Episode 16 Sunday Morning Live

On today's programme: Singer Lily Allen has been under

fire for expressing her views on young migrants in France.

Should we care what celebrities think about political issues?

I apologise on behalf of my country. I am sorry for what we have put you

through. A female business leader

says women take too much We talk to one mother

who was back working two I would have lots and lots of text

messages from my husband, photographs, for example of him

crying and saying what do I do? Would you take the Bible

to a desert island? A new survey reveals

a majority would not. Is the world's bestselling books

still relevant? And she's known as Attila the Nun,

so how will Hardeep Singh Kholi cope with

the formidable Sister Rita? When I talk, you shut up. It has

been like nothing else I have experienced. I felt like a schoolboy

again, to be honest. If you are not happy with it, not on my door and we

will discuss it, OK? -- knock on my door.

Our panel is here, and so is Tommy Sandhu, who'll be

You can be a part of the show from the comfort of your sofa. This is

how you can get involved: Can and be part of the show. There

is no excuse for not getting involved, is there?

Sophia Cannon is a family law expert and broadcaster.

Rosie Millard is a journalist and writer.

And Pastor Clement Okusi is lead pastor

When singer Lily Allen visited the so-called Jungle migrant camp

near Calais to investigate the plight of unaccompanied

young people, she was overcome by what she saw.

It is a geographical lottery. Wherever you are born in the world.

I know that I wouldn't like to end up here though. I certainly wouldn't

want my children to end up here. There was support for her views

from some, but also a backlash against them on social media,

with Lily Allen being accused of shedding crocodile tears

and being a champagne socialist. The popstar isn't the first

celebrity to step into Tommy's been sampling public

opinion in Birmingham. Whether it is Bono and live aid,

Russell Brand and the election or Leonardo DiCaprio and climate

change, celebrities are not shy when it comes to lending their voices to

a cause, but are they the right people for the job? I think it is a

good thing. When you look at what David Beckham has done with Unicef,

it raises the profile. I think some of them believe in the charity and

the causes, but mostly it is a PR stunt for them. The publicity it

generates is fantastic so long as it isn't just a promotional stunt to

further their persona. Lily Allen came under fire this week because

she apologised on behalf of England. Should she do that? It is

questionable for her to do that. Can she speak for everyone? I don't

know. It is great for anyone to do something positive that is reaching

out for others. There is no need for Lily Allen to apologise for her

country. She has millions in the bank. Why not buy that kid a home in

London? Are you more likely to get involved if someone is an ambassador

of a charity that you like? I like chef Ramsay. Are people doing it for

their own profile and status or the cause itself? To be honest, if it is

doing it for the cause that needs to be done, I don't think it matters.

They may not have the education to link back to the argument, but we

get behind them because of their popularity. They may have their own

agenda behind it but it is still a good attribute. David Beckham? No.

Bono? Chris Martin from Coldplay? They are just making the world a

better place. They could make the world a better place by donating a

lot of their money to the causes and helping them that way. Varied views

in Birmingham. What do you make of Lily Allen's comments? I thought it

was absolutely right. She is bringing the world's attention to a

terrible situation. Small children unaccompanied in the Jungle. 18 of

them have been lost recently, just disappeared, and our government has

been dragging its feet. Theresa May has agreed they should come in, and

the bureaucracy and the paperwork has been completely bewildering, and

we are left with very vulnerable young people in this terrible state.

We are talking about it now and we wouldn't be if Lily Allen hadn't

bothered to go there. What is her crime? We are slating her for being

a human being and that is disgraceful. I think that is what

people are questioning. Was it rubber dial to years? I am not going

to question her motives. That is not my place. Some people think it is

their place. Do we want to live in a world where celebrities decide

government policy? That is what we are moving towards. When Angelina

Jolie goes to Africa to highlight the plight of sexually abused women,

she is drawing the attention of the world to something that most people

would like to brush under the carpet. That is a very good example.

Angelina Jolie is highlighting a cause, and not talking about a

particular government's action or lack of action and not apologising

for something. The scary thing is we end up in a situation like in

America where whoever wins an election could be decided by however

many Hollywood stars think they are good person, which is not good. I

actually think the emotive subject of this immigration campaign in

Calais, the Jungle as is called, is more of a problem. If it wasn't,

there would be less reaction to what Lily Allen has done. Social

philanthropy has been a thing for centuries. Elizabeth Fry was looking

at reforming prisons. Florence Nightingale Hammerson duck the issue

of public health. And recently we had Princess Diana, who looked at

uncomfortable situations, AIDS and landmines, and it is the focus that

a pretty face can bring to a political situation. Use it. I am

not going to slate any woman, any celebrity, who gets off their high

horse, goes into the mud, goes to Jungle and has a look. That

photograph of Princess Diana holding the hand of somebody dying of AIDS

was really important. Before then, it was taboo, and people didn't want

to go close to anyone who was thought of as having it. It went

around the world and did a huge amount of good. But did Princess

Diana apologise for her government's actions and try to set government

policy? I think the government's actions with regard to unaccompanied

children in the Jungle is disgraceful acts -- actually. If she

demonstrates how upset she is by an awful situation, or if she

apologises on behalf of the nation for their actions, is that what is

really niggling? She apologised for her words afterwards. We actually

went there with Croydon in a few years ago and that camp has been

there since 2009. We took several tonnes of aid and we drove a van

across the channel and there were already lots of government agencies

working there. So I don't think we are unaware of the plight of the

camp at Calais, and I think we do need to be careful when someone

feels qualified to speak on behalf of a country because of their

supposedly pretty status. I have no problem with Lily Allen. She is a

nice girl. Music. Originally reggae music. I don't have a problem with

their musically but she is popular for music. She is entitled to her

opinion, as everyone is, but I do understand that celebrities have a

voice and column inches. When I went to Calais nobody made a fuss about

it. People doing the work don't get any coverage. Yes, and we are still

in contact with people in the camp in Calais and they would love the

publicity that Lily Allen provides. The problem is that these are people

from a particular charitable organisation and they are not

individual celebrities going off their own back on speaking on behalf

of me. I like her but she doesn't speak for me. So when she decides to

apologise for the entire country, I think she is misunderstanding her

role. The fact is there is gross hypocrisy here. It was discussed in

the House of Commons that we should do something about unaccompanied

children, discussed one year ago. And Lily Allen is the solution? No,

the point is that hasn't happened. These vulnerable unaccompanied

children have been stuck in some sort of bureaucratic no-go zone, and

18 have gone missing. I think it is disgraceful and I think the nation

should be ashamed of itself and the government should be. I want to move

this conversation away from the Jungle because that is another

debate that we could have and we have discussed before. Talking about

celebrities, you touched on the US presidential campaign earlier. We

are seeing celebrities from all over the United States endorsing their

candidates. Is that right? I can't stop somebody endorsing a candidate

but I don't want to live in a world where the government is saying, how

do we convince Lily Allen to endorse this policy? Otherwise we will be

out by summer! I did want to live in that world. If you think it is a

nice world, cool, but for me, the more we let politicians do their job

and not have celebrities as intermediaries between people. But

do politicians have the influence that celebrities do on the general

public? A lot of people have a lot of influence but it is elitist to

say that the celebrities should be there. Did we need Lily Allen to

tell us to care? Yes, I think so. So we are all psychopaths and all the

people in the street were all psychopaths before Lily Allen awoke

the masses? I feel that the issue is that we have an echo from history.

We had the Kinderstransport, when we did more then, when we didn't have

social media, when it wasn't publicised to that extent. When we

went to war, we had Operation Pied Piper, when as a nation we managed

to move a mass of inner-city children, 700,000 children, to

safety. We can do that here. With government intervention. And if it

needs a celebrity to remind us of our social conscience, then let her

do it. This is what charities do, isn't it? They have celebrity

ambassadors and it works effectively for them. You have got to have the

right celebrity and you need people smart enough to carry forward the

argument. You can't just bung anyone onto a campaign. But the thing is, I

think that policies are quite abstract theories are abstract,

large gestures can be sometimes abstract, and one person can bring a

focus onto something. It has been going on for decades. Queen Victoria

used chloroform in childbirth and after she used it, she was a

pioneer. She used anaesthesia in childbirth and millions of women

followed suit. Celebrities do good things will charities, highlighting

good causes, but how much of it benefits the celebrity, being tagged

on to a charity or worthy cause? We have got to look at whether it is a

photo opportunity. Whether it is a hashtag. Celebrities who are just

there for the photo opportunity, the hashtag, pushing the agenda for

their own benefit. But we are sophisticated now. As you say, we do

not just vote for somebody because a celebrity wants us to. We have got

an idea now because of social media and the emphasis on it on looking at

different types of politics. You disagree. I strongly disagree. The

western world that we live in lax discernment when it comes to

celebrities. We have mentioned the US presidential election. Donald

Trump could become the most powerful man in the world is not because he

is a great businessman but because of his celebrity status. Would you

vote for him if you were American? This is an argument because there is

a lack of discernment about his character, his morality and what he

stands for, and yet he is very close to the White House. But that is

nothing to do with celebrity endorsement. Well, it is. It is

society saying we don't care too much about your character and your

moral compass. You are a celebrity, you are famous, we are going to give

you a pass even though you are not qualified to be a politician. This

is the scary thing. When we make celebrities into something bigger

than what they are, this is the reality. They let you do it because

you are a celebrity. In this century and in the last century, we have had

the call to the personality. We have had strong men coming forward with

big ideas, with huge personal charisma. This is nothing new. But

what we do have now, thank goodness, is the ability for other people like

ourselves to have education, to go on internet and find out the history

of these people. Fry was looking at reforming the

Prince. Because we've got the internet we don't need Lily less

than, is that what you're saying? The Pope is being vocal about the

migrant camp and yet we are here talking about Lily Allen's reaction

to the Jungle camp in Calais. What does that say about the role that

religion plays in highlighting that role in society? It used to be the

Church or certain pillars of community. Now it can be a young

girl who has a troubled past and from her own confession has had some

difficulty in life and now she decides she wants to apologise for

60 million people. Equally she is a successful songwriter and recording

artist as well. But what does it say about how effective the Church is?

Society in western culture, society has shifted away from the Church.

Where we used to get more direction from the Church, we can talk about

the Bible later on. There's become a vacuum. The cult of celebrity has

begun to fill that vacuum Do you think religious leaders could fill

that vacuum if they were a bit more on it. Absolutely. What err when you

you say, on it, what do you mean? Ing being relevant. If you look at

self help books. If you look at the Secret, it is popular because it

captured the moment. It wasn't someone reading from a book, fire

and brimstone. That that's a bit of a caricature. It is, that's why I

used it to illustrate myself point. If we want to take religious values

and put them in popular culture, I think it is religious leaders who

have to do that. You've been sending us your texts

and tweets on this. Let's hear some of your

reactions from Tommy. Some people are saying Lily can't

claim to speak on behalf of a country. Others are saying we should

care what celebrities think because of the positive impact they can

have. Patricia says why criticise somebody using their celebrity

status to try and do good? Talking about Lily. Elizabeth says, good on

her for trying to raise awareness. We shouldn't mead celebrities to

bring political issues to our attention...

Really varied views there. Omar, one of the things brought up about the

hypocrisy of wealth. Where not use the money you've earned as a

celebrity to do something about it? This is what Clement is saying.

People there without a film crew, without a PR or make-up artist, the

people who are opening up their houses to refugees, they are not

making headlines. She did offer to take a child, a migrant child. OK,

that's cool. Is that what you need to see from celebrities? Is that

what society needs to see? Rather than having a go at celebrities

wouldn't it be nice if we could spread out the media attention so

that the people doing the work get attention. People aren't interested

in seeing anonymous people. They want to seep people who they have an

emotional engagement with. That's the power of celebrity. You have an

emotional engagement with the Lily Allen. Who knows? It is impertinent

to say they are not giving any money, but who knows how much money

they are giving to good causes. Because celebrities are often low

profile, you are right; snookers We don't know how much money they are

giving. If she is prepared or celebrities are prepared to talk

about how much work they are doing, physically showing that they are

there... If she gives I give X thousand pounds a year. You are so

lucky you can give money and you are like Lady Muck. It would be a

nightmare. We don't want it to be quantified. We want it to be

justified. She's gone out there, walked the walk, talked the talk. In

my opinion she has gone up in my estimations. She didn't have make-up

on. She stayed overnight and she has offered to take a child into her

home. Would we feel the same way about Katie Hopkins taking in a

child? No! We are not going there. We've found the line!

Still to come on Sunday Morning Live:

Katie Melua and the Gori Women's choir sing Dreams On Fire.

One of the UK's leading businesswomen has said that taking

long maternity leave is bad for women's careers.

Lady Barbara Judge, who's the first female chair

of the Institute of Directors, says a nanny can be paid

to look after a baby, because a long break

can damage future job prospects for women.

Her reported comments at a conference in London have been

criticised by the parenting charity NCT, which says early bonding

We'll discuss the pros and cons in a moment.

First, let's meet someone directly affected.

She was starting a new job when he was born, so had

a tough choice to make, as she told Samanthi Flanagan.

How soon was it after giving Bert to William that you went back to work?

William about two weeks and one day old. That is quick by anyone's

standards. Why did you decide to go back so soon? Well, I had originally

planned to go back probably within about six weeks for financial

reasons mainly. My husband stopped working and so there were lots of

other circumstances really that led to it. Tell me what your first month

back at work was like? It was strange really. I would have lots of

texts from my husband with photographs, for example of William

crying, saying, what do I do? So I had a feeling really of helplessness

quite a lot. I also was very determined to want to breast-feed.

So I had to use my breast pump every five minutes. I was having to leave

work at lunch times to go home to feed William myself. If you were

going to do this again, do you think you would take longer before you go

back to work? Absolutely. I certainly wouldn't take the whole

year, because I just think I would get quite bored. But I just feel

there's a lot of things I missed out on that I do regret, and I would

plan completely differently next time. Lady Barbara Judge, the chair

of the Institute of Directors, this week said that taking long maternity

breaks is bad for women. Do you think that's true? It fends on the

role that you are in. I was in a job that it probably would have made a

fairly big impact on my career. What did your friends and family think

when you told them you were going back to work after two weeks? They

did think I was crazy understand I probably didn't understand how I was

going to be feeling after I had the baby. I don't think I really knew

how I was going to feel, but he no choice but to get on with it,

because I had to go back. Claire Grant, who took only two

weeks off, but women can take up to 52 weeks maternity

leave although only 39 of Joining us for this

discussion is Laura Perrins of Conservative Women UK,

who campaigns for the organisation Rosie, maternity leave, too long? I

think a year is too long. The mother might be, might feel deskilled,

demotivated and slightly unconfident going back after such a long time

away. I've got four children. My first three I was working at the

BBC. I went back when they were about 8 to 10 weeks old. It was very

tough, very hard, but I did suddenly feel, blimey, can I still doing this

job is this even though I had taken in total 14 weeks for each child.

With my last child I had left the BBC by then. I did my first job

after having him when he was four days old.s he was my fourth child of

he was a sweet baby, just slept in his little chair. Critically I

worked at home, so I could combine work with having a baby. I was

experienced at having a baby by then. It depends on what the job is

whether you can take your child in. It is all very well for lady Judge

to say you can hire a nanny, but these are very expensive. If you are

going to go back to work with a tiny baby, putting a tiny baby into a

nursery isn't the best idea. That was one of the things that was

suggested, that a baby can look after the baby, because the baby

isn't going to remember the mum and it just needs to be watered, fed,

kept warm. It needs a lot more than that. Is maternity too long? A year

isn't too long for a baby. It gently isn't too long for women or for

society. It is important that we recognise that infants have very

special needs and is very attached to its mother. It knows its mother's

heartbeat from being in the womb. It knows its mother's voice. It is

really important we support new mothers to bond with their baby.

Caring should count in a society. It shouldn't just be about careers or

money. It is really important that we don't put any more pressure on

new mothers. Being a new mother can be quite overwhelming, because you

have this tiny baby who is completely dependent on you, or

certainly dependent on someone else. It is really important we don't put

more pressure on mothers to get back to work. You have to have your

figure a certain way. And oh by the way you have the look after the

baby. The baby isn't something just to be tacked around in an adult's

life. It is a priority that needs care. Sophia? I completely agree

with everything Laura said, but unfortunately women, we are now

economic units. We've all got student loans. We've all got

mortgages and we've got childcare. We have to realise that the

Government, that small businesses, family, and indeed the child itself,

it is a linked unit and we have to all pull together. The thing is that

the maternity legislation as it exists today is basically useless.

It is actually highlighting a lot of discrimination for women. 54,000

women lost their jobs as soon as they announced that they were

pregnant. So the legislation itself is not fit for purpose. I wonder

Omar if we can bring in the issue ofshired parental leave. How much

more that can take part in evening it out and allowing women to go back

to work and feel secure in their jobs and progress in their careers

as well as knowing their families are looked after. Absolutely. The

women here are more entitled to talk about maternity leave. But paternity

leave you are entitled to. Society has really big interest in making

sure our babies are emotionally attached. That was what I was going

to say. A lot of guys I know want to see their babies and kids more. I

think shared maternity leave is good. As long as the option is there

for men to say, you have it all, love, I need to work. Some men need

to be dragged kicking and screaming. It is only when it's really laid

down. It is an issue of nomenclature. No man is going to

must until on paternity leave when it's only two weeks. This new

legislation, shared parental leave, but recent figures show that only 1%

of men as a whole, not just new fathers, took it up. 1%. I'm

surprised. It could be, I wouldn't be surprised if it was less than

that. Where are our men stepping up to the plate? It is important that

you are not unfair towards men. There are some men who do share pa

paternity leave but perhaps towards the end of maternity leave, after

six months. I do think it is really important that apart from

exceptional circumstances that pull can be with the new baby for the

first six months. I have friends who will share it around that, the dad

feels more confident with not a tiny newborn. They are more confident

when there's a more about the baby, say at six months or seven months.

That's so patronising. It is not. I think it is. You are big dismissive

of new fathers. Even new fathers with a lot of responsibility on

themselves. Those not at home caring have a responsibility... As are

women. It is important that the 52 weeks is there and kit with shared

for the family to decide themselves, how they want to organise their

lives. But mothers do not need more pressure on them when they've just

had a new baby. You were saying that's dated. Sometimes on iPlayer

you get the old clips from the '60s. It sounds like I was watching one of

those. Politics might change. But people change. But the needs of

babies don't, Omar, and I've had three. And babies don't need dads?

Dads should be at the office all the time? I never said that. There are

plenty of fathers who want to be at home caring for their children. But

remember, it shouldn't be to the detriment of a mum who is at home

who needs to recover from the birth, Omar, who may want to establish

breast-feeding if that's what she want to do. It is incredibly

important for both public health and for the baby herself. So new dads

have a really important role in supporting mums to bond and to

nurture their new babies. Fathers are very good with tiny

babies. It can be very difficult for fathers. Yes, but I don't think that

is across the board. Fathers are pretty decent at dealing with

newborn babies in my experience. And they think it is quite tough for

employers to have the workforce disappearing for a year. That is a

really long time. And thirdly, in equal weight, women enjoy working.

It is tough going back to work when your child is very small and you do

feel a wrench. There are ways of ameliorating that. We enjoy working.

I enjoyed my job and I wanted to go back to it. If you want to go back

earlier, you can, but I don't like chipping away at the idea that

caring doesn't count. Undermining women who wants to take their full

maternity leave rights, that they are letting the side down. It is

quite expensive, frankly... Of this is dependent on the employer and

business's attitudes to women? You went back to work after 14 weeks and

you said you were questioning yourself and your confidence. How

much is it up to businesses to make sure that anyone returning from

parental leave feels empowered and secure in their job when they go

back? That is what I am saying. The law as it is now, the whole 52 weeks

as a bloc, each and every day is wrong. Most women can now work from

home. We can even do part-time maternity leave, not where you keep

your hand in before, during and after your child is born. How

effective is that for business? Whether it is legislation or or not,

as a business owner how can you cope with someone who will dip into work

because their priority is now their family and not the business and the

job? How does that work? Every business I know up and down the

country has human resources. We are humans. Each business has got to

recognise we are employing a person and behind that person is a family.

Sofia has got a point. Wi-Fi, smartphones, the internet, these

feminism's greatest assets because you can work from really

effectively. If you work in a supermarket or a factory you can't.

And if you are a brain surgeon, you can't either. But in many jobs you

can cut down the time spent in the office because you can do it at home

with adequate internet and electronic devices to do that. That

is a huge bonus. And often unsung bonus for women who want to stay at

home and be with their children and work. Working from home is great. I

do it all the time. Whatever we say about this, we need to rebalance it.

We have got a generation of guys, especially more career minded

old-fashioned guys, who hardly see their kids. What happens? The kids

grow up with daddy issues and we have delinquent youths. You have no

evidence for that. I haven't heard of a tsunami of feral children! I

think a lot of children are brought up without being in contact with

their fathers at all and that is a real issue for another day. But I

think there are a lot of people who hardly see their dad is because the

expectation is men are there just to work and women just to cook and

clean. You obviously live in some caves where the feminists haven't

got to you. While he comes out of his cave we will take a moment to

take a breath! Let's find out what you have been saying. Tommy? Talk

some reason, please. People are coming out from under their duvets

this morning and getting involved in the debate. Lots of views on this.

The length of maternity leave depends on individual circumstances.

There are interesting. What is your reaction? Somebody raised the issue

that they don't have children. So it is nothing to do with them. May I

say this? We have a huge problem at the moment with elderly social care.

Even though that person doesn't have children, they must have parents.

They will have that same issue at the other end of their careers,

their lives. What do we do with our elderly and the people who are also

vulnerable, who also need care? We have got to look at this from

government, through society, small businesses, to the family, and

indeed to the person that needs care. If we don't, over 20 years,

the whole system will grind to a halt. Women are delaying having

children, having fewer children, and yet the population is getting older.

The needs are there. We have got to have a national conversation about

who takes time out of their economic life to look after these children

and, I believe, elderly. I can't answer your questions without being

destroyed on Twitter. Do you think women have a tough time? I do think

women have a tough time. As a man, some of the stuff I see coming out

where women should do everything, do three jobs and have four kids... And

look fabulous, don't forget about that! I can't even do one job

without getting tired and I can't imagine that. I was accused of being

in a cave but it is good to share responsibility. Some of these

comments show it is a recipe Fort Leavenworth in behind. Women are

paid differently. -- a recipe for leaving women behind. Women are paid

differently. Once they have children, that is it. You are only

left behind if we have comments like that from the judge, who says that

if you take time out, you should be left behind. I have got to wrap this

conversation at because time is never on my side in this programme.

Thank you for your comments and keep them coming in.

She's known as Attila the Nun because of her campaigning zeal,

but for Sister Rita, star of the BBC One series

Sister Rita To The Rescue, her formidable nickname

She oversees the Lally Centre, a drop-in facility offering help

and advice in one of Manchester's most deprived areas,

and when she gets her teeth into a problem, she never gives up.

So it was with some trepidation that Hardeep Singh

A nun for 50 years, she has made it her mission to get this community

back on its feet and make a real difference to the lives of as many

people as she can, in her own particular way. They don't call me

the formidable Sister Rita for nothing. Having had a camera crew

follow you for your series, it must have been a novel experience. Are

you enjoying it? I wouldn't call it novel. They don't faze me. I don't

think, there's a camera, I must comb my hair. I don't. I am who I am and

I look the way I look. You have been called Attila the Nun and the

formidable Sister Rita. Should I be worried? I am not sure whether you

should be worried or not but maybe not. Good afternoon. Dele Alli

centre. It is the boss. Who is speaking? -- Lalli centre. Mr

Derbyshire, you are dead when I get you and all your employees are dead.

Tell us about your upbringing. I grew up in court in southern Ireland

and things were very tough and my father, God rest him, was a barber.

He had to come over to England to find work. We were left, the seven

of us. In those days, women in Ireland didn't work. It would have

been seen as shameful if they worked. Seven children and no

benefits. It was very, very tough. You couldn't be sick. You really had

to be dying before you went to the doctor. I remember we didn't have

food. I remember being hungry. I remember having bread and dripping,

if you know what dripping is, and that was what we ate. Then when she

did get money from England, which would only be once a month, we would

have a huge feast and then for the rest of the month we would have

famine. That is how it was. You grew up with profound deafness. Tell me a

bit about that. It must have been debilitating. There wasn't a place

that you could go especially for your hearing where you could get

help with deafness. There were no hearing aids. I didn't learn, I

didn't do any exams, I did nothing. I couldn't because I couldn't hear.

You know kids that cause havoc in school? I did that. Really? Yes,

really. Because I couldn't hear. I didn't know what was going on. I

need attention, somebody to help me, and nobody did. Can you remember

when you first got your calling? There was a lovely teacher, very

young, and she couldn't teach for toffee, God love her. She came in

and she said two sisters are coming in from Manchester to speak to you.

I stood up and said I don't want to listen to them. I'm not staying. But

I sat there. These two sisters came in. They started telling us about

Manchester and how poor it was. They were the instruments used to say to

me, get up. This is what you are doing. By the time they had gone

out, I knew I was going to Manchester with them. I knew I

wanted to be a sister. The rest is history. People have an idea that

religious sisters are very quiet and docile. Go away. Clear. We are not

like that at all. We are experiencing the demonisation of

certain elements of society. The folk you are working with seem to

have been demonised longer than most. Scroungers is what they are

called. Since the programme, a lot of people have been writing in

saying we didn't understand. It is helping people to understand. It

isn't all about laziness or idleness. The poverty. It does

something to your brain almost. It does something to your brain. You

need somebody to believe in you. I say to them you can do it. I know

you can do it. I think that they need to hear that. I am going to

sort this today. Do you know that? Give it a bit of time. You will meet

lovely people in here. Clearly you are a woman who has devoted her life

to helping people. But equally Attila the Nun is quite hard on

those who are not prepared to work out of their situation. Yes. Either

come in now or we have to phone them and tell them you didn't show up for

two days. If you're not happy with it, knock on my door and we will

discuss it, OK? I say to them, if you want to come in here week in and

week out, your life will never move on. The Lally Centre is a lifeline,

not a lifestyle. Get up and go and find a job. I am sometimes very

brusque with them. I struggle to imagine that! Well, I am. Sometimes

I need it. They need it. They are no difference to me. Do you ever

imagine that you might put your feet up and take a rest? I want to have

time to pray more. That is what I want to do. But you will never put

your feet up. I will! I didn't say I will never put my feet up. I can't

see it, Sister Rita. You can't see it, but I can see it. Sister Rita,

it has been like nothing else I have experienced. I felt like a schoolboy

again, to be honest. Well, you are a nice schoolboy. You can have a

laugh. And if you have a problem, she will sort you right out. Thank

you. Yes! And Sister Rita To The Rescue

returns on Monday 31st Do tune in or else

you'll have to explain MUSIC: "By the Sleepy

Lagoon" by Eric Coates. The Desert Island Discs

theme tune, of course. One of the traditions

of the long-running BBC radio programme is for host

Kirsty Young to offer guests, like actor Tom Hanks,

some special books. I give everybody some books to take

to this island. You get the completely works of Shakespeare and

the Bible. Good, I'll take those, yes.

A new survey out today, however, suggests that only one

in three people in the UK would take the world's best-selling book

Despite that, the Church and Media Network, which carried out

the poll, says the results prove that the Bible is still a valuable

book, both as a work of literature, as well as being God's word.

But with two thirds of people opting to leave it behind,

does the survey also indicate that the Bible is being sidelined in

We debate is the Bible still relevant?

Joining the panel now is journalist and Guardian

columnist Polly Toynbee, and down the line from our newsroom

is Reverand Rico Tice, author of Christianity Explored.

And rejoining the panel is Pastor Clement Okusi.

Would you bring the Bible to a desert island?

It would be the first book I take. The Bible or the Koran. It would be

pretty long but it would sustain me. Absolutely know. What would you take

instead? I might take the whole works of Dickens or Tolstoy. I think

the Bible is a fascinating book as a work of history. I think it's full

of some wonderful poetry. It has bits in it which are magnificent,

whether it is the psalms or certain bits of it. But the idea that it is

a holy book has done so much harm over the centuries. People fighting

to be the people of the book. One book or another book. The Koran and

the Bible I regard as highly dangerous, because people regard

them as sacred texts the, word of God. They are not. They are lots of

words of man. Some of them completely bonkers. Read Revelations

and the end of the world and the anti-Christ and the devil... There's

a lot of crazy stuff in there that would drive me mad if it was all I

had to read. We touched on the Bible's relevance in a secular

society. It is interesting. I'm doing a study on the book of

Revelation with my congregation and it is really easy to understand if

you read it slowly and think about the context of how it was written.

Like the end of the world. Absolutely. I was on a TV programme

and everybody agreed that we are coming to the end of the world, but

just how are we going to get there. But that's a conversation for

another time. Time.. If I was stuck on a desert island you would say,

the world's ended, I might as well stay on a desert island. The

question is whether the Bible is relevant to society. Many people

hold their values on the tenets of the Bible. Does that still apply?

Polly has a point, that adherence to the Bible has caused so much

bloodshed over the centuries. But on the other hand it is a fantastic

work of literature. It is the authorised version, there are so

many elements of English literature that come from it that are inspired

by it. Shakespeare is obviously one, but also the Lion King. Any number

of cultural writing, outpourings. Walk into the National Gallery and

you would find it difficult to understand what's going on in our

prime collection of masterpieces without a knowledge of the Bible.

Every Medieval painting is religious based. You touched on the Lion King.

Modern interpretations. It sparks the question in me is how the Bible

perhaps could be more modern and relevant in this day and age At the

heart of the Bible we are looking at the person of Jesus and yes he does

rise from the dead. We believe he broke into history, lived, talked,

had followers. Was tried in a court, sentenced to die, strung up on a

cross, taken down and certified as dead and three days later he Rose

again. I've got three funerals in the next two weeks and I will be

talking about hope. That is incredibly relevant to all of us.

When my mother died in Basingstoke Hospital four years ago, I said

dweeb, I said I love you and I will see you again. I did that, because I

think the risen Christ gives me that hope. So I am thrilled to give that

hope to people. That's what is at the heart of the Bible. Omar, people

often swear on the Bible. Bible. I'm telling truth, I swear on the Bible.

More often than not today you hear, I swear on my loved one's live.

Probably as a ritualistic thing it is probably less relevant. It is

interesting if we look at that particular pitch for a particular

religion there, but generally religious iconography and the idea

in mythology of the hero's journey, of someone disappearing and coming

back, of the children of Israel wandering the desert of the all of

these struggles they are the blueprint for most action movies,

which is why there are so many biblical action movies. I do agree,

the myths and the legends of the Bible are really important, just in

the way that the myths of the Norse gods and the Greeks are important.

It does worry me that children nowadays, my children, my

grandchildren, know very little. When they do get interested for

instance in art, they have to start right at the beginning. What exactly

is the Resurrection? What is this, what is that? They should know just

as they should know about the myths. I was in a gallery the other day and

looking at a series of paintings of the life of John the Baptist. A

woman was appearing day dancing with a friend. She said, who is this

person. I said this is Salome dancing in front of Herod and she is

about to ask for John the Baptist's head on a platter, and you see her

presenting Herod with his het on a platter e my friend said, who is

Herod? If you don't know who the baddies are and the goodies in this

enormous saga, you're not going to have the cultural references that

are so rich in this country. Clement, a book of myths and

legends? Absolutely not. I would strongly disagree with that. I

became a believer we reading the Bible. It with as the words of Jesus

in the gospels that changed my life. When this show finishes I will jump

on a train, go back to my congregation. I'll be on time for my

sermon. We are going to hold the Bible up in the air, turn to a

particular passage and the Bible is more than just good literature, more

than just good fables. We believe that it is truth, eternal truth. And

web believe if we base our life upon that truth, we become better people.

Do you think it is disrespectful to refer to the Bible as a piece of

literature? I think as has been said it is foundational to understanding

our culture, but it is more than that. It is an extraordinary piece

of literature. And particularly redemption. It is about how we

forgive each other. Yes. I want to say yes there are desperately

violent bits in the Bible, and I'm glad someone like King hor odd, for

what he did to John the Baptist goes to judgment, but why is it relevant?

How do we forgive each other? When I take marriage preparation, I say

there are two key phrases that hold a marriage together: I'm sorry I was

wrong, or I forgive you, or I love you. Those phrases come out of the

death of the Lord Jesus. We think he die to forgive us, so how anyone can

think it is not relevant, because I lose intimacy if I can't forgive.

But Revelations is not forgiveness. It is fire and brimstone. I want to

find out what viewers think. My favourite phrase today is time is

tight. He just wants everybody to be happy.

So do I, Tommy. Omar? It is about being happy. I might be a different

kind of believer to others, because when I read the Koran or the Bible

or whatever, I believe that it is true but I don't care... Care... You

believe both, do you? A lot of it is the same actually. But I don't care

whether it is literally true or al-Gurkhaly true or metaphorically

true. For me it is you interpret it in your way. That kind of religious

tradition is something that might be more palatable to yourself, Polly.

What's terrifying is how lots of people do interpret it, smiting one

another. In favour of slavery. All sorts of monstrous homophobic, women

one step behind... Both books are really toxically dangerous and I

wouldn't want to be reminded of that. I think you are misquoting the

Bible. 66 books in the Bible and everyone picks on Leviticus. You

mentioned slavery. It was William Wilberforce who used the Bible to

end slavery. That's just about all

from us for today. To sing us out, Katie Melua

and the Gori Women's Choir Here's hoping all your

dreams come true. Is it mine? Where am I on your list.

You are so full of big ideas. Do you think that we can coexist?

Will we be a pair in 20 years? If all your dreams were on fire

Which one would you save? When it comes down to the wire

Should I be afraid? Should I be afraid?

I don't need the world to be content All I'll ever need is you

Time alone with you is time well spent

For me that simple dream will more than do

If all your dreams were on fire Which one would you save?

When it comes down to the wire Should I be afraid?

If all your dreams were on fire Which one would you save?

When it comes down to the wire Should I be afraid? Should I be

afraid?