Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael Buerk

When the BBC aired journalist Michael Buerk's harrowing reports of Ethiopian famine in 1984, few could have imagined the enduring legacy they would inspire. Among those watching was Irish musician Bob Geldof, who became determined to help in the only way he knew how. So, how did Band Aid's iconic Christmas single come about and why is it still causing controversy today? Host: Ellen Coyne | Guest: John MeagherSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When the BBC aired journalist Michael Buerk's harrowing reports of Ethiopian famine in 1984, few could have imagined the surprising and enduring legacy they would inspire. Among those watching was Irish musician Bob Geldof who became determined to help the only way he knew how. How did Band Aid's iconic Christmas single come about and are it's charitable lyrics now outdated? Ellen Coyne is joined by John Meagher. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's 40 years since Michael Buerk's shocking TV report from Korem in Northern Ethiopia, as families starved to death in front of him. The report moved many, and directly led to the creation of Live Aid and Band Aid.Today, Newstalk's Henry McKean joins Kieran with a report to remember that time.

Working as a young nurse in a remote feeding station in famine-torn Ethiopia, and facing the impossible daily decision of which of the thousands of starving children to save, Claire, the winner of the 2005 Women of the Year Window on the World Award, never imagined the impact the interview she gave to BBC reporter Michael Buerk would have. Becoming the trigger for the iconic Band Aid single Feed the World and the Live Aid concert that followed it, may have radically improved the appalling suffering of the Ethiopians Claire was caring for, but it had less welcome ramifications for the young nurse when she returned to the UK.  Claire, who was made a Dame in 2010 for services to nursing and international humanitarian aid, talks about memories of her time in Ethiopia and why she couldn't wait to get rid of “the annoying bloke from the BBC”; what she did afterwards to process her experiences in the country; why she returned there 20 years later and reveals how receiving our 2005 Window on the World Award prompted her to reflect on her work and how others perceived it.

Michael Buerk chairs a special Moral Maze debate recorded at 'HowTheLightGetsIn' festival of philosophy and music. The language of freedom permeates our political debate. In the US, it may be a decisive battleground in the 2024 presidential election. The problem is that people mean very different things by it. Is it freedom from government regulation or freedom to have an abortion? Freedom of speech or freedom from discrimination? Freedom to own a gun or freedom for communities to ban them? A distinction is often made between positive and negative freedom. Negative freedom is the absence of constraints (‘freedom from') – while positive freedom is the possibility of acting in such a way as to take control of one's life (‘freedom to'). Libertarians often see individual freedom - the private enjoyment of one's life and goods, free from interference – as the most fundamental value that any society should pursue and protect. This view is challenged by those who believe wealth, health and educational inequalities inevitably mean some people are more free than others, and seek instead to promote the collective freedom of society as a whole. If a society in which there is a complete absence of restraint is as dystopian as one in which our every action is controlled, how should we navigate the trade-offs between individual freedom and other goods, like security and collective wellbeing? Is the language of freedom helpful or harmful in negotiating our political differences? Deeper question: what does it mean for a human being to be free? With guests: Konstantin Kisin, Sophie Howe and James Orr. Producer: Dan Tierney.

Journalism can mean pushing your way into peoples' lives at their worst moments. Without a good a reason, it's tourism. Or war porn. People disagree on what that reason is. Reflecting on his reports from the Siege of Sarajevo, BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen asks if it is enough to just report it straight. Jeremy speaks with: journalist and environmental activist George Monbiot; Nikole Hannah-Jones, whose 1619 project won the Pulitzer Prize; former BBC correspondent Michael Buerk who speaks of his concerns following his coverage of the Ethiopia famine and two journalists Jeremy was with in Sarajevo: former Reuters journalist Sabina Cosic, and CNN's Chief International Anchor Christiane Amanpour.Presenter: Jeremy Bowen Producer: Georgia Catt Assistant Producer: Sam Peach Additional research: Rob Byrne Series mixing: Jackie Margerum Series Editor: Philip Sellars

Episode 8!We're on tour! Coming live from Jemma's parents conservatory!ExtensionsWinstone WaterDescaling with Michael BuerkCurtis Stiger LightsMayonnaise memoriesStrictly CurseAnd much much more!Drop us a line to get in touch with the show, BWTBPod@gmail.comThanks for listening! Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

The end of one year and the beginning of another can be an obvious moment for people to set goals and reset priorities. The pandemic, from which we are yet to emerge, has put much into perspective and has doubtless prompted many to ask the question: where am I going with my life? What's it all about? While none of us can truly know the meaning of life, most of us are meaning-seeking creatures who have our own ideas about what gives life meaning – God, nature, the arts, human relationships, good food, scientific progress. Is meaning essential to a life well lived or do we put too much pressure on ourselves in trying to create it? For some, the stories we tell about ourselves are the most powerful way of addressing existential questions like the climate crisis. Yet meaning is subjective, and is often separated by national, cultural, religious and ideological borders. Can our disparate human stories be harnessed as a motivator for collective action on the climate? Or is it hubris to suggest human beings can find a solution, and the story we should be telling instead is one in which the cavalry isn't coming? Michael Buerk chairs this special end-of-year debate with guest panellists: Rowan Williams, Alice Roberts, Will Self and Bonnie Greer. With witnesses: Emily Esfahani-Smith, James Tartaglia, Martin Palmer and Charlotte Du Cann. Producer: Dan Tierney. #moralmaze

Professor Tom Solomon chats to legendary journalist and newsreader Michael Buerk about his career and controversies, his views on the coronavirus pandemic, and his time in that jungle programme…

"Sugarwater?" Mike & Dan bring you tales of troublesome teeth, too much Michael Buerk and breakdown the apology policy of HM Govt. Plus Batman, Johnny Marr, and Alan Bennett impressions to attract a younger, hip listener. Did you like that Oxford comma there? #WISDOMTEETH #TRUMP #CONCEDE #NPR #CORONAVIRUS #VACCINE #MICHAELBUERK #COVIDTEST #LALOCKDOWN #THEXFILES #THECROWNNETFLIX #IACGMOOH #IMACELEB #PRITIPATEL #BBCSOUNDS #MARRIEDATFIRSTSIGHTAUSTRALIA #BATMAN #JOHNNYMARR #THESMITHS #ALANBENNETT #TALKINGHEADS #TOPCONTENTPOD #PODCAST #LISTENINGTOGETHER

Today a Stupid Idea of The Week that does have a grain of truth about the causes of obesity. It is too easy to throw the baby out with the public health bathwater when it comes to OTT toxic nonsense. Yes, it's Michael Buerk's ridiculous anti-obese people rant. And yes, it does have something to push the debate forward… Plus a partial replay of episode 28 from 2017: Own Your Food Compulsion.   WORD OF THE WEEK …is Uncomfortability. This is more than discomfort, it is the ability to sit with discomfort and pain. Includes a hilarious quote from Stuart Wilde!     OWN YOUR FOOD COMPULSION My disastrous “lonely hearts” story vs Moss from The IT Crowd. Lesson: If you have a problem, it is better to own it than hide it away in secrecy. I explore this from several different angles.    RESOURCES To find out more about 1 to 1 coaching: http://www.theshiftinside.com/coaching/   The 14 Days to Freedom From Sugar Programme http://www.theshiftinside.com/freedom/   Article about the Michael Buerk furore: https://news.sky.com/story/michael-buerk-let-obese-people-die-early-to-save-nhs-money-11778620     The Stuart Wilde quote and ideas come from the book Infinite Self The IT Crowd: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0487831/

In this funny and thoughtful, Simple as Fat free podcast Jon calls for Low Carb High Fat diets to be accepted as a third way of reversing Type 2 Diabetes and curing the obesity epidemic. He rages about how much more evidence will be needed before medical authorities and dietary guidelines accept the blindingly obvious evidence in front of their eyes that people all around the globe are curing themselves by eating real food. Jon says saturated fat is not the problem, it is excess sugar that is at the heart of the problem and major diseases like Type 2 diabetes, strokes, heart disease, obesity and dementia. But no, the medical authorities are still refusing to alter their dietary advice and still insist that their Eatwell plate is the best way to eat and that the guidelines of a third of your plate being starchy carbs. Jon says this is just plain wrong. Jon calls it the “eat Death plate.” Meanwhile Big Pharma is now suggesting that they could have a flab injection to cure obesity? More drugs! Ex-BBC News presenter, Michael Buerk, has entered the fray telling fat people that they are fat because they simply eat too much. His ignorance is stupendous. This from the man who brought the Ethiopian famine to the West could have used his communication skills to help with the obesity problem and its victims rather than stigmatise them. Jon rages that Buerk by name Burk by nature is ignorant of insulin resistance and should apologise and get himself educated. Finally, Gaunty has a go at the United Nations who have joined the propaganda machine of the vegans and is recommending a fad and unhealthy vegan diet. Jon states that the links between Big Food/Big Pharma and Government dietary guidelines must be broken as there is a genocide being committed around the globe. However, Jon controversially states that telling people that they are fat is not bullying or “fat shaming” but plain common sense medical advice. More info here www.simpleasfat.com

Welcome to episode 24 of Just The Fitness tip. Today Michael & Jason discuss the importance of creating a strong community and how it could help you to succeed with your health and fitness goals. There is now a sugar tax on sugary drinks, and today we discuss the potential introduction of a sugar levy on all sugary foods. Is the sugar tax improving our health, or is it simply a money making scheme? We also chat about the recent comments from Michael Buerk who suggests that obese people should be left to die to save the NHS money. Yup. He really said that. Thanks for tuning in and if you like this episode, please do leave us a review. It would make us very happy! You're the best. See you soon!

Squiff drops in for episode 200. Seaguls Vs Antifa, Keith Chewin back from the dead to smuggle gear, Michael Buerk goes hard in the paint on fat people.

A Mongoose named Tobias, how to become a baron, the mayor and the cuckoo, coach driver's thumbs, child genius challenge, the meat marshall and Michael Buerk's conspiracy theories on chimney sweeps and unlicensed back garden lidos. With Dan Reeves and Adam Firman. Subscribe and follow us for loads more important nonsense! Follow Dan and Adam on Instagram @thedanreeves @adamfirman Email the show: veryimportantveryserious@gmail.com Additional voice talent: Danielle DowneyMusic from filmmusic.ioKevin MacLeod

Michael & Val on Can I Improve My Memory? and Michael's done Friday Night Is Music Night.

Paddy McGuinness speaks about his brand new game show Catchpoint, his new Top Gear presenting duties and captaincy on Celeb Juice. Elsewhere Emma and Jeffers discuss new drama Harry Redknapp's new show Harry's Heroes and Michael Buerk trying to improve Joey Essex's memory. Plus Corrie's Sally Dynevor shares her Box Set To Watch Before You Die.

Twelve years to save the world. While we're squabbling about Brexit, climate scientists are reminding us that the existential threat of our day is global warming. This week’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising temperatures. According to its authors, keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean cutting carbon emissions by 45% by the year 2030. That will involve, they say, "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society". Decades of increasing prosperity, freedom and choice in the West have come at a cost. The rest of the world wants rapid growth too, but should they be allowed to have it? In a society that badly needs to learn the meaning of ‘delayed gratification’, how should we, as individuals, change our behaviour? When the priority is putting food on the table, many choose economic expedience over sustainability - it can be expensive to go green. Would it be right for the government to make us all greener by taxing or even banning log-burning stoves, gas-guzzling cars and cheap air travel? Many make the moral case for saving the planet on behalf of our grandchildren. But what of our moral obligation to those who don’t yet even exist? Is it morally dubious to put the theoretical interests of posterity before the real and immediate needs of poor people today? If climate change is the organising call of our age, how should we respond? Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk. With Shiv Malik, Anne McElvoy, Tim Stanley and Giles Fraser. Witnesses: Leo Barasi, Author of “The Climate Majority: Apathy and Action in an Age of Nationalism”; Ross Clark, Journalist, author and political commentator; Charlotte Du Cann, Core member of the Dark Mountain project; and George Monbiot, Journalist, columnist and campaigner. Producer: Dan Tierney

That rich men attract beautiful women - and vice versa - has for centuries been obvious and unquestioned. Suddenly a few noisy scandals have started a social avalanche that some call the new puritanism. In the past week Formula 1 racing has abolished the 'grid girls' whose role had been to look glamorous in the company of racing drivers; the Professional Darts Corporation, in consultation with BBC TV, has done away with the 'walk-on girls' who had provided a similar service for the masters of the triple-twenty; and the UK's gambling regulator has threatened to boycott the world's largest gambling industry conference, accusing exhibitors of using 'scantily clad' women to attract people to their product displays. Reaching back into Victorian times for things to tut about, Manchester Art Gallery last week removed from display Waterhouse's painting 'Hylas and the Nymphs' - then, after a public outcry, put it back. Feminists such as Janet Street-Porter have welcomed all this. 'At last,' she says, 'we're moving out of the stone age.' Others think what women choose to do with their bodies is their own business, be they prostitutes, lap-dancers, fashion models or pretty waitresses flirting for tips. Do we want a world in which it's as bad to employ women for their looks as it would be to discriminate on the basis of race or religion? The objectification of women - our Moral Maze this week. Chaired by Michael Buerk, with Matthew Taylor, Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips and Giles Fraser.

INSIDE DONALD TRUMP - Episode 2 -‎ Trump the man - in the second of this ground-breaking three part series created by Andy Hamilton, renowned journalist Michael Buerk takes us deep into the psyche of Donald Trump, the man. Michael is joined in the show by a host of talent including Ronni Ancona, Kevin Bishop, Hugh Dennis, Demetri Goritsas, Corey Johnson, Lorelei King, Lewis Macleod, Jimmy Mulville, Philip Pope and Claire Skinner‎.

INSIDE DONALD TRUMP - Episode 1 -‎ Trump the boy - in the first of this ground-breaking three part series created by Andy Hamilton, renowned journalist Michael Buerk takes us deep into the psyche of Donald Trump, the boy. Michael is joined in the show by a host of talent including Ronni Ancona, Kevin Bishop, Hugh Dennis, Demetri Goritsas, Corey Johnson, Lorelei King, Lewis Macleod, Jimmy Mulville, Philip Pope and Claire Skinner. INSIDE DONALD TRUMP is a Hat Trick Production for Unbound.

INSIDE DONALD TRUMP - Episode 3 -‎ Trump the President - in the third and final part of this ground-breaking series created by Andy Hamilton, renowned journalist Michael Buerk takes us deep into the psyche of Donald Trump, now the President of the United States. Michael is joined in the show by a host of talent including Ronni Ancona, Kevin Bishop, Hugh Dennis, Demetri Goritsas, Corey Johnson, Lorelei King, Lewis Macleod, Jimmy Mulville, Philip Pope and Claire Skinner‎. INSIDE DONALD TRUMP is a Hat Trick Production for Unbound‎.

Do we have a moral duty to make friends with people of different races, social backgrounds and sexuality? The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, is warning that a lack of social integration in the UK is costing our economy about £6bn and he says the answer lies in our own hands. Talking at an international conference on the issue he said "Promoting social integration is a matter for everyone, for every citizen of our cities. It means ensuring that people of different faiths, ethnicities, sexualities, social backgrounds and generations don't just tolerate one another or live side by side but meet, mix and forge relationships as friends and neighbours as well as citizens." London is said to be one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world, with over 300 languages spoken in it and more than 50 non-indigenous communities with a population of more than 10,000. Yet even there it's clear that some groups choose to settle in areas where there are already a high proportion of people from the same background. Go outside London and that effect is even more pronounced. At a time when social polarisation is an issue in many communities, is it time to see social integration not only as a policy priority but also a personal moral imperative? Should it be as unacceptable to admit to having a mono-cultural social network as to admit being prejudiced? Or is this the kind of PC interference in our lives which fires public resentment and actually encourages division by fostering identity politics? Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk. With Michael Portillo, Mona Siddiqui, Anne McElvoy and Matthew Taylor. Witnesses are Ludi Simpson, Jon Yates, Jemma Levene and James Delingpole.

On the afternoon of Thursday 19th November 1863, the American President, Abraham Lincoln, delivered what has become perhaps the most important speech in American history. Lincoln was dedicating a National Cemetery for the 50,000 men who'd been killed in the Civil War battle at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. His address was only 272 words long, but it has become one of the greatest and most influential statements of a national moral purpose "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." America has always seen its Constitution and the Declaration of Independence not just as foundational documents, but as statements of moral purpose. America was to be the "shining city on a hill", a light unto the other nations of the world. At a time of national crisis, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was a reaffirmation of those founding principles that all men are created equal and share rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This November the American people have to choose between two people bidding to step in to Lincoln's presidential shoes: 'Crooked Hillary', the machine politician under an FBI investigation, and the narcissistic self-confessed women-abuser Donald Trump. What has gone wrong with America's moral vision? Were the fine words of Lincoln and the Founding Fathers just that - fine words? Has America ever confronted its problems of inequality, race and class? Have big government and bigger corporations betrayed the founding principles of liberty and the American dream? Where is the moral vision of America in this year's presidential election? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips, Giles Fraser and Matthew Taylor. Witnesses are Charlie Wolf, James Kirchick, Carol Gould and Erich McElroy.

For Donald Trump it was an 11 year old dusty tape that appeared from the archives. For Sam Allardyce it was a sting by undercover reporters. For the Olympic gymnast Louis Smith it was a video leaked on to the internet. All of them conversations they thought were private becoming embarrassingly public, with varying degrees of consequences. We all say things in private we wouldn't want made public, so what right to privacy should those in the public eye be entitled? Is it a simple case that we have a right to know if it tells us about the character of people who have power or who are asking us to trust them? If that's the case how do explain the myriad of examples from minor sporting celebrities to victims of stings by fake sheiks? Should we put them in the same category? We may think their views are unattractive, even offensive, but shouldn't they be allowed to express them in private, like the rest of us, with some confidence that they'll remain private? What right do we have to know? Would the world be a better place if we never said anything privately we wouldn't want made public? In our clamour to expose and condemn are we creating an unhealthy reality gap between what our leaders and politicians are allowed to say and what they actually think? Or has the digital age rightly blown apart the tight and elitist clubbable privacy that was once so much part of our society? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Anne McElvoy, Michael Portillo, Giles Fraser and Matthew Taylor. Witnesses are Prof Steven Barnett, Prof Josh Cohen, Paul Connew and Tom Chatfield.

Do we want to live in a world without Down's syndrome? This isn't just a theoretical question. It could soon become a reality. A new technique called non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), detects Down's syndrome with 99% accuracy and it should soon be available on the NHS. It's already being used in Iceland where 100% of Down's syndrome pregnancies are terminated. The Danish health system declared the objective of being Down's-free and introduced the test in 2006. The termination rate there today is 98%. In Britain the termination rate for positive tests is 90 per cent and around 775 babies with Down's syndrome are born every year in England and Wales. A lot of effort has been made to increase people's knowledge of the condition which has a wide range of symptoms. Many children with it will grow in to adulthood and lead very integrated lives, but some will never walk or talk, or may have severe heart defects, glaucoma, deafness and a risk of early dementia. Would it be a sign of human progress if we reduced the number of people born with Down's syndrome to zero? Many people would agree that reducing suffering is an unequivocal moral good, yet when Richard Dawkins told a woman on Twitter that if she was carrying a child with Down's she should "abort it and try again" and "It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have a choice" there was an outcry. NIPT could soon be available for other single gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis and we've done our best to eradicate many other disabling conditions, so why not make the most of what technology can offer? Or is this a kind of nightmare eugenicist council of perfection - a triumph of cold hearted utilitarianism over our moral duty to embrace difference and care for our fellow man? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Anne McElvoy, Claire Fox, Giles Fraser and Melanie Phillips. Witnesses are Sally Phillips, Jane Fisher, Prof Dominic Wilkinson and Simone Aspis.

When is a personal opinion so offensive that it becomes morally unacceptable? This weekend former Tory leadership candidate Andrea Leadsom discovered her comments on motherhood had transgressed an unwritten social convention. The outraged legions of leader writers, columnists and Twitterati descended and by Monday she was gone. As the politics of offence, identity and rights become ever more toxic, they become equally hard to navigate and the price of transgression is ever higher. The whole Brexit debate and its aftermath have been characterised by claim and counter claim of racism, ageism and classism. We've had laws against "hate speech" for many years now, but are we too keen to create whole new categories of "-isms" to which we can take offence? If morality rests on the ability to distinguish between groups and make judgements about their lifestyles, how do you distinguish between a legitimate verdict and an unjustifiable prejudice? Why is it acceptable to say 'It's good that the President is black' but not to say 'It's good that the next President will be white'? Why is the insult "stale, male and pale" OK, but it wouldn't be if you changed gender and race? Is this about defending the powerless against the powerful, or limiting people's rights to say what they think? Where do we draw the line between policing the basic principles of equal rights and mutual respect with a capacity to judge people by what lies in their heart? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Anne McElvoy, Claire Fox, Giles Fraser and Matthew Taylor. Witnesses are Maya Goodfellow, Josh Howie, Peter Tatchell and Dr Joanna Williams.

130 sessions of oral evidence,150 witnesses, 150,000 documents, more than 2.5 million words - the Chilcot Report on the Iraq War was finally published on the day of this programme. The inquiry was set up to examine our reasons for taking part in the US-led invasion of Iraq, how the war was prosecuted and its aftermath. But was the decision to go to war morally justified? Chilcot confirms that there was a massive failing in intelligence in the lead-up to the decision to go to war, especially around WMD; it accepts that Tony Blair was acting in good faith and did not deliberately mislead Parliament and the public about that intelligence. The relationship between morality and consequences is complex and sometimes contradictory. If Tony Blair and his government were acting in good faith but the consequences of that war were so catastrophic, can we still describe the decision to go to war as a moral one? If the government were a limited company, isn't this the kind of gross negligence that would lead to directors being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter? On the other hand, if - being wise after the event - we were to hound all politicians for making decisions that went wrong, wouldn't that produce sclerosis and the replacement of democratic judgement with technocracy? Is this a counsel of moral perfection that produces only paralysis of the will? When does ignorance become a moral failing? Is that contingent on outcomes? What if the war had been a success and Iraq transformed into a flourishing democracy? Would we still be worrying about whether it was moral? Would we have spent £10m on an inquiry about it? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Michael Portillo, Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser and Melanie Phillips. Witnesses are Prof Michael Clarke, John Rentoul, Haider Al Safi and Dr Dan Bulley.

Every year thousands of terminally ill patients are being helped to die by their doctors, according to Baroness Molly Meacher, the new chairwoman of Dignity in Dying. She claims doctors are prepared to risk their own freedom rather than see their patients continue to suffer unbearably. Her assertion comes as the British Medical Association next week prepares to discuss the results of its 18 month long survey in to the public and medical professionals' attitudes on end-of-life care and physician-assisted dying. For 26 years now this programme has charted the moral and ethical life of the nation and this subject, above all others, has been the one we've returned to most often. And little wonder as it's an issue that combines moral dilemma, religious principle, human compassion and fear in equal measure. As a prelude to the BMA debate, this week we're going to invite back witnesses who've appeared on our programme over the years to explore how the debate has developed over time. In 1991 we started out discussing the morality of suicide manuals. Advances in medical technology since then have transformed our expectations of what we demand from life. We've seen a growth of the "me generation" that prizes and demands individual choice and rights above collective responsibility. While as a society we have increasingly recognised the rights of disabled people, there is also growing support for legalising assisted suicide, which may give comfort to some, but could put many more vulnerable people at risk. And there has also been our changing relationship with religion. The moral maze that is the debate on assisted dying, live at 8pm Wednesday. Chaired by Michael Buerk with Mona Siddiqui, Anne McElvoy, Giles Fraser and Claire Fox. Witnesses are Dr Michael Irwin, Lesley Close, Dr Kevin Yuill and Prof David Cook.

The sales signs are going up in 163 BHS shops around the country as the liquidators try to salvage something from the wreckage of this once proud company. When Sir Philip Green bought BHS in 2000, it was making a profit. By the time he sold it in 2015, for £1, to a three-times bankrupt with no retailing experience, it was making a loss and the company pension fund was more than £400m in deficit. Exactly what went wrong at BHS is the subject of no fewer than four separate inquires. What is certain is that it's you and I, the tax payers, who will pick up the bill for the redundancy payments for the 11,000 staff and responsibility for the 20,000 members of the BHS company pension scheme. The head of the Institute of Directors described the affair as deeply damaging to the British business world. It's all a far cry from the days of Quaker philanthropy that inspired so many Victorian entrepreneurs. The study of business ethics is one of the few growth areas of the economy. You might be forgiven for wondering how effective such courses are when we see so many headlines about companies avoiding tax, walking away from pension liabilities, using legal loopholes to make excessive profits, zero hours contracts, falsifying data, mis-selling... The list goes on. Do companies have any moral duty beyond the bottom line? Is the only duty of a company to make money for its shareholders within the law? Where and how do we draw the line between legal duty to shareholders and moral duty to society? The individuals that run companies have moral agency, but is there such a thing as a collective, corporate moral agency? Can we impose a set of moral values, or a social licence, on a company? Or will that create a climate of "What can we get away with?" rather than "What is right?"? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Giles Fraser, Claire Fox, Mathew Taylor and Melanie Phillips. Witnesses are Dr Steve Davies, Dawn Foster, Prof Chris Cowton and John Morrison.

Would you ******* believe it? A council has ******* banned swearing in public. The council in question is Salford which has used a Public Space Protection Order to tackle anti-social behaviour in the Salford Quays area which includes Media City, home to the BBC, which might be just a coincidence. Part of the order says it will be deemed a criminal offence if anyone is caught 'using foul and abusive language'. Public Space Protection Orders, or PSPOs, are similar to ASBO's (anti-social behaviour orders), and allow for broad powers to criminalise behaviour that is not normally criminal. PSPOs are geographically defined, making predefined activities within a mapped area prosecutable. Since they came into existence in 2014 many councils have embraced their new powers enthusiastically, with various PSPO's making, or attempting to make, it a criminal offence to sleep rough, drive a loud car and walk a dog without a lead. It seems that control, or regulation, of public space is becoming more common. In the last month alone a council in Wales has banned smoking on a public beach, the London Underground is considering stopping people walking up escalators and a well known store asked a customer to leave because her toddler was having a tantrum. Are regulations to tackle public nuisance a commendable attempt to protect us or an oppressive enforcement of social conformity targeting public activities that are merely unusual or unpopular? This tension between individualism and the common good is an issue which bedevils so many aspects of contemporary society. If it is true that inconsiderate behaviour is increasing in our society, how should we deal with it? How do we balance our moral obligation to the rest of society with our desire to do what we **** well please? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Claire Fox, Michael Portillo, Giles Fraser and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses are Anna Minton, Alfie Moore, Danny Kruger and Terry Christian.

Claim and counter claim in the EU referendum debate have filled the air waves and packed the papers and there are still 14 weeks left to the actual vote. The atmosphere is already highly charged and the political stakes couldn't be much higher. The way we vote on June 23rd will have profound implications for generations to come. We've heard a lot about the political and economic arguments that we should consider when casting that vote, but what are the moral considerations? Is preserving our national cultural identity behind strict border controls a moral priority? Do we have a wider duty as good citizens of Europe and the world? Is fear of immigration and fear of an uncertain economic future a defendable moral position? Is it a moral argument to say our choice should be a utilitarian calculation of where we personally and as a nation will be financially better off? Is sovereignty the moral trump card? Morality and the EU referendum. Chaired by Michael Buerk with Melanie Phillips, Michael Portillo, Matthew Taylor and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses are Anthony O'Hear, Kirsty Hughes, Brian Denny and Sebastian Farquhar.

In 1816, when Mary Shelley sat down to write her Gothic novel Frankenstein, it was a time of social, political and scientific upheaval. It has given us the archetypal image of the mad scientist single-mindedly pursing his grotesque experiments whatever the cost. "Frankenstein Science" has even become its own category, especially beloved by tabloid headline writers. 200 years on and the pace of scientific development has increased exponentially; the fact that Shelley's Frankenstein still has such a hold reflects the powerful role science plays in modern life and also, perhaps, the fear that we don't understand it or know how to control it. Now the head of the Science Council has said that scientists need their own version of the Hippocratic Oath and a regulation system of ethical standards and principles similar to doctors. Would more control give us better, more ethical scientists, or just restrain creativity and academic freedom? If we control scientists more closely, is there a case for arguing that we should exercise more control over the research they carry out? Is science morally neutral? Is it just the choices about how to apply scientific knowledge that are truly moral? In a world where advances in science have the power to profoundly change our lives and the lives of future generations, can scientists still rely on that distinction? This week scientists are meeting in America to discuss the controversial "gain-of-function" research on highly infectious viruses such as avian flu. Do we need more moral, ethical and democratically accountable oversight of research? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Giles Fraser, Claire Fox, Mathew Taylor and Michael Portillo. Witnesses are Belinda Phipps, Prof Terence Kealey, Prof Andy Stirling and Bryan Roberts.

The idea that we shouldn't speak ill of the dead has an ancient heritage dating as far back as 600BC. It's attributed to the Greek philosopher Chilon of Sparta, but judging by recent headlines around allegations of historic sex abuse it might not have much more of a shelf life. Police forces keen to redress claims that in the past they haven't treated victims fairly and to demonstrate they're not part of a an establishment cover up, are devoting huge resources to cases often dating back many decades and even when the alleged perpetrator is dead. Combine that with a press hungry for salacious gossip knowing that the dead can't sue for libel and it's open season on people who are not only unable to defend themselves, but who will never be brought to trial. The most famous example is the former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, but there are numerous others. Should the dead have the same rights as the living? Should they be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Is this just vindictive muck raking or do we owe the many victims of child abuse a duty to try to expose the truth, even after so many years have passed? If we aren't willing to expose what really happened 50 years ago, then what are the chances that we will ever face up to the truth of what happens today? There are those who argue that for too long the victim's voice has been ignored in our legal system and that these investigations help them get closure. But is that the same as justice? Should we hear these cases in court, or would they be better suited to some kind of truth and justice commission? In an increasingly victim-focused climate is our pursuit of historic crimes distorting the meaning of justice? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Giles Fraser, Claire Fox, Anne McElvoy and Mathew Taylor. Witnesses are Barbara Hewson, Peter Hitchens, Mark Watts and Malcolm Johnson.

It may not have the same impact as the Elgin Marbles, but a slightly battered bronze statue of a cockerel has re-ignited a row that has potentially profound implications for our museums and opens a Pandora's Box of moral dilemmas. The statue in question sits in the dining hall of Jesus College Cambridge, but it was originally from the Benin Empire, now part of modern-day Nigeria. It was one of hundreds of artworks taken in a punitive British naval expedition in 1897 that brought the empire to an end. In the same way that Greece has pursued the return of the Elgin marbles, Nigeria has repeatedly called for all the Benin bronzes - which it says are part of its cultural heritage - to be repatriated. The students at Jesus agree with them and are demanding the cockerel be returned. But to whom? There are dozens of high profile campaigns around the world to repatriate cultural artefacts, but the legal issue of rightful ownership is complex and made more so by the value of the objects in question. Does the fact that many of the finest treasures in our museums were acquired during the height of our imperial history mean we're duty bound to return them? If we accept the principle that art looted by the Nazi's should be returned, why not, for example, the Benin Bronzes? Artefacts like the Elgin Marbles are important because they are part of the story or humanity itself. Can any one country claim ownership over that? Would artefacts that have been returned to their original setting take on a new and more authentic cultural meaning that we in the West may not be able to understand, but which is nonetheless important to those who claim ownership? Should repatriation be part of a wider cultural enterprise to re-write our national and imperialistic historical narrative? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Giles Fraser, Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips and Michael Portillo. Witnesses are Dr Tiffany Jenkins, Prof Constantine Sandis, Mark Hudson and Andrew Dismore.

How far should you be allowed to express your moral and political beliefs through boycotts? There have been high profile boycott campaigns on everything from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, and tobacco products to economic and academic boycotts of Israel. Now the government is planning a law to make it illegal for local councils, public bodies and even some university student unions to carry out boycotts. Under the plan all publicly funded institutions will lose the freedom to refuse to buy goods and services as part of a political campaign. It's said that any public bodies that continue to pursue boycotts will face "severe penalties." The government believes cracking down on town-hall boycotts is justified because they undermine good community relations, poison and polarise debate and fuel anti-Semitism. Beyond the narrow principle of what tax payers money should be spent on, what is wrong with a group of citizens organising to express their moral, philosophical or political objection to a company or country through their economic, intellectual or cultural power? Such boycotts have in the past been very effective. If every pound we spend can on some level be seen as an expression of our individual moral codes, why should we not have a say on where money is spent on our behalf? Are boycotts misguided empty political gestures more designed to make us feel self-righteous? And even if they are is outlawing them justified? Banning the boycott - the Moral Maze. Chaired by Michael Buerk with Melanie Phillips, Matthew Taylor, Claire Fox and Jill Kirby.

Charity in the UK is big business. There are over 165,000 charities registered with the Charity Commission, and the total annual income of the sector is more than £100 billion. But what should they be allowed to spend their money on? The government has just announced that charities which receive state grants will not be allowed to spend any of that tax payers cash on political campaigning. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has described the change as "draconian" and will amount to "gagging" them. There is a lot at stake. Charities get £13 billion pounds a year from national or local government. Figures from the National Audit Office show that that money makes up well over a half of the annual income of many well-known charities. Being a prophetic witness has always been a key aspect of what charities do. Campaigning and political activity is a vital part of that, but should it be funded by us the taxpayer, whether by direct grants or via the tax breaks that are part of charitable status. Or do we need to rethink our definition of what is and isn't a charity? If public schools can qualify for charitable status, why not campaigning groups like "Liberty"? With headlines about aggressive fund raising tactics of some organisations, the charity halo has become somewhat tarnished in recent times. But do we have an outdated "Lady Bountiful" view of what charities are for? If we want our charities to make a difference is it time to accept that they need to apply all the modern commercial tools you'd expect from such a large industry. Or, in their rush for influence and impact, have charities lost site of the personal relationships, responsibilities and trust that lie at the heart of altruism? What should charity be for? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Michael Portillo, Anne McElvoy, Giles Fraser and Matthew Taylor. Witnesses are Andy Benson, Debra Allcock-Tyler, Christopher Snowdon and Craig Bennett.

The wobbly mobile phone footage and someone calling out "you ain't no Muslim bruv" has given us a powerful rallying cry. It was filmed by a bystander as police restrained a man who's since been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. What it doesn't show is how one very brave man fought to try and disarm the attacker, while people stood around filming it all on their phones. Mobile phone footage has now become a staple of our news and not so private lives. Which one of us hasn't clicked on a link and experienced a vicarious thrill from watching the latest talked about clip of death, disaster or embarrassment? It is undeniably useful too, but what are the moral consequences of videoing and displaying everything in public? Does looking through the prism of a phone camera create a kind of moral distance that atrophies human capacities like empathy, compassion and self--reflection? The instinct to say 'I was there' is immensely strong, but earlier this year there were a number of cases bystanders filming distressed people as they threatened to jump to their deaths. Are we trying to give life meaning by creating a permanent record of it, instead of by thinking more deeply about it and living life in the moment? Is the craze for selfies just a harmless piece of fun or are we gradually being infected with a narcissistic personality disorder? Or is the drive to record everything and to make our lives public, part of what makes us human? And mobile phone footage is just today's equivalent of ancient cave paintings of hunting scenes? Live our life on film - the Moral Maze. Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy and Claire Fox. Witnesses are Madeleine Bunting, Jane Finnis, James Temperton and Justine Hardy.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, will make his case for bombing ISIL in Syria this week. Some commentators are predicting that, if parliament votes in favour, the raids could start as early as next week. This will mean our going into a coalition not only with France and America but also with Russia - a country that has been a long-standing ally of the Syrian leader President Assad, the man whom we wanted to bomb only two years ago. The adage "my enemy's enemy is my friend" dates back at least to the 4th century BC. It might be harsh to say that we're basing our foreign policy on an ancient proverb from a Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, but it's hard to avoid the parallels. Is it, though, a moral justification for going to war? On the Moral Maze this week we discuss what is meant by the phrase "just war" and the morality of pacifism. Has the pacifist case been heard enough? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Claire Fox, Giles Fraser, Michael Portillo and Melanie Phillips. Witnesses are Dr Alexander Moseley, Richard Norman, Helen Drewery and Richard Streatfield.

The report from the World Anti-Doping Agency couldn't have been clearer. Russian athletes were involved in state sponsored cheating and the IAAF was involved in bribery and corruption. Admittedly it's not exactly the stuff of Chariots of Fire, but what are the real moral boundaries that have been transgressed? If you think elite sport is all about individual talent and dedication you're sadly mistaken. Top athletes in all sports are supported by multi-million pound programmes that ensure they get the best of everything - including scientists who maximise their nutrition and medical treatment. If you come from a country that can't afford to pay for it, you're already handicapped. And if your son or daughter is showing some sporting promise you better get them in to a private school quickly. Half the UK gold medal winners in 2012 were educated privately and the pattern is repeated in almost every sport outside football. Sport is many things, but fair is not one of them, so why single out performance enhancing drugs in sport when we positively embrace them in other aspects of our lives? Has anyone turned down Viagra because it might give them an unfair advantage? As science progresses the possibility of human enhancement is becoming an everyday reality. Drugs to enhance memory and attention and to enable us to be smarter? Why not? If this all sounds like some kind of dystopian nightmare don't fret because there's a growing interest in the field of bio-medical moral enhancement to make us better people as well. Human enhancement - physical and moral on the Moral Maze, but beware, listening could give you an unfair advantage. Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Giles Fraser, Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses are Ellis Cashmore, Martin Cross, Dr Rebecca Roache and Nigel Warburton.

This week the Moral Maze asks: "is it our moral duty to have fewer children?" The question has been brought in to focus by two stories in the past week. First, that by 2027 the population of the UK is expected to top 70 million people and the second that China is to end its "one child" policy. With 238,737 births every day the world population is rapidly approaching 7 and a half billion and will be 8 billion by 2024. While many people will be campaigning for tougher policies at next month's UN climate change conference, should they also be calling for policies to control population growth? Without some technological miracle, more people will mean more unsustainable resource use, worse climate change, massive population displacement and large scale migration - something we're already seeing. If we can foresee the suffering that unrestrained population growth will cause for all those who live after us isn't it our moral duty to do something about it? Is it time to accept that having more than one child is just something that none of us has a moral right to do? Of course, if all the world's resources of food, energy, homes and knowledge were evenly distributed, the problems of population would be less urgent. So do we have a moral duty to take a less of them so that others who were born less fortunate can have more? This is global question, but also an intensely personal one. Is it reasonable to expect people to sacrifice their own family interests, in terms of size or privilege, in favour of the common good? Is our profound love for our family and our children a barrier to a more just society and equitable world? Chaired by Michael Buerk, with Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser, Melanie Phillips and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses are Prof Sarah Conly, Hazel Healy, Frank Furedi and Dr Dernot Grenham.

When Professor Averil Macdonald, the chairwoman of UK Onshore Oil and Gas, said that women are opposed to fracking because they don't understand it, the reaction was predictable. She was accused of being sexist, patronizing, misogynistic. But in all the brouhaha what was missed was the difficult moral question at the heart of her argument. Professor Macdonald was citing research that shows only 31.5% of women are in favour of shale gas exploration compared to 58% of men. She argued that while women do accept the rational benefits of shale gas, they prefer to give more weight to their emotional fears about its possible impact. Setting aside the issue of gender, fear has been a powerful motivator in many campaigns such as GM crops, nuclear power, the MMR vaccine and numerous others. Combine that with an understandable streak of nibby-ism and you get an implacable and emotionally charged opposition to progress or developments that could benefit the majority of people in this country. It took eight years to apporve Heathrow's terminal 5; a third runway is being fought even harder and HS2 is yet to get beyond the stage of computer generated graphics. Do we rely too heavily on public opinion? Should we trust politicians more to make the correct decisions on our behalf? Or are we abdicating our powers and responsibilities to a new breed of scientific philosopher-king? Rather than a toxic blend of ignorance and self-interest are these kinds of protest the sign of a healthy and thriving democracy where the voice of the minority is not only heard, but also counts and a reminder that there are values that go beyond the bottom line? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser, Michael Portillo and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses are Ross Clark, David Babbs, Peter Tatchell and Patrick Diamond.

If you're the kind of person who likes to smoke a joint and chat on your mobile while out for a relaxing Sunday afternoon drive it seems you're in luck. According to figures released this week it seems that the police are increasingly turning a blind eye to these offences and when it comes to enforcing the new law banning smoking in cars where there are children, the police have said it's not their job. If the purpose of the law is to protect public health and safety, and to set moral boundaries, can it ever be morally acceptable to ignore law breaking? Should the law be about defining what is right and wrong, good and bad in all circumstances? Or is it acceptable for a law to be a moral symbol of disapproval, with no real threat of enforcement? And if the police don't have a moral duty to enforce the law, what about us as citizens? From this week landlords will be breaking the law if they don't check their tenants have a right to live in the UK and teachers now have a legal duty to tackle extremism. In both cases it's no longer enough to define a good upright citizen as one who doesn't break the law; it's now about having a legal duty to enforce it too. The Moral Maze and the letter of the law.Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk, with Giles Fraser, Michael Portillo, Claire Fox and Melanie Phillips. Witnesses are John Cooper, Luke Gittos, Professor John Tasioulas and Peter Garsden.

The Moral Maze returns this week to apply its nose to the grindstone and naturally the prospect of work is exercising our collective mind. Ringing, perhaps guiltily in our ears, are the words last week of the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Defending the changes to tax credits he said "We want this to be one of the most successful countries in the world in 20, 30, 40 years' time. There's a pretty difficult question that we have to answer, which is essentially: are we going to be a country which is prepared to work hard in the way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, in the way that Americans are prepared to work hard? And that is about creating a culture where work is at the heart of our success." According to one business expert he may have a point. Rohit Talwar, the chief executive of Fast Future, has said teachers should be preparing schoolchildren for a future that could see them having to work in 40 different jobs until they reach 100. For many this debate isn't just about increasing life expectancy and the cost of state pensions. It's about what kind of contribution society has the right to ask of its citizens and whether the common good demands that we try to meet it. Is work not just financially rewarding, but morally improving? Is self-reliance a virtue that is undervalued in Britain? Or are they both a moral smokescreen for a soulless, utilitarian attitude that sees us all as units of economic production and only values us while we continue to contribute? Isn't the true test of good work not whether it's 'hard' but whether it's fulfilling and productive? Whether we enjoy it? The Moral Maze chaired as ever by Michael Buerk. Michael is a man known for his love of hard work. He says he can watch it for hours. Chaired by Michael Buerk with Melanie Phillips, Michael Portillo, Giles Fraser and Matthew Taylor. Witnesses are Sheila Lawlor, Dan Taylor, Tom Hodgkinson and Lord Maurice Glasman.

The 13th Baillie Gifford Oldie of the Year Awards was held at Simpsons-in-the-Strand on Tuesday 3rd February 2015. Our winners were Sir Roger Bannister (Long Distance Runner of the Year), Michael Buerk (Jungle Survivor of the Year), Lord Falconer (Slimmer of the Year), Ian Lavender (Stupid Boy of the Year) and Bridget Riley (Stripe Artist of the Year). Ken Dodd was announced as our Oldie of the Year 2015.

Roger Bolton talks to investigative journalist Tom Mangold about The Silent Conspiracy, a programme he first began working on 35 years ago. The programme concerned Jeremy Thorpe, the charismatic leader of the Liberal Party between 1967 and 1976. Thorpe's political career was overshadowed by scandal when he was accused of conspiring to murder Norman Scott - a man who claimed to have been his lover at a time when homosexuality was illegal. He was acquitted of conspiracy to murder but soon withdrew from public life. The day after he died last week, Radio 4 broadcast The Silent Conspiracy, in which veteran BBC journalist Tom Mangold uncovered an alleged establishment conspiracy to protect Jeremy Thorpe's career and reputation. Many listeners questioned the tone and timing of the programme. Roger talks to Tom about the making of the programme and why he felt it was in the public interest. Michael Buerk has survived life in the Australian outback and returned as chair of Radio 4's Moral Maze. To welcome him back, his programme team chose reality TV as the subject for the last episode in the series. Not letting him escape the spotlight, Buerk was declared a star witness. But after frequent updates of his jungle antics on the PM programme - was this an in-joke too far? What does it take to find "extraordinary stories and remarkable guests"? Roger goes behind-the-scenes at Saturday Live to discover how they blend celebrity interviews and inheritance tracks with tales straight from listeners' mouths. And more musical archives are restored following last week's revival of Radio 4's Singing Together. Produced by Will Yates A Whistledown production for BBC Radio 4.

The BBC World Service is now funded by the licence fee which means the UK public is now paying for a service that many rarely use. Roger Bolton talks to the service's outgoing director, Peter Horrocks, about the challenges facing his successor. Radio 4's PM programme continues to keep its audience up to date with Michael Buerk's progress on I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here. Many listeners love these light-hearted jungle moments; many others feel they have no place in a serious news programme. PM's editor Joanna Carr defends the programme's character and explains why the esteemed presenter of the Moral Maze is fair game for a bit of leg-pulling. As part of Listeners' Week, Radio 4's In Our Time asked for suggestions for the topic of this week's programme. Roy Bailey and Lauren Hall's idea of Franz Kafka's The Trial was chosen from over 900 entries. They give their verdict on the programme, and Melvyn Bragg and his producer Tom Morris talk to Roger about what made Roy and Lauren's Kafkaesque proposal stand out. Produced by Will Yates A Whistledown production for BBC Radio 4.

Since August, listeners to Radio 4's You and Yours have had their daily diet of consumer and social affairs cut by 12 minutes - in the first place to make way for the opening salvoes of Radio 4's 600-part World War 1 drama Home Front. Since then a number of mixed programmes have occupied the slot - with mixed responses from Feedback listeners. Are these bite-size portions the future of radio? The Commissioning Editor, Mohit Bakaya, explains his thinking for the future of the slot. How does the BBC gauge the views of the silent majority who never make direct contact with the BBC or Feedback? Elizabeth Lane, Research Manager for Radio 4 and 4 Extra, has the answers. As he grows a beard and takes on the bushtucker trial, is Michael Buerk living up to his surname down under? And do his reality TV antics really deserve a nightly slot on Radio 4? Catch-up radio on the BBC's TV iPlayer becomes even harder to access for some listeners. First it was lost from smart televisions and now it's no longer available on TV set top boxes. So what's going on - and when will the service return to normal? And comedian Jake Yapp gives us his version of Feedback in 60 seconds. Produced by Will Yates A Whistledown production for BBC Radio 4 Kashmiri novelist Mirza Waheed talks to Mariella Frostrup about his new novel The Book of Gold Leaves which is a love story set against the backdrop of war.

Lord Heseltine has been criticised for his use of the word 'handicapped' on Radio 4's Any Questions. But should Jonathan Dimbleby or the programme's producers have stepped in to correct him? Radio 4's Peter White, who's also the BBC's Disability Affairs Correspondent, gives his take on the evolution of terminology -and the minefield of words to avoid. Moral Maze presenter Michael Buerk also came under fire this week for his choice of words in a live on-air trail. He was promoting this week's debate on whether the footballer and convicted rapist Ched Evans should be allowed to return to his footballing career. But the trail led many to accuse the presenter of victim blaming. And will there ever be a perfect political interview to please all listeners? This week the interviewing skills of Today presenters John Humphrys and Sarah Montague are called into question. But who is really at fault here - is it the combative approach of interviewers or the impenetrable defence of politicians? The BBC wants to reflect the UK's ethnic diversity more accurately in both television and radio broadcasting. In order to widen their pool of expert contributors, the BBC Academy has launched a series of Black and Minority Ethnic Expert Voices Days. Two applicants who attended the event explain why they want to help change the look and sound of the BBC. And get your headphones at the ready for a glimpse into the world of surround sound and binaural audio. Produced by Will Yates A Whistledown production for BBC Radio 4.

In 1984 Ethiopia suffered one of its worst ever famines. A BBC news report from the area shocked the world - and led to a huge global fundraising campaign. Witness speaks to Dawit Giorgis, who was in charge of Ethiopia's internal relief effort. (Photo: BBC reporter Michael Buerk cradles a starving child in Ethiopia)

Kirsty Young's castaway is the nurse & humanitarian Dame Claire Bertschinger. She's worked for The Red Cross in over a dozen countries including Sudan, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Liberia amid the sort of raw human suffering that most of us find - even on the TV - almost unbearable to witness. It was through Michael Buerk's landmark news reports of the Ethiopian famine 30 years ago that she first grabbed our attention. We saw her as a young nurse surrounded by thousands of starving people and forced, daily, to make the truly terrible decision of choosing who to feed. Throughout the years she's won numerous plaudits and awards: her Florence Nightingale Medal is given "to honour those "who've distinguished themselves in times of war by exceptional courage and devotion to the wounded, sick or disabled." She says, "I don't live just to eat and sleep and get money to have a nice house ... I have to create value - I have to do something in life." Producer: Cathy Drysdale.

Kirsty Young's castaway is the nurse & humanitarian Dame Claire Bertschinger. She's worked for The Red Cross in over a dozen countries including Sudan, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Liberia amid the sort of raw human suffering that most of us find - even on the TV - almost unbearable to witness. It was through Michael Buerk's landmark news reports of the Ethiopian famine 30 years ago that she first grabbed our attention. We saw her as a young nurse surrounded by thousands of starving people and forced, daily, to make the truly terrible decision of choosing who to feed. Throughout the years she's won numerous plaudits and awards: her Florence Nightingale Medal is given "to honour those "who've distinguished themselves in times of war by exceptional courage and devotion to the wounded, sick or disabled." She says, "I don't live just to eat and sleep and get money to have a nice house ... I have to create value - I have to do something in life." Producer: Cathy Drysdale.

How does Radio 4 decide when to change the schedule? The death of Tony Benn last week disrupted some listeners when an Inspector Rebus drama was cancelled in favour of a documentary about the Labour grandee. Then, on Monday morning, the advertised Book of the Week was removed to make way for a re-run of Benn's diaries. Listeners have complained in the past about similar changes to scheduled programmes when Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela died. Roger Bolton asks the Head of Planning and Scheduling, Tony Pilgrim, why Radio 4 does it. Roger will also be getting lost in the issue of the week at the Moral Maze with presenter Michael Buerk, producer Phil Pegum, and panellists Claire Fox, Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy, and Michael Portillo. When Radio 4 announced that one of its most popular comedies, Cabin Pressure, would take to the air no more, many listeners wanted to know why. The dream cast of Benedict Cumberbatch , Stephanie Cole, Roger Allam and John Finnemore have just recorded their final episode - and 23,000 people applied for tickets. We'll be asking writer John Finnemore if he has any regrets about ending the series. And the BBC Director General, Tony Hall, wants fifty percent of all BBC local radio breakfast shows to have at least one woman presenter - either solo or as co-host - by the end of 2014. Roger speaks to the man who has to instigate those changes David Holdsworth, the Controller of English Regions. Producer: Will Yates A Whistledown production for BBC Radio 4.

‘It’s public schoolboys and girls wot won them. Social mobility hasn’t just seized up, it’s gone into reverse; state schools’ lack of ambition betrays our children’ Image courtesy of ahisgett via... Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

Team GB's Mo Farah, gold medallist in the 10,000m, receives a surprise phone call from his school PE teacher on Victoria Derbyshire's 5 Live show and we hear from Andy Murray prior to the Olympics, who told a live audience how he was hoping to put his poor performance in Beijing behind him. Steve Punt and Hugh Dennis take an alternative look at women's boxing on Radio 4's The Now Show and 100m champion Usain Bolt's fellow Jamaican and on the track rival Yohan Blake gives an insight into the dynamics between the two men off the track. Jennie Price, Chief Executive of Sport England discusses Olympic morals with Melanie Phillips and Michael Buerk for BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze and BBC Ulster's Stephen Nolan reflects on a triumphant weekend for Team GB with Kriss Akabusi, Joel Taggart and Stephen Martin. Finally, Golden girl Jessica Ennis who claimed gold in the Olympic heptathlon catches up with Chris Moyles and Comedy Dave on the Radio One Breakfast Show.

'We're firmly in the grip of glorious delusions'. ... admitting you can learn to love them while acknowledging the delusions they foster Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

‘Obama promised “out of this darkness a brighter day will come”; it won’t, of course, because he won’t do anything about guns and the culture of his society which, like ours, is becoming ever more... Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

Moral relativism of the worst kind: ‘lecturing others on human rights, while trying to escape responsibility for our abuse of them’. Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

‘Self-control used to be a virtue. Now it’s thought of as dysfunctional. If we don’t display our feelings, it’s assumed we don’t have any’. Image courtesy of Nick J Webb via flickr.com ©© Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

‘Our rubbish tells more about us than our art, and so it is with this ‘puerile tripe and mummy porn’ Image courtesy of crawford.I via flickr.com ©© Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

As its President accuses Britain of ‘naked colonialism’. This from a country of European immigrants ‘whose national policy has been to wipe out all trace of the people they snatched it from’. Image... Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

‘leaving judgment, intellect, and common sense at the door, and Instead fitting in with the vacuous as they glorify the vacant’. Image courtesy of Damien Cugley via flickr.com ©© Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

.....’partly selfish, partly economic, but especially moral: it’s about justice, social solidarity, and incentivising virtue’ Image courtesy of IanVisits via flickr.com ©© Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

'It's one thing believing what is inherently unlikely, but what about believing something absolutely, obviously, and provably wrong?' Image courtesy of More Good Foundation via flickr.com ©© Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

Did the death of singer Whitney Houston and the acquittal of football manager Harry Redknapp deserve to top the news bulletins? Many listeners feel that important events at home and abroad were shunted aside unjustifiably. In this week's Feedback Roger asks Mary Hockaday, head of the BBC's newsroom, whether the right decisions were made. During a particularly robust episode of the Moral Maze, many listeners felt debate gave way to a dust-up. Michael Buerk tells Roger how he tries - and sometimes fails - to ensure the discussion generates more light than heat. Last week teacher Deborah Mole and her student Kevin agreed to listen exclusively to each other's favourite station for a whole week. After a traumatic week of BBC 1Xtra for her and BBC 6Music for him they reveal what the experience has taught them. Plus by special request there's a soul-stirring valentine's message from velvet-voiced announcer Zeb Soanes ... Presenter: Roger Bolton Producers: Karen Pirie and Kate Taylor A Whistledown production for BBC Radio 4.

To worry about our NHS medical records being handed over to drug companies is not naive left-wing rights rhetoric.We need reassuring that ‘we’re not going to end up as lab rats’. Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

So why no debate on the assumptions behind the more apocalyptic forecasts? Example: the UN forecast 50 million climate refugees by 2010 – where are they? Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

In Episode 91 of Rum Doings we don't discuss when we're finally going to let go of our dependence on books. But instead we drink beer+coffee, and Baroness Von Greenfield, the best scientist in all the land. We celebrate how she streamlines science, and then discuss the metaphorical nature of gaming. John reveals a terrible disability, and then we discuss the problems inherent in Michael Buerk. Which takes us on to how much we hate the gays. Then to the issues of the atavistic reader, the beginnings of Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and the terrible state of Future Publishing. We then talk about the delightful late Steve Jobs, Stephen Fry, and a quick burst of phone hacking.

Britain is the fat champion of Europe; the PM is considering a so-called fat tax. But it’s our choice, it’s our business, it’s not the government’s job to tell us how to eat. It’s another example of... Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

The ‘F’ word is ok, just cheery badinage. ‘Black, in what is thought to be the wrong context, induces apoplexy. Another sign, says Buerk, of ‘a vertiginous decline in civility…a growing coarseness in... Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

The News of the World became the biggest-selling newspaper by printing as much sordid detail of people’s private lives as it could grub up and get away with. But, remember, ‘we loved it’. [Image... Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

Yes, bankers have ‘nationalised their risks while privatising their rewards’ – but the St Pauls’ protestors, ‘spoilt children of capitalism, living lives beyond the dreams of previous generations’,... Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

As the 7 billionth human being is born, one problem, says Michael Buerk, underpins nearly all others in the world, but it’s the one we don’t talk about: ‘There are too many of us’. [Image Courtesy... Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

We’ve got ourselves into a mess over human rights, says Michael Buerk, especially those enshrined in law. Human rights are not god-given. Human rights don’t come from some natural law. They’re not... Things Unseen. For people who have a faith, and those who just feel there’s more out there than meets the eye.

n the second episode Michael Buerk visits Cairo and experience for himself how bloggers - arguably among the most hounded anywhere in the world - are taking on the Egyptian government.

Michael Buerk analyses the potential – and the dangers – of citizen journalism. In part one, he talks to bloggers and critics from Sri Lanka, Iran, Burma, and Iraq.