To me, "diversity" means a country built by explorers, by people who come here from every corner of the world to make a life for themselves. It means accepting the cultures of others and growing that acceptance through common decency.

To me the concept of "diversity" does not mean accepting the worst of the world's extremes. It means making the best of everything in between.

So I was quite taken aback by Southern's response - which of course was designed to shock. There is nothing clever about this "tactic", it's actually pretty juvenile.

Molyneux's complaint is that I "shut him down" - and I happily admit that too. He went off on a rant, a self-serving monologue with no relevance to the question.

The only reason I did that was because he was deliberately hijacking things, and I was thinking of the audience - there's no conspiracy in that. He had a fair chance to answer the simple question concisely, but he launched into a lengthy lecture instead. I felt he was being disrespectful to the audience, and moved him on.

I am also more than happy to admit that Southern and Molyneux got on top of me. So what? They do that for a living, it's their job.

I hadn't spent much time preparing, I hadn't read their stuff thoroughly and I am happy to admit I don't spend any time thinking about whether different races have different IQs and the like. I was not ready for their intellectual nit-picking - and I never will be. It's not the way I roll.

I never thought they should have been blocked from speaking, I think censorship is a last resort.

And this was not a debate where I was out to 'win' or 'lose'. I was not debating them, I was interviewing them.