Episode 12 Sunday Morning Live

In the week, two unarmed woman police officers were gunned down in

Manchester. We ask, is it time to arm all police officers or would it

moved to an escalation in gun Good morning. Welcome to Sunday

Morning Live. Following the killing of two unarmed WPCs in Manchester,

shot Balfe -- shot while following up a routine enquiry, there are

calls for all police to be armed. Would it help protect the public or

would it encourage criminals to carry guns and lead to increase in

gun crime? The violent reaction worldwide to the anti- Islam film

Innocence of Muslims shows no signs of abating, igniting the debate.

Should Ms Lin's learn to ignore inflammatory attacks or should they

have the right to protest? Ajmal Masroor thinks they should rise

above it. Muslims should lighten up and laugh at the stupidity of those

who mop -- those who criticised the profit Muhammad. Love and marriage

used to go together, but have the wheels fall off? Is the institution

of marriage no longer relevant or is it more important than ever? A

warm welcome to my guests this week, Mohammed Ansar is a visiting

lecturer at Winchester University, and was the south-east England yo-

yo champion at the age of 11. Jon Gaunt is a broadcaster and

columnist. He describes himself as a working class educated person

with a right-wing agenda. Douglas Murray is the author of Neo-

Conservatism: Why We Need It, and has written for the Telegraph, the

Spectator, the Wall Street Journal and the Sunday Times. We want to

know what you think so call in to challenge the guests. Phone calls

challenge the guests. Phone calls The killing of two women police

officers in Manchester during the week has reopened the debate about

whether she we should arm all members of the force. A significant

number of the public backed the move, according to surveys, but is

it wise to copy the American model with its high level of gun crime?

For the first time in British history, two British police

officers lost their lives in the field of duty whilst unarmed.

a despicable act, one of pure evil. The cold-blooded murder of two

female police officers doing their job. Another reminder of the

incredible risks and great work the police are the stars. With the

exception of Northern Ireland, the vast majority of police officers in

vast majority of police officers in vast majority of police officers in

the UK do not carry firearms. But do the police officers want to be

armed? According to the most recent survey carried out in 2006, 80% say

no. But the survey preceded a spate of gun crime. In 20th June 10,

Derrick Bird went on a shooting spree, killing 12 people. The

following month, Raoul Moat shot and blinded David Rathband as he

sat unarmed in his patrol car. Would the public feel safer with an

armed police force? According to a poll, yes. It could serve as a

deterrent against criminal behaviour, but critics including

the current president of the Association of Police officers say

that carrying guns could put officers in more danger,

encouraging hardened criminals do routinely carry firearms and

breaking the covenant of policing by consent. Critics also claim it

could leave to -- could lead to fatal mistakes. In the United

States, many innocent people have been killed with police weapons.

Could it exacerbate an already volatile situation or do we have

the duty to call for the protection of our protectors? Do we have a

duty to routinely armed police officers? I think it is right that

we are on the police officers. We need to stop comparing it to

America. We are in Belfast today, the police here all carry guns. Why

don't we have it on the mainland as well? That is the question for

today's vote. If you agree, text yes. You can also vote online or on

the website. For full terms and conditions go to the website.

Douglas Murray, Jon Gaunt says we should not look to America, is

there a case for going down that line? It is always tempting to call

for that option, everyone is still horrified by the tragedy earlier

this week and people want an answer. You can never stand powered human

wickedness entirely, in the same way you cannot stamp out violence.

As much as we wish nobody ever carried a gun, there still will be

people who do. What do you do about that? My own experience is that it

is a highly specific skill having the skill to fire in crowded areas,

the places where gun crime happens most often. Just to fall for the

cliche of the American comparison, in the summer there was a shooting

on Fifth Avenue in New York where a man shot his colleague outside the

Empire State Building. Two police who were armed like most New York

police pursued demand, he to get the gun again, there was a fire

fight. Nine members of the public were winded, a number of them

severely. None of them were winded by the gunman, they were winded by

the two policeman, who started firing off the bullets. I do not

think that is a happy situation, and it shows there is a level of

amateurism that enters this if it is not specific. We need specific

units trained in the use of firearms. We cannot discuss the

Manchester case in any detail because of legal proceedings.

Mohammed, what do you make of it? You can train the police but the

morning you bring guns into officers lives, it becomes

difficult. We need to shine a light on it. There is a strong case for

arming the police, the estimates are there are 2 million licensed

guns on the streets, and unlicensed guns, anywhere between 200,005

million. We know that there could be quite a lot of guns. -- between

200,000 and between 5 million. There is clearly a strong case for

arming the police, but one thing I would say is we need to look at the

track record. I'm a big fan of the police, they do great work, they

have looked after my family on regular occasions, but when we look

at various cases where people have been shot mistakenly, Hillsborough,

is the police force ready and able to hold firearms? This is why it

should not be a knee-jerk, it should not happen when there has

been a terrible incident. There is need for a reasoned debate and it

should have happened years ago. We need to look at what happens here

in Northern Ireland. Nobody cares about it here and it works. At the

same time, there is a need for police reform. The people we never

ask this at to it is the police. There was a survey where 70% of

police officers said they did not want to get armed. We also need to

look at the criminal justice system. The reason there is 5 million guns

on the streets is there is not enough punishment and severe

punishment for people who carry firearms. The structure needs

looking at and the police need to be given the necessary resources.

If they do not want to be armed, that is fine. My personal belief is

they should be, but we need debate. We need to stop the revolving door

when people are out of prison too quickly. The criminals have already

tooled up. You do not think it will encourage them to carry it more

routinely? It is already happening. You can hire a gun in Manchester

like that as if you were buying fast food. It has moved on, we have

not moved the debate on. I want to get some police perspective. Darren

Rathband is a serving police officer in Australia. He joins us.

It was too late brother, PC David Rathband who lost his sight after

being shot by Raoul Moat. I understand Australian police

officers carry guns, what is your view on that? I have not

experienced a barrier between the public. The communities are blind

to the fact that police officers are routinely endured. The old

approach is outdated, it is ill- informed and Iraq fatal

consequences, not only for the police but the public, who know the

police are there to protect. -- there could be fatal consequences.

There is no reticence to approach police officers even though we have

side arms. The public expect protection. If an officer is armed

he can respond effectively. They would certainly think twice about

confrontation, although the use of firearms here is extremely rare.

have so much sympathy for what happened to your family, but one

cannot help wondering, some of these cases which promote the

discussion, whether it would have made any difference if your brother

had been carrying a weapon? Would it have made a difference? When my

brother was shot he was undertaking a normal incident. Would a firearm

have saved him? Maybe not. It would have certainly given that deterrent

to the person who crept up on him and shot him and gave him the

catastrophic injuries that he got from being shot with an unlicensed

illegal firearm. More officers are killed by the use of screwdrivers

and nights. They need to be given the opportunity to protect

themselves. Thank you for joining us. I want to bring in Andy Redhead,

former firearms officer for the police here. Darren Rathband feels

it is important police officers are given access to firearms. Is it

correct? I can understand exactly where family members come from on

every occasion that an officer loses their life in a situation

where a firearm is used against them. There are several things here

and debate is good and timely, however, we need to respect the

fact that the latest poll shows that 80% of police officers do not

want to be armed in the UK. That needs to be respected. That was

some years ago. Absolutely, and a new port should be conducted.

However I suspect it would not be massively different. We need to

think about various things. Firstly, how many experienced police off as

as would leave the service if they were forced to carry a firearm and

how long would it take to recover that expertise? -- police officers.

Secondly, like anything else in the police service, they have needed to

learn new skills. If we want to routinely arm the officers, not

everybody would be competent and proficient to be signed off as

qualified. One weapon is one set of training, so firearms officers

carried different sets of firearms. The ability to put 100,000 police

officers into firearms training would take years. Yes, there is a

debate but it is not something that would happen overnight. Yes, that

is the practicality. There is the argument about whether officers

would want to do it. Do you accept that? Yes, and the police need to

be consulted. There is a massive reform going through, thousands are

going to get rid of. What kind of police force do we want? We're

going to get crime commissioners. Will that bring more

accountability? The police need to be involved in these. We need to

recognise the realities. I'm not sure it is accurate to compare

Britain to the United States, but we should compare to other European

countries. In 2003, there was a study done between Norway and

Sweden, which have similar circumstances. In Norway they do

not arm the police and in Sweden they do. There were significantly

more shootings in Sweden. When you routinely arm the police, you see a

massive up Spike in use of the firearms. -- a massive up turn.

Norway has had one of the worst mass shootings in history, and

there is no direct connection between officers carrying guns and

obscene crimes like this. cannot stop human evil. Everything

in this discussion needs to be how you limit crime. There is a

terrible tendency in this country, when something terrible happens,

you have an immediate reaction of how it is sorted out. In this

situation, it is about things at every step of the way, about the

criminal justice system, building prisons to imprison people. We

cannot put people in prison more often because there is not enough

I want to bring in Jenny Jones who stood for London Mayor for the

Green Party and is well known as deputy chair of the London

Assembly's police and crime committee. I wonder what your view

is in this debate, particularly in the light of the terrible public

order issues where the police have committed errors, whether it's in

the riots or other situations. What do you think of the idea of adding

guns into the mix?: I think it would be an absolutely disastrous

idea, although we can't compare exactly the same to the States. In

a ten-year period, 500 police officers were killed on duty, 10%

had their own guns turned against them. So if you think, 120-1250,000

guns added to the street, you are going to have less safety that.'s

less safety for everybody, police officers included. John, you

disagree, why? You can take that around the other way. When they

flooded the streets of New York and had a zero tolerance policy, crime

went down, didn't it? So, you know, this is nonsense. But that wasn't

all about carrying guns, it was about graffiti as well? No, but it

was about a more visible police presence which goes back to what

Douglas said. We need a holistic debate about this. You are

highlighting in typical BBC fashion, if you don't mind me saying, that

somehow the police are gun Toteing gangsters. Not saying that at all.

What about the riots? There were issues where the policing tactics

are sometimes criticised. There will be dreadful mistakes. That

isn't a reason for not having the grown-up debate and we shouldn't be

having a debate now about the tragic killings. We should have had

it ages ago, we need to involve the police and the general public in

this. I certainly think at this moment in time when we have gon

Toteing gangsters on our streets and over five million weapons, one

thing we shouldn't do is cut the police force by 16,000 people

that.'s the real debate. You don't think it would add to the stpres of

the police officers to rearm them when you could bring in specialist

police officers? The issue isn't whether you add to the stress of

the police officers, it's about whether they are able to police

effectively. We are very reactive about this. There is seen to be a

police overreaction and suddenly everybody says the police need to

be pulled off, then they are pulled off and then, as we saw a couple of

years ago with the student protests, they go in and smash up a building

and people say, where are the police, it can't go on like this.

The Hillsborough allegations, the police should be put before the

courts, just like senior politicians should be as well. The

result of this is not that the police are baddies. No, that's not

suggestion. Last word to you, Mohammad? There is very little

evidence to show that permanently arming the police would cut crime.

There is evidence that targeted use can reduce tensions and hate crime.

Thank you. I want to get in a couple of comments. A serving

police officer says punishments need to be harder and tougher in

the first place to deter criminals. You said that, Jon. Protection by

the courts is what we need. Another police officer says, I think a

firearm would create a barrier between police and the public in

this country. That's pour poll question today. Should all police

officers carry guns. If you think You have 20 minutes before the poll

closes. The violent reaction worldwide to the anti-Islam film

Innocence of Muslims shows no sign of cooling down. Since the

appearance of the low-budget film on the Internet and the publication

since of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in the French satirical

weekly, scores of people have been killed in violence linked to the

film which has renewed debate over freedom of expression. Should we

tolerate the publication of such provocktichtive views however

distasteful and simply choose to ignore them, or should we try to

understand why so many people have taken to the streets to protest?Age

mam Masroor thinks Muslims are overreacting and should rise above

the insults. This is his stand. Muslims should lighten up and laugh

at the stupidity of those who mock the Prophet Mohammed.

I've been disgusted by the violent response from Muslims across the

globe to a ridiculous trailer made about the blessed prophet. The film

is pathetic and amateurish, but the Neanderthal and irrational response

from the Muslim masses have left me feeling extremely embarrassed.

When the prophet walked the earth, he was constantly mocked, insulted

and called all sorts of terrible names. He never responded to any of

those taunts or insults. He did not ask his companions to

take action to protect his honour. He simply won their hearts and

minds through his gentle character. Killing innocent people, burning

properties and rioting is not acceptable to being. This is the

hallmark of ignorance and backwardness. But I must also

emphasise that our Muslim societies failure to understand in respect

the value -- and respect the values that Muslims have.

Non-Muslim societies have every right to criticise the prophet, God,

Islam and Muslims. No-one should ever take that right away. But you

could be critical without the need to ridicule. Respect is a two-way

street. I believe that the legacy of the Prophet Mohammed will far

outlive all forms of mockery. If you have a webcam, you can make

your point on Skype or join the conversation on Twitter, text or

email. The details are on screen. Ajmal Masroor who made the film

joins us now. He's an Imam and a member of the Muslim Council of

Britain and he stood for the Liberal Democrats in 2010 in the

London constituency of Bethnal green and Bow. Welcome.

I want to start with you, Mohammad, Muslims have chosen to make a very

big deal out of a prototy rubbish film and it has been an

overreaction, hasen it? There's no doubt it's a rubbish film but this

isn't film 2012, we are not here Tori teeck the artistic value of

the film. Most people I speak to, one of the things they are clear

about is that they don't understand the context of the hate of the pain,

of the suffering that Muslims feel in response. Now, Muslims should

never go beyond the limits and the boundaries of Islam in terms of

peaceful protest and... They've done it, haven't they? Some have

and the question we should be asking is, some, not all. Yes.

seen the film. It was not very funny, it was pretty disgusting, it

was awful in some places. We do have a right to freedom of

expression in this country. However, even the European convention on

human rights in article 10-2 sets limits on that. It needs to be used

responsibly and in a measured seasons. What is interesting is

that in the sense in the West we have lost the understanding of the

depth of offence that things luke this cause to Muslims. Is that a

problem of our own make something That's true in a way. The thing

with Muslims is that in most countries, there is a small

minority of people and also we should bear in mind that a lot of

political people with using this for their benefit. In Australia,

the riots would seem to be led by organisations like Muslim groups.

The small amount of protesters seem to have been afilliated with groups

like that, so let's not think this is Muslims as a block taking

offence. But, there is a correct perception I think that Islam, as a

religion, is more brutal and feels these things more woundedly and

there is a reason for that. In a couple of weeks in London, the

musical by the creators of South Park, that musical will begin.

Hillary Clinton Secretary of State said she was so offended by this

film on the Internet. One of the things about that is that most

religions by now have realised that being satirised and critiqued and

ridicule and criticised, let's face it, just criticised or looked at in

a historical manner as happened on a Channel 4 film, ethen these

things are felt woundedly. All religions apart from Islam have

been through this period of criticism and have, as it were,

coming up to some extent the other end, Islam's not been used to this

process, it's not used to the idea that your deepest filings can be

trodden upon on the that that is a right that not people who do not

share your faith have. What on earth are you talking about? How

can Islam, it's a faith, a vel June, an idealogy, a way of life, --

religion. You cannot talk about it like that. Islam doesn't feel

things, individual Muslims do, mothers, fathers. If I could

quickly respond to that. It's an important point. There are lots of

different strands of Islam, but in every Islamic Society, and in the

world today and historically... you mean Muslim majority? Let him

finish. Societys that have Islam within the rule of law, countries

like Pakistan where Islam law is very important, these places all

put an effort sis on the fact that the rid ruling of the Prophet

Mohammed or all sorts of claims asking about whether he existed and

so on is pwhas femy and that should be punished -- blasphemy. It's all

very well for the West to say rise above it, but in Pakistan, Yemen

and places where there's been violence, they can't, can they?

Three points to make on this particular discussion. There's one

correction for Douglas's information. Islam has been through

1400 years of critique, discussions and debates internally and

externally and it's gone through it without a problem and it will go

through it without any issue. I have no issue with that. There is

an element of truth in what we are saying here to do with Muslims'

disproportionate response. The reasons they are particularly

prominent in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Bangladesh has

more to do with politics than religion. Let me give you an

example. Most countries are ruled by despots. Corruption is rampant,

poverty is acute, no opportunities for people to make a better for

chur for themselves tomorrow and don't forget, the drones attack

that's dominated Yemen and Pakistan has also exasperated frustrations -

- better future. The Prophet Mohammed, let me put it clearly,

doesn't need our defence and God doesn't need our defence. Let him

answer that. The second point you make I think is perfectly valid.

The first I think is not. For this reason. You say that Islam has been

through this process for 1400 years. A part of that is true, there has

been debate within Islam, but on the fundamentals of Islam, about

the nature of Mohammad, about whether or not he existed even,

whether the Koran was created by him or created by God, whether he

invented it, these things Islamic Societys tended to and Muslims feel

very brute alabout that. Do you want me to name you a scholar, a

Muslim... Let Douglas just finish please. Many have suffered for

raising these questions. The fact is, an all singing all dancing

Mormon musical is a threat to nobody, nobody thinks that Mormon

mobs are going to kill anybody or threaten to. But there is a risk

and it's an acute risk that an all singing all dancing Mohammad

musical in the West End might not... If I keep insulting you and keep

offending you, there is a limit to what I call freedom of speech. You

cannot keep insulting me and offending me. I will turn around

and say, Samira, your joke is not funny, stop it. You will stop it

because you would be kind to me and stop me. This is about belief and

not individuals. I want to pause it there for a second. A billion

people are saying, what is wrong with accepting that we have the

right to reveer and follow our prophet in the way we do, but you

have the right to criticise our religion. Be critical but not

ridiculing. We are joined by Miriam who is a freelance journalist. You

have been hearing the discussion here. I wonder if we could go back

to the point about how far it's politics picking up on an excuse to

stir up trouble for their own ends. Is that what this is really about?

I certainly think on looking at the internationals I mentioned, we have

tolike at the places where the - there has been the most violence.

There have been periods of upheaval, be they wars, revolutions. We spoke

about drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen where some of the most

violent protests did occur. So I think if you like, I would

interpret the film as being more of a focal point which has allowed

broader popular anger about a wider range of issues including concerns

about local government corruption but also US intervention in the

region and the impact the American War on Terror's had on many

innocent civilians in the region. All of that anger and frustration

which has been fermenting has expressed itself then has been

politicised by parties, more extreme in the region for their own

ends to destabilise Local Governments. I want to bring in a

stand up comedian. You have done comedy about Islam and Christianity

and performed Jesus in Pakistan I understand. What do you think about

this idea that we can't ridicule Muslims, are they too easily

My experience was the audience in Pakistan were extraordinarily open.

Islam is a much wider religion, 1.2 billion in the world, so even if

there were one million that would only be 1%. What you think about

the idea that we should censor ourselves in case people make

political capital out of it? There is no connection between the spell

man the drones, but it seems to be a reason given not to allow any

films like this to be made? -- between this film. There is a

political context for this, and in the countries that saw the worst

violence for this, the government controlled all the media. If

something was in the newspapers, the government said it was OK. It

is as if you had been reading gossip magazines and then suddenly

it said something else, you would as soon it had been legitimised.

There is an underlying point of anger against the West, arming

dictators and stealing oil. That can be tipped over using religion

as the touchpaper to light that attack. I was hugely encouraged by

the attacks yesterday on the militia at that killed the

ambassador, Libyans actually rose up and said they wanted him out. --

wanted them out. This is extraordinary, in Benghazi. Can I

bring in Benjamin Lazarus, a freelance journalist? It may be

frustrating, but is it reasonable to say that we know what happens

when these are films are made and we need to compromise to avoid

fuelling more violence? Absolutely not, that would be to camera in the

face of sado-masochistic Rach. -- rage. It would be abhorrent,

policing society so that backwater clerics became the thought-police

who could monitor what elements of history we were permissible to

study, what novels could be written, what we could watch on the Internet

and so on. I do not see how that could be acceptable, and we should

not be intimidated by violence. We went through the Enlightenment so

that no fundamentalist gang could push their idea of the truth on us.

As scholarly documentary about them in -- about the origins of Islam,

the maker of that is getting death threats, from people who are quite

important in the Islamic community. Has it gone too far? I am a friend

of him, I have been outspoken in the media, they have a history

festival, which is like Glastonbury. Answer the question. His book was

an academic -- academic discussion about the origins of Islam, and it

was roundly set upon by Muslim and non-Muslim academics. Do you accept

the idea that death threats are completely wrong? Of course they

are. Nobody sensible would condone that kind of behaviour. However,

the documentary, he throws away balance in the discussion, and he

produces a very prejudice and biased opinion. In your opinion.

Another professor came out very strongly and he said this was so

shocking. Tom Holland has the right to say what he wants, that is not a

problem. Death threats are abhorrent, they are not Islamic.

Forget about that, that is simple. The issue is, it Tom Holland to a

good job of an objective programme? I believe he did not. It is like

the cartoonist, we know from good sources that that magazine was

financially struggling, let's make a bit of money by putting in a

cartoon like this. Everybody has an interest in stirring up trouble.

comes down to a fundamental point. Most people in this country and

France are not Muslim. We do not believe Muhammad, if he existed,

heard any angels. It is the opinion of those people that he either made

it up or something else. Atheists believe the same thing about Jesus.

Nobody has a problem talking about making up a film about Moses,

watching a film saying that Jesus made it up. When they do have a

problem, and we have a problem, censorship and self-censorship

because people are afraid to say that more Hamed made it all up --

Muhammad made it all up, because they will pretend that they are

sort of believing Islam, they will talk about the profit Muhammad.

They will try not to cause any offence. The only thing I would say,

it is interesting that 23 years after the Satanic Verses, we're

still embroiled in this. Thank you for your contributions. A new study

has indicated that cohabitation will soon be the preferred way to

raise a family, so has marriage become an outdated institution? You

can join us by wet ham or e-mail. Remember to keep voting in the poll,

Remember to keep voting in the poll, Remember to keep voting in the poll,

You have about five minutes before it closes. You can vote on line by

Time for the moral moments of the week. We have had a few already. I

want to start with Mohammed. You are concerned about the impact of

Michael Gove's exam change and the impact that will have on dyslexic

students. I work in education, and clearly there is a need to review

and over all the way we examine in this country. We are falling behind

our partners across the world in terms of education and achievement

levels. The difficulty is that Michael Gove and the coalition

government have overstepped the mark by not consulting with

individual groups and organisations. The dyslexia Association has said

moving to a single examination format is going to affect lots of

people. What do you think of that, Douglas? There are all sorts of

problems. We are slipping in the world. I think one of the things

that should be stated is that anyone who defends the status quo,

as a lot of the unions do, should know they are defending a status

quo that is failing. 20% of children are leaving school

illiterate, and if you defend that... On the dyslexia issue?

are home-school link our children because I believe the schools are

failing. It needs and revision. -- it needs revision. But in terms of

dyslexia, we need to overhaul that. The exams do not work. I do not

like exams, I like coursework, support given. Extraordinary talent

needs extraordinary support. Many of the senior ministers were

dyslexic. Can you imagine what they would have become with support?

want to go on to this campaign to ban Page Three. We have a very

tasteful graphic. It does not sure what we're talking about, topless

women in the Sun newspaper. When I saw the report I thought it was a

very good thing. A Lib Dem MP has tabled and is leading the campaign.

Imagine I am sitting on the train and somebody has left the newspaper

open. my children will ask me about it. How do I give a moral

justification? I cannot. We're not demeaning women. I do not want

newspapers sold by this. It is freedom of speech versus events.

does come back to that, and I think we agree in some ways on this one.

The thing is, I do not like it, I do not like the idea of it. I do

not like sexual lies in the society even further. -- sexualising

society. I do not like the children see it as a normal thing. My

response is not to ban it, but do not buy the paper. Your choice is

interesting. It is Nick Clegg's apology that has been set to music.

It has been released on the Internet. He apologised, but then

he said he was right to trouble them. This is interesting, because

we are used to people saying sorry, and often they get applause for it.

But it is easier to do things when you are not responsible for it, and

one of the things about the Clegg thing is he has not even said sorry

for breaking his promise, he said sorry for making the promise. That

is a very different thing. But there is a good thing, when he went

into the last election, he was promising something he knew he

could not deliver. The money needs to come from somewhere and there is

not sufficient money to send people to university without rising

tuition fees. I hope he learns the lesson and the electorate learned

the lesson that impossible promises are something we should lose from

political debate. We need honest politicians just as we need other

honest public figures. Thank you for your choices. You have been

voting this morning about British police officers carrying guns, and

the poll is closing now so please do not vote any more. You could

still be charged will stop -- could still be charged...

A new study has found that the same proportion of couples are choosing

to live together as get married. Sociology iss say that it could be

even more popular. -- a sociology experts. For the first time,

cohabiting couples with children are the same as married couples.

According to a YouGov poll, the majority of us now believe you do

not need to be married to have children. So has marriage had its

day? Perhaps not, as the same study reveals a greater likelihood for

break-up between couples who do not tie the knot. Lawyers also say

marriage offers the best protection. Many religious groups believe the

decline of marriage is not good for the fabric of society. The Church

of England regards it as the best way to provide a stable all my four

children. But people argue that many children would be happier with

unhappy parents separating rather than growing up in an unhappy house.

So his marriage the best environment to raise children and

ensure stable society? You can join in by web cam, or make your point

by phone or Web -- online. We are joined by Marilyn Stowe, an adviser

for the Law Commission. I understand you have counselled

thousands of people. His marriage on the way out? Absolutely not, it

is not. But I think people drift into cohabiting relationships. It

is easy to do. People think about sharing, and then they may even

have children. Statistically, they are as likely to have children out

of marriage as in marriage, but I do not think that make marriage

irrelevant, some people then go on to marry, some do not. Jon Gaunt,

you waited seven years. It was not just my decision. We lived together

for seven years then we decided to start a family so we got married.

So having children was the key thing? Absolutely, and I do believe

in a lifetime commitment. I believe it changes your relationship and it

is important. It is important for your children as well. I have

nothing against people cohabiting but I think the best way his

marriage. Think about it for a long time, then make the decision.

You're through thick and thin. The good times and the bad times.

really about raising children? most important thing is for the

sake of society, families and communities and children, we need

to have people in a loving, committed, long-term and moral

relationship. I was unfortunate be watching television the other day

and I saw a programme, Geordie Shore. There is a view that living

a hedonistic lifestyle, people end up together by default, and it is

easy to get into these relationships. One of the things

the study showed his over the last 10 years, we have had roughly the

same number of cohabiting family's increase, and 300,000 less married

family unit. 30% married and cohabiting in the current state of

play. What it also showed his cohabiting families are less stable

Can I answer this? Not every person is in a position to get married.

There are single parent families and they do a great job, so let's

not forget that. What the problem is, as far as I'm

concerned, with a cohabitation relationship, is that people

actually don't understand that legally they are worse off than if

they were married. They don't have the rights? Absolutely not. My view

would be that we do need Cohabitation legislation such as

they have in Scotland to redress the balance. Explain to me why are

we in a situation where people are willing to sign rental or mortgage

agreements together, then they are not married and they break up and

they end up in a pickle People don't appreciate that they have

very few rights at all if they are not married, they have made a

mistake, they are under a false impression that common law marriage

exists when it doesn't. Is it because a lot of men keep putting

it off, they are waiting for, I don't know... Some friends say to

me, it's only a bit of paper, I don't need to get married and my

answer is, if it's only a bit of paper why don't you get married.

People get marry ford protection but I wanted to get married because

I wanted to stay with this woman for the rest of my life and I

wanted to show my kids that that's the best way to behave. I think

there should be more tax incentives as well. Instead of equalising it

down to married couples, we should be encouraging them to get married

because it's the best way to build a family and a society. We talked

about the positive reasons for getting married. I want to bring in

Vanessa, a divorce lawyer. You have dealt with a lot of women who've

had long traditional marriages. What is the reality for you about

problems with cohabitation versus marriage? Fpblts we have seen a lot

of social change over the last 50 years. The most important change we

have seen in the last 50 years is the silver splitters, women in

their 40s, 50s or 60s who're bailing out at the rate of knots

because the children are leaving home. Instead of consolidating and

saying we want to stay many the marriage, they are saying we are no

longer prepared to put up with what we see as controlling overbearing

behaviour from their husbands. They are saying to us that the big lie

appears to be that previously we were told we could only stay in

these marriages because we had no way of getting out of them, we

didn't have our own finances but now that's all changed. We have

seen enormous changes. Women are saying, we are very happy to have

our freedom and we are very happy not to be in marriage any more.

It's a very sad development but that is because if we can't have

Relate or other immediate things that control the behaviour that we

are seeing in these marriages or resolving it, more and more women

are bailing out. It's interesting, you see the two

extremes, traditional marriage when you didn't have an option to live

together, then people who live together. We haven't discussed

love? Love makes the world go round, or is it money. I'm asked to do

Islamic marriages and young couples want to do it in English. It's not

just a bit of paper for them. Many the Islamic system, you go through

effectively a pre-nup. It's very interesting, it's formal as a

contract? I sit down with a couple and go through the terms and

conditions of their marriage because it's a social contract. So

they agree before they get married what they expect from each other,

almost the terms and conditions of the marriage and it gives a

fantastically stable and moral frame work for their future lives

together. The issue about romance - the thing about Islam, whatever the

reality of couples intimidated or bullies - but divorce is

acknowledged as something that can happen because the marriage breaks

down and in the West we have a romantic notion of marriage, it's

got to be perfect and you spend �30,000 on the wedding, is that a

proper marriage? I don't think marriage has become irrelevant.

has it been romanticised and that's the problem? Extremely commercial

and exopinion sieve and it's easier to live together, to agree to share

expens, to have a child and then those people who really do want to

get married will do. But it's the instability of cohabitation that

worries me and the lack of legal remedies when that does happen, a

relationship breakdown. It's not all going to be roses around the

cottage door. Because there is no social stigma about living together.

Myself and my wife lived together for seven years which you wouldn't

have been able to do before, you would have been ostracised in

society. Maybe some people just drift into long-term relationships

and don't get married. I think it's very commercial, marriages, and

it's something else people just chalk off. It's a long-term

commitment and being married and saying you are going to commit to

one person, you know, for the rest of your life, bring your family up

- and it's sad what Vanessa said, the women bailing out and the

relationships being too dominating and whatever it is. It's sad

because after having your children and bringing them up and children

going off into the world, isn't it great that you can have the last

part of your life together. have given me the perfect

opportunity to bring in Stan who has been happily marry ford 56

years. I don't know if we have your wife with you or it's just you on

the line, but can you tell us what your view is on the idea of

cohabitation. If you could have lived together without the social

stigma, would you not have been tempted to do it? Well, that's the

$64,000 dollar question, you can't separate one from the other, we

were living and courting in the '50s where the stigma was very

strong and cohabitation wasn't a word that was used then. People

were said to be living in sin. You just wouldn't do that. When I was

courting my wife, if we sat and held hands on the sofa, my mother

would frown. Wow. Jean, you are there as well,

you've chosen to make this bond last, you are still married 56

years later. What do you think is unique about your relationship that

some other people perhaps haven't got? Well, we have great friendship

and we are quite content with simple things. We live our life

really through our family and companionship with each other.

briefly, I understand some of your children have chose tonne cohabit,

rather than marry, what do you make of that? Well, they are all married

now, so the thing about it is that we lived our lives and grew up with

society growing up and if our children chose to cohabit, it was

their business and not ours and we certainly wouldn't have felt bad

about it. It's up to them. We would support them whatever they did.

Stan and Jean, thank you very much and congratulations on your

wonderful marriage, an example to us all I think!

I wonder, I mean what's interesting is that they don't have a judgment

about people that cohabit. that's society that's changed, it's

no longer living in sin, it's acceptable. The thing about family

breakdown, the concern is a real one because children in cohabiting

relationships are more likely to break down? Unhappy kids make more

unhappy kids and so many of our difficultys in society today and

our social problems and whether it's prison population, the

children in care, the problems come from unhappy children. It's about

having children and men. We often talk about women and single parents

but it take twos and offn the men get awhich with it and I always say

this. In my column, there are a lot of mean who have a lot of questions

to answer -- men who have a lot of questions to answer. Enyou are

younger, fine, cohabit, but we should condemn more the idea of

people who then actually go on to create children and don't tear

their responsibilities seriously, whether they are men or women

that.'s where we should be judgmental because that's where we

get unhappy children. A quick line to Marilyn, what would be your

advice to those who're cohabiting and aren't happy, what should they

do? Take immediate legal advice about what would happen if the

relationship breaks down and above all what will happen in relation to

the children. OK, thank you all very much indeed. We have to end it

there. Your text and online poll votes are in. We asked: Should all

British police officers carry guns and here is what you told us. 34%

said yes and 66% said no. It's interesting, Jon, it perhaps wasn't

the result we expected with an overwhelming response in favour.

What are your thoughts? It's good that you are having a debate, I

want us to have the wider debate in society, it shouldn't just be after

tragic events and we need a wider debate about the criminal justice

system and about how we want our police to police this country.

That's the debate we should be having at the moment. We have

algaiss against this minister about what he said or didn't say --

allegations. This is an true Mitchell's alleged insults to the

police in Downing Street? Yes, the coalition isn't in the way at the

moment they are treating them clear, I say get the police involved and

have a fit and proper police force for the 21 century and we shouldn't

be cutting it. It's interesting isn't it, the respect for the

police officers by our leaders as well? Absolutely. The police do a

phenomenal job. I don't think they should be armed. Mohammad? I think

it's the very sensible and fair and reasonable British public saying

what we think should be said. We need to make the decisions with

cool heads, we need to have a grown-up debate about this, I agree

what's been said. I don't think I would have expect add society which

in their 1800 society that we want an unarmed police to police by

consent would change that much over some really tragic events and I

think the British public have spokeen.

Very interesting in the light of some serious concerns about the

police but very briefly give us a sentence? Policing by consent will

disappear, if we cut the police we'll go to a paramilitary style

and that would be difficult for the police. Brian Paddick mentioned

that last year after the ries. Thank you all very much. -- riots.

Thank you to Marilyn, Mohammad and Jon and to Raj mall Masroor and