunities for East Asian actors are on the agenda. Do you have a

problem with white actors generally playing parts that are of different

ethnic origin to them? Historically a Hollywood has marginalised East

Asian and black actors to that effect. But the issue of addressing

that by simply not taking parts, there is a danger that we take it

into another problem area, I kind of cultural apartheid. So you can only

do the roles you match? That would be short-sighted and clumsy. I do

think that the question of the expansion of both, the involvement

in production, in front of the camera and behind it, that is a

really important issue. That is a wider issue being raised. What we

have heard is that this will not necessarily change the game. We

should not always have actors necessarily playing roles that match

the ethnic origin they are from. What do you think of that, we will

end up with the cultural apartheid? I think it comes down to the wider

picture. It is about conscious casting, as opposed to colour-blind

casting. If decisions to cast are very well thought through, if you

want to have an all-white cast, if you want to have men playing women,

whatever your decision as a maker, an artist, as a cultural instigator,

have faith in the story you're telling and the people you're

working with. So I can be clear, are you saying that if we have roles at

the moment that you have to match whatever the character was written

in, do you see what saying? White actors can only play definitive

white rolls? I would say that the problem is we are not on a level

playing field. Because there are not opportunities for people of colour

in the media anyway, enough opportunities, we are historically

erased. To erase you even further. Yes, it is kind of like billing. In

the future, if everyone is equal in society and on screen, thin enough,

play whoever you want. We do have examples in history, Laurence

Olivier, let's say, he famously black dog to play Othello. It was

well received. Would it be well received today? Interestingly, I

thought about this before coming on the programme. I also thought about

Paul Robson, who played the same part. Of the two performances, I

think Paul Robson's is the more credible. We have to respect the

fact that Laurence Olivier's performance was of its time. This is

a creative process and a film involves the suspension of

disbelief. The better that suspension is, the more effective

the actor is working. The other way, could you have a white actor play

Martin Luther King? Giving the historical, iconic nature of Martin

Luther King, probably not, but you could have an actor creating a peace

where there are no black characters in it, but it is based upon the life

of Martin Luther King. That could happen. It is an interesting

discussion. If you wanted to cast a white actor to play Martin Luther

King, I would be like, why do you want to do that? Are you making a

point? What about at Asian actor? It is the politics behind it. The

reasons matter. The actress Chloe Bennett said she had to change her

last name from Wang because Hollywood is racist. Has that been

your experience, or the experience of friends? It works both ways. I

have definitely been employed because of my skin colour. Have you

been stereotyped because of how they think you should be playing a

certain role? Speaking with a Chinese accent. You are Asian, you

can do it, I general Asian accent. Always playing the prostitute, the

woman who gets killed, or on the flip side, the very sort of Bijan

doctor, lawyer, etc. Of course, these people exist in real life. We

need writers to be writing more broadly. Absolutely. That was your

point. Yes, I think that companies such as HBO and some of the digital

content makers are less worried. We're going to talk afterwards on

Facebook. We will keep this conversation going. I am sorry we

have to leave it there. For ten years, Canon Andrew White

presided over the only In a Muslim city riven by strife

and violence, being a Christian Canon White often had to wear

a bullet proof vest to go about his Despite coping with the effects

of multiple sclerosis, he threw himself into his role

in the perilous surroundings of the Iraqi capital and became known

as the Vicar of Baghdad. In 2014, he was recalled by

the Archbishop of Canterbury for his Martin Bashir, the BBC's religious

affairs correspondent, What attracted you to the only

church in a war-torn city in the most volatile region of the world? I

wanted to be an Iraq because that is where my heart was. I had spent so

much time there, even in the days of Saddam Hussein, working between

Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, the Yazidi and the Christians. The fact

is, I am a bit of a conflict junkie. There is nothing I like more than

being where things are really difficult. And to actually take God

into the middle of conflict and disaster is a sign of hope. You

faced yourself many personal challenges. You contracted multiple

sclerosis 19 years ago. It must be a very challenging experience,

especially working in a place like Iraq? Can are they honest with you?

I have never once looked at myself and thought, oh, dear, how do I cope

like this? I look at myself and I say, thank you, Lord. Despite having

a shoddy body, I can still keep going. What was the cost to you and

the church? How dangerous was it? After the 2003 conflict, that is

when the trouble really started. They removed Saddam Hussein, and the

allowed in violence, tension, terrorist conflict like never

before. People would literally, we would find them sleeping on the

streets and they had not eaten. They could not go to their homes, their

homes had been blown up. So many people, murdered, over 1057 of them,

my people that I knew about. I wonder if you could describe the

day-to-day experience, the dangers of living in Iraq? Are people used

to have to be searched from head to toe every time they came into

church. It was a life surrounded by fear. We were threatened all the

time. There are not many clergymen in the world to have done the Paris

visiting surrounded by armed soldiers. There was another

horrendous experience for you when you were taken hostage. I was

kidnapped. It was the only time in my whole ministry when I was scared.

Did you begin to think that the end of your life was approaching?

Absolutely. I really did not think I would survive it. My money

eventually got me out. You paid them? Do you believe that there is a

deliberate attempt to wipe out to the church in Iraq? Not just Iraq,

but the whole middle east. Most of the Muslims who I know intimately

are peaceful, but there is less than 1% who are not, and they are causing

havoc and turmoil, and we cannot deny that. Was there an occasion

when you invited the terrorist to top? There was an occasion when I

heard, really decided, how on earth am I going to engage with these

people? My theory has always been, when we meet, we eat. I invited Isis

around for dinner. They said, yes, but we will chop your head off

afterwards. I did not take it any further. Was it a mistake to talk to

so-called Islamic State? I would not say it was a mistake. I

would say it is the fundamental of our work. Sitting in Golders Green

and having smoked salmon bagels does not bring about peace. You were

eventually ordered by the Archbishop of Canterbury to stop living

permanently in Baghdad. How difficult was that for you? It was

the most difficult day of my life. It was the most difficult, painful

day ever. So what shape as your ministry taken now? My key focus is

my people who were in Iraq with me who have fled and have run away and

are in Jordan. We are providing a future for the children and an

education and a way forward. A very large part of my work is going

around the world teaching people about how enemies need to become

friends and how we need to work together as Jewish people,

Christians and Muslims. It is no good just looking at them and saying

they are the other. The other is my family. The other are my friends. It

sounds as though you are now an ambassador for peace. Would that be

a fair description? It is very biblical. Jesus has called us to be

ambassadors of reconciliation, and that is what I do.

Canon Andrew White, still as feisty as ever.

To be precise, the amount of money paid to top bosses

Britain's biggest firms were told by the government this week

that they will have to reveal the pay ratio between senior

A recent report on the top 100 companies on the stock market

revealed that for every ?1 an average worker earns, the chief

So is such a huge gap unfair or do big bosses deserve big money?

Joining me now are Jamie Whyte from the Institute

of Economic Affairs, Afua Hirsch, a writer

and broadcaster, Sam Bowman from the Adam Smith Institute,

and still with us Dawn Foster, a journalist and broadcaster.

Sam, how pleased should we be that the government is trying to crack

down on executive pay? Huge amounts of money that top bosses are

getting. We should think about it by wondering if they are paid more than

they are worth to the firms. We can look at this by seeing what happens

to the value of a firm one a top CEO leaves. When the visionary CEO of

burglary left that company a few years ago, they lost half a billion

pounds in value. -- Burberry. When Tesco CEO announced he was spending

more time at the company, they gained ?2 billion in value. When a

CEO departs suddenly, the movement on the market has grown and grown.

Why is that? It looks like markets that are dominated by tech and

highly competitive ones because of globalisation, the strategic

decisions made by the chief executive matter a lot to that

firm's value. If that is the case, it makes perfect sense for a firm to

pay top dollar to get the best people. They are responsible for so

much in the company say we should pay top dollar. I think the value of

a CEO is overstated often. They live in a distorted bubble at the top. We

are constantly told that to incentivise people into work, we

should cut benefits etc. Full the very poorest we are told that less

money will incentivise them but for the rich, after the financial crash,

we were talking about banker bonuses etc. I think that is an issue. If

you look at the pay ratios, if you look at a company where the lowest

paid workers, the average paid worker, and the relatively standard

ratio of ten or 15 times as much as the CEO, compared to somebody where

for every ?1 that the cleaner earns, the CEO earns ?350, you are looking

at a company that does not value equality. And in those companies,

the morale will not be good. Isn't it ridiculous to compare the cleaner

to the CEO? Of course the CEO will be paid more. Yes, but that much

more? It is about valuing human life more. We are talking about 48

million to the highest paid director. Does anyone need that kind

of money? It is not a matter of whether they need it. The amount

they get paid is not dependent on how much they need. It is dependent

on... It is a price. The price of labour which always depend on two

things, supply and demand. Many people think that the owners of

these companies are making a mistake by paying such a large sum of money

but it is their mistake and they bear the cost of it. It is really

not proper, it is immoral, for third parties to try to interfere in what

is an entirely voluntary transaction between on the one hand the owners

and the other hand the management. I would disagree that only the owners

of the company pay the cost. I think we all pay a cost in society when

the market for executive pay is so broken. This is not a radical thing

to say. If you listen to Theresa May a year ago before the watered-down

proposals claiming now, she described the corporate system of

awarding people at the top as broken and that is why she proposed quite

radical measures like having workers represented on boards. It can't be

that mad because she has watered them down. She has listened to the

business lobby. Our companies are not fulfilling the role they should

in a capitalist system. We still have chronic problems with

productivity compared to the rest of the OECD. Our businesses are not

able to train and provide jobs for school leavers and graduates, which

is why immigration has become such a political flash point. We need to

look at the role that companies play in society and ask why the link

between performance, which are still got so many problems, and pay, it

seems to be so broken. Anna has got and now we have got another guest.

Joining me now is Kate Bell, head of the Economic

and Social Affairs Department at the Trades Union Congress.

I just like to read this comment coming in. People should be able to

learn what they are able to get at what they deserve. It is not by

business what my boss ends. It doesn't affect her at all what the

top boss does or doesn't get? I think it probably does affect the

success of her company because we have got widespread evidence that in

companies with wider pay disparities, bigger gaps between the

top and the average worker, that company is less successful over the

long-term. A lot of employees say it does affect their motivation. The

survey a couple of years ago said that six out of ten employees found

the overly high pay off their CEO affected them admission at work.

Isn't that a convenient excuse for why they might not be enjoying their

job? Seriously when they sit at their desk, their tail, wherever

they are, they are thinking the man a woman at the top of this company

owns so much more than me that I can't be bothered today? If you are

asking that person to stay a bit later, to do a bit extra, and they

are thinking my boss ends in 2.5 days what I heard all year, that

might affect your ability to go the extra mile. -- what I earn all year.

Could you argue that it is inspirational and aspirational? That

person at the top of the company until this money and I will work

extra hard to climb the tree? I think it makes the top of the tree

look further away. If that person is earning 129 times your average pay,

it is very unlikely that you think next year maybe they will earn 128

times and the year after 127 times. As Afua Hirsch was saying, the

system does not work for British business or workers. British workers

have seen their pay falling in the last four months, and something is

clearly going wrong there, and we have had a productivity freeze for

the last ten years in the UK. It is difficult to say that this model is

working for the British economy or British businesses either. Thank

you. A system that is not working for business or workers. Why can't

we just put a limit on how much these people are earning? There is

something slightly weird about a bunch of journalists and economists

sitting about talking about how to boost company profits. I don't know

how, that is the company's job. But productivity is lower. We don't

build houses where they need to be so people cannot move to whether

good jobs are and we tax investment more than we need to and we have

chronic long-term underinvestment in research and element in this

country. It is not because of high CEO pay, because if that was the

case, other countries like the US would have the same problem. But in

Germany, they do have regulations, and it is not a problem. A more

important point that I want to make. One of the reasons why Germany

manages to be quite productive if they have decentralised wage

bargaining. This isn't me. The widespread consensus is that

flexible labour markets plus major strength during the recession has

allowed Germany to prosper now. The important point to make is that it

is strange to focus on pay ratios because it means that the CEO of

Goldman Sachs looks better than the CEO of Sainsbury's because Goldman

Sachs and their average employees are paid much more than average a

breeze at Tesco. There is something very weird going on. If only these

laws work imposed, the suggestion is, and the pay of CEOs was lower,

then that these would be more profitable. If that was true, give

that advice to the boards of the companies, they would lower the pay,

and the idea that this money is left on the table, and the government

would force companies to be more profitable, is implausible. If it

was not profitable, some firms would lower the pay of their top bosses

and they would put the other firms that are paying these bosses a lot

of money out of business, but they don't. That is capitalism, isn't it?

It is. And the problem is that at the moment capitalism isn't working.

If it made sense to do it, they would do it and they are not. I

don't think they necessarily would. Even at the top like their wages. --

people at the top like their wages. We are talking about business as

though it acts in a vacuum and not in society. The CEO of Tesco is paid

much more than the people at the very bottom, so those people have

got to go to the government for housing benefit and tax credits, and

so we are subsidising the low pay of people working in companies very

thick it is have got a lot of money. Money is not finite, it is going to

the CEOs, and we are picking up the bill in society. I don't think

anyone is sitting here saying that economists and journalists should be

setting corporate pay. What we are saying is that the process is not

working properly and it needs to be regulated and that is why there is a

suggestion for having employees represented on boards and this isn't

radical. Other countries do it. It's a process that more integrity, then

what ever companies set as executive pay would be more efficient. It is

allowing market forces within companies to work properly. Thank

you very much to everyone on the panel.

All children love the summer holidays.

But for one group of youngsters from Eastern Europe,

their trip to the UK has been particularly welcome.

That's because they come from an area near the site

of a disaster that made headlines around the world.

You wouldn't have thought playing in the fresh air in the park was a big

deal for most kids. But for 11-year-old Elena it is a really

special treat. She is one of a group of 12 children who have come to

spend a month in the UK from their home in Belarus, the Eastern

European state near Chernobyl where the world's worst nuclear accident

happened in 1986. Two explosions here on April 26 led to the world's

worst nuclear disaster. 31 people have already died. Fast tracks of

Ukrainian farmland like contaminated and the effect on Chernobyl's

community will be felt for generations. The power plant was

then in the USSR and the accident led to widespread nuclear

contamination, significant traces of which will remain. Elena is staying

with Claire and Dave, a retired couple who live near Edinburgh. Even

though the Chernobyl disaster happened more than 20 years before

she was born, Elena knows what happened. Tell me what you know

about Chernobyl. It is a city in the Ukraine and in the city was an

explosion that the power station. Elena and the other youngsters are

spending their month in the UK thanks to the charity Friends Of

Chernobyl's Children Will. Dave and Claire's linguistic skills are about

as good as mine! How is your Russian? We don't speak any Russian.

Just one word, thank you! Just about the same. How do you manage to

communicate with Elena? Well, sign language, pointing at things, miming

things, and if we are really struggling the Google translate

function helps. Give me an example of the things you are miming. Time

to brush your teeth. And for food, good, not good and in between. Do

you like Elena? Good! -- do you like chocolate, Elena? Good! At the UK

they're getting fresh air and plenty of fun. From the beginning of the

visit to the end, facially, in their colour, their skin, their eyes

brighter, and the months of healthy food, clean air and environment

makes a difference to them in this growing stage of development between

seven and 12. They love to come to parks. There

are not many at home in Belarus. They love to run and jump and claim.

It is wonderful to see them having a good time. Tell me two things that

you love about living here? TRANSLATION: They love me and I love

them. How do you say love in Russian? SHE SPEAKS IN RUSSIAN. The

project is coordinated by Kenny Turnbull, who makes regular visits

to Belarus and who has met the child's family. In the villages,

they live with outside toilets and a cap in the street for water. There

is no water in the house? None whatsoever. You may have to walk

about 50 metres to the tap to get water. Even in the snow? In the

snow. He has been to her house many times. She lives in a government

hostel. This is her coming out to meet us on one of our visits, giving

us a hug on the steps. This is her mum. They look like each other. You

can see the resemblance. Mum keeps the room very well. She is a very

responsible lady. The effect of the explosion and irradiation is a major

concern for the families near Chernobyl. Before Chernobyl, 85% of

the children in Belarus were classed as healthy. After Chernobyl, 85% of

children in the contaminated areas are classed as unhealthy. The

children we bring are not ill in themselves, but they do have lowered

immune systems, so they are more susceptible to infection. The

lowered immune system is brought about by constant exposure to levels

of radiation that are above what they should be. It is too easy to

forget that these things have happened and they have long-lasting

implications and the Mandera home environments. We in the West can

forget about it because we are not living with it day to day, but they

are living with it every day. But, for a short time at least, these

children are having a break from the home environment. She is making the

most of it. Is it time for bed now? Universal.

Those children seemed to be having a rare old

Statues, buildings and streets honouring famous figures

are peppered throughout cities and towns in the UK.

But do we want to commemorate them all?

In the southern states of America, many statues of prominent pro-

slavery American Civil War leaders are being removed for being

Right wing groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan,

have staged protests leading to violence,

including the death of a young woman in

Here, questions are being asked about memorials to people

Britain's colonial past, including a statue of the businessman

Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University, and another in Bristol to

Edward Colston, who played a prominent role in the slave trade.

Even Nelson's Column in London has been labeled as a symbol of

white supremacy because of the naval hero's support for the

So should these and monuments and others like them be torn

down or should they be preserved as a significant part of our

Joining me now are James Heartfield, an author and historian,

Cleo Lake, a writer and activist, Neil Wallis, former deputy

editor of the News Of The World, and still with us, Afua

Let's start with you. You have written an article. You started this

debate. You wrote the article talking about removing the statue of

Lord Nelson. You came in for quite a lot of criticism. Do you understand

that criticism? I do, but it reinforces the point I was trying to

make, which is that we in Britain have not been honest about our past.

We have avoided the more difficult episodes in Britain's past, like the

slave trade and the Empire. Many people walk around looking at

statues like Nelson, who is elevated, and a position where we

train our necks and admiration, without knowing that these people

played a role in some of the darkest parts of our history. Those

historical moments are with us today. Millions around the world are

living out the repercussions of the slave trade. So you would pull

Nelson Cole and on? I would not go with the bulldozer after the show

and pull it down. -- so you would pull down Nelson's column? Many

people like me are British and also black and have strong links to

African and Caribbean societies that are still suffering as a result of

people like him. We should be able to debate what the legacy has been.

It seems like a fair point, if these people were involved in slavery, why

are we supporting them? First of all, I think that Afua is saying

exactly the right thing. It is legitimate to discuss aspects of our

history that we have not discussed before. She is ludicrous when she

proposes that we rewrite our history. What she needs to try to

remember are several things. First of all, Nelson's column is nothing

to do with slavery. It was not put because of any views he had on

slavery. Views, incidentally, that I only discovered when I read Afua's

the liberty -- deliberately provocative piece. I had no idea

that he had a view either way about slavery. At the time, I guess that

most people accepted that slavery was a legitimate part of how the

world operated, not just here, but throughout Africa and the Middle

East. It is a very common thing. The other thing I think is really

important, and where this debate has gone so wrong, is the suggestion

that if you hold my view, or disagree in any way with Afua, she

mentioned this in the green room, I overheard her, that somehow it is

racist to disagree. There was a very prominent journalist who wrote the

piece in which he disagreed with her. Her reaction to that was, well,

that was infused with his racist view. That is simply outrageous. I

simply disagree with you, I am not racist. I do not agree. What I want

is to prompt the debate, not to shut people down. I think what Neil is

referring to is that some of the reaction I got, it had very strong

undertones. People said, know your place, go back to where you came

from and stop lecturing us. The assumption that I am an immigrant

who has an illegitimate view because of how eyelet. I find that racist.

One of the points that Neil is that we are judging historical characters

by current standards and morals. Most people would not have a blemish

free record at that time? They would not. It is not about rewriting

history but telling the full story. Educating people, and examining

values of today and examining what kind of future we want for our

children and grandchildren, future citizens. Really, we have been fed

this one-dimensional view of history, which is not accurate. I

would not advocate taking down the statues but they need context, they

need to be balanced. They need to be countered. I was happy to see the

fourth plinth initiative. We had Nelson's ship. That was a good way

of balancing it and opening up a wider debate. We need to have more

memorials, more commemorations to the victims of enslavement, and to

acknowledge the massive contribution they have given the world.

It is about education. You are part of a movement in Bristol which led

to the concert hall in Bristol agreeing to change its name. Why is

that important. It is a name. Statues are symbols. Education in

classrooms is the important thing, surely? Education for people of all

ages is key. Dialogue is important. It is not about shutting people down

but getting to know each other's stories and having empathy. What

we're seeing among some of these discussions is like of empathy. It

was significant that the Holland Bristol chose did is associate

itself with Edward Colston. He did lots of great things for people.

That is the narrative we have been given which leads to the annual

celebration of this person, which completely ignores and insults the

memory and history of my ancestors and many more people. People of all

backgrounds are offended by this commemoration of this person. Only

last week in Bristol, we had a memorial, and artistic intervention,

which commemorated a person enslaved, brought from Nigeria,

buried in Bristol, born 250 years ago. That was well attended by

people across society. History has not been told correctly in the first

place? We talk about Cecil Rhodes, for example? There is a strong lead

in the country and the had been for about 30 years for a more critical

attitude to Empire and slavery. If you go to museums like the Greenwich

Maritime Museum, or you go to the Docklands Museum, you see some very

good displays about slavery, and telling the slavery story. I have

two daughters who have been doing the GCSEs and starting their

A-levels. Happy birthday, Daisy. They have had a lot of lessons. What

about statues, education maybe, but should we be taking down statues? I

do not like them all that much. Would you change them? There are

many around Britain. I like quite Afua is said and I like what Cleo is

saying. More discussion is right. Instead of pinning it down, taking

it down is an extreme response. Sometimes an extreme responses

right. The best way to better memorials would be to have more

heroes. Claudia Jones started the Notting Hill Carnival as a memorial

to Kelso Cochrane. That is a living memorial that is more effective than

any statue. Afua, it is about education? It is about context. If

we all learned in history about the hugely significant figures in

Britain, who basically invented and pioneered the slave trade and

colonialism for four centuries, I would be more comfortable that when

we look at someone like Nelson, we have context. This is not a

race-based crusade. Many Irish Catholics feel that Oliver Cromwell

was the first genocidal figure in British history and they are deeply

uncomfortable with the statue outside the British Parliament that

commemorates him. This goes a lot deeper than people like me playing a

race card. Let's find out what people at home

nursing. This feels like historical cleansing to me. We may not like

what these figures have done in the past, but the best way is to learn

and not repeat the mistakes. Perhaps we need to shut down the Viking

Museum in York, as the Vikings were some of the biggest slave owners

ever. Thank you and thank you to all our

panellists. Many thanks to all our

guests and you at home But Emma will be carrying

on the conversation online. I'm no' a beat, broken man,

but I'm damaged, Hear four traumatic stories

of the struggle to they thought they would find

freedom on their release. I'm no' a beat, broken man,

but I'm damaged,