Episode 7 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: cyber warfare from Russia; arming

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to The Big Questions.

Today we're live from Leith Academy in Edinburgh.

Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.

On Tuesday, the Queen opened the new National Cyber

Over the last three months, 188 attacks have seen "significant

losses of personal data, significant intrusions

by hostile state actors, and significant reconnaissance

against critical national infrastructure", the centre's

And he picked out Russian cyber attacks on "critical

national industries and political and democratic processes

Is Russian cyber warfare undermining the West?

Giles, how much of a threat is President Putin's Russian to us?

It's like the bad old days of the Cold War. It's very familiar, those

of us who have seen what's happening in the past, very familiar process.

Different leadership in the country but all these years later, many

things happening today that have been happening before. What are they

trying to do, what is their aim? The real aim of the Russian state is to

increase its own prestige to its own people, to the rest of the world and

the power that it exerts over its neighbours. In order to do that it

wants to make sure that any potential opposition abroad is

negated, that they manage to get governments and individuals in power

who they favour and part of the reasons why they are trolling for

information and these sorts of things is because I think they are

looking for compromising material and various other things which

Ulster and then their position. Dr Tara McCormack, international cyber

relations expert at Leicester University, we have a gangster state

trying to undermine our liberal values and western democracy? No, in

a nutshell, the accusations boiled down to the argument that Russia is

trying to interfere in the democratic process of the United

States of America by putting in power, as my colleague has said,

favourable... But that's not true. Clinton lost the election fair and

square. Before the e-mails were released, opinion polls showed

Donald Trump is a serious contender. At the American media been doing its

job, it would have been saying, how is it possible that the Democratic

candidate is so unpopular that this crazy man is a serious contender?

It's a blame game? Absolutely. In Europe, the ADF in Germany has

gained votes because of Angela Merkel's policies. And some bought

from President Putin? The problems in Europe, Marine Le Pen... Kurt

fielders, the National front, they are not gaining votes because of

anything Russia is doing. They are gaining votes there and square

because of problems within those countries and I would like to point

out, social, political, economic problems we know about. Marine Le

Pen is an interesting example, the political machine is financed by

Moscow friendly banks, supposedly loans, 3 million euros, whether

that's adding bullets or not it's adding to their political efficiency

is a party because they are a party which supports the removal of

sanctions against Russia. To me it's a no-brainer, whether it's impact on

other they are attempting to change the way that the French people are

going to vote. Whether they are successful is not the issue. I be a

threat? I will tell you what is the threat. It is claiming our political

problems on Russia. That is the real threat...

APPLAUSE It entirely lets our democratic

elite of the hook because they can say, not us, it's Russia. And I

think this is crucial, it delegitimise us every person in

America who voted for Donald Trump, basically being told and simply

confirming what he said, they are being told, your vote wasn't a vote

against the political establishment... Into diversionary

tactic? Ben Nimmo, isn't there a case of its the Reds under the bed

again? New bogeyman. The Bond villain with a laptop. You need to

be curve for the bad and let's be clear. We are not talking about

Russia as a country, it is a huge, diverse and welcoming country, but

as a government, it's illegally invaded and annexed Crimea, it's

followed an undeclared war in Ukraine, it provided the weapon

which shot down the Malaysia Airlines MH 370, it was involved in

the hacking of the Democratic National Convention... And a plot to

murder the President of Montenegro, in the paper today? I saw it in the

papers but have no background. There is a pattern of disruptive

behaviour, on top of that, in much bigger issue for the democracy as a

whole, I would think it is an information crisis, we are seeing

more disinformation from more people on more channels than at any time in

human history. Part of that is fed by the Russian government and the

Russian propaganda machine, a great part is not an thing you look at

propaganda you need to think, is the problem the lie that is being sold

or is that the people who are believing it and spreading it, and

genuinely think they are doing the right thing? If they believe they

are spreading a story which is true, they are doing for anybody does in

dialogue, the problem is the source, if people have a grievance and they

believe that lie because it matches the grievance, you have got to

address the grievance, not the light. Confirmation bias?

Absolutely. Look at the grievance. A couple of you want to speak. We were

talking about the weapon that shop down the Malaysia Airlines, that and

a couple of things made you raise... We have a lot of allegations. Is

that just an allegation? I'm afraid it is and that is a problem. Yes, it

is, and when we talk about the hacking or the fishing exercise that

got protesters e-mails,... Just an allegation? If you read industry

reports on that that was traced to a cosy Berrer hacking group. That is

not the case. Those are still allegations. Propaganda? Even if

that is so, there is a problem in terms of political positions that we

disagree with our being friend is propaganda. Russia today, it's not

hiding, it's called Russia today... We have the man from Sputnik news to

talk to! These are political positions. Different angles,

perceptions. Political argument. Nikolai Gorshkov, I want to bring

him in, editor of Sputnik news. We hear about this, elections coming

up, trying to undermine the opponents of Marine Le Pen and

undermining the opponent of Kurt fielders, anything that will

ultimately put a politician in place will be antenatal and anti EU. If I

may say so provocatively, your puppet masters, they bombed table

of? When I say the moral road as North Korea, the leader there, his

half-brother killed this week... Assassinations. We are journalists,

we are a newsagency and we are given an opportunity to see other angles,

more context, background. On the website, for example, we worked just

like any other media, we are part of the media set up, we may be

newcomers to the scene but the Masters? No, why should anyone be a

puppet master? It is demeaning the people of the world, of any country,

assuming you can actually influence their opinion to such an extent that

they would vote against their own best interests. So, it's not the

case. Undermining, talking about undermining governments, bubbly one

of the best examples of undermining the government was the so-called

event in 1924, a letter purportedly written by the leader of the

Communist International, urging British Communists and labour to

work against... You are going back a bit. It brought down the Labour

Government. Alex, you are looking cynical. In a second, Giles has come

straight in to say something. I am an historian, I know the story of

that letter and I know for a fact the Labour Government was doomed

before the letter came out. Can we bring it into the present? I also

know, but you see, the lies that come out now, these are the lies,

this story is continually being retold. That letter was so accurate

that actually, the Communist Party headquarters reprimanded the people

in Moscow for actually writing a letter like that. What we actually

have to realise is that lies from the past and present are repeated so

many times as my more modern colleagues will agree and as a

result of that, people just believe them, they move on and they add up.

That was the Soviet modus operandi and we see a lot of reflection is

now in what's happening. Alex, what do you say to our friend? The notion

that Sputnik in Russia today are another news organisation, you can

understand why they want you to believe that but it isn't true, its

foundational charter exists to propagate the interests and point of

view of the Russian state. It's an instrument... Where does it say so?

In your foundation charter. What we see, it works, it spreads rumours,

it suggests Russia today and Sputnik they suggest the independence

referendum in Scotland in 2014 was rigged, no evidence to support this

whatsoever but it's a way of undermining the legitimacy of

western institutions. What you also get and you see it from useful

idiots, some of them in this room today, there is no truth, different

opinions. Everything is a point of view and we can't really be sure, we

are certainly no better than them, we can't make any value judgments.

This is how the Russian media operation works because it's done in

a way to devalue the very concept of truth itself and thereby devaluing

the concept... That phrase useful idiots is right from the height of

the 1930s, people who went to Stalinist Russia and all they got

was the smell of fresh paint because they were taken to various places.

Who are the useful idiots in Mr Newall? There is one here. I'm

afraid that reveals... No evidence of wrongdoing by Russia. Absolutely

not. I'm afraid... They didn't shoot down a Malaysian airline, it's just

scaremongering. Absolutely not. My point is...

APPLAUSE Would anyone in the audience like

to... Just one second, I will be with you. Good morning. How are you

doing? I am good, thank you. Demonstrated quite clearly there

were fake news agencies said up by Russia and America to influence the

American election. That is not the case. You maybe have to concede the

American electorate were radicalised by the state rubber gander. That's

absolutely not the case. Can I jumping? What is the founding

document? If the presidential decree signed by President Putin on the 9th

of December 2013, your parent company, it says in paragraph four

that the purpose of this newsagency is to communicate the state policy

the Russian Federation abroad. OK? Compare that with the BBC charter

which says the purpose of the BBC is to be independent and impartial.

Then look at your reporting. Good example, second ever break last, I

do this all the time, Donald Tusk presents his proposals for how to

keep Britain in the EU, the vote league campaign issues a press

release on it, there are main campaign issues a press release,

Reuters in their reporting quoted both press releases, Sputnik courted

the leave press release and not remain press release. Look at the

coverage over the last two weeks, last week the BBC did a feature on

Sputnik and the allegations that it was a propaganda outlet which quoted

you saying that we are not. That is balanced journalism. Is the BBC

blame us? No. Let me finish. Selective reporting? I am being

devils advocate. OK. The BBC quoted the allegations against Sputnik and

the response, the week before, Sputnik France ran a feature on

allegations of propaganda and bias by the French media in favour of

Emmanuel Micron, only one person was quoted in that story, a political

opponent of his who was accusing French journalists of going to a

Moscow rally and putting on his T-shirts. No French journalist was

interviewed in that... And if I may say, it said on Sputnik that he was

backed by a cold, very rich gay lobby. , phobic as well? I think

that was a French parliamentarian. A quote. You make coverage of any

issue over the time, nit-picking, individual reports. Look at it all

the time. And then you will see there is Allen and with Brexit, we

had a radio programme coming out of here from Edinburgh. And it was

given enough time to all sides of the argument. This is the new Cold

War. Coming back on Brecht -- Brexit, editorials referred to the

EU as a crumbling edifice, relentlessly pummelling member

states, undermining democracy and workers' rights. That was Sputnik's

editorials in the month before Brexit. Not one but many. How much

of a threat through cyber warfare is Vladimir Putin's Russia? If you look

in terms of hacking secrets, that is happening on all sides. If British

intelligence is not trying to get Russia's secrets, what are they

playing at? They are not doing their job. Western powers have constantly

intervened in other elections. Whether it is backing a military

coup in Chile or otherwise. Interference happens. Did it

influence the American election? The one big accusation is leaking

Democratic Party e-mails. It was true that the Democratic party

establishment was gaming the nomination process to make sure

Hillary Clinton won. That is anti-democratic as far as I am

concerned. I am not concerned about e-mails. We are all at it, this is

Rob's point. Is there moral equivalence? Not at all. Because

when we bombed Libya it is good? When you have Russia today putting

out a programme that even they had to take off which was talking about

TM death squads dismembering children in Ukrainian villages. --

Kiev death squads. That the Ukrainians had taken that the oldest

to commit genocide. This is dangerous propaganda and as far as

moral equivalence is concerned, there are two grades on which we

should look at any country, the amount of foreign development aid

they give and the corruption index. Those are very clear. If you're

going to talk about development aid that is given, this is not arms aid,

the US gives 30 billion a year. In this country we give 10 billion a

year. Then go on with corruption index. The international corruption

index, generally recognised, 176 countries. All the way down, ten is

the UK and Germany. 18 is the United States. 130, below Pakistan, that is

Russia. It is early days for capitalism there! It fell into the

hands of the gangsters. Let me ask you this. Look how many refugees

Russia takes. I want to explore, with Naomi, the human rights

situation with Amnesty International. We are talking about

a country that has sponsored State doping, the lakes we have seen since

China and East Germany. It has just decriminalised domestic violence.

How bad is the human rights record? It is very bad. Amnesty produces an

annual report which looks at the human rights violations of every

country in the world. Certainly, in Russia they are IQs courts -- a huge

cause for concern. The persecution of journalists within Russia are

terrible, any dissent. And their involvement in Syria, propping up a

regime that looks like it has been involved in war crimes. When it

reported on the murder of prisoners, Russia was saying it was fake news.

All these dark arts is being used to dismiss without any kind of evidence

is real, credible reports of human rights abuses happening around the

world including in Syria. We hear references as too, what is the

evidence? The human rights observers that claim to have extensive

networks, but what are these contacts? How do they contact them?

The landlines are working perfectly well in Syria, they can contact

anybody? Who are these people and what is the credibility of them? A

lot of those accusations and allegations are untrue. If there is

a war situation, crimes are being committed, they are being

investigated as well. Everybody makes mistakes. It is a civil war

with foreign interference. A lot of claim and counterclaim is

unsupported by evidence and what we are asking for is evidence. We've

been supporting people who chopped limbs off. There are no good actors

in Syria, but what you have is the classic example of the way that

Russia's propaganda outlets work. There is no such thing as the truth.

You cannot know what is going on and anyone in the West who tells you

what is going on is lying to you. It is a way of undermining the very

concept of truth. You call yourself a journalist. You are not a

journalist. Your organisation is not a journalistic outlet. It is a

propaganda front 20 -- propaganda front to put forward the opinions of

the Russian regime. It is a disgrace and journalists who stand up to it

have the unfortunate habit of ending up dead. You raise the very good

point. Where is the moral outrage about the fact that we support and

arm Al-Qaeda groups in Syria? That is not propaganda, that is not

weapon icing disinformation, that is a fact. It is a moral equivalence

and it is as cheap as it is lazy. That was absolutely fascinating,

thank you. You might well logon. We are debating whether police

should be armed and whether God sees soma -- homosexuality as a sin. Get

in touch with thoughts about the programme. A new survey published

this week with the Metropolitan Police force found growing support

for the police to carry firearms or teasers. 75% of those questioned

wanted all officers to be issued with teasers. But in more than 40%

of the incidents in London, the teasers were drawn on black or mixed

race people despite their making up less than 16% of the population.

Should more police be armed? We were talking in our last debate about the

cyber threat. We are taking it onto the streets, aren't we? There's a

lot of danger. I had a phone in on five live. It is terrifying. Who

would want to be a policeman on the front line? When we talk about this,

people think about terrorism, it is the trump card. People think about a

ticking time bomb. It is not the reality of it. Violent crime as

well. Yes, there are armed response units. There is an over

representation. Armed response units can only use guns or teasers in very

specific circumstances. When life or serious injury is at an imminent

threat. And the risk is that the more police officers have guns or

teasers, the criteria will be expanded. Those who are most likely

to campaign for restrictions are armed police themselves. They are

more regularly deploying these weapons and that feeds into their

judgment. They know the scenario is that, and whether they should draw

or not. Police on the beat will not have the same kind of training. They

will not be deploying in the same kind of weird and their judgment

will not be as good as specified trade policeman. Unfortunately

there's quite a of factual inaccuracy in what Naomi has said

although clearly there needs to be understanding. Were you an armed

officer? I was, for six years. There needs to be a proper debate in

relation to black and minority ethnic people. We been having that

the big four years. Absolutely. The bottom line is my members have to

deal with these incidents. They are the people running towards danger

when everyone else is running away and it is absolutely vital that as a

society, who actually are very supportive of the police service,

make sure their officers are equipped to deal with what they

face. In relation to the training issue that Naomi Reyes, saying that

by deploying more officers with teasers there would be a degradation

of training, that is absolute nonsense. I don't know why you're

seeing it is not because we have been saying this should be a greater

role out of taser. The standards needs to be maintained. The British

police service has the highest level of training with this of any in the

UK. Who are these officers campaigning against that having

better protection? Once we talked to, I'm not saying they are

campaigning but they know the actual tactical situation on the ground.

Teasers are torture equipment. We cannot all go out and buy one. Why

are you laughing? I find it extraordinary. We need to look at

the reality. It is what they face on a daily basis. The question is

whether we need more armed police officers and I think the argument at

the moment is that we do. Is the terror threat something to do with

it? If you look at the terror threat, it is likely we will face

some of the atrocities. Can you think of an atrocity we've had in

this country over the last 20 years that if there had been an armed

response unit closer at hand, lives would have been saved? You could

pick on a number of incidents, the very real one was Derek Bird, one

man, one shot gun in Cumbria. That would be a situation. Not terrorism.

The public have to understand that at this moment in time we are facing

a terrible threat to our country and that is, I was giving an interview

about the terrible situations in Paris and here we are, everybody

within the police service and a lot of the public recognise we need are

pleased to be able to do their job. At the moment we got 3% of our

police officers trained up to carry firearms. In Scotland it is even

less. And it was said they don't need any further roll-out in

Scotland because it will not actually a the threat -- not address

the threat of terrorism. It seems to me the question is, how do you deal

with conflict? We try to engage with the issues of conflict rather than

the reaction. I struggled to find any circumstance in which adding

weapons to a place of conflict improves the situation. What it will

do is put more officers in a situation where they are asking the

question, do I use my weapon as opposed to how do I deal with a

situation? Split second. The thing about the gun, not the person they

communicate with, the example you gave was not a threat to the country

it was sadly ill health situation and as a consequence...

The reality is somewhat different and I will give that reality check

now. In England and Wales, certainly the last 12 months, police have

attended around 14,000 armed incidents and have only ever drawn

and used their weapons on zero they are not trigger-happy, when we face

a serious threat, Lee Rigby, in London, it took armed officers 15

minutes to get there and look elsewhere, the way the terrorists

are evolving, the last attack was in a rural area, if that happens in

England and Wales or Scotland and it is not in one of the big

conurbations what do the public expect police to do? You're talking

about more armed response teams, people sitting around most of the

time twiddling their thumbs hopefully, but they can get to the

Isle of Skye quickly. Can I come back? In a second, a gentle man had

his hand up, any other points... We should put more trust in the police.

If they say they need more armed officers, it's a highly skilled

job... APPLAUSE

We should trust them. At the back, hello. Good morning, I take a

pragmatic view on this, when I was a volunteer at the Commonwealth Games,

we had armed police officers regularly on duty, two of them and

when I first saw the guns I was scared but as time went on I felt

more reassured because adult protected. In terms of everyday

policing I would not in favour of regular armed police but in major

situations like the Commonwealth Games or any other major event, I

think it's the sensible thing to have armed police on the beat.

APPLAUSE Thanks for your fantastic

volunteering work in that amazing Commonwealth Games, you did an

amazing job. We are used to it. Our friend says we are used to it, we

see it in the House of Commons, add airports, the Scottish Parliament,

Alex Massie, what is the problem? A significant difference between that

kind of policing and those adventurer talking about and the

routine arming of the bobby on the beat. The lack of firearms in

British police has almost been the defining feature of British policing

for 200 years and I think changing that now for no real good reason,

certainly not on the bike at any evidence that it is necessary, would

be an extremely unfortunate and retrograde move. It would say

something rather troubling about our society and the relationship between

the citizen and the police force and that's something that is actually

quite important. I think this applies to not just firearms with

police but also the use of tasers, if you aren't the police as a

routine matter, you will encourage the escalation of force... A kind of

answers? And people will die. Don't worry. Don't worry, I know it's

frustrating. I am looking forward to hearing it, I got the auctioneers

nod from them. I wanted to throw into question, you talked about the

quality of training and the quality of the best in the world, how are

you going to maintain the quality if you are massively increasing the

quantity? Something we see Thai and and again. Let Steve on that. --

time and again. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, look at

the regime, make sure it's maintained, it's a stance we have

insured has been maintained and we recognise that. We are not in the

realm of getting a taser out of the cupboard, saying to someone do

that... But I must come back with a couple of comments in relation to

Alex. He talks about arming the bobby on the beat and we are not

talking about that at all. The service doesn't want it, the public

doesn't want it and I don't want to see it, I want to see a bobby on the

beat, I don't know where he's been. We've lost 22,000 police officers,

there aren't officers on the beat, what you have or officers who have

to respond from one job to the next to the next and when they respond,

because there is no resilience in the service, they need to have

tactical options to deal with... Norway, gone in the car? Whether it

be a gun in the car or a taser in the car, tactical options and the

understanding of what you will be faced with, it's ridiculous sending

the scarce resource of a police officer without the options to deal

with that. It's all very well turning up and saying that guy has a

knife, I need to colonise specialist team but I will keep him chatting,

it doesn't work like that. Three questions, one about authority

versus consent, having someone wandering around, routinely being

able to pull a gun on you, means the relationship changes between the

police force and the people they are policing. Secondly, does it make us

safer? For every benefit we might get in terms of being able to arrest

an individual who is also armed, there is the threat of the arms

race, criminals will routinely armed themselves knowing that they are

going to face armed officers. Does it make us feel safer? Mike... The

third thing, does it make us feel safer and I am sorry, I'm interested

in the comments about the Commonwealth Games, when I go to a

major airport and they see police with machine guns I don't feel

safer. APPLAUSE

The last thing I would want a police officer to do is start using it in a

crowded place. The reality is the threat that our men and women in the

police face, first and foremost, those officers carry firearms in

this country and I've alluded to the fact there isn't many of them, they

are all volunteers. We are looking to increase the officers carrying

firearms are about 1000... Here's the thing, tasers, why is it that

black and minority ethnic people are disproportionately targeted, why is

that? It depends on where you look from, look in London, I've worked

there, and I've worked in rural North Yorkshire. The figures are

stark. You can compare different figures but that's polluting the

point which is we have got to go back, our country is facing the

greatest threat since the Second World War, are we in the police

service able to deal with that threat? If a terrorist starts

walking down the street and don't say it won't happen, the

intelligence is there to say it is men and women are telling us we

would really, really struggled to cope and then... Would you have shot

the killers of Lee Rigby? Use the police officers, Lee Rigby, they

turned up, they were waiting, it took 15 minutes to get there, the

terrorists were waiting, the police did what they do to stop them, like

any other police service in the world, they rendered first aid and

saved their lives, you won't see that anywhere else in the world. The

point about black and ethnic minority people, that's polluting

the point... It isn't at all, it grows goes to the issue and the crux

of trust. Every black and ethnic minority male friend of mine has, or

a close black friend of theirs has, the levels of trust in different

communities is very different. And what you will see, is an escalation

of grievance and potential harm happening. With something like Lee

Rigby, it was an atrocious murder, he was dead before police arrived,

including non-armed police. The murders hacked him to death and then

asked passers-by to phone the police for them. That's the thing with

these incidents, them having guns or tasers wouldn't have stop that from

happening,... No, they didn't... The passers by to whom they were

speaking, we didn't know their situation. They were talking to

them, trying to talk those murderers down which actually stopped anyone

else being harmed. Hello. The question about the black and

minority ethnic people, it never seems to get answered, it happens in

England, eventually it will arrive in Scotland but no want seems... The

question is there all the time but no one comes up with answers. What

is your answer? What... I don't have an answer, I am asking the question.

Every statistic that comes out, they are getting stunned with a taser,

whatever happens in England will take 5-10 years to eventually

arrived in Scotland and we can see it happening here, something and

someone needs to stop asking the questions and answers.

APPLAUSE We are going to leave it there. An

excellent point on which to leave it. Thank you somewhat.

You can join in all this morning's debates by logging

on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions and following the link

Or you can tweet using the hashtag bbctbq.

Tell us what you think about our last Big Question too -

And if you'd like to apply to be in the audience at a future show you

We're in Birmingham next week, Newcastle upon Tyne on March 5th

Over ten series of The Big Questions we have returned time and time again

The first is whether women should be consecrated as bishops.

This has now been resolved as a yes in the Church of England,

despite the scriptural reservations of many of its members and clergy.

The second is how the Churches of England and Scotland should deal

with gays and lesbians who are called to the ministry,

especially whether they should be allowed to enter the holy state

of matrimony with someone of the same sex.

On this, the answer has been a firm no in both churches.

They may become civil partners with their beloveds

And in the Church of England they may not have

And neither shall gay or lesbian members of their congregations

be allowed to marry in the sight of God.

This week a report to the Church of England General Synod

by a committee of bishops on gay marriage recommended continuing

don't tell' strategy over the sex life of its vicars and curates

Everybody saw this as a shallow compromise that would fool

What a story you have, Jamie, you are a gay evangelical stop

absolutely. What is it, and oxymoron, a contradiction in terms?

What is going on? Many people don't believe that evangelical people

believe that the Bible is clear that homosexuality is not a sin. The

Bible is clear. The Bible is perfectly clear that God is love and

where God is, there is love and when we see two people...

APPLAUSE When we see two people who love each

other and want to commit to each other and want to have a

relationship which is blessed before God, before their friends and

family, that is something to be celebrated. I believe we can see the

fruit of that, the couples I know who are in these permanent and I

hope one day I will be two, relationships, bear such joy and

happiness and peace, all the fruits of the Spirit and I believe... What

about fidelity? As opposed to the gender but, I think so much in this

debate has been about sex, it's been about promiscuity or lost, but it

should be about love. But that is what the Bible is extraordinary here

on and we need to celebrate that. APPLAUSE

David. What a story you have got! You were a gay activist in Sydney,

one of the great, vibrant, exciting, yet cities in the world, lucky

enough to have been there, amazing place. And you went to a pub in

Jesus spoke to you. Before I start, I want to say that God loves... We

will get onto that. I want to hear your story. What happened? As a

14-year-old I thought I was disqualified from the love of God

because I was a homosexual and I am here to see that as a blue didn't

like, God loves and accepts every single person but he doesn't a firm

everything in us. As well as beloved children made in his image. I was in

the pub, I had been a gay rights activist, involved in Mardi Gras,

involved in things that university and I met this person in the pub and

they asked me, have you experienced the love of God? I thought, I

thought it was all a Bible concept thing, there wasn't a real God who

loves me. And so this person prayed for me, I have the most incredible

experience of gods presence, like the Holy Spirit coming upon me and I

never experienced anything like this in my life, it turned my life upside

down. You felt the holy spread all over you? Yes, it turned by life

upside down, honestly, I was an atheist, I didn't believe in God.

Did you hear the voice of God, almost? I heard an internal voice in

my mind, my spirit, that said do you want me and I said yes. What

happened in France? In France? I had a moment, I felt God asked me, will

you give me your homosexuality? And I said, Lord, you died on the cross

for me, that's the real love we are talking about, the love of Jesus

Christ on the cross, first self sacrificial and then romantic, I

said, Lord, you can have anything you want, you can have my money,

material things... Sacrifice, like a non-or a priest? Obee Dean is,

sacrifice... Are you still gay? Same-sex attracted, I still feel

part of the gay community but often people like me, we are a minority

within a minority and our rights aren't being represented in the

Church and its quite sad for people like me, we face an incredible

pressure on us from both sides and I am here to represent thousands and

thousands of people I've met that are like me. Wouldn't you rather,

like Jane, be able to see in the script, and approval of your love

and you wouldn't be conflicted? I can't change scripture but in the

Church of England, There is the crux. We read Scripture

differently. I had a very similar experience to you and I heard God

say how much he loves me and how much I am there to respond but we

see Scripture differently and the church needs to be big enough to

embrace both of us. I respectfully that you do not believe you want to

enter into a committed lifelong sexual relationship but I believe

God is calling me to that. We see Scripture differently. The truth is

we won't know until we get to heaven, but I say, look at it. With

Scripture, a lot of people talk about Leviticus, what are you

citing? I believe where God is love, and love is God. I can give you a

lot of Scripture but it will not be very exciting. Ultimately, look at

the fruit. When I tried to live like David I ended up in hospital

fighting for my life. I deeply empathise. I think we have a very

similar experience and I think Jesus is in our lives but there are things

in our faith we are processing. We are coming to a place of

reconciliation and the really damaging thing is legalism, when

they don't know the grace and love of God but they only know law. There

is this idea of living under a law and trying to scrape up this ladder.

That is not the Christian gospel. It is that you believed by faith in

Christ, it is a free gift and through that you're transformed to

live a life of obedience and love with God and I came to a point where

I wanted to give him myself and I am not judging, that is not my place.

You cannot have a partner in life and sheer things. I don't need that.

I have an amazing community, I live with them and they are wonderful

friends of mine. I'm really intrigued by what you say, you've

given your sexuality. Does God believe homosexuality is a sin? Yes,

God sees the practice of homosexual six as a sin. It grieves him and it

angers him because he loves us and he wants us to have something

better. Surely he would like us to love each other? We are talking

about the issue of six. Jesus came to set us free from our sin. He gave

her alive -- gave his life so we could find a new way of life centred

in God and I agree, Grace is fundamental to the gospel and what

rescues us from sin. Jesus was absolutely clear and the Bible is

absolutely clear. The extreme liberals like Jane. Listen to that

language, extreme liberals. I apologised to viewers who just had

to hear him. God loves us and created us. On Tuesday I had a

lunchtime fringe meeting in memory of a young girl who committed

suicide because she believed what Jonathan said and she could not

accept what she was. These are young Christian youths whose lives are

being turned upside down in churches like yours. What is the purpose of

six? For children, basically. Jesus made absolutely clear. Not for

pleasure? For marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman for

life. He said, God made us male and female. God made us male and female

so a mother and father should hold fast, become one flesh with the

wife. That is where six fits into it. Which is better, a loving

relationship between two same-sex people who have commitment and

absolutely love each other and find fulfilment through the lives or a

loveless marriage? That is a completely false contradiction. Now

it is not. I will tell your story. As far as the Bible is concerned,

are six references to homosexuality and 3000 references to poverty. If I

was using the Bible as my moral order I know what I would spend my

time on. I also don't think the idea of God being some guy with a white

beard saying something is good and bad is anywhere near anything that

could be described as some kind of divinity. You were a minister.

Absolutely, but I'm on a journey and it is telling me that the way that

we have ordered ourselves is beyond our understanding of individuality,

and these things have undermined our ability to do the most fundamental

thing, be in love. Yesterday, I was at the funeral of a guide called

Gordon Aikman. He had MND, a terrible disease, he's hugely

changed our understanding of that and at his funeral his husband stood

up and made the most powerful eulogy I've ever heard in my life and I've

attended a lot of funerals because I used to be a minister. At that point

I understood the idea of love beyond just something that is in our brains

and ourselves as individuals. Something outside us, that we can

use to motivate ourselves to be the people we want to be. If you tell me

that can only happen in one situation, because of a moral order

that has been created by a is open to interpretation, I don't

particularly want to be part of that. What I want to do is live as I

saw Joel and Gordon live, in love and for others. Good morning. We've

got this very Victorian idea that we are somehow a brain on a stick. We

are bodies as well. We are at this stuff. Does God think homosexuality

is a sin? No. Does he think being left-handed is a sin? Being tone

deaf is a sin? We exist in this world, we are brains and bodies at

the whole part of us engages with our relationship with God. Why did

God create gay people? God created people. Why did he create gay

people? I don't think it's that simple. I studied theology at

Oxford. We are made in the image of God. I think he would himself in the

image of Jesus Christ. We must realise human beings are made in his

image and we fell. There are certain things that come from the power of

sin in our lives and we are born with flesh, it is the nature of sin.

I don't see my desire for a partner as sinful but the effect on me of

that sinful curse we've inherited is I have a sexual orientation I don't

believe is the will of God. It is all to do with sin? It is about

worship. My point is God did not just made man and women, he made

everything in between. It has scientifically been proven that

there are lots of different sexes, a spectrum, God made us all and loves

us also that is the physical one. The mental one and the spiritual

one, which I don't really understand, is the homosexual side.

God just loves us all. It is about two Sauls meeting. That is just the

body. Why did God create gay people? He wants to celebrate love. When you

say marriage is just for children what about those wonderful couples

who cannot have children or who are impotent? The six verses that talk

about homosexual acts are about power, about lost between two men

who don't desire each other. We need to go back and understand the

context, the Greek and Hebrew, but most of all, the narrative and the

Gospel. Then we can mirror our desire and the person we want to

commit to four life. The Bible is clear that all six outside of

marriage. But what does suffer not which to live mean? You're talking

about the old covenant. The Bible needs interpretation, certainly.

That is what she is doing. The reason that I say Jane is an extreme

liberal as this is very new in the life of the church. It has always

been clear to the Christian church that six is for marriage. We've had,

for the last 50 years, the sexual revolution which has caused enormous

damage. There are people who read the Bible,

deciding what they want it to say. What does that mean then? Suffer not

a witch. Well... There is suffering over this, young people who believe

God does not love them or they want to have love, it will drive many of

them to self harm. We had a report that said 42% of young people have

considered suicide. We need to own up to the horror and the harm we

did. We need to look freshly at celebrating who we are. Lady over

there. Your hand was up. I struggle with how this has had more of a

detrimental impact than the war fought over religion or the poverty.

I don't understand why God would be so concerned with what is going on

in our bedroom. You do get the impression God is like a tabloid

newspaper going on about it all the time. That is not God if you believe

in God. It has got a, done. My job now as I work with homeless folk and

a significantly large percentage are gay and it is a consequence of the

kind of conversations of people saying because of the God I see

under way I'd interpret the Bible, you are judged. No matter how much

you say I did not mean you, it comes across as, you are bad. They end up

not being able to have the conversations they need. Thank you

very much, we are going to leave it there. We've run out of time. Next

week we are in Burnley. Have a great Sunday, thanks for watching.

Donald Trump's first 100 days in the White House

are defining how he'll deal with the rest of the world.