in Parliament in the Record Review.

With MPs expenses and Tony Blair back in the spotlight, welcome to And with me here tonight in Coventry, Lord Falconer, one of Tony Blair's closest political allies, Justice Secretary in his Cabinet.

A defector from that Cabinet, the former International Development Secretary, Clare Short.

The Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Theresa May, the Respect MP, George Galloway and The Daily Mail comenist, Melanie Phillips -- columnist, Melanie Phillips.

So good evening.

Let's go straight to our first question.

The panel don't know what the questions will be.

The questionists do.

Do you think the 1.

3 approximately pounds to be -- \xC2\xA31.

3 million to be repaid will restore the public's confidence.

George Galloway, will this restore public confidence?

A general election is the only way to restore confidence in MPs.

I hope a large number of them are swept out of office and I suspect a number of them them will be.

A number have beat the retreat and decided to cheat the public of their right to hold them to account by retiring prematurely.

I think that we have major sis systematic problem.

A problem that has been gathering pace for a long time.

People don't trust the authorities.

They don't trust the information and statistics they get from authorities and they don't like the judgement exercised by MPs either.

My view is that we've got too many MPs, probably twice as many as we need.

India has a00 MPs for -- 500 MPs for one billion.

We should have the number of MPs, -- we should halve the number of MPs, and give them more staff and the quality of the work would improve.

You are going all over the shop.

So you are repaying over \xC2\xA33,000, that won't increase public confidence in you, you don't think?

Well, the decision to ask me to repay it was a little perverse as it wasn't me who claimed it on that budget in the first place.

My telephone bill, it was a telephone bill from 2004 was charged to the additional costs allowance budget by the finance officer of the House of Commons, not by me.

But when Mr Legg asked for the \xC2\xA33,000 back I wrote the cheque.

You can imagine the Daily Telegraph's disappointment in the many weeks that they filleted this issue that they discovered my expense claims in this Parliament have been zero.

Duck's egg, nothing.

Duck's egg, not duck house!

Charlie Falconer.

I don't think it will increase confidence.

I think it will make the position worse because people will do the calculations.

There are 390 MPs who are paying money back and it's about \xC2\xA33,000 a head.

I think confidence has been very, very severely shaken in a very big way in Parliament and in MPs and I think once you lose confidence to the extent that the Parliamentarians and I include myself in this have lost confidence, it takes a hell of a long time to get it back.

People, I think, are incredibly angry with members of Parliament and I don't even think necessarily that the general election is going to have the effect of clearing it.

I think we should try to keep it in context.

I think we have an essentially uncorrupt Parliament.

I think we have got to be very, very careful in the way that we respond to this, to prevent a situation being reached where only rich people can become MPs.

I think that that would be wrong.

I think our politicians, whatever you may think, have served us pretty well over the years.

I think we've had a good standard of Government and I think we won't continue to have that if we continue to treat all politicians as bad simply because a small number of MPs abused the expenses system.

You, sir.

Why would you need a second home of \xC2\xA3200,000, explain that to us.

Clare Short.

I didn't understand.

\xC2\xA3200,000 for a second home.

\xC2\xA3200,000.

Just off the top of my head.

I don't think people are allowed to have a second home for \xC2\xA3200,000.

I don't understand that question, but people who, Scottish MPs as George used to be, and then they are going to be in London, need to have two places.

I have a place in Birmingham and I have a place in Clapham.

You need two places.

It used to be that you couldn't claim anything to a mortgage, but you could claim rent.

When I went into the House of Commons, the ceiling was lower and you could claim rent because you had to stay in London as well as stay in your home.

Is today's news going to restore public confidence?

No, I personally think, it was a baggy expenses system.

The Government didn't introduce reforms on MPs pay.

That should be made totally independent.

They let the expenses system get baggy and people were encouraged to claim a lot and some people absolutely cheated and it looks as though there will be some prosecutions, but others, because if you work out the figure \xC2\xA31.

1 million, 390 MPs, it is under \xC2\xA33,000 on average and it is over four or five years so most of them is not massive amounts but some people are massive amounts.

It needs tightening up.

We need a system like the Scottish system where everything is transparent and on the web every month, but the way they have got at it and at it and over and over and all MPs have been smeared, not just the ones who were really at it and claiming disgracefully.

It comes on top of other feelings.

There is the expenses on top of the Iraq war and the feeling it has gone gone gone rotten and there is no difference between the parties.

Do you feel aggrieved at having to pay the money back?

I have got \xC2\xA31200 for my mobile phone bill and they said I should have claimed it from something else.

For five years they said that was fine.

I don't mind giving back \xC2\xA31200.

It is a funny thing, they said that's OK and then come along and said, "No, you should have claimed it from something else.

" And the gardening and the cleaning.

People like Frank Field is a descent, hard-working MP.

He is not married.

He has a housekeeper who looks after his house.

He is over the new limit they have brought in since and he feels really angry that now it is suggested that he is behaving improperly when he would never cheat on anything.

The lady in the third row.

I would say the British public actually feel angry.

I don't know about the politicians feeling a little bit angry.

I think the British public haven't just lost confidence in the people that they vote for, they are disgusted and have lost respect for the politician that they vote for.

Theresa May, do you think she is right?

What the lady said is right.

People were angry when they learned of what happened.

I think they will be angry today when they have seen the sums of money that have been repaid and people were rightly angry and all members of Parliament must take responsibility for letting the system get to the point where those sorts of claims were being made and not just the system itself, but the culture around the system was allowing those sorts of claims to be made.

I don't think the repayments going back to the original question, will restore confidence in politicians.

I hope it is the first step in restoring confidence to Parliament.

I think there are some other things we need to do.

We do need to cut the size of Parliament.

We should have, if we were in Government, ministers would have a cut in their pay.

We need full transparency on expenses, but what is going to restore confidence for people in politics and politicians is the behaviour of politicians.

Do you agree with what Sir Christopher Kelly said to the House of Commons committee today, "I think all of you are are guilty having gone along with a system which you knew was flawed.

" We must all take responsibility because we did go along with that system.

We allowed the system to carry on as it was.

I think many people didn't know what was happening within the system, but we allowed a culture to grow up where people were able to make those claims and that was wrong and it has to change.

The woman in purple there.

Given that it was a flawed system, what confidence can you give back to us, the British public, that that it will be improved because it was an element of dishonesty and how can we be assured that it will be changed?

Melanie Phillips.

have sympathy with this lady who asked this question.

Even though it is \xC2\xA31.

3 million being paid.

From my point of view, I can't understand why this flipping business hasn't been addressed.

We're being told that flipping houses is legal.

Well, if it's legal, it is not descent.

It's not wrong.

If you have two houses which I understand, you have to have two houses, you have a constituency a long way away from Westminster, that's fine, but nevertheless, you are living in your main house, you know it's your main house.

It is where your spouse and where your children go to school from and to pretend that's your second house in order to fiddle the system for tax avoidance for mortgage fiddles or whatever, it maybe legal, but it is it is disgusting and the fact is…

All those MPs seem to be quote getting away with it.

So how come, we have heard across the floor as it were this evening, contrition is the new spin, but when you look at it, what possible reason have we for believing any of them?

Very brief, very brief, George.

I'm not contrite in the least and I'm not guilty because I didn't know people could claim for hanging baskets and ropes for their flag flag poles and their duck ponds.

I never bought a house.

Never claimed from a John Lewis list that I didn't know existed and I didn't know others were doing so.

So I'm not at all contrite and my phone bill was approved by the finance officer, not me.

We have a lot of questions to get through.

If you're into Twitter and you want to follow us, we're at BBC Question Education Minister us with comments: Is Short right that the Cabinet was misled over the war in Iraq.

This is Clare Short's evidence to the Sir John Chilcott inquiry, over the war in Iraq, is she right, Lord Falconer?

No, I don't think she is right at the time.

I was not in the Cabinet at the time, Clare was.

So, how did you know?

Clare and Rob yin opposed the war at the time.

Rob in, like Clare took the time to be intelligent about the war.

Through discussions with the Prime Minister, with the intelligence services he took a view against the war.

There was no question, I don't think of anybody being misled in the Cabinet.

Choices had to be made.

That was as to whether or not you supported the war or not.

Robin didn't, the truth is that Clare did not either.

Robin made a speech in the House of Commons on the 18th of March in which he set out in detail his position, which included weapons of mass destruction and legality.

For everybody in the Cabinet it was a difficult decision, but I don't think it is right to say that they were misled, people simply took different views.

So, we will come to Clare Short in a moment, but when she said that legal advice was lent on and that Tony Blair's view was of him and his mates around him, ones that he could trust, you are one of his mates, one of his close estimates, you are the man that is said to have pinned Lord Goldsmith to the dining room drawer?

Can you make it clear.

This is not true.

I did not pin him against the wall.

As he said in the course of a day in evidence…

you try to get him to change his mind?

I didn't.

Why have a meeting with him at all?

By the time I saw him on the evening of the 13 pth of March, he had formed his view.

Why did you want to meet him?

wanted to meet us, in subs consequence to handling.

He asked for the meeting.

Me and Sally Morgan.

He wanted to meet both of us.

This is part of the myth that grows up.

Peter Goldsmith formed his view in relation to the legal advice it was open to Clare, she questioned the legal advice, she knew well there were different views in relation to the legal advice, she, honour yaipbl, had to make up her own view in relationship to it, but it's not right, I have to say, I made up my view on the basis of the fact there were certain things I did not know.

Clare Short Everybody knows now we have had all the leaks that Blair promises Bush he would with be him on regime change, but there had to be a series of con volume usings.

We all know now that there was an exaggeration of how much weapons of mass destruction there was, how dangerous it was, whether it was weaponised.

That has been proved on the Butler Report.

There was an unequivocal authority for war.

It was stunning.

We now know, before he has been before Sir John Chilcott, that he changed his mind three times in two weeks, he made Tony Blair sign a document saying that there was no other way of getting disarmament, even though Hans Blix was saying he needed more time, he is getting progress, he has gotten rid of blastic missiles.

So we know that the senior legal advisor, the one below that was saying it was illegal, I agree that everybody has to take responsibility for their decision, but there is no question that there was dishonesty and twisting, for example, that the French had vetoed a second resolution, and Jacques Chirac had said that he would oppose a second resolution, we know that is true.

That we should agree to enfarce on Saddam Hussein and disarm, there were a whole series of dishonesty.

Charlie is Tony's best friend, he has to deny it.

No, I don't accept what Clare is saying.

I am not saying this as I was Tony's best friend.

I am saying this at the time, the decisions, what the arguments were, pro and antey were well-known to everybody.

Look at the debate of 18th of March, 2003.

Roman Catholic and others set out all of the detailed arguments - - Robin Cook.

People had to make up their minds it was not about dishonesty.

It was about what decision you took.

Different people in different parts of country took different views.

It is wrong now for though in fairs of the war at the time, toy try to say they would have had a different view had they been told different things at the time.

That is not right, all of the material was available.

Are you saying that Clare is lying?

Not for one moment.

I don't think Clare is lying, I have to say that Clare has been one of the most successful members of the Blair and Brown Cabinet as the international development was great success.

What has that to do with it?

I want to you to know that I admire Clare, but I don't accept her view he was misled.

She made a decision.

I am not talking about me, I am talking about this country, the political system, what happened in Iraq, the people's whose lives were lost, the mess in the Middle East, whether it could have been done better, whether the country was told the truth, this is not about me, this is a very big thing.

It is a very, very big thing.

The reason that I personalallise it is because Clare is saying she was misled.

Already, there are a lot of people with their hands up.

Let's go around the table here.

Melanie Phillips?

I don't know if the Cabinet was misled.

I was not there, but I don't think that we the people were misled.

I realise that this may not be a majority view.

I am a small band of people, apparently, who supported the war in Iraq at the beginning.

I support it now.

I think that everything that happened after the fall of Saddam Hussein was catastrophic, but that is another matter.

I don't believe that we were taken to war on a lie.

I believe that everyone at the time believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons stocks, it was irrationalal at the time given what we knew not to think he had weapons stocks, I rashal not simply because of the intelligence, which we all know was limited but because of the way he behaved for so long, seeking to conceal what he was doing.

In any event the cause for war was not the WMD stocks, but that he had failed to show as the UN required him to show that he had disarmed, not just got rid of all his weapons stocks but stopped his weapons of mass destruction programmes so that he would prove to the world he was no longer a threat.

That was the case for war.

I believe it was legal.

I have read everything that has been said at Sir John Chilcott, the opinion of the Foreign Office legal advisors, I think that they were wrong, I say that as someone who is not a lawyer, but it seems to me if you look at the text of Resolution 1441, and what the Foreign Office lawyers were saying is simply wrong, but I supported, and I agree with, the final point, the most important point that Tony Blair made is that what people don't understand is this, not that Saddam Hussein did not say he was behind 9/11, but that it change the calculus of risk, so whereas before everybody said we can contain Saddam Hussein, more or less indefinitely, after 9/11, people said, "Oh, no, we can no longer take the risk that somebody who wants to be the leader of the region who is pursuing weapons of mass destruction, who has links to terrorism and is a threat to us, we can no longer allow that to continue because we now know that the risk to us, as we have seen from 9/11 is too large.

" Thank you.

George Galloway, can I repeat the question from Steve Simmons is Clare Short right that the Cabinet was misled over the war in Iraq?

You have collected the only group of five people in which you will find a majority in favour of the Iraq war on the panel tonight.

As Clare said, the country had made up its mind about this.

Lord Falconer, who is only in Parliament and in the Government because he was Tony Blair's flat meat is bound to make the case that he made!

-- flatmate is bound to make the case that he made!

Now, like even a stopped clock is right twice a day, the Sir John Chilcott inquiry, which I described when it was appointed as a parade of establishment flunkies is beginning to get some of the truth out into the open.

I don't think that anybody who listened to Short shrt's evidence this week in front -- Clare Short's evidence this week in front of the inquiry is in any doubt that the Cabinet was misled.

Charlie was not there, I was not there, but who do you believe?

Lord Falconer or Clare Short?

Again, the country has made up its mind.

Islamist extreme ist, fan atism is spreading like topsy around the work.

Fanaticism stocks it in many another land, including according to Melanie's book, London and Istan.

That young Muslims have been radicalised by the decisions that Sven have been made, and finally, David, there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore Iraq…

Iraq was not in breach of any UN resolutions which is why the UN didn't authorise the war.

Indeed, Iraq was invaded because it did not have weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea will never be invaded because it does have weapons of mass destruction!

Theresa May?

Was the Cabinet ministers misled?

Your party was in favour of it?

Were you misled?

is impossible to for me to say that, I was not sitting around the Cabinet table in receipt of the information given.

The point of the inquiry, is that one of the things it is looking at is about the information given to the Cabinet, to Parliament, to the public, as to whether or not there was misleading information given.

The way it is going, it looks as if misleading information was given, but we have to wait and see for the result of that inquiry.

The other things that are coming out of the inquiry, clearly, are first is that there was no proper planning for the aftermath of the war.

That involved, obviously, the military, also Clare's international development department and secondly, that, sadly, because of decisions being taken by Gordon Brown when he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer that our troops were sent into harm's way without having been provided with all of the proper equipment.

On the first of the three points, who misled?

I said that as things were looking at the moment, it looked as if some misleading information was given.

By whom?

By whom?

Well, some of the statements made by the Prime Minister in relation to the 45 days for example.

4 a minutes!

You are saying that the Prime Minister misled Parliament?

I am saying that the Sir John Chilcott inquiry is saying whether that was the case.

I said that it was certainly looking at some of the facts that have come before the inquiry, that was the case, but other issues have been raised about the way in which our troop were sent into battle without the proper equipment.

The man up in the right?

Clare, why didn't you resign earlier?

You were obviously against the war.

Had you resigned before Robin Cook, you would have caused a crack in the damn.

I have answered it before Chilcot and many times.

I booked my slot to resign.

Tony Blair has me in and says what would change your mind.

I said a second resolution from the UN.

To settle Palestine and get the Palestinian state, that is the core problem in the Middle East, if you did that, you could get everyone in the Arab world to cope rate in dealing with the problem.

By then there is what the -- there was the roadmap organisation.

If the war is unstoppable, there was clear agreemented needed that the UN would lead after the war.

That they would help to get internationals to help to rebuild the situation in Iraq.

He got me in again, said more about the roadmap.

Then he had me in again to say that President Bush has promised that the UN will lead.

So, I was in a dilemma.

I thought we cannot stop the war, the Tories were voting with the Government, it was go to pass, if these two things were done, the Middle East would be different.

I thought that Tony Blair was sincere, I took a lot of flak for it.

I still think it was the right thing to do if he had meant it.

We could have retrieved the mess that we have.

You were niave to believe him?

Snieflt yes, I was.

If the Yes, I was.

If the Iraq war is illegal, how will the MPs be blamed?

Lord Falconer?

I don't think the MPs are remotely to blame.

I don't think that the Government is, either, even a war crime that has been committed.

The Government acted honestly on the basis of legal advice.

Somebody must be responsible.

If the Government or the Prime Minister acts illegally, there is no meaning to the word?

For the possibility of a war crime, there must be intent to commit a criminal offence.

There would…

But that is not the position.

How revealing that answer is, even if the inquiry finds that the Government acted illegally, because they didn't mean to act illegally, nothing can happen to them!

Away with all of them.

All of themment sweep them The man in green.

It is more a question of misleading the Cabinet or the MPs.

It is more a question of arm-twisting.

We went to see our local MP for Coventry South.

He was one of the Labour MPs who said he wouldn't support the war without a United Nations resolution.

He said he was taken in to meet Tony Blair first time ever, he never met him before and he was threatened, this is what would happen.

If you vote against this war, it will be a political crisis.

There was more than being misled.

There was arm-twisting going on and pressure put on the Labour MPs who were perhaps seen to be waivering.

It isn't just a question of misleading.

Loads of people marched against this war.

Millions of people knew this war was wrong, why didn't they?

Charlie Falconer.

Millions of people did demonstrate against the war and significant numbers of members of Parliament both on the Labour side and on the Conservative side who whipped their MPs to vote in favour of the war, voted against it.

Ultimately for everybody involved, they had to make a decision and I don't know about Jim Cunningham but most people made that decision on the basis of their view of what the right course was at the time.

You have got massive arms twisting.

Massive course to loyalty and you have loyalty to your Prime Minister and to your party and the pressures on people were fen phenomenal.

Cherie joined in and got on to the women MPs.

It was a horrible time.

George Galloway, what do you say to what Melanie Phillips has written about you, that you were the principle cheerleader for Saddam Hussein and therefore anything that you say on this matter should be taken with caution?

Well, I was elected in 2005 in East London, despite the best efforts of the Government and their wives precisely because of my stance on Iraq so I have a mandate for my position on Iraq and if the Government had listened to me and the millions who were marching against the war we wouldn't be in this mess today and as for these MPs, if they were really fooled, they're too stupid to be MPs and if they weren't fooled, they're too wicked.

Everybody who voted against the war should be voted out.

Everybody who voted for the war should be voted out.

The man in the yellow T-shirt.

I agrow with Lord Falconer that -- agree with Lord Falconer that the Cabinet wasn't misled.

I can't understand.

How do you know?

Hang on, Clare.

I want to ask Clare why won't you respect the advice of Lord Goldsmith who is an experienced lawyer?

Well, Lord Goldsmith has been before the Chilcot inquiry.

We found out more about his position than we've ever known.

That he did a legal opinion.

That he kept secret and didn't circulate to the Cabinet even though under the Ministerial Code you are supposed to do that.

He changed his mind a second time and changed his mind a third time and didn't tell the Cabinet that he asked Tony Blair to sign a paper to say the opposite of what what hance what Blix was saying.

He is a commercial lawyer.

So in brief, that's why I don't respect what he said.

He was not honest with the Cabinet.

He said, "there is no doubt.

" Do you want to come back briefly.

You would have helped if you came out sooner and people would have had more respect of your views if you come out a bit sooner.

We have dealt with that.

We have done that point.

We are going to move on because we have lots more questions.

In light of the recent revelations into John Terry's private life, do you believe the law used to stop the stories coming out is fair?

Recent revelations about John Terry's private life.

He used injunctions and is it fair to stop things about your private life being published.

Melanie Phillips No, it is not fair and it is not right.

This idea that people should have privacy is fine if people are really private characters, but if you are the captain of England, you have a public position and if you are indulging in behaviour which brings your team and your country into disrepute then people have a, I think, journalists have an obligation to bring this to public attention.

I this a lot of strange things have been written about this character, John Terry.

I find it extraordinary not not not following the national obsession with football as closely as I should.

I only recently learned that his behaviour for a long time has been one of mass public debortary, public brawling, urinenating into a beer glass.

Having sex with a 17- year-old fan in his Bentley.

None of this mattered at all until he had an affair with the former girlfriend of a team-mate where upon the balloon went up.

What sort of values are these?

I think that somebody who has behaved in this publicly fashion for him to be the captain of England, a role model for our people and an emblem of our country is an absolute disgrace and the real disgrace is he wasn't chucked out a long time ago and the idea that we should be prevented from knowing about this creep because of a view that he is entitled to his private life, sure he is entitled to his private life, but he shouldn't have a public position as captain as England.

George Galloway.

Well, I am against a privacy law.

I have always have been and I I spoke in Parliament when an attempt was made by a Private Members' Bill.

We shouldn't get one by decisions of judges accountable to no one, certainly not to Parliament.

But I thought that was a lot of hypocrisy from Melanie.

John Terry is the England of the England football team because he is a good leader of men on the football pitch.

He is not running for Pope or sainthood, he is a footballer.

His wild events that she described graphically has nothing - too graphically - I was uncomfortable with it.

Ah, you lead a sheltered life, we know.

I don't have a Bentley and I'm sure you would be right about that because you would be defaming him if you weren't.

He didn't have an affair with a team-mate's partner.

That's false.

It was the ex-partner of a team-mate.

And it is an allegation, just to cover your back too.

Yes, he betrayed his wife and that's a matter between him and his wife.

It is nothing to do with Melanie Phillips and I don't think it is anything to do with his job as captain of the England football team.

I hope he lifts the World Cup as captain of the England football team.

The lady on the right.

With the thousands of of people dying in Haiti at the moment, with the economy and people losing their houses and losing their jobs, the war is still going on, don't we think it is disrespectful spending so much airtime on what's essentially a footballer?

Well, I say what I always say when people say what you've just said, these questions come and we choose the ones that are most asked why our audience and that's why we're talking about them.

What did Jesus say, "let he is without sin, cast the first stone.

" The media throw it over the press and over and over, pictures of the women.

How do the women feel when it is throughout the press and the children and so on?

They love it.

They love the detail which I must say I haven't read.

I think there is some right to privacy in the European convention of Human Rights, each of you has a right to a private family life and it is how the courts interpret that.

I don't like the idea of these super injunctions, but I hate the hypocrisy of the media who say, "now we can expose everything he did.

" It is a chance for all the sleazy, dirty stuff to be poured all over the press, over and over again.

It is a matter for his wife.

I am sure there is loads of pain in that family about happened.

The people who run the team has to decide what is right for the team and the press who indulge in this are a bunch of hypocrites.

Theresa May.

Everybody does have a right to privacy, but anybody who is involved in public life has to accept to a certain extent you forego your right to privacy, by putting your self into the public frame and wanting to be in that position.

I do think it is right there should be an ability to if newspapers are going to come out with a story to get an injunction because there maybe issues about the veracity of that story as to whether it is it is correct and it should be possible for somebody to be able to, I think, take an injunction out and decisions have to be taken, do have to be taken by judges to what is in the public interest and to be revealed.

But certainly I share a lot of the comments that have been made about the way in which issue seems to be hyped up by the press and and they want to go into the detail and interviews with everybody involved.

Public figures must accept how we behave, everybody here is a public figure is actually of interest to people.

Do you think he should stay captain of the team?

Well, I'm probably about one of the worst people possibly other than Melanie who should give a comment on the captaincy of the England football team.

What matters is he going to be able to keep the confidence of the players?

Because it is because of his leadership skills he was selected as captain.

If he can keep the confidence of the players, yes and if not, no.

He cannot keep the respect of the players.

He didn't have an affair with anyone.

He had an affair with his best mate's partner.

Ex-partner.

He has no respect for his Chelsea team-mates and no respect for his England team-mates.

He has no respect to be England captain.

He can't respect that.

How is he allowed to lift the World Cup for our country?

He does not deserve that right.

And you on the left.

I think I'm one of a number of people who couldn't care a less about John Terry's private life.

For me, the most annoying thing it knocked Tony Blair's performance the Chilcot inquiry off the front pages on Saturday morning which is where it should have been.

If it doesn't affect his performance on the pitch, his crimes have have are no worse than Tiger Woods'.

In a society where we live, people understand that prif privacy is something you should keep in things that are private.

People don't like their private life being spread all over their neighbours or all over the newspapers.

I think everybody's got an entitlement to a private life.

I don't think if you become a footballer, even if you become the captain of England, you forfeit.

What the judge has do is balance whether his right to privacy has been overtaken by things he said or things that he has done.

But everybody here is absolutely damming John Terry on the basis of what we are reading in the newspapers about his private life.

I excuse Melanie in this respect because Melanie referred to the fact that he has done various things in public, he may have been convicted of criminal offences.

Form your own view about that.

But I am not in favour of the newspapers feeling that because John Terry is a famous footballer, everything is fair game.

The editor of the Daily Mail made a speech in which he urged that there be no privacy law of any sort.

He said, "newspapers spend all their time revealing how awful the politicians are.

" How would they be able to finance t he said, if there wasn't scandal scandal scandal as well to sell the newspapers?

So what John Terry is there for is to make people buy the newspapers and as far as the newspapers are concerned, John Terry's right to privacy is a small casualty to pay to continue to be in business so I am rather simp thet lick to John -- sympathetic to John Terry's position.

Do you want to come to the defence of your editor.

He said scandal was there to finance the the politicians.

The reason they sell so many papers the public want to read what they print.

You were saying it is important