Episode 2 Sunday Morning Live

If the you stab a burglar in your home that might be tough on the

insurer but should it be legal? De Justice Secretary himself says so.

But is he correct? Good morning and welcome to Sunday Morning Live

where you debate the big issues of the day. This week Ken Clarke said

that we have the right to take a poker to a burglar. A blow for

justice for a charter for a vigilantes? And a bit to stop

Sharia courts discriminating against women. Sharia law chords

are unacceptable in this country and should be banned. And as a

church is napped for healing that God can cure cancer, is faith-

healing an almighty cropper? Broadcaster Terry Christian is

against today. He spent some of his career dishing out abuse. Can he

take it? And our columnist has seen a burglar off in his own home. And

Bob Turney himself used to be a butler but is now a crime fighter.

You can join our guests this morning by a web can on spiked or

on Twitter. Calls from mobiles made cost considerably more at than

network calls. We all know that we have the right

to self-defence but how far should you be able to go to protect your

property from a burglar? A punch, a poker, or even a fatal attack with

a knife? This week the justice secretary said that he wants to

clarify the law. Just last week a man was arrested on suspicion of

murder after allegedly stabbing to death a masked intruder. Is it

right to use violence to protect your property? It is late at night.

You are asleep in your home. But you're not alone. Anne Owens wakes

you. You realise there is an intruder in your house. What would

you do? What should you do? If an old lady finds she has an 18 year-

old burglar in her house and picks up a knife, she has not committed a

criminal offence. The Home Secretary said the new Justice Bill

would clarify the position of home owners could defend themselves and

their property. Last week the householder was arrested after a

masked intruder to his home suffered a stab wound and later

died. But just because the justice secretary says that stabbing a

burglar will not be considered criminal, does it make it right to?

Is it a proportionate response? Is it right to kill someone if they

are just a threat to your property and not your life? In the heat of

the moment it can be hard to judge if an intruder is violent. There is

a sense of violation. I asked him why he could do that to us as

victims. So are the words of Ken Clarke a welcome clarification of

our rights to protect our homes or will be just encourage homeowners

to keep weapons by their bedsides, and perhaps burglars to come armed

to protect themselves? It is the job of police to protect us and our

property but once a burglar enters our home, should the law allow us

to be armed and dangerous? Bob Turney, 30 volt years since your

last prayer golds someone's house. Does this send a shiver down your

spine? Well Ken Clarke was talking about a grand mother who could stab

a burglar. What people do not understand, people take an life off

people and could use that to stab them. Now we're asking this morning

if there ought should allow West to stab burglars. Text us with your

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

Then you consent is that his people feel that they should be arming

themselves if a burglar should come in, then that weapon could be used

against them? It could. The loo is perfectly clear as it stands. If it

is clear that the intruder is not going to exit, I can do anything I

like to get them out. But if they leave and I chase them and then

endure them, that is wrong. Juries are reluctant to convict people. We

had the Hussein brothers from a High Wycombe recently. Apparently

the family were tied up and the burglars left. What I would have

done, I would not have been bothered running down the road, I

would have looked after my wife and children. Mehmet, you have been

burgled four times. Yes, four times in the same house and twice with

young children there. Furious though I was, furious enough to

confront one of the burglars, and shout at him, I do not think that

the law was clear at the time. I had no idea that I up was entitled

to hit him round the head with a cricket bat. I don't think I would

ever has been stupid enough to use a knife. But I did not know that

the law was clear on it. Is it because you did not know that the

law was Clear, or what we do not have been able to have done that?

peak I was so wide up with adrenalin that I might have been

able to do that. Adrenalin will make you do things you never knew

that you could do. I do think that people will have a go at a burglar,

and why not? Is there a danger that the message that could be sent is

that this is not self-defence committees meeting not punishment

on the spot? The big question is, Ken Clarke completely irresponsible

to say what he said. He is representing the government first

of all, they say they're going to get tough on law and order. But he

has just cut back police numbers by around 10%. Now he is saying that

you can stab a burglar. Then they will not have to put them in prison,

it gives him more prison places! I have been burgled as well. If a

burglar came into my house while I was there then I may well bring the

darkness to him. Let us say no more. What do you mean by that? Would you

stab a burglar? Depending on my mood and how I felt. I do not know.

But the idea that somebody is in your house. But if I stabbed a

burglar, I would feel terrible. I do not have that much that is worth

stealing anyway and most people are insured. But does this take that

into account? That you can talk about if you should be able to stab

someone, but actually the consequences of that for the

individual responsible would be devastating. I think in the cold

light of day you would feel terrible about having killed

somebody. And you should be wary of guns and knives. What I do think is

that most people in my street who have been burgled many times are

well aware that the police do not stand a chance of finding the

criminal. And knowing that and being burgled more than it once, it

has developed ahead of steam. You know that there is no other redress.

And you would have a go at them. I cannot see what is wrong with that.

But I know that if a burglar was in my house, he would not be coming

for my children. How do you know that? You could be unlucky enough

to have a dangerous psychopath. When you have a teenage daughter,

do you want to wait and see? Help when you live with the fact that

you have killed somebody? In 1961 armed robbers used to run about

with pick axe handles. There was a significant robbery in east London

when the bank clerks opened fire on the robbers and from then on they

started to carry weapons. So the burglars themselves if they know

that people can come at them, we will have this massive walk on our

hands which is not necessary. put some of those questions to some

of the guests we have this morning. Jay Patel, you're beaten up as part

of an armed robbery at a post office. You fought back and chased

them off. You felt under attack, but if they had simply entered the

Post Office, would you have used violence against them? Good morning.

It is a difficult question to answer. The adrenalin does kick in

as you mentioned. And in love asked how you could live with having

killed someone. But we are not there to kill or attacks someone,

we are trying to protect our own property and family. If someone

enters your property, it is your personal space. They are not

required to be there so you're going to attacked to protect your

selves and he will use any means available and you will attack.

You're not going to ask if they want a cup of tea. But you will get

more and more examples of Tony Martin who shot a burglar. He had

an illegal Far arm with him, he shot a 16 year-old. The 16 year-old

late in his driveway calling for his mother. He went round with a

loaded gun looking for the other broker. I defend anyone's right to

defend their property but it is about going over the top.

understand what you're saying. You're talking about individual

cases with Tony Martin. We do not know how many times he was attacked.

I will tell you, he had an out house broken into three times. He

actually fired upon people who were stealing apples from his orchard.

So Lee Wilkie that element, and then it will be carnage. Just tell

us, what did you feel in that moment when those brokers came into

the Post Office? Went the robbers came in originally it was a shock

to my system. You do not know what is happening. What the effects

would be. It is just when they started pushing people around, they

had guns and pointed it at you. It is a life and death situation. They

have the fear that their as well and the adrenalin. I want to go to

Sarah Newton who was a police officer but works now with young

people to prevent crime. Can't you talk to us about this concern that

if people feel that they can't use whatever force is necessary, not

just to defend themselves but their property, what effect could that

have on the burglar? Whether it that would create an escalating

sense of violence? I think it absolutely wood. The system is

clear at the moment. It says we can do whatever is reasonable. It is

for a jury to decide. I think Ken Clarke should focus on a system

that delivers proper justice, not revenge or vengeance. Nick Freeman

is a criminal defence lawyer. You must have defended burglars in your

time. What do you think about that, that we blur the line between self-

defence, defence of property, and vengeance and punishment, meting

out the punishment on the site? do not think we should ever have a

licence for lynch-mob justice. The law is not in a state of confusion.

And I think what Ken Clarke said will give the wrong message to

people. People think that they can stab a burglar but you cannot. At

the moment you can use reasonable force, as long as you have an

honest and genuine belief that the force that she knows is

proportionate, you can do what you want. So the example that Ken

Clarke has given about the old lady stabbing an 18 year-old. If she

believes that that amount of force is necessary to protect our

property then she's entitled to use it under the current laws. Other

problem is most burglaries are committed by repeat offenders. And

they are being put back on the Barbara from the West Midlands says

if someone comes into your home you have a very right to attack. Steve

says there is no right or wrong answer. To protect his wife and

children, and man would be prepared to give his life. But he might

think differently confronted with an unarmed child committing the

same crime. That is right. I think you taking instinctive view based

on who is on your house. The guy who brought into my house, he was

clearly drugged up and he had both hands in his pockets. He could have

had something in his pockets. He was well over 20 but I would have

taken a very different view with a guy who looked to be about 15.

if there was a situation, you could get it wrong? That is the risk of

the burglar. If he is going to break into your house and I make a

genuine mistake about the violence level, that is his problem. I think

what Ken Clarke said was borderline stupidity. The example he gave of

the granny and the 18-year-old, I tell you what, if this Government

keeps attacking pensions the way they are, the grannies will be

doing the burglaries. At Government does not tell me what to do if

someone comes into my house. language was like Cluedo. Pick up a

poker. The candlestick in the drawing room. What hes Ken Clarke

doing, he made a complete hash of the rape issue? Then he was

defeated on his have time for sentences. They have got to get the

old chestnut about. We can kill a few burglars, that will bring us

back. Let's try and keep this away from the politics because for

people... THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE It may not be about politics.

You say that it is. Completely. the law is to be changed, that is a

political matter. This woman works with young offenders. The argument

is that it is all about politics but to take it back to those young

people who might be at risk of offending, what do you think of the

idea that they leave their rides at the door, once you have committed a

crime and broken into someone's house, anything goes? I just cannot

believe that we want to live in a society where that is OK. Each

young person has their own story and their own reasons, and I am not

saying that burglary is not a crime that effects are victims, but every

young person is a victim of their circumstances. If I drive my car at

100 mph and I am involved in an incident, I do not know what is

going to happen at 100 miles an hour, so why do not know what will

happen if I going to someone's house. I was one of the young

people you used to work with. But they need to understand when the

going there. But the household also needs to understand there is a

degree of where you draw the line. But the Government is now promoting

violence. Young people, very often, especially those from chaotic

backgrounds, they do not have lines drawn. This will make it much

clearer although Ken Clarke put did very badly. This makes it clear

that the line is trying on the doorstep. There is one more guest...

THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE David Cameron said we have to send a clear

message to those that carry knives, it is completely unacceptable in a

civilised society. He said that two weeks ago and you

have Ken Clarke's standing up and saying... That is inside the house.

The reality is that before Thatcher came men hardly anyone had any

burglar alarms. There was a massive crime wave that coincided with the

high levels of unemployment in the 1980s. By 1985, nearly everyone had

a burglar alarm. It's this man is also reformed burglar who works

with young offenders. We have had this issue about how political this

is. I wonder what do you think about the idea that there is a

sense that burglars do not get dealt with by the police,

householders feel they do not get dealt with by the prison system,

that people want more power to deal with it? This is the problem, the

law as it stands says you can use reasonable force to protect your

home and your family. There are two issues, if you are protecting your

family, you should protect whatever force is necessary to protect human

life which is far more valuable than your goods. Thought I would

say to Ken Clarke to has come out with this statement about taking

the law into your own hands, in the mind of the burglar he does not

want to attack the family. 90 % of burglars want cash, jewellery,

credit cards, most of them are on some kind of substances...

I live next door to a man who -- I live next door to a girl who was

raped by the Notting Hill rapist. How could I possibly tell that the

person who had broken into my house was not the Notting Hill rapist?

That might have been in the 80s... Just let him speak. You should

never ever corner a burglar. You're asking for trouble. I am speaking

from experience, from being a burglar, and from my experience,

they carry screwdrivers, hammers, all kinds of weapons, not to attack,

but to get into the property. My advice would be never ever confront

a burglar, but let him get out if your property because goods can be

replaced. If I was taught, I would be making my way out of the door

because I am a coward. We must leave the discussion there. You can

vote in our text opinion poll. Should the law let us attack

burglars to defend our property. You have around 20 minutes before

the opinion poll closes this morning. It is time for our Sunday

Stand where we hear from someone who thinks that they are right

about something the rest of us have not woken up to yet. Sharia lot to

many conjures up images of barbaric justice, Estonians, beheadings, but

happily Sharia courts in our country do not going to that thing

but are commonly used for property disputes are disputes about

marriage. But a bill before the House of Lords says that we still

need to protect women from the effect of Sharia.

Sharia chords are unacceptable in this country and should be banned.

In Sharia courts women's evidence is less valuable than men's, they

cannot be judges, and they have fewer rights over divorce, property,

inheritance and even over the custody of their own children. In

some countries, Sharia Law Handy's -- hands about cruel and unusual

punishments. We do not have legalise stoning Sir amputations in

this country but we do have Sharia courts trying to impose a system of

lot that is institutionally sexist and unequal. This is unacceptable,

or it should be. Our law is the expression of all that is best

about our country and it is what makes this country are tolerant and

civilised place to live. That is why there is no other place for any

kind of other lie in this country, whether it is Islamic, Jewish or

any other law. That is why it is important to make a stand against

people who are trying to make Sharia courts more and more

acceptable here. If you have a webcam, you can make your point on

Skype, or you can use Twitter or e- mail us. We have said goodbye to

Bob for just a moment. Aina Khan joins me now, a family lawyer who

specialises in Sharia lot. Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. -- Sharia

law. You heard the arguments of Minette Marrin, do you support what

she says? I am a solicitor specialising in English family law.

It is only by women clients asking me for an alternative solution to

the huge expense of English justice, which is very delayed in the family

courts, very expensive and acrimonious. They want an

alternative. Do you charge less money for Sharia? Lawyers charge

money for everything I am afraid. It is the same hourly rate. But I

can help those people who really need me. You're suggesting that it

is a more co-operative, consensual form of justice? That is the aim of

it, but when emotions are height and nothing ever works out like

that, it can be highly acrimonious. The Government is pushing mediation

because we have a family system which is at breaking point. We

cannot deal with any more cases the way they are just now. Minette

Marrin, the justice system is clogged up, this is an alternative

form of the Big Society, it is a more consensual form of justice?

The courts are indeed club up and very expensive but we already have

mediation under English and Scottish law. You can go to that.

You do not need specialist Islamic, or a Jewish, or other arbitration

bodies. Insofar as they are caught with British, English law, they are

redundant. I think this is the thin end of the wedge. What is the point

of a Sharia court. People living this country. There is nothing to

stop Muslims advising Muslims, but I am tired of hearing about it.

I explain...? Can I tell you first. I think Sharia law is being brought

to certain communities to stop the spot light being shone on those

communities on the fact they oppress their women. I will explain

the reality. The media loves black and white headlines. The reality is

that the majority of my clients are women. 90 % of them asking for

these solutions. Men are often against Sharia solutions. It is not

in their interest. Minette Marrin is right, there is mediation. And

the Muslim community does have trained mediators, but it is not

for that. Primarily it is for women seeking divorces. Muslim women go

to the Sharia council. They are self-appointed, they are not courts.

Their marriages are not recognised under Sharia law, so why would you

go and get divorced under Sharia? I grew up in any area with children

who were Pakistani, and I can tell you about this, none of them wanted

arranged marriages, they did not want have thought the stuff that

was forced on them. Shari Allah is great, if you are that religious,

you want to do that. -- Sharia law is great. If you want to do that,

you can abide by it. But I do not want any of mac tax money going to

a law which is outdated. How is tax money paying for it? It is our

alternative system. Who's going to be paying for the masks? Leaving

aside the question of taxpayers' money which I think is a red

herring, we should resist at every level, and parallel system of law

which is not equivalent to English law, creeping in by the backdoor.

In a recent opinion poll, something like 65 % of British Muslims would

like to see Sharia last year for We need to resist the introduction

of any other system of law all into this country. I think the majority

of Muslims want English law but we want absolution which work for us

under both. It is the pin end of the wedge. Not true at all.

Sensationalist. That is how a lot of people feel. According to one

opinion poll 40% of Muslims want Sharia law all in this country.

Cappagh and Heseltine joins us. You got a divorce in this country. What

was the benefit of getting a divorce in this country in that

Sharia law council? It was actually a lot more straight forward, less

stressful, less expensive, and process of getting a divorce

through British law, at which I also did. The important thing is

that it is about choice. As a Muslim woman, I appreciate people's

concerns but I do not need anyone else to decide what is best for me.

If it is my choice to go to a council, which is simply a way of

being able to go through that process of getting the divorce that

I wanted... Can I just interrupt to ask you a question. In the divorce

that you had, where both parties agree a port at the time? It was

myself who wanted it but my husband did agree to it and then it was a

straightforward process. Most Muslims in this country would

married a cousin. So it is a different thing, there is a lot of

emotional blackmail. Let's keep this within the family group and

use a Sharia law player ought to stop it getting out. So that case

is not really typical. I would say that just because I'm quite does

not mean... Those women are also capable of making their own choices.

But they would be forced to go to Sharia law le all instead of

English law. The principle of Islamic law is that you have to

consent. There cannot be forced. is the same with our law, anyone

can arbitrate. The reason that the Bill has been brought to the House

of Lords is that they have been many cases, a significant number of

women who have been adduced in one way or another at have not

consented. And worse still, they are not well informed about their

rights and are quite often bamboozled. Claims are made by

those around them that the Sheniah court has more powers than it does.

I totally agree with that and as a lowlier I do not pull them to court.

They have no power of enforcement. There councils set up because of

public demand by women who wanted at divorce. It is as simple as that.

What about those women who have changed in marriages? Do you not

feel sorry for them? I just think that what has been happening, keep

Sharia law took yourself. But there is British low wall. It does not

deserve a Muslim marriage. You can get divorced in Islam, legally. So

you can get divorced in Britain, legally. If you have an Islamic

marriage, you may never be validly recognised under English law, so

you have to have an Islamic divorce in order to marry again. I want to

bring in a judge in in the Sharia courts. One criticism is that women

are discriminated against under this system of law. Is the evidence

from women in a Sharia court equal to that of a man? In family matters

that is a misunderstanding, in family and pastoral matters their

evidence is equal. And 90% of the users are women. It is not forced

on anyone. What is Europe response to the claim by some that Cherie at

low walk is in some ways discriminatory? For instance what

does it say about homosexuality? This type of case is beyond the

jurisdiction. So to bring criminality into it it is confusing

the argument. Where does appear that simple comic interpersonal

relationships. But what about cases of domestic violence? Is it not

also about custody of children? Most of the Sharia councils do not

decide about children and property. We do not hear any case unless they

have also applied to a civic court. And what about cases of domestic

violence? Women are not encouraged to go to the police in the Islamic

community. What is happening, if there is any domestic violence,

their case in the Sharia Council becomes very easy. If there is

evidence we take it seriously into account. That is my experience,

that going to the police actually helps your case. And why not use

every year all that can protect you as a woman? You have to make sure

it is stand up for a new it rights and I'm saying use whatever

jurisdiction you can. The problem is that the councils as you call

them, are up over riding their proper limits. And secondly there

are a great deal of women who are at risk and who are not well

informed. There easily misled. They may not speak much English. You can

carry on with that debate online. Still to come this morning, at some

faith healers claim that they can cure cancer and HIV. Are they just

exploiting the sick and the desperate? Contact us with your

opinion so. And keep voting in our text poll this morning. Should

there will allow us to defend our property from burglars? You have

around five minutes before that closes.

Now it is time for what our guests but whether Big Mole moments of

that week. And the sexual assault case against the former chief of

the IMF? You wonder about the reasons why a, the timing is very

convenient and won the IMF chief is not helpful to the American No

authorities because of his stance on the economy. The district

attorney who brings the case against him manages to get in the

media and the anonymity of the alleged perpetrator is completely

gone for ever. It does not matter whether he is charged, whether it

turns up that the victim has no credibility, he is destroyed for

ever. Do think that should happen in oral cases of alleged assault,

but there should be anonymity for all of used? Absolutely. In this

case the press is the judge. That is wrong. The reaction of the

Labour leader to the strikes which took place? There was a photograph

of David Cameron and Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg altogether on the

day of the strikes. They were all the same. Like George Orwell book,

the animals looked to the humans, they could not tell which was which.

What would you have liked to see? would like to have heard Ed

Miliband standing up to support the strikes. And asking the question of

if there is this massive deficit, then you get rid of public sector

workers, they are not paying wages, then private sector workers lose

their jobs in turn, is this ideological or is it really helping

Britain's budget deficit? Meanwhile, Mehmet, an e-mail from a mother-in-

law quote you are. Yes, the mother- in-law all from hell. She is

Caroline borne who wrote this extraordinary e-mail to her future

daughter-in-law, Heidi Withers, and said that she was bolder and common,

she needed to go to finishing school if she wanted to giant the

family. This was following an overnight trip to their house.

Completely delicious. Clearly a very stupid to slag off your

daughter-in-law to her face and on e-mail. And I began to think,

because I had a mother-in-law from hell, she was famously a holy

terror and there was nothing much that you could do. But in this case

these women has been named and shamed across the internet. Was her

mistake to criticise the future daughter in law or to do it by e-

mail? E-mail is very dangerous because you're accountable for

everything you say. And it is not exactly going to get your message

across very constructively. The doctor in the war goes on the

defensive, everyone takes an entrenched position and nobody wins.

It is a notoriously tricky relationship. If it all goes pear-

shaped, the step mother could say, I told you so. Some people are so

determined to do what they want that only extreme measures like

public exposure could stop them. I wish we had this route open to us

when I was first accepted reluctantly into my mother-in-law's

family. It on had a son in law or daughter in law and think my family

are so used to mother in-laws from hell that they would hardly notice.

She is a witch. It is true. I think with three sons I am sensitive

about that, I am aware that I could be a mother-in-law in the future to

possibly three different women. daughter has actually written in a

play about her mother-in-law flowers so comically ghastly. --

who was so comically ghastly. we asked you at the beginning of

the programme if there ought should allow us to defend our property

against a burglar. We will bring you the results at the end of the

programme. That has now closed. Faith-healing has never been short

of believers and detractors who think it is best unprovable and at

worst Pebsham. So the advertising standards authority has warned

about a leaflet claiming that guard can heal everything from back pain

to cancer. Religions across the world have faith in its faith

healing. Is there any truth to their claims or do they just pray

on our week Ms? -- our week Ms? They are an estimated 20,000 faith

healers in the UK. To believers there are just more than an

alternative to their local doctor. He is an amazing guy. You just look

into his eyes and you see the universe was a up for Sam Thaiday

killing is a last resort when Western medicine has run out of

answers. But to many in the modern world a few years are the

unacceptable face of religion. And there is concern that believers may

actively avoid seeking proper medical care. Last week a couple in

America were sentenced to jail for failing to seek medical care for

the infant daughter who needed an operation on her eye. There's no

clear scientific evidence for faith actually healing disease. Even so,

the belief that faith can bring miracle cures motivates many to

make the pilgrimage to places like Lloyds. Since records began over

7000 people have claimed to be Curate there. But even the Catholic

Church believes the real number is Should we leave it to those of

faith to decide if it makes them feel better? It may be arrogant to

think that only western medicine has all the answers, but without

evidence our faith healing claims of curing cancer a dangerous? Our

faith healers exploiting the vulnerable, and for the dying are

told that they only need faith and continue to worsen, does this add

to their misery? Our faith healer charlatans, you can join in by a

webcam? We welcome to the studio Pastor Brian Madden. How many

people do you think your prayers have helped? A significant number

of people, according to reports received back. I would like to say

that I am not a faith healer, I am a born-again Christian who believes

in Jesus Christ. We pray for the sake. I do not get any gain out of

it other than the satisfaction of seeing people's lives transformed.

I have seen people healed of cancer, deafness, blindness, this is

something that is normal or to any evangelical pastor. With regards to

the leaflet, I think it is just another attack on evangelical

Christians. You mentioned at the start of the programme that we had

a young man a few years ago that was badly injured in a car crash.

His father came to our church and at that time we were having a

series of healing meetings were we were seeing tremendous medicals

which was in a lot of the newspapers. He phoned us to pray

for him because he had heard that he had died on the operating table.

We had thousands of people praying, and we prayed, and a few months

later we got a phone call back to tell us that he had been dead for

13 minutes but that he came back to life and made a full recovery.

Minette Marrin, Heidi you explain to a family who believe that the

prayers of thousands have brought back their son from the dead, how

do you explain that? I would never try personally to offend people by

saying that I did not believe in their claims are personally

disrespect in their religious views. I would not say to them what they

actually believe, that prey is completely useless. But I have did

a lot of research and thus, when I used to work for BBC religious

television programmes, I did research for several years and I do

believe that things changing people, the relationship between mind and

body which is one, in fact. It is a mysterious thing, and I was dying

to put some really good cases on the screen, but I had to drop the

programme because I could not find a single one that was well

documented. Do you mean you could not find the case that was clearly

explained through prayer as opposed to medical science? They did not

have an equally good if not better medical explanation, but leaving

aside prayer and hands-on healing, and the different ways that people

try to heal other people, what struck me including going to lot of

Christian meetings, is that you have a tremendous UPS well of

religious enthusiasm and excitement and there are various rituals in

which people get themselves into an altered religious state. We did

some experiments with people interested in shamanism, and you

get a release of endorphins, the body's natural opiates. At these

meetings, people say, stand up if you have cancer, and they come

forward and they feel blast. They may feel better there and then but

it is an endorphin rush. Terry, they feeling better? Every kind of

psychological survey says that the more faith you have, the better it

is for you. It is a great thing, faith in anything. I grew up

Catholic and my only question is, because I can remember people are

going on pilgrimages to be healed, I can remember coming in after a

night out, and there was a bottled holy water in a lemonade bottle. I

felt really thirsty, I thought that we had lemonade in the house. I

took a big swig a fake, and I spend a lot of time on the tile at the

next day so it had the opposite effect on me. My big question about

miracle cures, why can it not cure an amputee? Let's say you had an

arm missing, is that not going to be easier to cure than a cancer?

Could you? It is an old chestnut, it has been asked on many occasions,

and if I were God, I could answer that. My wife is an amputee so I

know exactly what Teddy is speaking about. I did not mean to offend you.

I also have a severely handicapped daughter. Why does God kill some

and not others, I do not know. One woman sick could not be here had

the most aggressive cancer that anyone could have. Stomach cancer.

No one has revived it, but she went to pray and she was sealed. There

is no explanation. -- no one has survived it. The problem with

hospitals is that because of the medical profession they will never

say that God has done the ceiling. The doctors will say that we have

no explanation. They say, maybe someone -- maybe some day science

will give us an explanation. have an enormous amount of guests

but not an enormous amount of time. 50 clinical trials into faith-

healing do not prove that it works, does it? I was speaking to a doctor

who has just published a book about it, I GP in Sheffield, and he has a

wealth of evidence from all over the world that belief in Jesus

Christ as benefit your health. it cure your cancer? There are well

documented cases of cures for cancer. Medics are understandably

sceptical because we want the truth, we want to be able to say, was it

the prayer, or was it a spontaneous cure? But particularly in other

parts of the world when the look at the documenting of these things,

such as in Africa, and I was speaking to another GP who has been

out to Nigeria, and there they demand that HIV/AIDS patients

always have documents from the laboratory that they have HIV. They

have to show documented laboratory evidence that they have been cured.

Doctor, HIV can only be treated with anti-retroviral drugs, that is

the medical fact of the matter? fact is that they can be well

treated with anti-retroviral drugs, but the fact days that prayer in

the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will, on occasions, at his

discretion, it will seal HIV/AIDS. For Professor, you're a

psychologist at Goldsmiths University of London. What do you

make of claims like that? I think that is absolutely outrageous, the

claim we have heard. Are we meant to believe that those people who

were being treated for HIV were not receiving conventional treatment at

the same time. If that is what is being said, that is outrageous. If

they were receiving conventional treatment, that was probably what

cured them and not the prayer. I think it is dangerous. Can I just

say, when I was 17, I was a crazy young man, my mother sent me to a

psychiatrist. I am not a psychiatrist... At 19 years of age

I find Jesus Christ and he transformed my life. He transformed

my crazy mental state. Professor, is there a benefit when it comes to

mental states, not physical ones? The important things here is that

we're dealing with psychological problems which can be cured by

psychological means and belief is a hugely important factor. We have

heard that when people try to track down these claims, we have an

absence of evidence. Yes, psychologically you might be helped

by the power if you believe, no one could deny that, the placebo effect,

but to actually imply that you can be cured of a serious disorder like

cancer through the power of prayer is dangerous, immoral and

outrageous. You're a former sergeant in the army, medically

discharged, what happened to you? was in the Army for 15 years and I

was meant to be discharged in 2003. I was discharged with chronic back

pain. Do you feel that faith- healing help? I did not know much

about healing but a friend of mine in the Church asked me if anyone

had prayed for my injuries, and I said, no. He laid hands on me with

a number of fathers, and I watched my right leg growth. From then on,

I have been physically Flett. -- physically fit. They are great

stories, and maybe something did happen, but to me they are a

collection of chip shop anecdotes. I cannot understand if Darren is

saying that his leg grew, how much did it go?

It was a number of inches. Because my pelvis was so badly twisted, I

walked like someone who was 6 ft 5, I walked leaning over to one side.

When they laid hands on me, I was sitting on the seat with my feet

straight out, and you could see the difference in the length of my legs.

If you have good documentation of this, it would be extremely

interesting. But I question whether the facts are never there. We must

bring that discussion to an end. The result of our text opinion poll

is in. We asked if the law should letters attack burglars to defend

our property, and this is what you Pastor Brian Madden, the audience

may be surprised to learn that you used to be a burglar? What do you

make of that overwhelming public vote? I have to say that I never

burgled homes, it was mostly wine stores, but I am surprised at that.

To protect oneself is Blakeley, you can defend yourself. -- to protect

yourself, you can defend yourself. Batam surprised about that. In

Romans 13, Paul the apostle, it is very clear at that if the sort of

justice falls on you for evil doing, it is on your own head. -- the sort

of justice. Do you think that would make you more in securing your home,

Minette Marrin? I might in a rational discussion like this, but

on the day, fired-up and frightened, know. -- no. You can continue the

debate some line. Thank you to all our guests. Please do not taxed or