Episode 8 Sunday Morning Live

Download Subtitles



Episode 8

Sean Fletcher and Emma Barnett present thought-provoking debate and instant audience reaction on the big ethical talking points of the week.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Episode 8. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Lord Sugar says politicians should face prosecution if they lie.


He wants MPs to face the same scrutiny as business,


On the apprentice, you admire a good salesperson, and a good salesperson,


at times, has to embellish the truth. No, I'm sorry. Long term, a


good salesperson has to tell the truth. Have you ever lied before?


Only about the tooth fairy. Channel 4 is going ahead


with the broadcast of tapes of Do the royal family


deserve more privacy? And we debate the ethics of shooting


animals for sport as a charity uses One of the first things we have come


up with is a pheasant casserole and partridge curry.


All that coming up - and Emma Barnett is here ready


We want you to get in touch with your views on our


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 sundaymorninglive@bbc.co.uk.


However you choose to get in touch, don't forget to include your name


so I can get you involved in the programme.


For instance, you may have strong views about new genetic research


on embryos which might help eliminate some


But could it also open the door to designer babies?


I'll be putting that to a leading scientist in the field later.


But first, something else to get you talking.


Well, Lord Sugar, a business leader and television star,


says one way to improve that is to prosecute politicians


I went to see him to find out more - and found myself facing him


across a boardroom table just like in his TV series


You're fired. You're fired. Lord Sugar, I want to start by


asking you what you want to make it a criminal offence for a politician


to lie? Because I think the ramifications of some of the


promises or lives that they have made have endangered the population.


It is as simple as that. As an example, the moving out of the


European Union, I'm not sure that the majority of the electorate


really understood the full ramifications of it. We were


disastrously led into it by lies, big lies. Would you want politicians


in jail? I would, I would put Gove and Johnson in jail for what they


said. For what they promised in the referendum? It should be a criminal


offence because they are responsible politicians who blatantly, and they


cannot argue against this, printed a figure of ?350 million on the side


of a bus and implied that is what we pay to the European Union every


week, oh, and by the way, we will take that 350 and throw it in to the


National help. But people will say, on The Apprentice, you admire a good


salesperson, and a good salesperson at times has to embellish the truth.


No, I'm sorry. Longer term a good salesperson has to tell the truth.


They won't tell the bad points, they will see the positives of the


product and the negatives... It is not for them to tell the bad side,


it is for the person who is selling to ask questions... Is that not


embellishing? Not really, you are not hiding anything. But you see how


it is close to the line? It depends what kind of salesman you are


talking about. If it is Del Boy and Rodney, you are right, they would


break the rules. But Del Boy and Rodney are not politicians, they


have not been voted by people to represent them and that is the


difference. Have you ever lied before? Only about the tooth fairy.


Really? The way you are smiling I don't think that is true! Somethings


are effectively a lie, but no serious lies. Your business I'm sure


it is perfectly sound but there are not that are not doing exactly the


right thing, maybe telling lies, and you can get away with it in


business, card you? It depends, not in a public company you can't. As a


past chairman of three public companies, it was my obligation to


write a chairman's statement to the shareholders that was audited by


individual people and they would challenge me, how can you say that


you are going to do this, how can you say you are going to do that?


Very tight scrutiny. All I'm saying is that the manifesto should be


vetted prior to them going public. Morally, should be vetted by


independent people. But what you would get is a lot of bland


manifestos because politicians are scared stiff of saying something


that perhaps is not going to work? Economies change, things change. I


have no problem with people in their election manifesto coming out with


statistics. The only problem I have got is, get them right, get the


numbers right. In the case of Mr Corbyn, when you say that you are


going to try to cancel student fees, maybe think about re-funding, that


statement is ?100 billion, you cannot make that statement because


an auditor or an economist would advise, don't say that because you


will never be able to pull it off. It could be argued, and he would


argue, I didn't promise it, so it is not a lie, but come on, you are


talking to 18, 19-year-old students who will take that as, well, I will


have some of that, I will definitely have some of that. Let's talk about


your fellow host of The Apprentice across the pond, Donald Trump. Is he


not a great example of politicians in England getting more scrutiny


than businessmen? He did what he likes, now he is getting more


scrutiny. I think you are right, as a businessman he could just turn


around and say, we are going to paint all our buildings green


tomorrow, get on with it. In the White House of course he cannot just


say, we are going to do this and do that, he has had if you slap backs,


as we speak right now there is turmoil in the White House and yet


Donald, he will go on Twitter and say, isn't life great, haven't I


done well so far? Everything I promised has come true! In fact,


actually, not really, you have not done anything yet, but he will write


that down in a tweet and a lot of the population will believe it


because he said it. You are overlord, of course. Would you


consider a move into front line politics? Absolutely not. Why?


Because it is a thankless, hopeless task. In my 70 years I have never


heard a member of the public say, what a great Prime Minister we have,


how good things are, isn't it nice, isn't it wonderful? I think they are


nuts, they must be nuts to take that on. Lord Sugar, thank you very much


indeed. OK, thanks a lot. So should it be illegal


for politicians to lie, particularly Joining us now to discuss


that are Peter Hitchens, And Gina Miller,


a businesswoman and campaigner. Jena, you heard Lord Sugar there,


should it be a criminal offence for politicians to lie? I think there


are degrees of lie and there should be degrees of punishment. There


should be punishment for politicians who lie, I see it a bit like a code


of ethics or being a doctor, if a politician lies and breaks that code


of ethics, they should be struck off and not be allowed to be a


politician again. If it is a more serious lied then there is a


consequence to the country and I think there should be ramifications.


Gove and Johnson? The referendum is irreversible, but with general


elections you just vote them out. I think Mr Gove in particular said it


is fine to lie on the electable -- electoral Trail, and I think he


should be facing consequences for that. Electoral lies are enormous


for the country and they should be held responsible. Exploiting fear by


lying has become more visible and there is far more of it in politics


and that is worrying to all of us so we will have to bring in something


that stops that flow and building up of lies that is happening. Peter,


you are not known for your love of politicians, would you banged them


up? Apart from the practical work ability of it, the selective victor


's justice which would follow if people were prosecuted by the


Government, practices such as that, it is ridiculous for us to pretend


that politicians are the only ones involved in dishonesty at elections.


In the old saying it used to be said that people pretended to work and


the Government pretended to pay them. In our elections, the


politicians pretend to have these manifestos and we pretend to believe


them and that is why we have got into the mess we have. Blatant lies


are told by people bribing us with our own money and one of the reasons


why democracy is going so rapidly down is precisely because of that


soap to turn on politicians and blamed them for playing a game that


we played with the same enthusiasm is ridiculous. You cannot bring the


public, if they are all lying... You can certainly bring the public


because the public's self-deception is one of the reasons why this


country is in debt nationally and individually, we will not face up to


the reality of the situation, we would rather be lied to them told


the truth. If a politician went into an election and said, this is the


real state of the country, we don't make and export enough, we have to


increase income tax or council tax is very heavily to balance the


national books, they would lose the election. Emma has a guest with


years of political experience. I'm joined now by the former Tory MP


and Cabinet minister Edwina Currie. Good morning. Let me correct you on


something I said, I would not wish it to be known as a lie when you


said I was a cabinet minister, Margaret Thatcher did not have any


female cabinet ministers, I was a Government minister. Honest from the


start! Should politicians ever be prosecuted for lying to the public?


Well, they are under electoral law, it is an electoral offence. Phil


Willis, for example, a Labour Government minister in 2010, fought


an election with lies on his leaflets. Unfortunately his opponent


was a millionaire businessman who took him to a electoral Court, the


election was swept to one side and he was banned for three years from


taking part in any election campaigns. So it can be done. Do you


think those rules can be updating in light of something like the EU


referendum where there was, as some people put it, a big lie on the side


of above about how much money would come back into the NHS if we let the


European Union, would you specifically put Foreign Secretary


Boris Johnson in prison or have him prosecuted? Part of the problem in a


fast-moving campaign is the speed of doing this, the lie is around the


world before the truth has put its boot on and the cumbersome process


as Peter Hitchens has just pointed out where you would have to have it


checked and have lawyers and all the rest of it, by that time you have


got the election done and voting has been done and people have taken the


decision. Of course the best lies are the ones where there is an


element of truth. I was a Remain campaign but it is true that we make


a substantial net contribution to the EU and at some point in the


future when we are out of it we won't be making that and that money


might be available for other things. So you don't sound like you want to


put Boris Johnson in the can yet, what about Jeremy Corbyn's promises


about student debt? Alan Sugar misquoted him of it, what Corbyn


said was that he would deal with student debt. You can read into that


whatever you like but if you are talking to a bunch of students and


young people they are likely to think, that will mean no student


debt, it will mean no fees in future, that would be absolutely


great, we will vote for that so a million of them did and some of them


even voted twice which is of course another electoral offence. Let's


stick with this for the moment, can you honestly say now you never lied


while you were in politics? Of course I occasionally like that


sometimes it was because the truth was so unpalatable that people find


it very, very hard and sometimes you had to say to people, look, you are


not going to like what I am going to tell you, particularly with


constituents, but I won't lie to you, and they would then try to find


somebody else for a second opinion because that is what they prefer.


Peter Hitchens referred to... What is an example that you lied about?


Anything major that you regret? For example I represented a coal mining


constituency, it was obvious the pits were going to close, they had


been worked for many years, they were worked out, dangerous, heavily


subsidised to keep people there. We were going to have to find something


else for people to do. It was not at the time of the miners strike when


these men were at work, unpalatable thing to stand up and make speeches


about, but in the aftermath of the miners strike when people realised


change had to come, that was the approach that I took and indeed we


got Toyota so we were successful. Thank you for that. Not palatable,


you don't say the truth at the time. Sometimes the truth is more harmful.


Good time to bring in our lying expert! You have written a book


about lying, did you lie in the book? I lie about everything! Our


politicians worse than the general public? If anything they probably


lie less than the general public because whatever they say is exposed


to a unforgiving scrutiny and they have to be very careful about what


they say. I think the reason we start to think of them as a bit


shifty and dishonest is that they are always guarding themselves


against any possible situation where they could be lying and the fact is


people like all the time, we all like all the time, that is a big


thing when I talked to psychologists who study this for a living for my


book, they have various theories of how mining works and why people like


that what all agree is that people lie habitually and it is part of


daily life, so one psychologist found this figure which is that


people lie three times within ten minutes of meeting each other, so we


only met a few minutes ago I have probably told a few porkies! Another


one found that people lie on average twice a day, which is probably


right. The lies which really make people


angry are the lies that are told to damage the innocent persons, bearing


false witness, or lies to gain advantage over other people in


fairy. Those lives matter and they are told in politics and business as


well. Are business people worse than politicians? You have painted quite


a good picture politicians. I think just as bad, if not worse. I work in


business and the idea that business is more honest than politics is


ridiculous, I think. Business people exaggerate and prevaricate all the


time, so do we. People in all walks of life have risen to the top who


have sticks and carrots as to why they are lying. For some it is


advancement, sometimes the stickers that you will be sacked or not


promoted. I expect politicians to be better. I don't want them to be


lying. What I think is very worrying is the increase in lining and how


visible it is, playing on people's fears. When you lie in politics and


you exacerbate people's fears, it is not responsible and you have do have


some checks and balances when it comes to lying back creates fear.


Politicians have been lying for years, Jonathan Aiken, Jeffrey


Archer. When Winston Churchill was asked about lying he said I have


lied many times for my country but less frequently to my country, that


is the difference. The public and the media are lot more connected


through social media, so we can share our views of he was lying, it


goes on social media and everybody sees it. We could not do that


before. The public are partially to blame. Looking at the end of 2016,


only 50% of the population trust politicians, but how vocal are they


add saying I don't trust you? They are willing to take the lie because


it is easier, perhaps. Five years of moaning that politicians always lie,


30 seconds in the polling booth to vote for the same people. We have


had an awful lot of stuff about the referendum campaign, as a supporter


of this country leaving the European Union I completely accept that the


Leave campaign behaved disgracefully in some of the things they did, but


so did Remain. Both sides. The whole thing began with Ted Heath telling


an enormous whopper about how joining the then Common Market would


not affect British sovereignty and independence, a complete and


absolute falsehood and the row has rested on but ever since. The idea


it is one-sided or new is incorrect. I think both sides lied. Who will


decide he was lying and he was not? Who will decide weather or not the


promise about the NHS is a lie? Will that be decided in the courts? The


people who voted on that basis do not necessarily think that, you have


that view. The way we punish politicians for lying is by putting


them out of office, once we have decided they are dishonest... Let's


get social media. Hopefully we do fact checking at the BBC as


journalists. Something that Edwina Currie said with regards to Phil


Willis, the CPS did not go ahead without prosecution.


One person on Twitter says manifestos can be made legally


binding as situations might change. Robert says lying occasionally is a


requirement of politics. We had to be realistic that nobody will ever


meet every single manifesto pledge promised. Bob says politicians get


away with all sorts of behaviour that would see the rest of us in


court. If we lied at work we would be sacked. Paul says prosecute


politicians for lying? We would have to build a new prison after every


election. Thanks for that, Paul, we like the practicality.


Peter, how can we make politicians more honest? A more educated


electorate is what you need. The real crisis of our country is in the


collapse of education since the destruction of the grammar schools


in the 60 's, since when people have been taught what to think but not


how to think. If you can't think, how can you possibly judge whether


somebody should be elected into Government? Have you ever told a big


lie in your job? You are really called out in my job if you lie in


print club. I have lied in person, no doubt. Your body language was not


good. You can doubtless find it if I have. Yes or no? I think we all tell


lies to some degree, in the investment world when you tell the


truth there is a price to pay, you get less votes, less customers but


it is the right thing to do. It is about the conditions that


politicians operating, it is not that they are particularly bad at


lying. No light, we are out of time. Thank you for joining us.


Next week marks what some describe as the glorious 12th -


the official start of the shooting season for red grouse in the UK,


during which hundreds of thousands of the birds are shot


The day is often marked by protests from animal rights campaigners.


But a charity has begun a scheme to use game birds such as pheasant


and partridge to provide meals for people in need.


The former England cricket captain Sir Ian Botham says he plans


to donate 10,000 birds from his shooting


Wendy Robbins went to find out more about the scheme.


Shooting birds in the UK. All it has long been a controversial subject.


However it remains a firm and legal fixture in our countryside and a big


part of life in Rowell communities. I caught up with Sebastien Green,


who organises shoots. I know the shooting season is soon to begin,


can you take me through broadly what happens on a shoot? Ago there are


various forms of shooting, it can be driven shooting where birds are


driven towards people who shoot, there is walked up shooting where


people who shoot the birds will walk towards them. The shooting community


contribute ?2 billion towards the rural economy, it is quite


significant. Tim Woodward is a former commodity


broker who left his job in the City last year as he wanted to set up a


charity to help tackle food poverty. Sebastien suggested a way to achieve


that. Sebastien told me about this idea he had of really utilising meet


to feed people in need. We started exploring that idea. -- utilising


meat. How do you feed people? We went to be by charities and asked


what they do not have. They said they get a lot of low nutritional


value products but they are missing really good protein and meat. We


looked at a wide array of meat and the first thing we came up with is a


pheasant casserole and a partridge curry. What made you think about


that? In the countryside at the moment there is a wide availability


of those two meats, the price has come down in recent years and we


thought we might appeal to people in those environments to help us by


maybe donating their meat to us. The charity is looking to donate


125,000 meals this year. TV chef Tim Adams is their food adviser. The


nutritional value of game meat is, generally speaking, higher than


comparable farmed meat. High in protein, exceptionally low in fat by


comparison to fund meat because it has had a longer life, grown over a


greater period. It is more nutrient dense, partly because it is moved


around a lot and partly because of a more varied diet. I was interested


to know what it was about this charity that attracted him. I am


proud to be part of the Country Food Trust and what they are doing, there


are a lot of hungry people for what different reasons. When you look at


that problem and you say we want to feed them, how can we help, you


start looking for low value products to feed them, and I am talking about


monetary value, not nutritional value. One of the no-brainers at the


right time of year is game meat. Pheasant and partridge particularly,


available in a very short period of time that become incredibly cheap.


You can give it away to people who are hungry.


Game meat might be nutritious but for some people there are big


ethical questions about killing birds for sport. Some people feel,


this is their concern, that what you are doing is taking something


distasteful to them, shooting birds for sports, and making it acceptable


by giving to charity in the way you are doing. I think that you could be


made but it did not cross our minds when we started. Clearly some people


are very much against shooting and some people are very much in favour,


and a large sector of people might not have a view. As a charity we are


not lobbying for against. If you have an issue with shooting


that is your right, campaign about it and fight for a change in the


law. But don't in the meantime stop is taking a low value commodity with


a very high nutrient wealth and giving it to people who are hungry,


don't mix those two arguments. Wendy Robbins with an example of how


birds shot for sport can be used But hunting and shooting remain


controversial and can generate strong passions both


for and against. So let's discuss - is it ethical


to shoot animals for sport? Joining us now are Phillippa King,


the director of The League Jim Barrington is from


the Countryside Alliance. Bonnie Greer is a


playwright and novelist. And Peter Hitchens


the journalist is still with us. Philippa, starting with you, is


there some good coming out of shooting in terms of feeding people


who do not have enough food or food with lots of protein in it, then


surely that is better in your eyes? I would argue that people who go to


food banks need the basics like bread, milk, cheese, sugar and


flour. There is another dark aspect to this that in 2012 the Food


Standards Agency put out a warning that people should not eat too merge


game bird that has been shot by lead. Let's can cause brain injuries


and nervous system problems. -- lead can cause. It is great people want


to help people going to food banks, not a problem. The charity said they


tested their first production run for traitors of lead, results were


very low and well within the EU regulations and they will continue


to test each production run going forward. In terms of the food you


mentioned, the food banks, none of them had a great deal of protein. So


people using food bank should not eat meat? Ago but is not my point at


all. But testing them,, I am really pleased they are testing but the


Food Standards Agency says you should not eat too much game bird


shot by lead. About charities that give food to children or pregnant


women, they are thinking about these things and they are within the


regulations. In the shooting season there was


100,000 birds shot a day. They are reared to be shot, in the most awful


circumstances. They are in message toe mesh cages, they are not


indigenous birds, lots get chipped in. -- they are in mesh cages. This


board, again, is this a sport? It is not a level playing field. Jim, you


used to be part of the organisation of Philippa is in bits you have


changed sides? I looked up the facts. When you start to portray


something is just killing for sports, then it gives people who do


not have much to do with that activity a skewed view. This has a


utilitarian outcome, as so many forms of shooting and hunting do.


Not all, but they can't all be lumped together as Chris Packham


seems to do with his animal rights agenda. It has a benefits. You had


to look at that benefit and equally you have to look at the


consequences. If you stop these activities. It benefits humans, what


about the birds who are pretty much battery hens? That is a debate.


Personally I do not eat meat, but when people are eating literally


billions of intensively reared birds, to say that shooting free


range birds, which is what this is... They are not free range...


When they are out they are. They have many conservation benefits


which provide and keep a unique part of the countryside, the heathland.


Bonnie? We need to separated. It is wonderful to feed people, you


shouldn't say they should not eat gross, they should eat what they


need to. It is a cover for so-called sport, which is about people running


around the countryside in funny costumes and screaming.


There was nothing wrong with it, but don't tie on some kind of book about


people eating as a result of it. It is not about eating, it is about


doing what they want to do, but you should not connect the two. This is


itself a cover for a class war campaign. It is not about class war.


Let's keep a sense of proportion, millions, possibly billions of


chickens reared in the most disgusting conditions, pigs as well,


in this country and other countries, cattle, to be fed. The proportion of


this in comparison to the amount of shooting is vast. But there are


regulations. If you let me finish my point I can shut up afterwards. Here


is the point, I have enormous respect for vegetarians and


freedoms, I am not want, but if someone who is a vegetarian or begin


can object to the shooting of game birds, anybody who makes a fuss


about a very small number of game birds being shot and says nothing at


all about battery and factory produced meat which they willingly


eat, says nothing about conditions in many slaughterhouses which


provide the meat to eat, seems to me to be missing the point and losing


all sense of proportion and attacking something they don't do


while leaving something alone which they do do. Ayew a vegetarian? No,


I'm not. You said a small amount of birds, it is about 35 million birds


a year which are reared and shot, they don't have the regulations that


farm animals do, we have all seen... Regulations are really helpful to


the chickens. We all know those regulations due to be tight end but


we are talking about people going out for pleasure to shoot animals on


a mass scale at which about 30 or 40% don't get shot cleanly because


when people have adrenaline going in a sporting environment, study


showed... Let Philippa speed. About 100,000 birds a day are shot and


most of those go into the pit, not the pot. They are just disregarded.


Let's eat more of them. For people that just do that for enjoyment for


one day. Let's bring in Emma now,


who has a guest who is firmly I'm joined now by Diggory Hadoke,


an author and hunter. What animals do you shoot? All sorts


of things since I first had a gun at eight years old, I started with


rabbits around local farms, progressed to a shotgun later in


life shooting pheasants and pigeons again around the farms. By the time


I was about 30 I started getting involved in driven game shoot and


while fouling and I also shoot deer on bases in Scotland, mainly row and


red deer. I hunt in Africa as well. The African side of things is


slightly separate, we will get onto that the moment. Would you say what


you do you do as a sport, as fun? Read a rather lame article in the


Guardian this week which criticised me as an apologist for shooting and


I would say I am an advocate of shooting, I don't think there is


anything to apologise for. Shooting is a great sport and it is a sport


which has been part and parcel of English country life for as long as


we have had society. Many things have been part and parcel of English


life that we have got rid of, which are no longer appropriate. If you


say it is a sport you understand why some people may feel


uncomfortable about your sport? I think some people live very


different lives. If you have grown up in the countryside and hunt for


utility and sport it is a normal part of everyday life. If you are


based in an urban environment it seems utterly alien to you and you


cannot understand it but ignorance should not be a basis for banning


things which numbers show are beneficial and healthy. You


mentioned you have been out to Africa which speaks to trophy


hunting, I don't know what you hunted out there but how do you


defend that, what did you hide? I have hunted all sorts of things in


Africa, I have been out to shoot pigeons over sunflower crops where


the annual sunflower crop loses about 30% of what is grown to


predation by pigeons and guinea fowl so I have been out to shoot those...


You don't go to Africa to shoot pigeons, what were the big game


targets? I have been to Africa to shoot pigeons on many occasions, it


is a very good thing to do and a good sport. I have also hunted


buffalo in Tanzania, I have been on as a journalist and accompanying


Hunter on an elephant hunt in Botswana, a lion hunt in Tanzania,


numerous opportunities to hunt buffalo and things so I have


reasonable experience of hunting in Africa for all sorts of things. You


don't have any empathy with people who have an issue with that? Well,


again, lots of people have emotional reactions to all sorts of things and


have a personal moral objection to them, which is fine, but don't try


to impose them on other people. I don't think... I think in order to


object to something and call for a ban on it, you need to show that it


does harm and all empirical studies show hunting in Africa does a lot of


good and really areas where hunting is the conservation strategy of


choice, often the only one that works. Diggory, you have put your


view across there, thank you for sharing it this morning. Always good


to hear what you were thinking at home, thank you for getting in


touch, I'm sure more responses will come in, but Paul says, when you


deliberately raise these birds with the intention of shooting them for


sport then yes, it is absolutely pathetic.


Shooting birds is OK, say someone else, but only if birds are allowed


to shoot back! Another one, Chris says, there is a


reason we are the top of the food chain, it means we can eat whatever


we want. Very interesting debate there. Even


more interesting seeing your reaction, Bonnie! He says you are


just being emotional. This guy obviously like shooting, fine, but


the thing is, the question with the birds, giving birds to homeless


people, that is why it is OK to do that, those are two different point.


It is good to feed people, nothing wrong with that, but to have a


sport, and I'm not going to go out banning people from doing that, but


just as a general question, to have a sport on a built-up island, OK,


where it is completely almost urbanised and people are rushing


around with shotguns in costumes on horses and dogs that they breed, it


is absolutely ridiculous, and at the end of the day, we are going to talk


about it like that, that is what it is. You have got ten seconds. You


are portraying this as something it is not, this is wildlife management,


all of these activities have a benefit. You always hear what people


dislike but never what they are for. I gave you ten seconds and I have to


stick to that, we are out of time, thank you all very much indeed.


Still to come on Sunday Morning Live...


Marine Baig visits the community that welcomes people


A major scientific breakthrough was announced this week


as scientists discovered a way of editing embryos to remove


faulty DNA that causes life-threatening genetic conditions.


The study gives a glimpse into the possible future


of medicine, where genetically inherited disabilities


But it also provokes deep questions as to the ethics involved


Here to discuss this latest breakthrough


and the issues that arise from it is Professor Darren Griffin,


an expert in genetics from the University of Kent.


So this week is a big week in the world, can you explain in simple


terms what was discovered? Basically we have had a procedure called


preimplantation genetic diagnosis for about 25 years and that involves


the creation of a number of embryos and then the selection of those


thought to be unaffected with genetic disease. What is different


with this procedure is that it would take embryos that are thought to be


affected and the technology can correct that genetic defect so it


can put in a normal gene where there was previously an abnormal one. And


in this instance it removed heart disease? Yes, a particular type of


heart disease as a genetic component, you may recall the


footballers have her number, something similar to that. -- the


footballer Fabrice Muamba. There will be concerned that this could be


misused in a way that would not be good for us as humans, who would be


eligible for the treatment and how would it work in day-to-day life? Is


it just those going through IVF? By and large these would be people at


risk of transmitting genetic diseases, so a classic example would


be cystic fibrosis in Caucasian populations, one in 20 of us have a


copy of the faulty cystic fibrosis gene. So if you knew that you could


go to your doctor before procreating, if this was to become


law, and they, I would like to make my babies with the help of doctors


and have the gene removed? What can happen already if they can go to an


IVF clinic and the embryos, one or two embryos are selected and at the


moment people can have embryos selected that are free from the


disease, what would potentially be different in future if this ever


came to pass is if they found none of those were genetically normal


then one of those found to be abnormal could potentially be


corrected. What about the ethics of this? Let's say everybody was


eligible in some way, because there is concern which people could get


access to this and they could be a rich super race, we don't really


know the ramifications of removing the gene, putting warning, changing,


editing DNA. We have a number of issues, first of all the issue of


ethics itself, should we be meddling with embryos at all? At the moment


in the UK and the US, many other countries have legislation on this,


it is illegal to manipulate an embryo and go on and... Do you agree


with that? At the moment I think it is absolutely right because we have


safety concerns that need to be addressed so the procedure itself


can cause off target affects that need to be properly investigated and


one thing I am a huge advocate for is proper research before these


things go into clinical procedures. Then we need to consider the ethical


framework, yes on the one hand should we manipulate embryos at all,


but equally on the other hand, if we have the ability to do this and


there are families in need of it, is it ethical not to do it? This is the


framework. There is concern, I know it is a phrase used often with any


advance we hear about, designer babies, creating them, what issues


that poses? I thought you might mention that. Designer babies is a


phrase you hear a lot and I give public talks and I have bitten the


bullet and tongue in cheek call it that now... But it is a serious


concern. I have mixed feelings about the phrase but yes, there is a


concern about the way that we mitigate -- and the way that we


mitigate that if we have lawyers who work on social policy, philosophers,


ethicists, all of whom need to be involved in the debate considering


all of the pros and cons, the safety, the ethics of doing it, the


ethics of not giving it, then we come to review whether society, we


have the human fertilisation embryo authority formed many years ago and


by and large this sort of work is highly, highly regulated. So at the


moment you are aware of the issues but they need much more


investigation and that is where we are at the moment? Absolutely, and


the thing gives it is highly regulated and long should it remain


so. We will keep talking about it, I'm sure. Professor Darren Griffin,


thank you. Tonight Channel 4 will broadcast


a controversial documentary about Princess Diana which has been


called a betrayal of privacy. The programme uses recordings made


by the princess as part of a voice coaching course and reportedly


reveals intimate details This month sees the 20th anniversary


of the death of Princess Diana Channel 4 says the tapes


are an important historical source and, though made in private,


the subjects covered So whatever the rights and wrongs


of this case, do the royal family Joining me now are Graham Smith,


the chief executive of Republic. Robert Jobson is the royal editor


of the London Evening Standard. And Bonnie Greer is


a playwright and novelist. Robert, you have been covering the


Royal family for 30 years or so, is this an invasion of privacy?


LAUGHTER Is it an invasion of privacy?


Possibly. Possibly. Would you like to see these tapes? I have seen


them. I have seen the show. If you wanted to watch the tapes, if you


have a phone or a home computer you can do it now. If you lived in


America you would have already seen most of this. The actual programme


which Channel 4 allowed me to see because I was commentating on it for


the national newspapers is good, it is very well made and Diana is the


person that brings light to the rather sombre mood of the film. But


the principal... Once they were sold by Peter settle into NBC, they have


been licensed by Channel 4. It is as technical as that. It goes back to


the Paul Burrell court case. Paul Burrell gathered all this stuff, put


it into a loft, that led to a case that collapsed. It was left to


Scotland Yard to return these tapes to their rightful owners. It went to


Peter Setland, was it morally right? Is it right that those tapes are


being shown on national television? Yes, if you don't like... You are a


journalist, you would say that. If you don't like it, they have been


seen on television at MBC, it is in the computer, turn over, they will


not have that many viewers anyway. You don't have to watch it. You


asked whether it is moral for Channel 4 to screen it, I think it


is in the public interest, I think it is intrusive. Those poor young


men... Who have just made their own film. Let's let Christina speak.


Dated, and we all know that Diana was a very troubled woman -- they


did. We know she had an eating disorder and she was so insecure she


had all kinds of crushes on members of staff, basically, because she was


so lonely and very unhappy. We know that. Facing the 20th anniversary of


her death we could have a bit more respect for somebody who probably


died, essentially, because of prurient press interest into her


private life. And a drunk driver. Yes, but... There is no question her


life was made an absolute misery by the paparazzi pursuing her. We could


do more honour to her memory. Bonnie? In law there is something


called expectation of privacy, which applies in this situation. She was


with a therapist and it is like this all, if we go to our doctor or


therapist we expect privacy. This was the situation. So she spoke in


that atmosphere. That is what is immoral, if we are going to use that


word. It goes back to the original seller of the tape. If we look at


it, we have participated in it. We have the right to do it but we are


participating in the invasion of privacy. She did not, unfortunately,


live very long. We do not know what her impact on history will be, if


any, but it is a private tape and it is not right. It was the boy 's cut


-- voice coach and she spoke to. Crostini are touched on William and


Harry, they are normal people with normal feelings, I have spoken to


them. I would not want my dead mother's tapes to be released, would


you? Historians and journalists have described the Royal household is


more secretive than the CIA and MI5. The idea of giving them more secrecy


is back to front. It is not a private family, it was not the


journalists, it was the monarchy, institution and the Royal household


who caused the trauma for Princess Diana. There is a public interest in


judging this institution, which is largely shielded behind a fairly


sympathetic press and official secrecy to look about the closed


doors and safe who are these people? Who is the Queen who is running this


institution? Who are the people around them? Why do we


have the right to private details? It is a public institution, the


Queen as head of state, the Royal household are on the public payroll.


All the public... Gory details? I do not think we should have the


monarchy at all, there is no separation between private and


public. The family has been constitutional eyes than they


exploit their own private life for their own game. I don't have an


argument about that birds Victoria's youngest daughter burned all of her


diaries. These are public people but I would dispute whether Diana will


wind up in the historical record or not, she did not live long enough,


we do not know. This might be of interest to know about the future


king and the future king after that, then maybe. It is just not history.


It is a young woman... St Kitts will not learn about Princess Diana in


100 years? -- so kids Will not learn? I don't think that Princess


Diana's opinion of their husband and son, who will both be the monarch...


We might want to judge King Charles, the next king, who is this man?!


Let's listen to Graham. We have a right to know who our head of state


will be, we should really have a right to choose. Then what? And then


get rid of them. Robert? You were talking about President Trump, an


elected man. Your country has annihilated this man. You don't want


him to be President, you look into everything about his life. Can you


criticise us for wanting to know the saying? I did not say criticise, I


am talking about her intent. She was advised... Listen to Bonnie, Robert.


She was in a therapeutic situation. She was not. Listen to Bonnie. All I


have read... She was not. Robert, you had to listen to her. You might


have more information, but most people would believe to be true...


Alexia this information. Number one, he is not a therapist, he is an


actor. She was advised not to give him those tapes, number two, and she


did. Her bodyguard said give it back to her, he did. It was after the


Burrell case that Scotland Yard decreed that the tapes belonged to


Setland, who sold them, he is immoral, no one else. Christina?


Diana was a human being. We are talking about at moral issue. She


was a human being with the right to a certain amount of privacy. What a


very unhappy woman said to a voice coach in private about her six life


is not necessary for us to know about and I think it is an absolute


abomination and disgrace. That is all we have time for, thank you. She


said a lot more than that... The L'Arche community began


in France more than 50 years ago. It enables people with learning


difficulties to live and work with others in an environment


that is supportive and inclusive. There are now 146 L'Arche


communities in 35 countries, and Marine Baig has been to visit


one in Kent. I am in Canterbury, Kent, and I have


got here just in time for breakfast. I will be joining Elenor, Chris,


Scott and Vitak. I am helping with toast. This is supported


accommodation run by the faith -based charity L'Arche. Most of the


charity's residents have learning disabilities, although not all.


Scott is completing a degree at Bristol University when he developed


a rare and limiting brain condition. # All the lonely people


# Where do they all belong? Wow! You did a history degree? What


university? Bristol. How old were you? 1987. It left him needing 24


hour support from the charity's staff and volunteers.


# You can dance... Not all the residents require full-time care,


some are semi-independent. Caroline lives in her own self-contained


flat. How do you find living here independently compared to...? Very,


very different speakers here is just me and one other assistant, over


that there are seven, seven people and three or four macro live in. Do


you find it better? Much better. I have my own kitchen, my sitting


room, dining area, I can come and go when I want, come back when I want.


Everyday, residents are involved in work or activities, as I am about to


discover in the workshop. Hello, I am Marine. Lovely to meet


you. They sell much of the Kraftwerk and


receive a share of the profits. I am doing needle felting. I have


ever done that before. Will you teach me? -- I have never done that


before. I have a needle, I am pricking it and making sure it stays


in. You get one of these, choose the colours that you want. OK. I love


being creative, making things. It is really not as easy as it looks. I am


getting better at this. I did tell you, didn't I? You were right!


L'Arche was found in France in 1964. This particular community was


founded ten years later and was the first in the UK. One of its earliest


residents was Peter. Pictured here on the right in 1975.


He was supported by a volunteer called Maggie, pictured in the


middle. They became firm friends. That is you, Pete, looking at the


cameraman. It is where L'Arche started, I was visiting for the


first time. More than 40 years later, Maggie and Pete are still


close friends. Pete, we have been friends since 1975, because that


supper evening in the garden was when I first visited. You have been


a really good friend to me. I would say that one of the reasons I like


having you as a friend all this time is because you let me be myself. You


do. I have come to meet them both to find out what it is about L'Arche


that made their friendship so special. Nice to meet you. Thank


you. Can you believe you have been friends for so long? We always hit


it off. Pete has a great wit. What do you like about Maggie? You make


me a cup of tea. You make me a cup of tea! How has L'Arche helped you?


It struck me that it was fun. There was not understand them, we were


human beings in the same community learning from other.


Now Pete and I are meeting up with Caroline, Elenor, Chris and Scott


and other members for a barbecue. While the food is cooking, I catch


up with Louise Carter, a national coordinator at L'Arche. We are ten


communities in the UK and probably support around 300 people with


learning disabilities in different ways. We are Christian ecumenical


communities but we welcome people of all faiths and none, and it is


people with disabilities that drive and shape community life in their


desires and hopes for how they want to live.


Now time for food. Potato salad? Caroline is on salad and I am on


sweetcorn. I have been privileged to make some wonderful new friends here


and now there is nothing more to do than seeing the afternoon away.


# We're all going on a summer holiday


# No more wary for a week or two # Fern and laughter on a summer


holiday # No more worries for me and you


# For a week or two... That's nearly all


from us for this week. But Emma will be carrying


on the conversation online. Yes, I'll be talking


to Robert Jobson about his nearly three decades of work covering


the royal family. Log on to


facebook.com/bbcsundaymorninglive In the meantime, from everyone


here in the studio and the whole


Sean Fletcher and Emma Barnett present thought-provoking debate and instant audience reaction on the big ethical talking points of the week, together with roving reports from around the UK.