Episode 12 Sunday Morning Live

Episode 12

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Episode 12. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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,


Download Subtitles