28/10/2012 The Andrew Marr Show

David Cameron has rejected the European Court of Human Rights'

demand to allow Cilic -- allow prisoners the right to vote. Should

criminals lose this right as well Good morning. Welcome to Sunday

Morning Live. The Prime Minister has set himself on a collision

course with the European Court of Human Rights by defying the ruling

that prisoners should be given the right to vote. His denial of that

right an important part of justice or a hindrance to rehabilitation?

It might not be a popular thing to say but I believe prisoners should

have the right to vote like the rest of us. Denying them a fault

alienates them and is a violation of their human rights. Britain is

to operate on -- are aunt drones -- aren't drones from the shores. Is

it a valid tool for warfare or an immoral step leading to innocent

casualties? And as we approach the ancient

pagan festival behind Hallowe'en, should we fear of the afterlife?

Should it determine how we live our lives on earth?

David Blunkett is a former Home Secretary, was also Secretary of

State for education and for Work and Pensions. He is donating his

brain to science before Alzheimer's research.

Mehdi Hasan is political director of the Huffington Post UK and is an

obsessive Twitter. Alison Ruoff is a former magistrate and a lay

member of the Church of England Synod. She once found herself on

page three of the times. Hurtling towards the Yorks are not. -- York

say not. Call us now to challenge our guests. Phone calls cost up to

This week, David Cameron pledged that prisoners would not be given

the right to vote, in defiance of the European Court of Human Rights

ruling that a blanket ban on voting for any one sent to jail is illegal.

The Government has until the end of November to decide how to react.

Does an offender stop being a citizen at the door of the prison

or is giving them a float a human right too far? Mehdi Hasan thinks

there is no right for giving prisoners -- refusing prisoners the

vote. Denying prisoners a vote only alienate them and is a violation of

their human rights. The right to vote is a fundamental right. For a

state to take that right away, to disenfranchise one of its own

citizens, it surely requires that citizen to have committed a grave

crime. Shoplifting or not paying for a TV licence, or a motoring

offence? Any of those could land you behind bars, but are any of

them serious or brave enough to justify denying you the right to

vote? I am not saying you give murderers, rapists or other violent

criminals the right to vote. There are limits, but how easy to have a

blanket ban. Prisoners are supposed to be places where we try to

rehabilitate people as well as punish them. We expected -- we

expect convicted criminals to see a jail sentence as an opportunity to

change their lives and undergo personal transformation. Like the

rest of us, they deserve it say in the kind of society that they will

be released into. We need ex- convicts to behave as active,

responsible, law-abiding citizens, and allowing them to vote in prison

is a useful first step in helping them to do so. If we want to live

in a cohesive society, we need to give us many of its members as

possible a say in how it is governed and run. That includes

those who might be behind bars or her will one day be released. It is

not just hour legal obligation, it is also the right thing to do.

right thing to do? For once, I agree with the Prime Minister.

People who are in prison should not have the vote. It is something that

I think you sacrifice if you end up in prison. I feel strongly about

that. That is the question for the vote today. Should prisoners be

given the right to vote? If you given the right to vote? If you

given the right to vote? If you think they should, takes us. The

Full terms and conditions on our website. David Blunkett, you know

that this was a big issue when you that this was a big issue when you

were in government. Personally and morally, now that you are no longer

Home Secretary, what is the right thing to do? My default position is

that prisoners should not have the vote because they have lost that

part of their citizenship when they were convicted. Obviously, people

who are on remand should retain the right to vote. They have not been

found guilty. The difficulty with this, and we had a debate about

this, which is where David Cameron is coming from, because he got the

message that the Commons are in favour of banning the right to vote,

the problem is that it has become irrational. We do not propose to

stop people having the right to vote who are on community service,

it is only if you are actually in jail. We had such a dysfunctional

system of magistracy and district judges in terms of where you live

in the country and what you will be convicted of and what sentence will

receive, that it does at the margins make a nonsense of this. If

we were having a rational debate we would probably say that if the

sentence normally warranted a community punishment, that you were

sent to prison in your locality, but you would still have the right

to vote. Your straw poll will be overwhelmingly negative. Let us see

how the debate comes out. Maybe will convince them otherwise. Mehdi

Hasan, the reason so many people are opposed to the idea is that

these prisoners have broken the covenant with society and it is

that not part of the punishment? couple of things, or one, you talk

about people being convicted of a crime, it is not about breaking the

law. You can be convicted of a crime and not be behind bars. It is

so arbitrary. If we are linking it to breaking the law, why not deny

the right to anyone who breaks the law? Why this arbitrary connection?

If you're in prison, you have lost your liberty. I do nothing to lose

your citizenship. I do not think you are suddenly a semi citizen.

Punishment, civil liberties as well as your physical liberties? Why?

You write a boat is fundamental. You're talking about your peers.

Weird things. You talk about citizenship, and losing part of

society, when you are in prison you still pay taxes on your savings and

income. You still pay capital-gains tax, income tax. The famous

American Revolution said there is no taxation without representation.

We are paying �40,000 and there are a lot of people who should not be

in prison in the first place, petty offenders. A murderer or a rapist,

fine. It is very rare in the Magistrates' Court that you go to

prison first time unless it is a serious offence. We have doubled

the prison population in the last 20 years. I saw in the prison

statistics that the number of people in prison for a violent

offence has doubled in the last 15 years. Is that something a, and

obviously you were a magistrate, but do you think more people are in

prison for serious, violent crimes? I do not actually know the figures

but I think it is something that if you land up in prison, you ought to

forfeit this right to vote. I think it is part of being punished, and I

think it is important. I think that members of the general public feel

the same. They agree that if you are in prison, that is it. You have

forfeited that. Juliet lion is director of the Prisoners Trust. We

know that the public are opposed to the polling -- to the idea of

giving prisoners the vote. With the idea of compensation, it aggravates

people all the more, they're trying to see what they can milk out of

the system. What is the right way to see it? Many people have said

that. The punishment is loss of liberty, that is what you lose. It

is not your identity, not your citizenship. If you want the

punishment to fit the crime, why not strip people who have committed

electoral fraud of their voting rights? I think they are, and there

are conditions to do with fraud where you are stripped of your

voting rights. That could be the appropriate punishment. What we

have is present -- prison governors and inspectors, the people who are

running the system, the vast majority think that prisoners

Boateng ought to be an ordinary part of prisoners taking

responsibility, an ordinary part of resettlement and rehabilitation. It

is strange that politicians seem prepared to flout international

lock, to break the law so that people cannot act responsibly. It

is very strange. David Blunkett? is good to talk you. Juliet is

doing a first-rate job. The contradictions of, where does the

prisoner, with severe crimes, they should have their voting rights

withdrawn, but when you're in jail for her any period of time, you

lose contact with the area we live, would you vote? I do not think the

people in Durham would be pleased to know that the swing vote of the

prison population in their area would make a difference to who was

their MP. And neither would die. The I wonder about costing. To

enable prisoners in different parts of the country to be voting and get

their boats transported, is that what people are aggravated about?

We are acting like this is a madcap movement. We are in the minority.

The majority of countries either have no restrictions, Switzerland,

Scandinavian countries, or like France and Germany they say, if

you're in for a minor crime, the judge will not put a penalty on you

and if you are, as an additional punishment, you will lose the right

to vote. It is us, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, the well-known

bastions of liberal democracy(!), who were saying that we're going to

do this blanket ban, because we want to look tough? It does not

matter what other countries do, we have to do what is right for us.

You do not think it suggests something about being reasonable,

but there is a compromise, not a blanket ban? I do not think so.

There is not a compromise. If you are in prison, that is it, you lose

that right to vote. After all, it is something very precious to be

able to vote. And it is part of our democracy. If you end up inside,

that is it. He it is much easier to keep it simple. -- it is much

easier. Professor Tony Kelly is a Professor of human rights at the

University of Strathclyde. I was struck that so many people in this

country do not vote at all. More than half of people aged 18 to 24.

If prisoners got the vote, could it be regarded as a cool thing to do,

an edgy thing? I think what happened in Ireland, very quickly

and discreetly they moved the issue forward. Research over their showed

that people who are good citizens in relation to the right to vote,

they continued to do that whilst inside, and those who did not come

from a culture of boating come up with that did not happen, that did

not continue. -- culture of voting. Given so many people do not use

their right to vote, do you think this could be part of a positive

exercise to get people to take this seriously? I do nothing prisoners

are fighting for it. We do not have people fighting for the right to

vote in the UK as a whole, and we need to encourage that through

citizenship classes in school, through better citizenship and

adult education, through encouraging people to put aside

cynicism and I do not think giving prisoners the right to vote will

make a difference to them. It will make a difference to them. Prisons

are supposed to be places where you want people to come out better than

they went in. That does not happen right balance we have horrible

reoffending rates. It is about encouraging citizenship and a

proactive response. There is no reason why we could not encourage

them to be more responsible by encouraging those of them you're

not serious criminals, and saying, look, this is something that

encourages you to get back into society. Right now we have 80%

reoffending rates. The first thing to do is to understand a crime.

Voting is way down the line. Some of us regard voting as a

fundamental part of our Britishness. I understand that. Even a woman who

steals a pair of jeans? A 10 pound pair of jeans? She is never going

to go in side, for shoplifting. will be very interesting to see

what the Attorney General comes up with. He and the Prime Minister do

not see eye-to-eye on this. We have already revealed some of the

contradictions this morning. If you get sent to jail for the short term,

you might not actually be affected at all because he will not hit an

election. So what is arbitrary, we all agree. We all agree it is

arbitrary. We will see what happens in November when these fines come

into force. The Government insists it will not lift the ban. Some

comments from people at home. Reece says: "If you had been sent to

prison, you have been removed from society so you should not have a

say on how it is run." Jo says: "I think prisoners should be given the

vote as part of a rehabilitation reward system." that is our

question today. Thank you for contributing. Should prisoners be

Our text number is: Texts will be charged at your

standard message rate or you can vote online by going to our

Well, it is time for the moral moment and we are going to devote

all of it to one topic, a very important topic, the scale of abuse

being uncovered around Jimmy Savile has got the nation talking about

how we deal with protecting our children. Is what emerging day by

day as hundreds of victims have been coming forward evidence of how

much attitudes have changed or only weeks after the Rochdale sexual

abuse rev revelations do we need to re-think how we deal with

exploitation? What should we be telling our children and when

should we be calling in the authorities if we have suspicions

or no proof? A colleague of mine said, "We look on the 1970s as a

result of this, the decade we feel morally superior to." Are we

opening and closing a chapter on a period or actually is it ongoing.

Mehdi? I was born at the end of the 70s. One of the problems we have

now, one of the problems with this this crime, it is hard to measure,

with the Jimmy Savile abuse, we have seen hundreds of victims come

forward. It is hard to measure. So many young women in particular, you

know, just covered it up themselves and didn't want to talk about it

that you can't have a barometer of how good and bad it was. In the

media, in the BBC for example, I don't think a modern day Jimmy

Savile would get away with what a Jimmy Savile got away with in the

60s and 70s. In parts of the country, in deprived communities

for example, in Rochdale, it is the most obvious example, you have

paedophile rings. You have social workers and local authorities

letting young women and children down. It is a difficult balance to

strike to say whether we have moved forward or back.

David, what do you think of that idea that we are looking back a

long distance in the past? I am glad we are debating the children

rather than the BBC because it has become an obsession.

People are concerned about child safety? I am concerned in looking

back with all the people who were involved in not hearing the

youngsters and it is a really difficult thing to say because none

of us would ever want to be in that position and it is hard to put

yourself in that position, but where were the people around the

children? You see, ChildLine was set-up because children didn't have

a voice, because children weren't being heard. I think therefore, as

a society and from family outwards, we should ask ourselves rather than

turning on the next person and saying, "Where were you? Did you

hear? Did you know." When this was going around around us, it was with

the transfer of kids to Australia. I was was Australia when Kevin Rudd

did the apology. We have had it it with the churches. We have had a

virus running through our care homes.

They came into the profession because they cared and it is a

massive challenge and if we face up to listening and of course, the

standards have changed. I mean, they have. We have to learn from

the past even though we can't live in it and we are at the moment

understandably in all sorts of areas of our life looking back and

saying, "Why didn't we apply those standards then?" The answer is

because thank goodness we moved on. We are Moran Graal. We are trying

to get to the truth and we are trying to secure the wellbeing of

youngsters. You will be aware of what emerged

about Hillsborough, David, it is in your constituency, but the scale of

cover-up emerging about that, it is a different case. It suggests there

was a problem with the authorities and their attitudes to certain

people? Yes, there was. The one thing the families achieved is to

get to the fact that there was that cover-up. There was a major problem

in trying to set something aside and we have got a similar,

different, but a similar issue in terms of the way people behaved and

reacted then. Alison, what's your view looking

back on that period? There is concern that it is turning to a

witch-hunt and people look to go criticise people's lifestyles.

Perhaps there was different standards then? I don't see the 70s

as being worse than the 50s or anything like that really. I think

a lot of it has come to light because of much, much better

communication so that we are very much aware of what is going on. I

also think that it is really very good that people are now talking

about it in a way that they perhaps weren't and it was swept under the

carpet. As someone who is a magistrate. I

am struck by the fact that people couldn't tell an adult people and

the few who did, got disbelieved. Do you think that has changed for

the better despite places like Rochdale? I am not sure that it has.

There is a huge fear of coming out with something and you won't be

believed or people don't want to believe you because it is so

horrible and I remember one of my first cases on incest when I was a

McStraight and it is years ago, I remember being astonished that this

was actually happening. Now, I wasn't naive, but to come to court

gave me a great surprise and how dreadful it was. There is more

going on that we have ever imagined for a long time, I think, but it

has always been there. But I'm really, really glad that this has

come out into the open in the way that it has.

Finish. I think it is good that we can

start to think positively, but whether we will still want to not

believe what children say is another matter.

Yes, Mehdi. One of the things that came out

Keir Starmer admitted that the Criminal Justice System failed

because of stereotypes. Even in 2012 that the young girls in

Rochdale, they are prostitutes, they are asking for it, not treated

as children, but treated as something different. It is

outrageous and now the CPS is setting up new prosecutors to deal

with it. It is too late for many victims. Let's hope for future

victims it will work. Where were they before? Why this disbelief?

are criticising the 70s, but Rochdale was rinelt. Was recent.

And even Newsnight. The girls weren't that young. Those attitudes

are disturbing. I am wondering are parents thinking,

"When should I be calling in the police?" When I was a teenager, we

had incidents with creepy old men and we told each other to steer

clear of them. I am assuming if children are telling their parents,

when do the parents call in the police police? If you you didn't

witness something would you really call in the police on the basis of

creepy remarks? I have cases where people approached the police and

where the police have done a partially descent job and the Crown

Prosecution Service said, "Sorry, we can't prosecute. We haven't got

sufficient evidence." That lead to real disillusionment and the

message does get out. You don't need Twitter and blogs to Mehdi. In

my constituency the message gets out by word of mouth. You don't get

treated seriously. Nothing will happen so why report it? Let's live

with it. We have got to get over that. We have with domestic

violence. It is better now in terms of the way the justice system

treats that. Alison.

There is a break down with parents and teenagers, they don't talk to

one another. I don't know how we get over that. It is because of the

way children have their lives today, sitting in front of television,

blogging, you know, computers, phones. The art of conversation is

disappearing and I think that's very, very important that we should

be able to discuss more freely and it it doesn't happen.

When do you call in the authorities? This might make me

unpopular. Sooner rather than later. I am not an alarmist, I think we

fear monger too much, but when it comes to children's protection,

would like to be on the side of the fear mongerer. My instincts are

with you. The next contradiction I have in my head is we don't let

children play out. We don't let them do things they used to do. It

is a contradiction, you see. It is not a contradiction in that I

would be much tougher with my children if they are playing out.

Freedom is fine, but if there is a risk to your child, you have every

right as a parent... A lot of the times, the risk is not there. We

are making it up because it is so in our faces and the communications

are so good that children are forbidden to go and forbidden to

play because everybody is worrying about it.

As a parent, my instinct is be be over protective.

I know this is a story, we will be talking about for weeks.

Thank you for for talk being it. You can join the conversation on

Twitter, phone, text or e-mail. The RAF announced a new squadron of

unmanned drones would for the first time be operating from UK soil.

Armed with 500lb bombs, the ten drones will support coalition

forces in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence said they would be used

for surveillance and recon reconnaissance.

The use of drones itself is nothing new. The RAF has been flying

intelligence gathering drones over Afghanistan from a base in the US

since 2008. But the Ministry of Defence's own report in 2011 warn

of a terminator reality and urged Britain to come up with a policy

promoting what they deem acceptable machine behaviour. Some critics are

uncomfortable with them. Drones maybe a leap forward, but are they

a moral way to wage war? Opponents of drones say killing with

joysticks gives war a PlayStation mentality. They believe it is a

cheap and easy way to kill and risks too many innocent sismians

and by -- civilians, and by increasing our use of them, are we

encouraging the rest of the world to follow suit. Those who use them,

say they increase the accuracy of armed drones minimising unnecessary

bloodshed. Missions can be under stean without risk to pilots and

help reduce the cost of human and financial collateral. If the UK is

to maintain its position as a leading military nation, can it

ignore this cost effective technology? Or should we resist the

urge for robot wars? You can join the kfrs the

conversation on Twitter, phone or text. We are joined by rabbi

Jonathan Romain. Jonathan is a passionate Reading football

supporter and can't understand why god hasn't answered his his prayers

for a win. Unlike the Taliban who are the main enemy, there is a

sense that drones are an attempt to target, to discriminate and be

accurate? Can I applaud the BBC for debating this subject. In my view

the drones as used where they are used most for example in Pakistan

which the CIA are immoral. I think they are illegal and they are

counter productive. They create more terrorists than they kill and

as you said in that intro, there is an allegation of a PlayStation

mentality. It makes killing seductive. You are more likely to

kill than capture. The facts are these, since 2004, between 500 and

900 civilians have been killed in Pakistan by CIA drones. The CIA's

own former in house lawyer called it a form of murder last year. The

UN is investigating to see if it is a war crime. We have to really

discuss this. There is no transparency, there is no

accountability. No one really talks about it Obama and the

administration doesn't want to talk about it, but it happens and in

Pakistan 70% of the public regard the United States and the West as

an an me because a lot of people in that country are living under

terror. Jonathan? I disagree. War is

terrible and if we can do anything to avoid it, let's try the the

peaceful way. If you are going to go to war, then you want to do it

as effectively as possible. That means not only locking out the

enemy, but protecting your troops. The advantage of a drone, it means

the British pilot is not in it. If it means one less British soldier

coming home in a coffin or going to Wootton Bassett. It is moral

scweechishness to say there is any difference between a drone attack

and someone dropping a bomb from a high altitude bomber or missile

launch. Unless you are going to go back to the days of war when you

kill a person with a gun. Unless you are going to go back to those

days where it is one-to-one combat. War is dirt why and you should --

dirty and you should make drones as pro circumstances accurate. -- --

precision accurate. The Pakistan Government says we

don't give you permission to this? Can Russia send drones into

Georgia? Would you allow another country? We are not at war with

A good thing we are accepting that if we are formally at war, a drone

is no more unacceptable than using mustard gas in the First World War

or the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. If we are not at war,

or when is it morally justifiable? I do not believe that the attitude

to the Pakistanis is driven by the drones, I think it is more complex

than that. On that border country, where nobody controls anything, is

a drone justifiable in terms of taking out the Taliban? Is it?

it the Taliban? We do not know who we are killing, David. What about

the shooting of that schoolgirl, the Pakistani Taliban claimed

responsibility for that. Is that not the kind of group that people

want to see a dealt with? People were outraged when the Taliban shot

that schoolgirl, but American drones have killed hundreds of

schoolgirls. Let me tell you why it is morally unacceptable. Two very

important reasons. One, the American government does not just

attack the Taliban. They have revealed that any adult male in the

strikes on is considered a militant. If you are standing half-a-mile

away from a terrorist and you get blown up, you are a terrorist. That

is their policy. The second point is this, it is not just personality

strikes, a high-value leader, they kill signature strikes, which is a

target of a bunch of people who look suspicious, therefore we are

taking them out. In Yemen, everyone carries a gun. You are debating

whether the intelligent is sophisticated -- the intelligence

is sophisticated enough to do this. I think what you describe as having

been revealed in May is unacceptable, morally. I think

targeting specific individuals or groups who are threatening your

troops and the well-being of the world... But how do we know that?

How do we not? After the Iraq war, intelligence has been discredited.

That does not mean we cannot use it because otherwise we would sit on

our hands and wait for them to hit us. Nobody is defending attacking

civilians. You sounded like you were earlier, you said moral

squeamishness. To be honest, I feel very strongly about this. I think

it is wrong to focus on America because at least 12 or 13 nations

use drones. The first drones were used in the Iraq war against Iran.

This is an internal debate. Ever since weapons have been invented,

right back to the crossbow, where you could target people 200 yards

away. I do not see any difference provided you can make sure that

your intelligence is good. The CIA uses it to take out terror suspect.

Yes, and I am very glad that they do. I would like to put them on

trial and prosecute them. Some of us would like a rule of law. Some

of us would like due process and trials. President Obama kills US

citizens. Are you feel strongly about this and you should, and it

is an important debate, but did you feel the same about Scud missiles?

As he said earlier, there is a separate debate about warfare is

and what weapons are legitimate, but I'm talking about the use of

targeted drawn strikes against people who the Government say are

terrorists. Can I bring in someone you might want to hear from? James

Geoffrey is a former captain and the British Army. I understand you

certain Afghanistan and you oversaw their support. Did you ever used a

tactical drone? Thank you for having me. I worked with drones for

seven months in Afghanistan. Part of my role was to obtain trolls --

obtain drones and hand him over to the troops on the ground, providing

an element of oversight as the drones were used. I sometimes use

them myself. I think there are two aspects, and I had been listening

to the panelists making relevant points. I think there are two

points I would like to make that are relevant. I think it is

worthwhile to take the trajectory of my career in the army as an

example of a shift in how we are increasingly using an viewing our

military. -- using and viewing. have limited time, focus on your

experience. When I joined the military, it was on the back end of

the Balkans. That was inspiring, to see how the soldiers were used. I

joined the military for that kind of soldiering. By 2004, I was in

Iraq as a tank commander. We were engaging men in the streets of Iraq.

Into this and the nine, I was stood by a police -- computer screen,

watching people get obliterated. Did you make a decision? Tell us

about your targeting decisions? point is... Were you sure it was a

child or a militant? The point is, I was overseeing these strikes. I

was watching it remotely. The point I'm trying to make is that there

are two types of Control for these drones. There is tight won control,

were you have a soldier on the ground, eyeballing a target, and

there is tied two control where it is done remotely. That is how I was

trained. It is all done on a computer screen. Did you find that

morally repugnant? Did you feel that there were mistakes being

made? Is that you unease? -- you're unease. Miami's is the shift

towards remote warfare. -- my unease. I think it is going to

increase. There was a famous case involving James Geoffrey where he

was targeting a person and then he realised that the person was a

child and with that precision technology, they were able to call

off the operation. People will look at it the other way round which is

that he could have called it. that applies to everything,

including a high altitude bomber or a Scud missile attack. I want to

bring in Elizabeth from the Royal United Services Institute. We have

been discussing the idea that with these decisions, innocent civilians

can be mistaken for legitimate targets. Can you claim that Tron

technology is that accurate? drone technology. I think we need

to understand that there are a variety of different drones. With

larger drones, there can be more discrepancies. The smaller ones are

for looking over hills. Do you think people are able to use them

as accurately as we would like to think or are the mistakes being

made? There are a couple of cases in the media, one were a Reaper

drone operator noticed that a group of people they were about to target,

one was not walking correctly. It turns out that he was special

forces. He was in the skies. They managed to identify and because

they had intelligence alongside them. -- in disguise. By one to

bring in another contributor. Hever joins us, and she is a researcher

from Human Rights Watch. One can argue that the technology is moving

forward and in a way, are we not having the luxury of a debate about

this, where war used to be far more brittle and less discriminatory. --

discriminatory. The technology has moved on but the way to ensure that

it is accountable and complies with international law has to evolve

with the technology. There seems to be a gap in that regard. If you

look at what the UK is doing, the information they had shared, they

have said that there have been four civilian casualties caused by

drones but they have no idea how many insurgents have been killed.

Their method for counting the number of civilian casualties

depends entirely on families coming and complaining, which is a

completely ineffectual way of trying to gather that information.

It looks like there is a decision to not look for bad news, which is

not a fair and accountable way of using this technology. Jonathan,

and so that briefly. Absolutely right, we need to improve the

technology and the precision. But the morality of having drones is

just as good as the morality of having a machine gun, or having a

tank going over soldiers. It is just the next advance in war but we

need to make sure it is as accountable as possible. In a sense,

I agree, it is not about the technology, it is about the

morality of what you do with them. Drones have been used to target not

just terrorists, but people at the funerals of those terrorists,

rescuers who have come to the site. 23 people have died in the

aftermath, in secondary strikes. That is what suicide bombers do.

And although that has happened with more traditional weapons, it is

important that we have had this debate. It has made me think and I

think it is really important. couple of comments from viewers.

couple of comments from viewers. couple of comments from viewers.

Lee says: "They are the weapons of cowards. Gary says,"White use

soldiers when drones can identify targets?"Allen says that drones are

a logical extension of the need to a logical extension of the need to

kill rather than be killed. Thank you all for your contributions.

you all for your contributions. Coming up, should the way we live

our lives be shaped by a fear of the afterlife? Make your views

known by phone, e-mail or online. And you be voting in our poll on

whether prisoners should be given the right to vote. Please do not

the right to vote. Please do not text us because you vote will not

count but you may still be charged. The online voters now closed. We

will bring you the result at the end of the show. -- vote is now

closed. Wednesday is Hallowe'en, popular for trick or treating and

dressing up as witches. Hallowe'en is based more traditionally on an

ancient pagan festival. But it also heralds the arrival of All Souls

Day, where many Christians remember the dead and pray for departing

souls lingering in purgatory. The question of what happens to us

after we die is something better monetary has doubled -- humanity

has puzzled over for centuries. The concept of an afterlife holds the

promise of eternal reward and the threat of everlasting punishment

for those of faith. Is this fear of hell in reasonable method of

influencing our behaviour? Some people of faith claim that our

moral compasses directed by the long term compasses -- consequences

of our actions and some religious leaders have tried to instil fear

of damnation into their congregations over the centuries.

But the signs and secularism of today's world undermines the

concept of an afterlife with many arguing that when we die we turn to

dust. For them, a fear of hell is unhealthy and limited. Is feeling

the afterlife a healthy incentive for us all to be good and moral

citizens, or is it an outdated theoretical concept which we should

ignore and trust our own sense of what is right and wrong? Alison

Ruoff joins us for this discussion. Some people have mixed feelings

about Hallowe'en, whether it is too commercialised and whether it

represents something dark. I want to ask you, Alison, someone of

Christian faith, did you bring up your children to fear or hell as

part of their moral upbringing? -- fear hell. I do not think that

brought them up to fear hell, but we have always talked about it.

Certainly in the Christian Church today, you were here that God is

the god of love, and you do not hear about the other side of his

character which is not reached about, that he is a God of justice

and judgment. You come to Easter and you think, why did Jesus Christ

come to die if hell does not really matter? So you do think it is right

to fear it, that it is part of how you live? It is very important.

People go about their lives to their detriment without even

thinking about it. I was at the funeral not long ago and everybody

was going to heaven, it did not matter whether you had been to

church are you had any Christian faith, you were all going to heaven

and Jesus Christ did not even come into it. It was outrageous. This

was a Christian vicar and you're thinking, where is he coming from?

But we need to be very much aware of it and it is very important.

is interesting. Richard Dawkins has talked about the Old Testament God,

which they think of as the God of Judaism, and is a very judgmental

one. How should we view it? Is Halle an important concept? Do not

believe anyone who tells you what happens in the afterlife because we

do not know. No one has ever sent a postcard back. The Jewish point of

view is that what counts is this world. Judaism is very vague about

the afterlife and, frankly, I'm not sure if there is an afterlife, and

whether we have an individual existence. I think it might be like

a raindrop which comes from the sky and hit a tree. As it trickles down,

that is our individual existence, and then it falls into a puddle.

The drop of rain is still there but it has lost its individuality.

sounds like Hinduism to me! point is, to say you're going to

hell or heaven or purgatory, that is nonsense. If I do not believe in

purgatory for at all. I would prefer to talk about this world and

what happens in this life. I know it means we lose the carrot-and-

stick of Heaven and Hell but there is an inner carrot-and-stick, and

on the negative side, I think you should fear doing wrong because of

being caught or social disapproval, but on the positive side, you have

to live with yourself. To a want to behave in this way? Also, when you

look in the mirror at night, are you going to be ashamed of what you

see or not? Maybe some people think they can get away with it in this

life. I know that I was brought up with a fear of hell and a lot of

Muslims are. Most Muslim kids are. I'm leaning towards Jonathan on

this discussion, even though Islam tens towards both. You're talking

about the God of love and the Court of Justice. It is part of his

character. I cannot speak for all Muslims but a lot of my friends, we

have heard too much of the Court of Justice and fire and brimstone and

not enough of the god of love. Got in all religions is the god of love.

There is a famous profit to one said that he worshipped God, not

because he feared hell, because he is not a slave, or because he

wanted to go to heaven, which is the worship of a businessman, but

because he loves him, and he deserved to be worshipped. Is there

a judgmental aspect? Is it not relevant, if someone has been

murdered, for example, and you do not find justice in this world,

does it not matter, the idea that Yes, Jimmy Savile will get some

serious justice. On the point about how you use it with your kids.

There is this sense a lot of people who scare people into doing things

rather than persuade them for the right right reasons. I wouldn't

want my child to do the right thing only because she doesn't want to

burn in hell. Alison. The New Testament talks

about history. And today and forever. So he has not changed.

That is his character. But we just don't sort of, we only major on god

is god of love and we forget why he allowed his son to come to this

world to die for us. Go into a discussion about the

notion of after life. This this idea that Hallowe'en can represent

something to do with evil and and exorcism exists in the Catholic

Church. There is interest in the paranormal and the supernatural and

fear about evil. Is that good for Christians like you who believe in

an after life? Thank you very much for asking the question. I think

what I will say is that there is an after life. I don't think we need

to be scared of it. That's the heart of where the Christian

message is coming from. I am concerned about the rise in

popularity about Hallowe'en because people think there is no need to

worry because there is nothing to worry. That leaves the question of

what might be true or not and is there a spiritual realm and if

there is a spiritual realm, what is it? In Hallowe'en I wonder what we

are celebrating. You were talking about Jimmy Savile and the morality

of drone strikes and in this section, we have asked the question

should we distrust our own sense and do what feels right to us? If

we end up celebrating something which is evil because it is

pleasurable or we want to do it, what are we doing in our culture

culture? There is a bigger question to do with right and wrong and what

are we messing with here? There is a big question - why has

Hallowe'en become more popular than it was 30 or 40 years ago? The

traditional religions are losing their power and Hallowe'en

represents ritual and represents people coming together and it means,

I think it is a deeper thing, it is a matter of people confronting

another type of darkness either their own inner darkness or the

outer darkness. Tas rough world and it is a -- it is a rough world and

it is a horrible world and Hallowe'en expresses that for those

people who don't find it in the Christian, Muslim, Jewish faith.

It does go back to pagan origins, cultures like Mexico have a day of

the dead. It is about death, isn't it? There is an elm of truth in

that, but from a church prospective whether you are Catholic, orthodox,

it is not so so much about the dead, but celebrating those who may have

been able to to conquer and to pull those things together. When we talk

about going to the after life, we get there because god forgives

everybody and everybody gets there including Jimmy Savile and that

seems unfair. Some people don't go and what we we see happening at the

cross is justice is upheld and evil is punished and that's why Jesus

Christ comes into this world and instead of god ignoring the

requirements of justice, evil is punished and wrongdoing is punished

and through cross - if there is no hope of redemption you would keep

living in the wrong direction all your life.

Michael. Dr Susan is a psychologist who once investigated the

paranormal. Jonathan was saying no one ever sends a postcard back from

the after life. I wonder if that's your view? What effect does it have

if you believe in the after life and there is something after we

die? I don't think there is anything after we die for two

reasons. Scientificically, the more we learn about the brain, the less

conceivable there is that there is anybody in there. The brain does

the demaking, action, learning, memory, it is all there in the

brain and the body. When that goes, what is left? But also if you have,

I have had many experiences, I have been meditating for 30 years and it

is common in such experiences to delve into who am I and find you

don't know? There isn't somebody in there. It doesn't make the sense of

the after life at all to me. I disagree with Alison's view because

people who are threatened by hell, promised heaven, are more anxious,

for frightened, they are ladened with guilt. And they are man

ippable by whatever religious says you should do this. I am sorry,

Alison, I am not wrong because there is evidence and there is

evidence of people becoming more anxious. There is evidence also

that non-believers and atheists believe as well and in many cases

better, than Christian believers. This is in terms of how much they

volunteer for community work, how much money they give to charity and

those things. It doesn't work threatening people. We need to

believe our own inner self. I have no desire to threaten anybody,

Susan. It is nothing to with that. Lots of people can live a good life,

but that won't get you to heaven, it is about believing in Jesus

Christ because god sees him for what I have I have done in terms of

my sinful life and I go on doing that, but I know I am forgiven

through Jesus. One thing the guest said that

struck me is the manipuable line. It has been used as a threat?

think it is misused by certain people. Especially extremists to

enforce certain rules and rulings on the threat of, if you don't do

this, you will burn. You hear that too often in some parts of the

world. But that is not in the Christian

faith. Judaism talks a lot about heaven.

How do you get to heaven and there is a market place and two people

are told they are going to heaven. Who are they? They are told they

are merry makers. Our job is to bring happiness to people who are

sad and it is about the here and now and how we operate and interact

with each other. One of our guests talked about the

pagan routes of Hallowe'en being something wrong. We are joined by a

druid from from Stonehenge. You know people are cynical. Some

people might think it is funny. Other people regard you as threat.

What would you say about the after life and how you view it?

OK, well, I mean, we are here at Stonehenge campaigning for the

return of ancient human remains because Hallowe'en for us is a time

for honouring the ancestors, those who went for, the giant on who we

sit. Death is not to be feared. It is part of the natural cycle of

life and that's what people are missing. It is a road we take as

pagans and druids, we don't practise what you refer to as a

cult or the supernatural, we believe in the natural cycle of

life and death. There is a divine spark within all things. We have

been here since the beginning of time and we will endure after death.

Death for us, isn't something to be feared. In spirit -- it is a spirit

we will always endure. . Jonathan? The greatest fear that

you can have you come to the end of your life and look back and feel it

is wasted. That's the heaven and hell when you reach the end and say,

"Why didn't I do my life better?". The facing up to death which Arthur

was talking about there? Whether there is an after life or not is a

separate debate. I disagree with the previous guest. A lot of

studies show religious people are happy and content and it does give

you hope. It is an important quality in this Worle -- world. It

is why people turn up at churches after a tragedy happens

It is about hope and it is about peace. I think I would love to go

to - well maybe not today, but tomorrow. I am looking forward to

heaven. I think it would be wonderful. If it wasn't for the

Lord Jesus, I wouldn't be there. The worst song with the best tune

is I'm Going To Do It My Way. It is wrong because we should be doing it

God's way. Dominic "we should focus on

morality.". Another viewer says, "If you live your life trying to be

a better person there is nothing to fear in an after life if it

exists.". I hope you enjoy Hallowe'en if you celebrate.

Your text and online votes are in. Mehdi, you said you didn't expect

to to be... Shock horror, I am surprised by this.

Jonathan, your view on the people that people are opposed to the idea

of giving the votes to prisoners? think it is a mistaken view in the

sense that prison is there to punish and they are punished enough

by losing a liberty, but it should be there to reintegrate and

rehabilitate and get people to take an interest in what is going to

happen in society when they enter into it.

Alison Alison? It is right that prisoners should not have the vote

and I don't want it to be changed. If you forfeit your freedom by

going inside, the vote going until you are out again.

What about the idea that it should be made cool to vote? It is gross.

Didn't it come from the US prison system because your belts were

taken away and your trousers hung down? I would love young people to

take voting seriously. Voting is crucial. It has been hard won in

the past and we need to look after it.. Thank you to everyone who has

taken part, to Mehdi Hasan, Alison Ruoff and David Blunkett who was

with us earlier. Don't text or call the phonelines anymore as they are