Episode 14 Sunday Morning Live

David Cameron says it is right high earners shoulder the financial

burden. More people are facing cuts and employment. Should the rich pay

Good morning, and welcome to Sunday Morning Live. It may come as a

surprise but some of the super-rich say they would willingly pay more

tax. Why don't we take them at their word? Christians are going to

the European Court of Human Rights to complain about discrimination in

Britain. The leader of the Christian Party has a controversial

take on how we are persecuting the nation's established faith.

what is the difference between the Nazi regime and the treatment of

Christians in Britain today? Not much. Protesters are marching at

the Tory conference, not against budget cuts but badger culls. Good

sense or pure sentiment? My guests do not need anyone to stand up for

them. Reverend George Hargreaves is the leader of the Christian party.

He made a small fortune in the music business and moved to the

Isle of Man so he could pay less tax on it. Peter Tatchell stood up

to Robert a grubby with an attempted citizen's arrest. He has

a new target - which tax avoiders. This woman was any 16 when she got

her first book deal. -- only. We We have all had some fun giving

bank is a bad name in the financial crisis. We are left with the mass.

Average house would incomes are down by 6%. -- mess. Some of the

super-rich have come at and said they are not paying their fair

share. Is it time our politicians listened to them? It seems an

extraordinary offer, some of the richest people in the world a

campaigning to pay more tax. I am very happy to pay more tax while

the UK is in difficulty. Many politicians agree. It is time for

the financial sector to make a contribution back to society.

Middle-class family should not pay higher taxes than millionairess.

They have been taxed the same, regulated the same, treated the

same, celebrated the same - they will not be by me. The Government

has no plans to increase taxes for the rich. The Conservatives want to

reduce them. During the boom years, taxing the rich was to book for

those who believed the people taking the risks were entitled to

the rewards. Britain is in a recession... For Evander up

gambling in financial institutions had sparked an economic crisis. --

then we found. If those who profited in the boom times, do they

now have a duty to pay more to help? Why should government cuts

hit the poorest hardest and not those who can technically afford it

most? What if taxing the rich damages the economy even more?

Should they keep their wealth to generate more jobs and growth?

Taxing the rich could win votes but if it makes wealth generators moved

to lower tax countries, could we all lose out? With some of the mega

rich asking to pay more tax, is it time we took up that offer? Peter,

that offer is on the table. Should we take it up? With great wealth

comes great responsibility. Those who have fabulous wealth - multi-

billionaire's - of course they should pay more tax. That is our

question this morning. Do the rich We'll show you how you voted at the

end of the programme. Reverend George Hargreaves, you made what

some might think was a fabulous amount of wealth out of your pop

career. You then moved to an area where you might not have to pay so

much tax. I have no regrets and I will do it again. Do the rich pay

more tax? They do. If you pay 50% of �1 million, that is �500,000.

Pound for pound, they pay more. The point made in the film is

absolutely right. If you take the Faber see which too high, they will

just go. -- tax the fabulously rich. I would rather pay an air fare and

have control of my money than pay tax. The DG not feel a moral duty,

or perhaps a religious duty to share your wealth with those who

needed it? -- did you not feel? I was employing 25 people in North

London. I was contributing by doing business. That is how the rich

contribute - by doing business in Britain. If you drive them away,

you can do business from a laptop anywhere in the world, you're going

to lose net gain for the country. Tilly have a duty not to tax the

money the rich would put into promoting jobs, paying wages and

salaries? We are absolutely at the crunch point in terms of global

economics. If you push the rich to match, as the Conservatives have

always said, the Conservative Party is about conserving map -- wealth

amongst those people with it, they would just go elsewhere. There is

tremendous opposition to what the coalition government has done to

the economy. It has cut of services to new mothers, kits, new families,

people who are just about struggling. This and affordability

of housing - the cutting of public sector jobs. You have an issue with

the cuts that you think there burgeon should be placed on the

super-rich? -- but do you think? Yes. We're trying to yield money to

save a broken economy. We need to go where the money is. You do not

do that by punishing people who are already in want and in need. Some

of those super-rich are putting their heads above the parapet and

saying, this is OK. The assumption has always been, the super-rich do

not want to let go... Let's talk about the wealth. The richest 10%

of the British population have a combined personal wealth off 4

million million pounds. That is �1 million multiplied by 4 million

times. They buy houses worth 50 million and �100 million. Private

yachts and planes. You have mentioned the richest 10%. Nearly

all of them avoid tax. Nearly all of them had various scams and

schemes to avoid paying tax. When it comes to avoiding tax, I am all

for, as Margaret Thatcher said, tax-dodging is wrong. Those

loophole should be closed down. It should be done by simplifying the

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 84 seconds

The lower your tax the rich, the more they pay? The one thing that

is very interesting is that the rich are very generous when they

want to be. Nobody wants to feel as though they are having their arm

twisted by the Government into yielding what they see as their

very hard earned money. I am not saying that those who are self-made

are not also extremely talented, extremely dynamic when it comes to

making money, but they don't want to be forced to give it up. So if

you lower the tax rate, they are more co-operative? I don't want to

make any argument for lowering the tax rate are the rich, but they

have to make the door open for people who think they can pay more.

You see, the big problem is, who do we give our money to? The rich and

people do not like giving money to government, who are profligate, who

wasted, O build... I don't know, fire stations that don't get used.

They think, if I am giving my money to this lot, it is a waste of money.

Would you support an increase in tax if it was targeted? I would not.

The system needs to be simpler. The reason we get tax avoidance scams,

as Peter calls them, is because it is so complex and there are

loopholes that are so complex. Make it simple, a flat tax, and we know

exactly what we pay every year. would like to give a practical

proposal to solve the government deficit and the national debt.

If we taxed the richest 10% - people who have the combined

personal wealth of 4 million million pounds - if we tax them on

a one-off tax of 20%, that would clear most of the national debt and

the Government deficit. We would be out of the mire we're in. A one-off

one year tax! What would be the response to that? People will find

ways to get bad of pain that one of tax. At the moment to have a lot of

complex structures for tax avoidance. The Government tries to

crack down on this but they are always ways around them. That

culture is endemic. You are much better to say, if there is an

incentive to claim more tax from the rich, that would encourage them

to give more. What is in it for the rich to pay those taxes? The former

head of the CBI joins us this morning. A very good morning. I am

sure you have been listening to what has been said so far. Do you

have a moral duty to pay more? was a very interesting debate. The

text question to your viewers is too simplistic. Most people will

say, we are in the mire, should the rich pay more taxes, most people

would say yes. It is too simplistic. What this debate is so interesting

about his you have the factual analysis that the rich has produced

the most money for the nation, either by way of employment or

taxation, the problem is on squeezed middle Brittain, is it

fair the rate for somebody on a -- on �200,000 a year the same as �200

million a year. The answer is, no, it is not. I'm not a wealthy man.

My mother and dad gave me love and enthusiasm and no money. I have no

problem in hypothecated in a tax rise from 50% to 50% -- 55%, if

that took everyone on the national minimum wage in Brittain out of

taxation. Have we could save the lower paid would pay no tax and

there would be a staggering it would taper off overnight. They

will spend that money. I would have no problem. I am absolutely with

the guy who said, I do not trust these people to spend my money

wisely. I am a crossbench peer. I have never belonged to a political

party and never will. I do not trust politicians and civil

servants to spend my money wisely. If somebody hypothecated, I would

happily pay more tax while the nation is in the state it is in if

I could take the low paid out if I could get power stations built and

apprenticeships happening so that younger people get a skill in life.

I think the moral question is that those who are better off should pay

more whilst the country is been a problem. If they have a guarantee

of where it goes and people it goes to. Do not worry about if someone

goes to the Isle of Man. Worry about the child in Bangalore. That

is a statistic you will never hear Nicholas Smith of the TUC, you

would have no issue with that proposal, would you? A rich people

should pay more tax. We are facing a crisis in our finances, and the

50p tax rate is forecast to raise 12.6 billion. I do not accept these

arguments about people leaving the country. There is no evidence that

it happens. Come on! There is. you could show me some statistics.

Let me finish, if there is an issue with avoidance, we need to crack

down more. I agree with that. one moment, we will come back to

you, but, George, what is the evidence? The evidence is that you

are seeing hedge funds, head of this is moving to Switzerland and

other low-tax places. -- head offices. We have a school and

London. We received 30 computers from a City firm that has just

downsized because it is better elsewhere. They are leaving town.

Actually, well, anybody can provide statistics, I would be interested,

but the changing exchange rate in Switzerland will affect the incomes

of anyone moving there far more than a change in the tax rate. We

have to think about the argument of whether people are motivated more

or less by higher tax rates. At the bottom of society, some of the

people we have talked about, going from benefits into a minimum-wage

job, they only took about 20-40% of their income as a move into work.

That should be changed. With luck that in our manifesto, to change

that. Will you let her finish? Sometimes I invite you to, please

carry on. If I could continue, thank you, working for about �100

extra per week. Someone on a very high tax rate will be working for

several thousand pounds extra per week. They are very well rewarded

for their efforts. I think that a small change that a few present

would not have a significant impact on their motivation. That is not

based on economic reality. One Tex says we should have a system where

the rich have a choice to pay a higher tax level, and it could be

shown to the public. -- text. Neil Cooper is from Church Action on

poverty. I wonder if you could give us an idea on the ground about the

kind of work that you are doing, the kind of people you are meeting,

the kind of hardship people are facing. We are working with people

in poor communities across the country, people who are really

struggling. People at the bottom, for then it is a choice of he'd

copied, can you actually afford to put a meal on the table and heat

your home? For many families, that is not possible. Families turn off

their electricity during the day because they cannot afford their

bills. Families dread holidays, because they do not get free school

meals, and they cannot afford to give their kids three meals a day.

George, I am hearing news saying, yes, yes, to all of that, but you

do not want the tax rates to change follows with the broadest shoulders,

say some, in order to help those people. The gloss to have put an

end is not correct. It doesn't work. I want to see stuff that works. My

church is in Hackney, and we educate people for free, we give

out donations to the homeless, I did one on Friday before I left

town. One of the things with our Christian Party Charitable Trust,

we have the super-rich in the money because they know what we are going

to do with it. They know it is really going to hit those people in

need. Peter Tatchell, when asked in a poll, 40% of people say they

would keep the 50% tax rate even if it does not raise more revenue. I

want to put this question to you. Is that economics, or is that some

sort of envy, resentment, anger with the rich that feeds into a

narrative? No, it is about an ethical consideration, a moral

decision that those who have fabulous wealth ought to pay their

fair share. You know, the argument that if we raise the tax rate,

these people will leave, well, some of them might, and I say good

riddance to them. Hang on, let me finish, you have interrupted me

every time I have spoken. Let me let you, then! Going to police is

not much fun. The bollard in London and other big cities because of the

culture and contribution. -- people are in London. They do not want to

go to police for a tax break. We want to say loud and clear that

those people are not being patriotic, they are betraying this

country, they are traitors to our economy and our society. Those who

put their personal wealth before the good of the country are

traitors! I need to let Bidisha say her final word. What has come out

of this, speaking to the excellent comments from Nicola Cooper, is the

sheer difference there is between the lives of the very rich and the

lives and realities of the very poor. I completely agree with the

very rich people who say, I do not trust government. You do not have

to, money should not be politicised, but it needs to go where it must be,

housing, health, childcare, medical care, supporting new families,

supporting children, education. I just say the last biblical thing?

To those who have given much, much is expected. It does not have to

come through the tax system. That is our text poll question today. To

the rich have a moral duty to pay more tax? -- do the rich? Texts

will be charged at a standard Now, why shouldn't an air hostess

where a crucifix around her neck, or a counsellor decide that in all

conscience he cannot counsel gay couples? Aren't those basic human

rights? That is what Christians are asking the European Court of Human

Rights to decide. Do they have God on their side? They certainly have

the Reverend George Hargreaves. hope you are all opposed to

religious persecution. Persecution usually starts with small

restrictions. Hitler started his religious persecution with banning

kosher food. Rapidly, he built to what the Holocaust. Now, today, the

freedom to practise the Christian faith in the United Kingdom is

under attack. Disciplinary or dismissal actions for a British

Airways worker for wearing a crucifix? A nurse for praying for a

patient? A van driver of all displaying a Palm Sunday cross on

his dashboard? The list goes on. There is, of course, a powerful

lobby working to eliminate all aspects of Christianity from the

public's crowd. This will enable -- this will inevitably lead to gross

intolerance towards certain individuals and groups. This is an

at a dead end. Not just a dead end but a deadly end. The only hope

lies in another direction. Let Christianity play its part in our

society. Let prisoners be Christmas and Christian. -- Christmas. Let

the nation, with faith and meaning, continues singing with heart and

voice, God Save Our Queen. Let Britain remain a Christian country,

where religious freedom closures. Bidisha, does he have a point?

certainly think there is a tremendous amount of anxiety around

religion globally, and I would not say that started off with the

examination of Christianity. I think it started after 9/11 when

people started looking at the crossover between religion and

society, and its fall-out. I have his say that I'm not as worried as

you are, I truly am not. I think that there are up in the shades of

this examination of religiosity. I do not mind anyone wearing a cross,

not one little blood. I do mind someone who refuses to cancel all

let into their B&B a gay couple, because that is just homophobia, it

is just homophobia. But as to the signs and portents of faith, I have

never mind that whatsoever. I mind someone who aggressively tries to

convert the one way or the other two any viewpoint. Would you

complain about it? No, I would not. I would look at the person who is

talking to me and think about whether they were kind-hearted or

not. If I were ill and somebody said they would pray for me, I

would not be offended. If they said, I will pray for you but not operate

because I have such faith in prayer, I would be slightly perturbed. If

somebody said, and sorry, it is against my believes to have

somebody of a certain sex, sexuality, you cannot come into my

establishment, I would say no, there is something more important

than faith, and that is the humanitarian principle of equality

and justice and diversity, and to me that goes beyond organised

religions. You would agree with that? I agree that Christians are

persecuted in many parts of the world, and I have involved in

campaigns to protect them in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and

right now in a runway Krisztian Pars there has been sentenced to

hang for his faith. -- right now in Iran where a Krisztian Pars there

has been sentenced to hang for his they still have great privilege

here. Bishops sit in the House of Lords as of right. No other fate

group has that privileged position. The government consults Christian

groups. Human rights groups do not get that privilege. I must say that

I've got particularly object to people wearing a crucifix, that

does not worry me. I do think that when a Christian counsellor refuses

to cancel a gay couple, they are discriminating. That is an act of

discrimination, and discrimination is wrong in all circumstances. I

would never countenance discrimination against a Christian

person, and I find offensive that they would discriminate against me

because I happen to be gay. We can speak to that councillor, Gary

McFarlane, who was sacked from his job at Relate for failing to

Council of gay people. This is the balance, isn't it, George, between

the rights of gay people to be recognised, to be counselled, to

access services being offered? Absolutely. It is protecting them

from discrimination. And we are against discrimination. We do not

support discrimination. We do support, and the Human Rights Act

supports, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience. So there are

no cases that have come to court where a b&b owner has said that I

am discriminating specifically against gays. They answered, we do

not have unmarried couples in double bed. They did not say, you

cannot stay in our B&B. But the press and other commentators

twisted that to make it look like they do not take gay couples. That

was acknowledged by the judge, and we have to have a society where we

can say, my conscience doesn't allow me to do something like this.

So if your conscience says it is right to discriminate, a Christian

should be able to do that? If you are consistent and that B&B owner

was very consistent, saying they would not have unmarried

heterosexual has been a bed, just as they would not have two gay

people in a bed. You're welcome to stay, we have twin rooms, other

facilities, but we would not allow that. I think that is quite

appropriate. It is discriminatory if you have one law for one section

and another law for the other, but there was not in that case, and I

do not know of any other case. you think Gary Macfarlane has a

right to discriminate against gay couples by refusing to serve them,

the job he was employed to do? will allow him to answer that.

can talk to him. Gary McFarlane, what was your villages issue with

what you are being asked to do at Night? -- your religious issue was

the odd good morning, everyone. sex therapist, a sex addiction

therapist. -- I am. Consistently through the media, there is an

element of misreporting. Importantly, I have never refused

to provide a relationship counselling service to same-sex

couples. I counsel same-sex couples, I will always continue to council

same-sex couples. That is not the issue. The issue is a discreet one,

because I was training at the time as a sex therapist, and I was asked,

in an element of a theoretical question, I was asked if at some

point, you are required to provide sex therapy to a same-sex couple,

what would be Euros bonds do that? I indicated that I had never even

thought about it, but if you forced me, which I was forced,, I would

say, it is going to have a conflict with my Christian faith of 30 years.

Sex therapy is very different to relationship counselling, and I

will go on a journey to help people to come to a better place, I will

continue to council same-sex couples. When it is sex therapy, I

am being asked to help improve an individual and a couple's sex

How do we accommodate someone religious belief with the

requirements of their job which they feel comes into conflict with

that? I think there is a way to do it. I appreciate that correction. I

think two things. Religion of all kinds has got to move with the

Times and the tenor of the times. I think also that we are living, in

many ways, in best secular society. I do not mean that in a negative

sense. You need to adapt to the way people genuinely do live. Religious

belief has often been used by it all religions, in all parts of the

world, to defend and justified all kinds of things from colonialism

and slavery, it has been used to justify the exclusion of all

different kinds of people from public roles. That has to stop. The

use of faith as an excuse. I think this is tricky. It will take a long

time to get to the bottom off. We need to move with the times. Let's

speak to a Christian minister who joins us now. You are gay. You are

a Christian. That is right. How do you accommodate those things? Do

you feel in any way persecuted, as George suggests? I have never felt

persecuted Against because of my faith - never. I have always been

very confident and comfortable with it. I have, however, felt times I

was persecuted because I was gay and Christiane. That is a different

matter of will stop people are on their own spiritual journey. -- a

different matter. It seems Against religious beliefs. Can I just

establish? You feel persecuted by who because you are a gay

Christian? I sometimes cut not always, and certainly not in

Brighton so match, I feel persecuted Against by other

Christians. -- so much. The gay community struggles with me being

gay and a Christian. They have been hurt a lot by the Church. We have

heard misinformation coming. We are clear there are certain people, not

necessarily in the studio, who have made it their business to try to

eradicate Christianity from the public screen. She says she feels

persecuted as a Christian by other Christians. And other gay people.

We should stand up against persecution. Only last week,

Dorking has set a petition to try to ban creationism from schools.

That is a direct attack at Christian education. Why is he time

-- trying to take Christianity out of the public arena? I wanted to

feel free to comment. People are, broadly speaking, do persecute

people. She is absolutely right and extremely frank to say, yes, of

course, the gay community may think that Christianity has been about

patriarchy, conservatism. What are you doing doing this and forming

your own spiritual path? There are Christians who have said, what are

you doing because you are gay? You cannot flinch away from the reality

of homophobia. People are not aggressively homophobic. People are

very uncomfortable with issues of sexuality. It takes a long time for

them to confront it. Everyone is on the spiritual pass. Can I depend

most Christians? Most Christians in his country's support equality and

are happy to abide by the quality laws. -- this country support. It

is only fundamentalists who are raising his cry of persecution.

They do a disservice when they say the persecution of Christians is

tantamount to the persecution of Jews under the Nazis. That is

really offensive to Jewish people and others. What started three

months after he became in, he did something that may have seemed

innocuous. He started to ban aspects of kosher food. Nobody

thought there was such evil lurking on that trajectory which would lead

to millions of people being killed. I am not going to say any names.

When you get comfortable with small restrictions on faith, whether it

is Christian, Muslim or anybody and he justified it in law, it builds

and builds. Only last week, just because by the scriptures were on

the back wall of a coffee shop, police came in and accused a man of

breaking the law. Do we have a rabbi with us? I wonder if that is

something the Jewish community feels offended by. This is a

different planet. I absolutely reject the comparison. We were

banned from most professions. It does Christianity a disservice. I

want to be more positive and not just say, I do not agree. In

Britain mere talking about inclusion. In the studio it is an

inclusive panel. Discussion has to be about the arguments with

Christianity are about including people who a Christian, in the

community, Jews across the board - atheists. When you compare it to

the Holocaust, you are going out of the bounds of sensible discussion.

It is offensive not just to Jews but to Christians. I want to talk

to Andrew Marr Show. You are supportive of these cases going to

Europe at the moment. Do you agree with George that There is a process

of persecution going on? All human beings come up all persons, are to

be treated with dignity and respect. Made in God's image and loved by

him. His love is greater than any human blood. Christians should be

at the forefront of treating individuals with dignity and

respect. The crucial point is that does not equate to affirming every

form of behaviour or activity. The integrity and passion means you

speak up about when to dispute particular forms of behaviour and

affirm other forms of behaviour - particularly things like sexual

ethics. Christians are committed to the teaching of Jesus that marriage

is God's good plan and is the play's full sexual expression. The

case is, I just make the case again, in none of the instances going to

the European Court was there any danger that someone would be denied

a service. It could easily have been provided by the organisation.

It is about imposing ideology and telling people how to think and

creating a climate of fear where people feel they cannot express

genuine concerns about what is in the best interests. With respect,

this is about discrimination. A civil registrar was employed and

she refused to apply civil partnership to same-sex couples.

She is entitled to her point of view. I defend her right for that.

If she is employed to do a job, she should do it. If we allow her to be

exempt from the law, lots of other people will be exempt. Jewish

supermarket workers might refuse to handle alcohol in the supermarket.

Solicitors may refuse to deal with women who are having sexual

relationships outside of a marriage. A final point. The monarch has to

be Christian. Christianity dominates public life. A third of

school children are educated in Christian schools. Is that evidence

of persecution? In 1930, before the gas chambers, this is what I was

saying. I am not saying we're in gas chamber territory. There were

jobs that Jews could not do. We had these Sir John's case where they

could not be foster carers because of their religion. If we allow that

to start, we saw where it ended in Germany. It starts with these

restrictions. It starts where people cannot do a job of work

because of their faith. We are very out of time. I am terribly sorry. I

have been told off for intervening. Coming up: We are said to be a

nation of animal lovers. Colours claim it stops animals starving to

death if they ran out of food. -- cullers. Get in touch by e-mail or

online. Do the rich have a moral You hub around five minutes before

the poll closes. -- you have around. Time to chew over some of the keep

morale moments of the week. Peter, the killing of the Al-Qaeda leader,

Anwar al-Awlaki, Cort shot I. Why? I have been campaigning against all

kinds of fundamentalism for years. -- caught your eye. His killing was

extra-judicial murder. He was assassinated without being brought

before a trial, his evidence considered and duly punished. That

is how we do things in democracies. We do not go out and shoot and kill

people. I have looked at the evidence. He has said he is linked

to and has connection to various terrorist attacks. I have never

seen any evidence. It is also position. He should have been

arrested and put on trial. A report this week says the number of babies

and children being adopted has fallen, apparently. How did this

concern you? I am pro adoption. I'm not saying the process should be

made easier. The report is fascinating. It is quite critical

towards existing care and adoption processes. They are pointing out

that fewer numbers of babies are being adopted but few in numbers of

older children are also been adopted. -- fewer numbers. They are

talking about the care system, but Foster system and vetting potential

parents being rejected. -- the fostering system. They need more

compassion. As someone who is getting bolder, you can live the

Cinderella fantasy board do it is used for and provide a loving home

for children. You are vetted very carefully. The process takes around

two to three years. There is tremendous worry about the children.

There are children in care right now. You are considering adopting a

child, are you? At some point in the future. I come from an

extremely, happy, stable home. I always promised myself if I could

bring up a child, I would want to give them the privilege and love

that I enjoyed and I look at those children who already exist. If you

are not loved and stayed there be cared for and securing you are

growing up, it has effects all the way through your life. It affects

your education, relationships, if you are addictive/compulsive,

whatever. There is a fundamental walk if you are - is that the

warmth if you are from a loving home. -- There is a fundamental

warmth. Children should be given some of the support I enjoyed and

have taken for granted all my life. A local farmer to here was not

pleased with the display by Rihanna in his field. He told her to cover

up. He is not the only person Saine, cover up. -- saying. Ofcom has said,

this kind of scantily dressed pop videos Stubbs should now be beyond

the 9 o'clock watershed. -- video staff. This farmer is in the flow

of the public mood. Children look at the pop stars. They ate what

they do. They get sexual lives at such a young age. They look at

these images. I would say well done to him. He has public support and

support from Ofcom. I was impressed that Rihanna did not protest.

she cover up? I do not know. It is an important message. We have NTV,

24 hour videos and Stubbs. These videos are damaging to women. --

Do the rich have a moral duty to pay more tax? The poll is close now.

We will bring you the result at the end of the programme.

Imagine seeing a wild stag at dawn or a badger in your own backyard,

for most of us an unexpected encounter with a wild animal is a

magical moment, but this year the government plans to slaughter them

in record numbers. Are those plans for a big car a bad call?

The government could be about to allow the killing of 30,000 badgers

a year, blaming them for tuberculosis in cattle. There may

be a protest at today's Conservative conference.

Campaigners say that culling is unnecessary and cruel and we should

vaccinate badgers instead. But farmers say tuberculosis is

destroying their livestock and costing them money. Is it

hypocritical to protest about culling wild animals when we

slaughter billions of domestic ones for food every year it? Culling can

also be seen as humane. We regularly cull dear to stop them

running out of food and starving to death. We also car to protect other

species. Parakeets are kept under control to stop them damaging crops

and native birds. But if we're going to kill to protect the

species, what about domestic cats, which caused huge damage to our

wild birds? In other countries, there is an argument for killing

animals if they physically threaten human beings. Elephants and tigers

are often killed because they endanger villages which encroach on

their habitat. But in the end, say the protesters, the animal which

threatened species and habitats the most IS man, and we need to find

better ways of sharing our planet. You can make your point by phone,

by text or online. John Palmer he is the founder of animal-rights

Action Network. Thank you for having me on. Culling, if it is

something that is necessary to prevent suffering to farm animals

for suffering to the animals being hold, isn't it a humane thing to

do? It is not humane, and the word cull is a very nice word to

describe what is a glorified slaughter. In this particular

situation with regards to the culling of badgers in the UK, it is

a very important thing to remember that we have been doing this, as

far as I can go back, to the 1970s, when we slotted literally hundreds

of thousands of badgers. Here we are in 2011, and we are putting our

hands back up again and saying, right, the tuberculosis is still

here, the finger is pointed at the Badger, we need to get them again.

Surely enough, somebody should be tapping the shoulders at the NFU

and farmers across the UK and saying, hey, I don't think this is

working. Before we speak to a farmer, I want to get your views,

Bidisha. You eat meat? I do, and I'm very cautious about these

debates, because the moment you say that, it looks as though you are

advocating the serial killing of animals just for fun. But I do

believe that farmers in particular have a very, very tricky job. They

work with the land, they have got to balance the so called wild

animal world with what they have organised for their business. And I

do not think that what is happening here is the random persecution of

the badger species, but I would like to know more about it, because

actually I am not an animal rights activist at all, and I'm very

against the said medicalisation that happens when we talk about

animals. If it supports farming, you would be in favour?

certainly willing to listen to farmers to justify what they are

doing, because it is not done out of a sense of exultation of killing

animals. It is called slaughter, I do not mind that. Peter Tatchell.

Humans are one of millions of species on this planet. We do not

own his planet. We did not created, we did not produce it. We are a

special, exceptional species in that we have great intelligence and

a capacity for ethical, moral decisions. Therefore, that gives us

a responsibility to look very carefully at our role and

interaction with other species, and I do not think that culling and

animal species is morally justified, because they are living, sentient

creatures. They feel pain, they have got emotions, they interact in

social groups, they feel very much just like we do. Not on the same

level, but they have the same range of basic emotions and a capacity

for pain, so we have a moral duty to spare them that. You feel the

same way about farm animals? I do not eat meat. Let's speak to a

farmer. Jan Rowe is a palm of. York house have suffered from

tuberculosis. We are talking about culling badgers in order to stop

that happening. Will it work? I think a highly organised and well

prepared and well-executed cull in those areas where we know we have

badger populations that are infected with tuberculosis and are

close to cattle will definitely work and is very necessary. We are

not talking about a widespread Qom of badgers randomly across the

country. It will be highly targeted and organised. Unfortunately, we do

not have any other mechanism that will effectively reduce the

tuberculosis load that is filling back into cattle. What has been the

effect on your staff? Well, we have been suffering from tuberculosis in

our cattle for nearly 25 years now. We have lost probably 170 cattle,

and it has cost us nearly �500,000. We have experienced cars of badgers

in the past, but they were temporary, and they did not make a

significant difference. -- culls. We need a more organised and

thorough cull until such time as we have an effective vaccine. Can I

get in here? I was reading some statistics this morning, and it was

delighted to hear that in Northern Ireland we have the highest cases

of tuberculosis in cows in Europe, but you did not proceed for many

years with culls, and yet the problem is now under control

because there are fire hazard restrictions in place and certain

conditions on the farmer as well. It is a known fact, with regards to

the culling of badgers, that 7-8 of the animals are shot dead two not

have tuberculosis. Are there more humane ways of doing this? I wish

there were, Susanna. Unfortunately, we have tried pretty well

everything, and I think in the long run vaccination will probably be

the answer, but it is not ready to use at the moment. Certainly in

England, the experience, in the south and west of the country, is

that we are testing cattle ad nauseam. The disease is still

increasing, it is spreading into other animals, it is spreading into

deer, alpaca, family pets, pigs, sheep. We just have to reduce the

tuberculosis load. We can talk to the RSPCA, because they have a

different view. Dr Andrew Kelly joins us. You are generally against

culling but there are circumstances in which it is a humane thing to do,

is that right? Let me save from the start that we are opposed in

principle to be taking or killing of any wild animal or the

infliction of any suffering upon them. In any case, what we would

try to do is challenge the justification and the

proportionality of killing animals for any given reason. There may

well be some very rare occasions where not to cull may increase

individual suffering, for example the case of the ewe they may starve

to death. We may consider that to be an option under those

circumstances, but in terms of controlling badgers to reduce

tuberculosis, for example, we are opposed to that primarily because

the scientific experts have said it is not going to work. On that point,

the fact that in some cases it would be cruel or not to, in some

circumstances. It is ridiculous. You know, there is an undeclared

war on animals. We continue to shoot them, skin them, experiment

on them, and yet it is always seen as being the easy way out. Time and

again it is the lazy option, specifically regards to the Banja

culling, there is an easy, humane alternative which is vaccinating

the animals. -- Banja Colin macro. The lazy way out for the farmers,

and they have been doing it since the 1970s, is to simply shoot the

animals. On that point, with regards to the culling of these

animals, it will have to be done at night. They are not guaranteed an

instant death. A lot of these animals will be maimed, they will

be hurt. A lot of these animals will not die instantaneously. There

will be a lot of suffering. Bidisha, in the natural order of things,

aren't we simply the top of the food chain and the predators?

think the crux of the argument is RTZ in the wonderful video at the

beginning, what of -- what he said in the wonderful video at the

beginning, which is this is about global capitalisation, and what we

do as humans, which is to exploit, two over farm animals, to Roman

breed animals. If we were not part of the equation, the ecosystem

would do perfectly well. There would be no excess on either side.

David Taylor is from the Countryside Alliance. David, have

we brought this upon ourselves? and no. We have brought it and

ourselves in the fact that we have managed our environment to be the

way that it is, so that we can feed ourselves, so we can stay alive,

but we have managed the environment and as a result the countryside is

managed and we have to take care of it. As a result of that, we have to

take some harsh decisions. The deer that we have have no natural

predators, therefore we have to take care of their numbers, because

we have a duty of care, and they would starve to death, get diseases,

and ultimately they will end of squashed on the road because the

only thing to control them with the disease and the roads. We do not

actually manage them, then they will be the ones is at a. We have

heard these hideous statements from the Countryside Alliance for years.

There was a similar situation a couple of years ago in the Irish

Republic where there was a cull of the unplanned. We intervened and

lobbied and provided humane alternatives, the neutering of the

animals and proper fencing along the sides of a particular part in

Dublin. So you are saying... When it nearly went ahead, we had Proops

from right across the country putting their hands up and saying,

I want to get involved, I want to try. I am terribly sorry. People

can learn more by going to the website. I am terribly sorry, we

have to ended there. We are completely out of time, because I

have to let you know what the result of the text poll is. We

asked you, do the rich have a moral duty to pay more tax? This is what

you told us, 84% of you who texted in said yes, they do. 16% said no.

Peter Tatchell, 84%. It is quite clear what the public view is, and

we have to find ways to halt the current tax avoidance, in

particular companies like Vodafone, who are accused of underpaying tax

by �6 billion, they need to cough up. We need to say that the people

who have got not millions, but even billions, they can afford to pay

much, much more, and it is their responsibility, their moral

responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. If you agree or

disagree, you can of course take out the issue on our website. As

you can at any of the debates that we have heard this morning. I would