Episode 13 Sunday Morning Live

On today's programme: British troops who served in Iraq

and Afghanistan should not face vexatious legal claims,

Should they be immune from prosecution completely?

It was swinging in their day, but are the baby

boomers of the '60s having it too good now at the expense

There is nothing left for us. House prices are skyrocketing. The Baker

is not affordable. Nothing is affordable and everyone is stuck in

debt, debt, debt. Two police forces say they're open

to Muslim women officers wearing A leading Muslim, though,

says it's time for Islam And Olympic champion

Nicola Adams tells Samanthi Flanagan how her pathway

to boxing glory began. My mum was doing aerobics class and

she couldn't get a baby-sitter so she took it down to an after-school

boxing class that was at the same time as the aerobics. That was it. I

absolutely loved it. Our panel is here, raring to go,

and so is Tommy, ready to share Good morning. Good morning. We are

poised for you guys to get in touch. You can contact as in a number of

ways. One of which is the Facebook page. Post a comment on that. Or

tweet us. Or Corliss: -- call us: Or text us: Or email: You can film

videos and send that in there as well. Put your name if you get in

touch so we know who you are. And we do like the video messages. Thank

you. Ajmal Masroor is an Imam

and broadcaster. Frederick Forsyth is a best-selling

author and former spy. John Dalhuisen is the director

of Europe and central Asia And Jake Wallis Simons

is associate global editor Frederick, we are asking whether

soldiers need protection from prosecution. Well, yes. If you are

asking whether they need some kind of carte blanche permission to shoot

anybody they want, any time, any place, including women and children

and prisoners with their hands up, the answer is no. But what we are

talking about here is allegations, some of which are very vague, some

of which may be mendacious by people that are greedy, looking for

compensation, about alleged offences 13 years ago. That is absolute

nonsense and what is more nonsense is the government, with our

taxpayers' money, is funding it. When politicians say they are trying

to stop it, they are talking poppycock because they can stop it

any time by cutting off the money supply. These lawyers and bounty

hunters wouldn't work for nothing and they are just doing it for

money. What message would it sent its troops were immune to

prosecution? It would undeniably send the wrong one. Any civilised

society needs to make it unambiguously clear that certain

kinds of behaviour, torturing detainees, executing soldiers in the

act of surrender, is utterly unacceptable. That fundamental

principle isn't wholly in question. What is at issue is the kind of

mechanism you need to have in place to make sure that kind of behaviour

is investigated and prosecuted. What we had before the inquiry that is so

contested now, was a system that didn't deliver that and now we have

got a system that is delivering it, but with the very serious

allegations of abuse of process that we have seen in the last few months

coming out. Theresa May says she wants to and vexatious claims

against troops. It is important to be very clear about this. Nobody is

saying that Rogue troops accused of serious misconduct like murder and

rape should be allowed to get away with it and nobody is arguing that.

Nobody is saying we should withdraw from the Geneva Convention. There

should be accountability and military trials and tribunal should

exist. What we are trying to do is cut off the avenues that have been

abused by lawyers that have been discredited. There is one big law

firm that has been closed down and is itself under investigation over

allegations of bribing Iraqis to bear false witness against our

troops, who have brought 1000 cases that have been thrown out, proven to

be mendacious and wrong, to stop that happening and close down the

avenues they are using to do that. The reason is that the men and women

putting their lives on the line for us, going into combat and a very

stressful situations, they are being hounded and dragged through years

and years of uncertainty and harassment, investigation after

investigation. These people have been cleared once already and it is

not fair. It is unacceptable if the processes and correct, but do you

think troops should be immune from prosecution? We need to look at a

way to give them crown immunity from these sorts of prosecutions. That

doesn't mean that we will not in some way be under the Geneva

Convention or international human rights law, but it does mean they

will have more protection than they have got. How does that work? For

instance the proposal to withdraw from the Human Rights Act and

replace it with a British Bill of Rights means we will no longer have

soldiers pursued by European law, which is designed for peacetime, and

not to be applied on the battlefield. They sit with the

government needs to look at all the different avenues that it can to

stop these mendacious inquiries and give our soldiers the respect they

deserve. -- basically the government needs to. There are 2000 cases being

investigated at the moment. Why do you think there were so many claims

against British troops? Accusing the legal system is wrong. But so is

abuse of innocent people or what we call on the Geneva Convention by

soldiers, that is wrong. Two wrongs never make a right. We need a fair

legal system, fair justice that transcends beyond our emotional plea

for protecting the troops. I don't think the troops should have

immunity. Nobody should. The legal system, everybody should be

accountable in front of the law. What we have now is actually a

bigger problem. The politicians who decided to invade countries

illegally, they are walking around scot-free, not accountable, not

being prosecuted. I would go one step further. Those politicians

should be brought to account and tried in The Hague for war crimes.

Especially a few that I wouldn't want to name yet, but most

importantly the politicians who made the decision and put our soldiers at

risk, but also in the eyes and the hands of the potential abuse, the

responsibility lies with the politicians. I stand by Amnesty's

stance which is that nobody should get away with torture, abuse,

execution, any of those crimes that any soldier, even if it is an

allegation, they must be investigated thoroughly. In our

studio is the top legal officer in Iraqi in 2003. This morning we have

heard from Tony Blair, who has condemned the prosecutions, the

vexatious claims made against soldiers. Can we get your view,

Lieutenant Colonel? Good morning. Tony Blair's view, we must take that

with a degree of caution because he doesn't want anyone pursuing anyone

for potential war crimes. Let us just park that on one side. A frenzy

is being whipped up by the government at the moment

about spurious claims. Who says the claims are spurious? So far the

government has settled 326 cases, at a cost of ?20 million. By anyone's

standards that is an awful lot of abuse and ?20 million is a lot of

money. The government has only won one case, which was shown to be

spurious. You have got to be very careful about saying these are all

spurious cases. The right people being pursued? Can I one point about

interrogation techniques? I have looked into interrogation and there

is consistency on the witness evidence. What appears might have

happened is that the government have allowed interrogators to use illegal

techniques in interrogation. Let me clarify that. Physical, sexual and

religious abuse. The government know full well who was interrogated and

they have video recordings of those interrogations, and to say they are

all spurious on the one hand, when they could cross-reference those

claims, I think that needs to be clarified. Can I also say that these

allegations are not just made by law firms? Someone made by me because I

was a senior officer during the Iraqi war. -- some were made by me.

Others were made by senior officers, some independently. Others were made

by the Red Cross. And the truth in the SAS, Ben Griffin, is under a

High Court injunction because he wants to speak out against abuse but

the Ministry of Defence are not allowing him. -- eight member of the

troops in the SAS. Can they not investigate themselves? If the

Ministry of Defence sign off on unlawful tactics then they will

never investigate themselves. You have got to treat all of this with a

degree of caution. If the Ministry of Defence are implicated in some of

these offences, then of course they want to see them finished off. In

the case of Ben Griffin, who refused to soldier, they refused to

court-martial him because his defence would have been look how

they mistreated the prisoners, and they didn't want to go near that. It

is also very important to note that our government did sell torture

chambers and contracts to illegitimate and despotic regimes

around the world. Our government was in cahoots with what he has just

mentioned. What is most striking for me, is ask the Iraqis and Afghani

is. Ask them their experiences on the ground. At Abu Ghraib, those

images of prisoners being tortured, that will never go away from our

minds. That needs to be investigated thoroughly and once and for all

either the soldiers are exonerated or prosecuted. That is simple.

Frederick? You have not mentioned three things. The three cases you

have evoked are all Americans. Nothing to do with the British. We

were not at Abu Ghraib. The other thing to mention are the rules of

engagement. For an ordinary soldier with a rifle and someone sniping at

him over that sand dune, the ROE is much more important than the Geneva

Convention. He hasn't memorised the Geneva Convention but he will have

memorised the ROE. The British ROEs are much more stringent than any

other known fighting force in the world. Disciplined? Yes, and harshly

enforced. And should be. Yes, but they are. The rules of how you

behave on the High Street here and the rules of engagement on the

battlefield have got to be different. They have got to be very

clear. They will be different, they are different and there is nothing

in human rights law that prevents them being different or necessarily

restricted for the kind of things that need to be done. There is a

massive convergence between international humanitarian law,

human rights law, and sound common sense. There are certain things that

you just cannot do to people that you have in your custody. What

we have here is a series of instructions and rules that have not

been clear and where they have been quite clear, they have nonetheless

been highly problematic. There authorised techniques that people

have done, believing they were fulfilling a legitimate order, which

was not. What is the appropriate response? To sweep the entire issue

under the carpet? That seems to be the desire of those the higher up in

the chain you go. Is this -- as if this is to the credit of the armed

forces. Or visit to find a mechanism that can identify the abuses and

identify the systemic problems? This is why we have this system in the

first place. Nobody is denying that there were serious abuses that need

to be investigated but we need to acknowledge that there were hundreds

if not thousands of spurious and vexatious allegations being brought

against our troops the two reasons. One, to take advantage of public

funding. We have seen tens of millions of pounds being hosed into

unscrupulous lawyers' pockets. And two, to discredit the armed forces.

Take this investigation, which was thrown out, and founded on

deliberate and calculated lies. That took hundreds of pieces of evidence

from Iraqis, saying that the British Army had somehow plunged down a load

of farmers, while withholding evidence that they were not farmers

but militants. What I am saying is that our soldiers deserve better

than this. I am not saying they should be allowed to get away with

murder or breaking the Geneva Convention or the rules of combat.

We need to stop mendacious law firms bringing the sort of cases that they

have been burning, dragging our soldiers through the mud, and

ruining their lives in many cases, without them having the proper

defence and gratitude that we should be giving them. So do you agree that

soldiers should not be immune from prosecution. What you are looking

for and asking for is more stringent rules and regulations governing

legal firms. That is a very different discussion. We need to

close down the avenues that they are using and exploiting to bring false

claims against the armed forces. Firstly to line their pockets and

secondly to do down the British Army.

We agree that soldiers are not immune from prosecution as long as

the system is watertight. If somebody a making an allegation,

Britain and its legal standard is an amazing one in the world. It is

respected by everybody. If our soldiers... They are turning it into

a laughing stock. If our soldiers or anybody in our political system is

accused of such a heinous crime, surely the best thing we should do

is investigate it? That's right, but when the accusations are brought

against our soldiers are clearly mendatious. Let the court decide

that. For example, there were accusations that prisoners were left

having to ask for water, there's been the Taliban bomb-maker

sentenced to ten years for making bombs to blow up coalition forces

and the British Army were accused of detaining him for a few weeks too

long. Our legal system can do that. Please, I find it interesting what

you are saying but I also find it interesting what our audience are

saying. Lots of people are talking about the situations that British

troops have to go through but they are not above the law.

Tommy, thank you. Let's talk to Lt Col Nicholas Mercer. I hope you

heard some of the comments there: Courage and stress, the environment

that soldiers are in. The your reaction to what our viewers are

saying? I hear what they are saying about stress on the battlefield and

nobody kiss agrees with that. We took a cautious view, soldiers in

the heat of battle we wouldn't go near it in terms of prosecuting. But

once a man was reduced to capture they should be treated decently and

the Army trained its soldiers to treat all soldiers with dignity and

humanity. The vast majority of these cases are about abuse of either

civilians or prisoners. We got it very badly wrong and it is

absolutely right that that's brought before a court. There are two cases

before the courts at the moment, because everyone mentioned

Al-Sweady, which was spurious. But there was Karim Ali. Last week Sir

George Newman was scathing about the way they behaved... I want to stay

away from individual cases. This case is always bandied around,

Al-Sweady. That's the one case found to be spurious. Everything else is

well founded. People lose sight of that. Cedric, moving forward, when

we have discussions like this and the Prime Minister says she wants to

avoid vexatious claims, how is this going to affect the British Army?

It's intended to demoralise. It is not accidental. What the Colonel

hasn't mentioned is we haven't fought anybody a national uniform

since the Falklands. The people in the Middle East weren't in uniform.

They could all claim to be civilians. In Iraq we didn't fight

them. We invaded their country, illegally. Put Tony Blair on trial.

Don't put Corporal Smith on trial. I agree, put Tony Blair on trial. But

they are not doing, that they are going for the Corporal, as usual.

Our soldiers were fighting in British uniform. I didn't say that.

I said we haven't fought against anybody in a national uniform since

the Falklands, because they were tended to be civilians. What

difference does that make? How are you to know which is which when he

fires at you? So you so you detain and torture them and execute them? I

didn't say that. The people they are in combat against can ten minutes

later can say, I'm a civilian, and throw his Kalashnikov them. So you

put them through a process, you don't execute them or torture them,

and you face the courts. The soldier on the other side, the Isil side,

can say, I wasn't a soldier. So what? Therefore I want ?50,000, if

you would be so kind, because I was knocked on the head by a British

soldier. I have full faith in our legal system and I believe our

judges and courts can decide what claim is crazy and what is fantasy

and what is real. Gentlemen, thank you very much. I'm going to carry

on. Thank you for your comments as well. Do keep them coming in.

A report by a think-tank this week says that young families

are being ghettoised in inner city areas by the housing crisis.

The Intergenerational Foundation claims there is a two-tier society

in which young adults struggle to get on the property ladder.

Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green has denied that the Government

is being too generous to pensioners, but said that inter-generational

fairness is an area that needs to be examined.

So are the young being disadvantaged by

With several recent studies finding that the younger generation are

struggling with, housing prices, the job market and the cost of living,

is the divide between generations greater than ever? We've come to

Brixton, which has seen huge changes in a single generation, to find out

what the people here think. The cost of living and of education is a lot

higher. The wages and, they haven't gone up. When I was growing up it

was tough, but it was more basic. There was less pressure. I went to

uni for three years demand my Masters degree. As soon as I came

out of University they asked me for experience. I don't have the

experience. I paid for the studying. There are no opportunities for

people like me. Education might with more redly available to us at

university. My parents didn't go to university. I did. I think there are

more opportunities for my daughter's generation in terms of education and

in terms of movement. With all the opportunities that you've got here

there is no reason for you to be going hungry or broke unless you're

lazy. If you had the choice, would you rather have been working in the

'60s and '70s or right now? Definitely, man. Houses were more

affordable. There was more of a middle class then but now it is

either the rich or the poor. If you could tap into the bank of mum to

get you on the property ladder, would you? Could you? I couldn't and

I wouldn't choose to. I think at the end of the life you want to look

back and see the things that you've worked hard for yourself. It is

obviously a huge help if our parents are able to leave us something so

that we don't have to come into this world and start from scratch. It is

really unfair if there's been generations before us, we are born

into this world and have to try to get a basic need, a house. I don't

see you should be given things on a plate. Therefore I don't see some

great injustice in life. Get out there, work hard.

Our final discussion - are the young being disadvantaged

We are joined now by the musician and political

Baroness Ros Altmann, a pensions and retirement expert,

and by James Moore, who is deputy business editor

Is it the older generation's fault that young people find it difficult

I don't think it is necessarily the older generation's fault, but I do

think been through all the austerity years and looked at the way the

economy is going, it's been weighted towards the older generation in a

very unfair way. If you look at the way benefits have been cut, out of

all proportion been cut to the young whereas Lord Sugar still qualifies

for winter fuel pay. You add in the issue of housing, where the cost of

a deposit has gone through the roof and you can see what we've had

during the years of austerity is a vast transfer of wealth from the

young to the old. It is not a question of the young being lazy or

not wanting to get up and work. They do work but they are having to work

an awful lot harder and longer in terms of years to even get a shake

of getting on the housing ladder. The property owning democracy that

we talked about 20 years ago is dying, because the young just

haven't got a chance any more. To me there is something slightly immoral

when you've got some of the Rixest pensioners in society qualifying for

these benefits whereas the young can't even get a roof over their

head. Things like educational support allowances have been axed.

That to me, for the poorest, is immoral. Ros, is that a fair picture

to think that the wealth is weighted towards the older generation?

Certainly the wealth is weighted towards the older generation but

they are at the end of their working life. They've built up whatever

they've got through all these years. In some respects, I think that older

generations really are supporting younger generations. That's what

families do. Older people wants to support their children. They want to

support their grandchildren, but there's a bit of a failure of public

policy here. The housing market has been stoked up by low interest

rates, Bank of England policies trying to save the banks after the

banking crisis, and, of course, we haven't built enough new homes. But

a lot of older generations are being vilified in a way that I think is

really dangerous for society. It worries me. First of all, the idea

that all pensioners are extremely wealthy is simply a myth. About

nearly half of pensioners are entitled to means-tested benefits.

Only two or three per cent of pensioners are even in the 40% tax

bracket. Most of them don't have these kind of high incomes that are

perceived. We need to rebalance a little bit our thoughts. Morning

Jermain. Good morning. Do young people have it worse now? Is this

generation worse off than older ones? Young people have constantly

pushed into a corner, it'sen franchised, underrepresented in

politics. Scrapping, the rise in tuition fees and hiking it again.

The EU referendum, young people pushed into a corner. It it is time

to see how young people can get on the property ladder and have more of

a say. Having more of a say and getting on the property ladder are

two different things aren't tele? If you are under 30, you won't have a

decent pension. You don't know if you are able to buy a house, they

are shouldering the costs of older citizens. Can we get rid of the

means test allegation. It wasn't actually the old aged pensioners who

accorded themselves winter fuel allowance. It was Government, so not

our fault. If you don't mind. As to housing, I would suggest you talk

about supply and demand. In any capitalist system, which despite Mr

Corbyn we still have, there will be always a problem with supply and

demand if there's too much demand and not enough supply. If young

people can't get on the property ladder it is probably because prices

of houses are too high. And the reason for that is there are too few

of them. So either endow the young, or build more houses. It is a

failure of public policy as far as the housing market is concerned. But

that's not something to blame older people for, as you say. This is a

Government issue. It's a national issue. It doesn't benefit older

people if house prices go up if that's where they are living. The

fact is that your home is worth more does suggest that you're wealthier,

but if you are living in the house it doesn't help your income. A lot

of older people don't have huge incomes, but you would want in any

society where there is an increasing number of older people who are going

to live a lot longer to know that those who are leaving work have

built up something to look after themselves in the future, otherwise

younger people are going to have to find that money. Ross, you talked

about vilification of the older generation. I don't think anyone is

wanting to see that and is wanting that to happen. I don't think anyone

on this panel, and I agree with you there's a failure of public policy,

but if you want to talk about vilification it is the young who is

invariably pictured as lazy, as scroungers, not having any get up

and go and they should work for it. The fact is they are and they are

having to. I agree. I agree. Most older people that I

speak to tend to be very supportive of the young. That is how society

works. Families now, there is a change, a shift, a gap in political

ideologies. I have come across so many families, so many young people

who voted to stay in the EU and my grandparents didn't want to, but who

will it affect longer, leaving the EU? I believe young people need to

have more of a say. I absolutely agree with you that young people are

being vilified as lazy, not hard-working, not wanting to go out

and work hard. We are trying to work hard but there is a system and

structure in place preventing us from doing so. The economic

consequences of Brexit, and there will be long-term consequences which

we may not be seeing now, that will fall on the shoulders of the young.

That was inevitable. It will fall on the shoulders of the young but what

if we do rather well? I don't think we will, looking at the long-term

economic indicators. I'm not in the middle of it campaign any more,

nobody has an axe to grind. If you look at the economic agencies,

long-term they say there will be a price to pay for Brexit and it will

fall on the shoulders of the gun. What is being interpreted is how the

younger generation... You are being mischievous, Frederick! It is the

provocation! The younger generation feels the older generation is

influencing its future, the money in its pocket, the ability to buy

property and get onto the property ladder, which is the ultimate

achievement. Can you see how the younger generation feels that it is

that choice or the ability to make those choices? If you are going to

pick out the old-age pensioners as the cause... Everything comes back

to the government, going back 20 years. It was the government to

abolished assistance for tertiary education and saddled students with

?40,000 of debt coming out of university. We didn't do that. I

voted passionately for Remain and I think it would be much better for us

if we could stay in the EU but that is a separate issue. A lot of older

people feel they are being vilified as somehow guilty of having built up

some resources that they can then live on for the rest of their lives.

And yet that is what you should want in society. I don't see that young

people are being vilified. I see the reverse. A lot of people are saying

it is the fault of the baby boomers, they have done this and that,

collected all the resources for themselves and part of the future

for the young. What we need in society is this cohesion, that

generations look after each other and work together. That element of

vilification is something I would love to see eradicated. James, we

will pick up with you in a moment but let's see what the viewers have

been saying. Yes, these are the messages coming in this morning.

Margaret says: Fair point. Interesting. Let's get

older people to move out of empty houses and free them up for the

younger generation? I think that would make a lot of sense. One of

the problems as we are not building the right sort of houses for lots of

people. That goes back to the failure of public policy. I want to

get back to something Ross said about cohesion between generations.

You can't have cohesion when you are slashing support and benefits for

the young and you are keeping a triple-lock on pensions, winter fuel

payment for wealthy pensioners, and a basket of benefits for the old. If

you are going to get up and say we are all in this together, it has got

to look like that, and it isn't working. Absolutely, I agree with

you. It goes deeper than that. Who is participating in politics?

Statistics show that the older generation of voting and they are

interested in politics. Young people are involved and interested in

politics. Someone online said young people need to start footing. It is

about us all taking a step forward together. We all need to move

forward together and engage young people in politics. Young people are

politically aware. They know what is happening in their communities. They

see the crime and social injustice. Maybe it is time to put politics and

social sciences into schools? There is another proposal but I haven't

got time to discuss it. Thank you so much for those thoughts.

When Nicola Adams won gold in the 2012 London Olympics,

she made history as Team GB's first female boxing champion in the Games.

To do it again this year puts her firmly in the fight game's

Nicola's achievements and those of her fellow Olympians

and Paralympians will be celebrated in parades next week.

For Nicola, though, it's only the beginning.

Huge congratulations first of all on your success in Rio. Let's get all

your titles in a row. You are reigning Olympic, World,

Commonwealth and European champion. You are the second British boxer

ever to win two gold medals in a row at the Olympics. What does it feel

like to have made history? It feels absolutely amazing. I can't believe

what I have achieved. Seeing the likes of sugar Ray Leonard and

Muhammad Ali, my heroes in boxing, and seeing that moment when they

won their gold medals in the Olympics, I always wanted to and I

always believed that one day I would be able to be like my heroes and win

a gold medal. Nicola Adams! Nicola Adams claims her second successive

Olympic gold in the boxing ring. You will most going to boxing by

accident. Tell me about how you started. I started boxing when I was

12 years old. My mum was doing an aerobics class and she couldn't get

a baby-sitter one night for me and my brother, so she took down to

after-school boxing that was at the same time as the aerobics and that

was it. I absolutely loved it. But it was a struggle in the early days.

There were not many female opponents. I think there were three

or four years between your first two fights? Yes, the girls got turned

away from James, going from one to another, with a gymnasium saying

they didn't have the facilities for girls. I was lucky that my coach

didn't mind me training in the gym. He gave me the same speech that he

gave to every other boxer. You will be treated as a boxer. There is no

male or female. When I speak, you listen. Get on with the training.

That was it! But you also have to fund yourself. Yes, it was really

tough trying to get funding. There wasn't anything at all. My mum used

to pretty much fund by training, going to training camps, to box

abroad, even just petrol money going to and from the gym. When I got a

bit older I started doing extras work on Emmerdale and Coronation

Street. It was quite fun but it was also helping me fund my sport as

well. After 2012 it was quite hard to blend into the background!

You have also had to face adversity during your training and your

career. You have been building up to 2012, and then in 2009 you had an

accident at home which threatened your Olympic chances. What happened?

Yes, that was quite tough for me. I was getting ready to go and con Pete

in Haringey boxing club and I packed all my stuff, but my bandages in,

left a bit of bandage hanging out of my bag, and when I was rushing down

the stairs I fell over the bandage and went tumbling down. I went to

the doctors and did a scan and I had damaged the vertebrae in my back. I

literally just had bed rest for three months before I could

literally walk about and do anything. Did you feel you couldn't

go to the Olympics and it was over? I was thinking that. The coaches and

the videos and the doctors were saying I was going to be fine but

when you are the person lying there who can't move, it is hard to

visualise being up and about and being able to compete again. What

did you draw on during that time? For me, it was just thinking about

my family and wanting to go to the Games. It had been my dream since I

was 12 years old. Every step that I took, getting closer and closer, it

made me more determined. By the time I was up and running, I was so

focused and dedicated on getting to the Games that I wasn't going to let

anything or anybody stop me. The Ali shuffling effect from Adams. One of

her Olympic heroes along with Sugar Ray Leonard. Nicola Adams produces a

fast flurry just to underline the superiority she demonstrated

throughout that Olympic gold medal bout. You have said you are

Christian. Amateurs that part of your life? It is a big part of my

life. -- how much is that part of your life? It is a big part of my

life. I believe in God and he watches over me. I am not the best

churchgoer but I believe that is all that matters to me. You have

commented that you have turned to faith in times of struggle but what

about in the good times and your talents? Massively. I am always

saying thank you for the good times. You can't just call on board for the

bad times. You have got to thank him for the good ones as well. Boxing is

violent. You have got to be aggressive to succeed, you have got

to hit the other person and people get hurt. How do you reconcile that

aspect of it? For me I am just thinking about scoring points. I

actually don't like getting hit so I am really good! I know that must be

funny coming from a boxer. My opponent is trying to hit me, so

I've got to make sure I'm ready for that and try and counter and defence

and score back as soon as I can. One of your great heroes, Muhammad Ali,

sadly died this year but your mum always told you you would be as good

as him. Was she right? Yes. I am creating history every time I step

in the ring. I'm not far off being a legend, I don't think. I think

that's fair. How is the poetry coming along? Not too bad. I'm doing

OK. Do you want to share a bit with us? I haven't got anything at this

present moment. Working on it? Yes, work in progress. Thank you, Nicola.

She's already mastered the Ali shuffle.

Still to come on Sunday Morning Live: Rock band Deacon Blue perform

Two police forces, West Midlands and Leicestershire,

have said they'll consider burqas and face veils as part of uniform

Meanwhile, Baroness Warsi, one of the UK's leading Muslims,

says Islam could consider becoming more English

in the design of mosques for example.

So should society be more accommodating to Islamic culture

or should Muslims blend in more with UK traditions?

We are joined now by Reverend George Hargreaves

We are joined now by Reverend George Hargreaves who is a minister

Also joining us from our Birmingham studio is community

Do Muslims have an obligation to integrate into the majority

community? Yes, they do. Where you live, you must speak the language,

adopt the cultures and customs of the local people. But the

fundamental features of your faith don't change. Culture, food, dress,

you may adopt the local fashion and customs. Muslims need to integrate

in a sense of being part and parcel of society, being involved in

activities, social, political, economic, welfare, charity. I think

our generation of Muslims is doing much more than this and the earlier

generation. And a second point about Islam's role in such a society, we

are not to be considered an alien, an enemy within, the other. It can't

be because you can't function in a society if you are like that, you're

treated like that and you feel like that. Integration is a two way

process. We are not talking about assimilation where you lose

everything. We are talking about integration. If I meet your way, you

should meet my way. There is an amazing integration happening in

Britain over the last 100 years. My parents come from Bangladesh and

they came to keep it. Immigration --

integration is happening subtly. We want it at an institutional level.

Multiculturalism should be celebrated. Multi-faith culture

should be celebrated. Our country is diverse. Do you think that Baroness

Warsi is onto something? I really think she is. Historically around

the world religions have flourished when inculturation has taken place.

As has been said here, when something has assimilated into a

community, not losing faith, but taking on songs, music, design of

architecture, of the host community. So they are not so other when the

rest of the community sees them operating. That is what I welcome. I

welcome the Baroness has said because that is the way to go and it

works. Choral singing, architecture, would

that make Islam seen more Britain? I don't think so. You don't need a

minaret to worship Allah do you? You don't need a dome or a minaret to

worship God. In the church we've got steeples. Most churches today... I

have a problem with communities wanting to express themselves in the

architecture of their choice. What we do need to understand is our

architecture was influenced by many cultures of the world. We didn't

come out of the heavens fully formed in our architecture. It is a

complete world integration, so there is no monolithic culture in the

world. Every culture is multicultural. To claim that there

is one is a fantasy. Frederick? That's a nice idea. I would like to

see multiplicity of different faiths but I do think the level of

integration must come from within the faith. In Jewry for example

there are three brands, liberal, reform and orthodox. The orthodox

are much more orthodox than the Liberals. But I think people think

sometimes who are outside Islam that Islam is one monolith. It isn't.

There are grades and communities within Islam from Shia to Sunni.

From very tolerant Muslims who wish to integrate to hard line who do not

wish to have anything to do with nonbelievers. Jermain, let's hear

from you. The smaller group, should it be integrating more or should the

larger group be more accepting? There needs to be more integration

from both sides. Britain is probably the only country in the world that

has our level of multiculturalism. I think culture is multiculturalism. I

think we have the ability to accept people from different faiths,

different walks of life and say, you can be British too. You don't have

to be English speaking. You can be from the Caribbean, parts of Africa

or Asia. Gay or bisexual, you are still British. That's the great

thing about it. The question about the police officer wearing a burkha

or a hijab, I welcome that. I love the idea... Would you work in

dreadlocks? Absolutely. What's wrong with dreadlocks. Would you not in

the My brother was one of the first black policemen in this country.

Right there in the '60s. The police are there as authority figures. They

are there to do a service to the country. To the public. Nobody asks

anybody to become a police officer. There are standards that are set, as

in the military, that are useful for the job. I think there comes a

point, how can it be useful to have your face covered from here to here.

What if you are reflecting the community you serve? Absolutely.

Even with the niqab... You are an Imam, is that a part of the dress

code that is compulsory in Islam? We need toe clarify, a woman should

have a choice to decide. Is it compulsory? One second, George. A

woman should have the right to decide what to wear. In a

multicultural society like Britain, we welcome the choice to have. If

you ask does Islam require a woman to cover her face, a theological

question, it says it is not a require. However, if a woman

choosesed to, we should defend her right. Number two, should a woman

have to wear a burkha, a burkha is a specific dress of a particular

cultural community, coming from the subcontinent. Is it a requirement?

No, it is a cultural expression. If a pluralistic society... I want to

bring in Shalina Litt from our Birmingham studio. I just wanted to

say first of all we have to be explicit about the identity that's

being introduced. It is a positive step forward that the police are

considering extending the identity and the dress policy of women,

because, of course, the whole drive was to bring on recruitment. It is a

bonus, because now women who previously were covering their hair

can now consider going into the police force. Another point we have

to be explicit on is covering the face. Is that practical? I think the

Commissioner or the guy from the Muslim Association actually said it

is not practical. It is not, because we have to be clear that when

someone is in a professional role and they are dealing with the

public, seeing the face is important. That's one matter. In

terms of Islam being more British, I think Jermain touched on it. We have

two different sets of values. Islam is a way of life, so it has one set

of values. And so is being British. Some of them complement each other.

Some of them don't, but I think it is for the individual to find that

balance. What we do need to make more room for is Muslims in Britain

learning how to be dealing with the British values that may be coincide

or contradict some of the Islamic values. For example homosexuality.

If you speak about this in the Muslim community, it is like we are

not allowed to talk about that. There are two different subjects.

What needs to change to encourage more integration into British

society? The discussion. I think even if we look at how Islam is

presented in the media, there is so much on Islamophobia, on the

negatives, but we don't often focus on the positives of Islam's

integrating in the communities. It is always very negative and

one-sided. I think even when you look at the Brexit and you were

saying the elderly felt misrepresented. That's what's

happened with Muslims and especially Muslim women. There's a big rhetoric

about how the Muslim woman is dressed. A woman's Islam is not

determined by her identity. There's so much more to Islam. It's about

the five pillars but there is this big thing about the way the woman is

dressed. It is unfair really, because it is putting this big

pressure on the woman on whether or not she should choose to wear a

scarf. It is so positive, this police... So you think the majority

should be more accepting of the minority, not that the minority

should be making effort to integrate? I'm just saying in the

immediate misrepresented. I think there's two dynamics happening.

There is the bigger discussion, like Jermain says, in schools. Things

like that we should be having political discussions and social

discussions. But within Muslim communities there should be

different discussions happening there, in terms of them integrating

into communities. One is learning to accept the either kind of thing. And

learning to live with one another. Despite whether it is Islam,

Christianity. It is beautiful that Britain is accepting and tolerating

and allowing us to exercise our values religiously. That's what the

positive thing is here. George, briefly from you before we get

viewers athoughts. Frederick is correct in saying it must come from

within. We should celebrate the initiative that she is putting

forward that some expresses of Islam should take on some other forms of

expression. I think that's why I'm hear today. I want to celebrate and

support. I'm not Islamic, I'm a Christian, but I think this is

absolutely the thing to do. Tommy? Our viewers have been sending some

thoughts in. On who should be accepting who, a lot of people are

saying people who choose to live in Britain should adapt to British

culture. But some are saying it is up to Muslim people as to how

British they want their faith to be. Tommy, thank you. Ajmal? I agree

with the last statement, but Christianity was founded in the

Middle East. Exactly! Thank you. Let's cut to the chase. Islam is

about fairness and justice, compassion and charity. It is about

my interpersonal relationship, loving my neighbours. It is all of

that, which is missing from our discourse. The five pillar resource

practices. That's your brand. It is not the Isis brand. Isis or no Isis,

the good thing about Islam is there's a thing called the Koran.

The Saints of the prophet are explicit about it. Yours is about

justice. Be just. That's the closest you can ever be to Godliness. It is

not about prayer but justice. The point of this discussion is about

integration. Frederick, is Britain tolerant enough of other culture

It's for a long time sought to be Col talent, tolerant in this

country. I'm the oldest person by far. You are as old as you feel. No,

after is Second World War Jewish communities in London fled Hitler

but still spoke Yiddish. Nobody complained. They wore the skullcap,

nobody complained. We never have complained about the way people

dress. What is bewildering to many people who are not Muslims, for

example when a kindly old shopkeeper in Glasgow had the nerve to wish his

Christian customers a happy Easter and another Muslim drove 200 miles

to shove a knife in him and kill him, because he was from one sect

and the fundamentalist who thought that he had committed some kind of

heresy and knifed him to death for it and is now doingic life in jail

was also a devout Muslim. That's one example of millions of Muslims. One

example of 3 million Muslims in this country. You have schisms inside

Islam. But so do everybody. Protestants and Catholics stopped

killing each other a long time ago. You are still doing it in the Middle

East. What about Northern Ireland... Gentlemen, enough! We are done.

Shalina, thank you for your time. I think you have figured out that's

all from us today. Goodness! Many thanks to all of my panellists. And

to you for taking part as well. We are going to leave you with a

special song from the rock band Deacon Blue called The Believers. It

was inspired by Europe's migrant crisis. From everybody here on the

Sunday Morning Live team, have a lovely day.

# Go on ahead, I'll be with you soon enough.

# Go plant a garden, I'll be walking in the cool of the evening.

# Say you were lost, then one day you were found.

# And someone brought you home again.

# The believers know that it's going to get better.

# Cause no-one here will ever forget you, not let you.

# When we say we know so much about everything?

# May it take you to Heaven and never bring you back again.

# So you no longer fear the boatman or the swell of the ocean.

# The believers know that it's going to get better.

# You better believe it, cause no-one here will ever forget you

# The believers know that it's going to get better

# You better believe it, cause no-one here will ever forget you

Sir Terry was the ultimate master at talking to his audience.