Episode 19 Sunday Morning Live

The escalation of violence in the Middle East has reached its 5th day,

with an Israeli ground-attack looking imminent. Israel claims it

has a right to protect people from militant rockets, launched from

Gaza. Are they justified in their Good morning, I am a Samira Ahmed.

Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Self-defence or aggression?

Israel's attacks on militants in Gaza has escalated tensions in the

region. But are the military actions justified?

This week, Google, Amazon and Starbucks revealed they pay a

fraction of the corporation tax that one would expect in the UK.

Clever, perfectly legal accounting, but is it moral? James Whale asks,

why pick on them? So, hands up those of you who want to pay more

tax than you legally have to? I thought not. So, why should major

companies be any different? A new poll has revealed 73% of adults

believe state faith schools should be prevented from selecting pupils

on religious grounds. An attempt to stop discrimination, or an attack

on religious freedom? My guests this week are Abdel Bari

Atwan, London-based editor of an Arabic newspaper. He was born in

Gaza and is a familiar commentator in the UK on Middle-Eastern issues.

James Whale is a seasoned broadcaster. His acerbic and

uncompromising style has won him fans and foes in equal measures.

Charlie Wolf is the political commentator and broadcaster, a

richly from Boston, he now calls Blunden his home. He has made it

his mission, he says, to make waves on the UK air waves. We want to

know what you think. If you have a webcam, you can join us on Skype.

You can also give your views on David Cameron has added his voice

to the latest crisis in the Middle East on the eve of what is now day

five of the conflict. The Prime Minister made a call to Israeli

counterparts, urging Binyamin Netanyahu to do anything possible

to end the latest crisis. Israel maintains it has a right to defend

itself against sustained rocket attacks from Gaza, targeting major

cities including Tel Aviv and to Islam. The Palestinians have

accused Israel of carrying out massacres in the latest strikes.

This latest round of violence comes after the killing of the leader of

the military wing of Hamas during a spate of air attacks launched on

Gaza. The Israelis claim their attack was in response to months of

sustained rocket fire launched by militants from Gaza. Since

Wednesday, Israel has continued to launch rockets into the territory

at what it describes as strategic targets, including weapons caches

and Hamas buildings. Militants have fired rockets towards Israel's most

populated city, Tel Aviv, and the disputed city, Jerusalem. Civilians

have been killed on both sides. The Foreign Secretary William Hague

made a statement calling on both sides to find a peaceful solution,

but placing most of the blame on the Hamas and leadership in Gaza.

have said that Hamas there's principal responsibility. Of course,

there are responsibilities on all sides. The easiest ways to stop

this is for Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel. But we look to

Israel, also, to act with caution and try to be escalate the crisis.

With Israel calling up 75,000 reserve troops, there is mounting

speculation that a ground offensive could be imminent. Israel says it

has a right to defend its people from aggression by groups it

considers terrorists. Others argue that Israel is the aggressor and

should not use its vastly superior weapons to bully the Palestinians.

So, his Israelite to target Hamas in Gaza, who they say launched

indiscriminate attacks on the Israeli people? What they

unjustified and in danger of escalating the crisis? -- or are

they are justified. Justified, or in danger of

escalating? Very much justified. States have a moral obligation to

protect their people. Let's not forget, rockets have been fired

into Israel for some time. It is only after it escalated, after

about 150 rockets going into populated areas, that Israel

rightly responded. With targeted, rather than indiscriminate response.

That is the question for Alec text vote. Are the actions justified? If

you think they are, text vote, followed by yes. If you disagree,

text vote, followed by no. You can also vote on their website. You can

also find full terms and conditions there. We will show how you voted

at the end of the programme. Abdel Bari Atwan, you are from Gaza

originally. You know the whole history of this troubled region. He

can see why Israel has responded the way they have now? It is naked

aggression. I was born in a refugee camp in Gaza. Gaza is 150 square

miles, 2 million people are living there. They are under sanction,

brutal sanctions for the last 10 years. This sanction is imposed by

the Israelis. The Israeli army even counted the amount of calories,

2225 calories per person, in order to keep people just alive. No food,

no medicine... But these military strikes now are because of a rocket

that have been fired out for months and months, aimed at civilians in

Israel? When you say that, rockets hitting Israel, people imagine that

thousands of Israelis were killed. For the last 10 years, only 17

Israelis were killed by these rockets. On the other side,

thousands of Palestinians were killed by Israeli warplanes and by

the army. We have to put that into consideration, why Israel is

attacking Gaza now. About 500 people were injured. See the

proportion? There is a question about proportion? Proportion to

intent. The reason not as many Israelis died is because the

Israeli government spends a vast amount of money building bomb

shelters. Hamas leaves their people in the open. It is a double war

crime. Not only are they threatening Israelis with rockets,

but by using their own people as human shields and putting rockets

and the mosques, around schools, etc, Hamas is a threat to its own

people. Human shield? Human shield?! You have money, billions

from America and Britain to build shelters. People in Gaza, they have

nothing, they are under sanctions. They are besieged by the Israelis.

They are bombed! Just four years ago there was an Israeli invasion

of Gaza. Hundreds of people were killed. Hold on... At don't say

Israel has been under constant threat from terrorism. It is under

constant threat from rocket attacks. The only reason that we see this

partial blockade, because food and fuel get through, is to prevent

bomb-making equipment getting him. -- getting in. We have long-range

rockets threatening major population centres like Tel Aviv

and Jerusalem. Christmas season is coming up and Israel has a right to

prevent this. James, in Britain in particular we watch these

situations arise. Both sides claim the moral superior position. What

do you think? The justification argument? I think it is very sad.

All I have seen over the past two days are pictures of dead children.

There is no justification, on either side, as far as I am

concerned. We were talking before, whatever you see on the screen,

they can get on OK. They can talk and understand each other. That is

what is going to happen. The problem with all walls is,

basically, the people that live in Gaza, the people that live in

Israel, the Israelis, Palestinians, of the people from the Middle East,

they are very, very similar people. It is difficult to tell an Israeli

and Palestinian apart, unless you spoke to them. Eventually, they

have to be able to live together. But it is the politicians who are

doing this. The politicians have got to be stopped. Let's get the

response, there has been accusations that the timing is

significant. If Hamas uses civilians as human shields, how

will it help the situation if they capitalise on these kinds of

attacks? Hamas, unfortunately, on a terrorist group. When they run

people die, to Hamas, it is a propaganda plus. The what James has

raised is that if you know all of this, and it has happened before,

isn't the only way out of this negotiation? I truly wish that it

was. You are going to have to talk. You will have to come together,

they could do it in Northern Ireland... The Israelis would love

to talk. Hamas states, we do not believe in peace conferences, we do

not believe in negotiation. A mass's goal is the annihilation of

Israel, plain and simple. That is a concern, that Hamas does not want

to recognise the state of Israel? This is not true. Hamas offered the

Israelis 50 years of truce, to have independent Palestinian state. What

happened? There was a peace process, they renounced terrorism, conceded

80% of historic plans to the Israelis, only to have 20%. A

stayed on 20% of Palestine. What happened? We were rewarded with

building settlements in the West Bank. The whole peace process,

because of the right-wing Israeli government, was wrecked and

destroyed completely. We had a 500,000 Jewish settlers now in the

West Bank and Jerusalem. And no peace at all. Everybody is offering

Israelis peace, but they are offering us bombardments, massacres,

siege. Just one word, to trolley. He said, we imposed this siege, the

Israelis imposed the sanctions so they could not manufacture weapons.

One of the items the Israelis banned to import his coriander.

Imagine, coriander. Can you manufacture a bomb from coriander?

This is humiliation. The Israelis deliberately humiliate the

Palestinian people. On top of that, massacring them. Today, my family,

listen, Charlie... Of my family, I am in contact at five days for a

time, with my family, my brothers and sisters in Gaza, to see who is

dead and who is injured. This is brutal. You took our lands, our

settlements. The aggression starts with Hamas, that is the unfortunate

thing. As long as rockets are being fired, Israel has a right to stop

those rockets and defend themselves. They are taking out missile sites.

What about children? Children are dying. But you forget that there

are enough films of Israeli pilots pulling out at the last minute.

They answer to an independent judiciary. Hamas does not. The aim

of Hamas is to kill. Another point that was raised was the humiliation.

Hamas has even less to lose. Their previous experience is that Israel

does in hard. Isn't that part of Israel's responsibility? You know

how Hamas will respond, and yet they still do what will arguably

give Hamas strength? You ask any military expert, if you do not

respond, it empowers. And the humiliation argument, you don't buy

that? It is humiliation and creates this situation? They are taking out

rocket sites and to stabilise terrorists. That is all they are

interesting in. -- destabilise. could they be made to stop slinging

rockets to Israel all the time? That seems to be the factor that

keeps this going on. Is there no way that there was any control over

some of these people continually sending rockets? There is

misunderstanding here. Hamas is not sending rockets, they are besieged

by the Israelis for the last 10 years. The Israelis keep raiding

Gaza. If you go to Gaza now, 150 square miles, the air is congested

with F 16 jets, drones, unmanned drones. Can't they just stop firing

the rockets? That a simple question, why not stop firing the rockets?

Where is the independent Palestinian state? We must have

estate. The Israelis cannot have the land and build settlements, and

bomb us. If we could stop the rockets, the international

community can lean on Israel to We have Dr Ghada Karmi or on the

phone now. There is this idea, the trouble is Hamas are the ones

who've been firing the rockets and they exploit the misery of Gazan

civilians and UN not interested in stopping. In that sense, is

Israel's action morally justified? Allow me to inject a note of

reality into this debate. Let's get the context correct. The two sides,

Israel and Gaza, are not equivalent. Let's get back clear. Israel is a

very, very powerful state, it has a huge army, huge firepower. It is

supported to the hilt. The heard that point made. Would you be able

to contribute some other ideas beyond what has been discussed

already, particularly this idea that Hamas are the ones exploiting

the situation? Le to be clarified the context, I don't believe it has

been clarified. On the other hand you have an impoverished enclave in

the Mediterranean - overcrowded, impoverished, Little Megson, little

food. If we dealt with it like that it would be different. Given where

we are, how do you deal with it? You can't solve that overnight but

you could stop the rocket attacks overnight. The idea that Hamas

exploits the people and get something out of it is ridiculous.

It makes Hamas out to be a kind of alien, a foreign body, like

Martians. Hamas is part and parcel of Gaza. It is part and parcel of

the Palestinian people. As a result, to talk about Hamas endangering its

own people and not caring about them frankly shows an enormous

prejudice against the Palestinian people. How do you stop it... Yes,

Gaza is besieged by Israel. There's no question. For how do you stop

it? It besiege is lifted, the rockets will stop. The rockets are

not fired just for fun. They are fired because they are the only way

that these poor people can show their frustration at what is

happening. I just want to get a response to that. I will bring in

Bortolami now. I hope you heard what was being said there. This is

ultimately about frustration and being under siege. Let's make it

clear, and the international law, militarily, any type of struggle,

you cannot target civilians. Any justification to target civilians

is immoral and is illegal. So Hamas, but there it is under siege or not,

whether it is being bombarded or not, it cannot target civilians and

any justification is illegal and immoral. Because we have limited

time, I wanted to get your view particularly on the idea that given

the Israeli military operation now, what can they hope to achieve by it

if civilians and accidentally being affected in Gaza by his way the

response? We would like the civilians not to allow Hamas to

send rockets from their own buildings cover their own houses.

The right now they can't stop that. We can do it on a military to

military bases. I don't understand why Hamas don't target the Israeli

military. While they hitting civilian areas? They don't target

the military, it's not a justified target. It needs to be stopped

immediately. The larger solution is required. For the immediate

response, Israel is justified to take out all those mortars to take

out all the military personnel, they are sending out the rockets.

To stop the inflow. It could easily be bringing in food and medical

supplies. That is the question. Ultimately, it is in Hamas'

position to break the escalation and they've chosen not to. That

could allow all the conditions you want to be negotiated on about

improving the state. You are talking about Hamas as if it is a

superpower. They have... As if they have 300 nuclear warheads. Talking

about international law. His bombing children part of the

international law? There is targeting civilians and not

targeting civilians. In 10 years, 17 Israelis were killed. Now what

was 55 Palestinians killed, many of them children. 90 % of children

there are under care right now because every day they are having

to run to bombs shelters in school. Hamas did come to power in

elections. However, there was a coup when they were killing their

own members. Let's not forget, many of the deaths happening in Gaza

were Hamas officials going into hospital and having kangaroo courts

and shooting and killing people. people were killed. In Gaza, the

Israeli used phosphoric bombs. It is illegal. My nephews were killed

and these bombardments. What is going to get the two of you, not

you two, but the sides together. This arguing is just ridiculous.

Eventually everybody either lives together on the planet or everybody

is killed. Just a minute... What is going to bring you both together?

There has to be some coming together because in the end you

will just obliterate each other. It is ridiculous! Can I just bring in

the vice-president of the General Union of Palestinian Students in

Britain. From what you've heard, do you think it is time that Hamas

could take the first step, stop firing rockets and negotiations

could potentially go ahead? This conflict goes before the past five

days of the Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. It starts at the

beginning of the Israeli occupation. I've just come back from the West

Bank and witnessed a military checkpoints scattered all over

Palestinian territories, making a simple journey... We need an answer

on given where we are now, what can be done right now to drive to de

escalate the situation? You can't just talk about the history now. A

ceasefire by who? It's gone beyond the point of a ceasefire. The

people of Gaza have been under siege for many years. They've been

prevented from food, water or electricity, medical supplies,

building materials. I need an answer on this specific question.

What happens right now? It is up to Israel. Israel need to figure out a

long-term solution. It is not good enough to just accuse Hamas of

killing unarmed civilians when they use sophisticated weapons to

bombard women, children, schools, mosques. Why can't you find the

solution? Why don't you stop firing the rapids, then Israel can be

encouraged not to retaliate? The Israeli army are going to go into

the West Bank, they are going to send all their troops in and the

whole thing is going to be a mess. All that's going to happen is

people are going to be killed on both sides. Eventually, you will

all have to talk to each other. Why don't you talk now? Sam Weststrop

is on the line-out. James is making the point a lot of people are

thinking. If there was just a stop in the military action now,

negotiations would be the only solution. That would be more

advanced. Let's remember we are dealing with a terror group that is

dedicated to destruction and violence. The very idea of that

associations... So you are going to kill every Palestinian until you've

completely finished it, is that what you are saying? You've got to

kill every Palestinian, while my included in that? Not you, but is

that what you are suggesting? Absolutely not, it's absurd. This

is part of this ludicrous distortion of the word

proportionality. To complain that Israel's response is

disproportionate is to hold Israel to a standard that we hold no other

country. It may be true that amass' rockets don't kill a huge number of

civilians, but their failure to kill does not absolve them of their

intention to kill. Even the UN admits... James, you have to let

them speak. We are all saying the same thing. The ratio of a civilian

to combat deaths was the lowest in asymmetric conflict in the history

of warfare. Sam, what I need from you is an Ansar on the immediate

action. Should Israel stop this military operation, would that be

the step forward, or is it up to Hamas to make the first move?

Israel doesn't just have a duty, it has a democratic Jock -- duty. The

only next step can -- that can take place is the cessation of firing

rockets from Hamas. If you want violence to stop, you have to stop

Hamas. I appreciate that it's a very difficult issue but I'd rather

we had this discussion and tried to avoid it, because it is at the

Are Israel's military actions justified? If you think they are,

text the word bulb followed by yes, if not, text the word vote followed

You have about 20 minutes before We will leave that one behind us.

This week, three global giants faced a grilling by MPs on the

issue of tax avoidance. Those representing Google, Amazon and

Starbucks admitted the companies used favourable European tax

jurisdictions to avoid a heavy UK tax bill. Such feelings are above

board but the committee chair was keen to ask that whilst their

actions were and illegal, were they immoral? James Whale things

morality has nothing to do with it. Hands up those of you who want to

pay more tax than you legally have to. I thought not! So why should

to. I thought not! So why should major companies be any different?

It is all very well for Vince Cable to bleat on about systematic abuse

of the tax system by these big corporations. But they do pay tax,

corporation tax, VAT, national insurance, to name but three. We

may consider these companies are not paying enough tax, but it's not

their fault. It is the fault of the government, who don't change the

law. So who devised the tax system? The government. So why aren't we

questioning their more Aldi? The reality is we need to be able to

attract the big multinationals to Arab country to employ our workers

and invest. -- to our country. That is what our tax laws do. So stop

these crocodile tears. What would your moral high ground when we are

waving bye-bye to international investors and ultimately thousands

of UK jobs. You can join in the conversation at home on Twitter,

flown, text or e-mail. We are joined by the actor and comedian

Nina Wadia, she now makes us laugh and cry as the Zaynab Masood, one

of EastEnders' most endearing characters. We are also joined by

Jonathan Bartley, from the Christian think-tank Ekklesia. We

saw that grilling of those executives. What they are doing is

perfectly legal, so why bring morality into it? We said the same

thing about the banks. What they're doing is illegal, no harm will come

of it. Look what happened. We've clamped down, I think wrongly, on

so-called benefit scroungers. We should come down on the corporate

scroungers. It is costing us a lot of money, a lot of money is leading

the economy and going abroad to avoid tax. We are supplying them

with a workforce through our education system and health care

system, and they are not paying back into it. They're getting

something for nothing. Yes, they pay their tax and national

insurance, which goes to employees' pensions. Repay VAT on their goods.

But they are not contributing anything back to the economy in

return for what they are getting. It's only right they do sell.

said it all. No, because the government has made a big thing

about fairness on something like welfare. Why should people not be

paying their fair share? Then changed the law. That is what

politicians do. Do you pay more tax than you have to? Do you say,

listen, I really feel I should give a few extra quid each month to the

taxman because that would be morally right? A Labour government

as much as the Conservative government chose to let companies

set up these schemes which are all legal. At that is the argument. You

got one set of morals and one set of laws. You can't say that it's

something is legally OK to do, that doesn't mean it's morally right to

do. They need to bend change the law to be moral. Quite right.

want to bring in Jamie Whyte, a financial blogger. A bit of

clarification on exactly why Starbucks and Amazon and Google are

able to pay what seems like a very small amount of corporation tax in

particular, on very large sales in the UK. Could you briefly explain

that? British companies like John The first thing to recognise is

that sales are not relevant, profits are. What you can do if you

are a multinational is that you can make internal charges within the

company. You have an operating firmly in the UK, does it make a

profit or not? Well, you can have another operating company in

another country, that charges the UK. For example, Starbucks buys its

coffee from a Starbucks company in the Netherlands. I think it is the

Netherlands. I think it might be Switzerland. They can shift profits

around internally, and let the profits occur in the country with

the lowest corporate tax rate. That is how you pull it off. You used

the phrase pull it off, that's quite interesting. It looks like

it's an attempt to subvert, rather than an attempt to play fair. The

coffee doesn't have to go through Switzerland, it is going through

Switzerland because the tax regime there is favourable. Should we not

be questioning that? No, I think they have a duty to put it through

the country with the most favourable tax regime. If they

didn't, it would be like saying I am going to buy the coffee beans

from the most expensive provider. That would be insane. You have a

duty to shareholders to operate at the lowest possible cost. Tax is

just another cost. Take on the specific point that John Lewis made,

British businesses are being crippled because they are paying

all UK taxes and cannot undercut on prices. They are being driven out

by multinationals like Amazon, which do not pay their fair share.

That it's not a genuine free market? Well, it's ridiculous to

talk about free markets in the area of taxation. People don't pay taxes

voluntarily. Multinationals have an advantage that national companies

don't, in their ability to do all sorts of things, including tax. You

can get rid of that advantage, only by having extremely low corporate

tax rates so that domestic companies are not particularly

burdened. There is really almost no way that you are going to eliminate

a disadvantage that multinational companies have. -- eliminate this

advantage. We could choose not to consume, a lot of people buy from

these companies because they know it is cheaper. Isn't it up to

consumers to deal with it? Yes, it is, but a point coming up with that,

what happens to franchise owners? Do they get affected? Franchise

owners of Starbucks, that is a question for you. Surely it must be

troublesome for them? franchisee has to pay tax on his

earnings, or hurt earnings. -- hurt earnings. Corporations don't really

exist, ultimately it is the people that they are the cost,

shareholders, employees or customers. Corporate tax is a very

complicated kind of tax. There are all sorts of tricks that people can

play to reduce their recorded profits. It is a terrible tide of

tax altogether. My recommendation is to eliminate corporate taxation,

tax people once they extracted as personal income or just keep it as

sales tax. That would help local businesses be more profitable and

compete better. It's nonsense that you can't do it, of course you have

can. You just say, you have to declare all of your profits in the

country, we identify what they are and levelled the rate. We have one

independent trade on Streatham High Road, he has not got the same way

of competing against the multinational coffee train next

door. So we changed the law and allow those independents, because I

want to see more of them coming back, we give them a way to do that

by changing the law. The idea that this government has been making his

policy for decades in a vacuum, it hasn't. It's been getting the

multinationals to advise and set the terms. The Government hasn't

made it easier for small, independent companies. The

Government could have done that a long time ago. Why hasn't it?

Because the multinationals have had such a vested interest and have

been calling the shots. We need a democratic representation. What we

need is the number of accountants that the corporation's use, and use

them to be our accountants. I want to bring in Molly Solomons, from a

campaign group set up in the last few years, particularly focused on

the way that the Government welfare cuts are being implemented. This

whole idea of fairness. It is all perfectly legal what companies like

Google, Amazon and Starbucks are doing. If you don't like it, people

That is one option. As people on the panel have said, it is just so

important to change the law. Corporations are dodging billions

and billions in tax, while the Government is choosing to cut a

vital services for the people that live in the UK. That's not right.

There are alternatives to these cuts and tax avoidance is one. I

pay my tax, my mum pays her tax. Why are these huge corporations not

paying theirs? Well, they are. Everything is legal. They have

better lawyers and accountants and have found clever ways to avoid

paying as much as small businesses do. Yes, that is also not very fair.

But the Government should be doing their thing to clampdown on tax

avoidance. At the moment, it is legal. But let's remember that the

vote for women was once illegal. The law can change and it should

change to reflect changes in society, technology etc. We are

demanding that the Government clampdown on tax avoidance and use

the money to invest in the UK economy and the UK people. I want

to bring in Jonathan. There is a concern, there are plans for

boycotts and occupations of Starbucks branches, the thousands

of people working there are paying their taxes. These are jobs that

have been created by these companies. Why target them when you

can see there is real economic difficulty? The workers are losing

out. All of the profits are being moved abroad. The money goes out of

the country, the workers get the bare minimum. There are some

British companies that pay workers a share of the profits. If there

are no profits being declared, the workers do not get any of those

profits. Workers are in a worse position because the money is going

abroad, the profits are not staying in the economy. They are also not

getting the benefits of the health system, the education system, which

they would otherwise be getting. The I need to ask you something,

James. The thing about Starbucks in particular, they make a big thing

about their contribution to the community, a charity work,

Fairtrade. It does matter to them, the image that they give out. They

claim to care about fairness. In that sense, isn't it morally

responsible for them to say, actually, we know we are not paying

as much as we should and we should perhaps pay a little bit more? More

than 2.5%, which is all that one of these corporations paid, Amazon, in

corporation tax, on turnover of nearly �4 billion? My family have a

small coffee shop, a restaurant. We would dearly like the Government to

make it easier for small, independent companies to survive.

And they are not. Now, why are we turning our attention onto

businesses? They are big businesses. If you want to say to them, we

don't want you in the country, say it. They can go. Great, I don't

mind at all. But all this rubbish... Just a Minute, all of this rubbish

about having a go at these people because they are doing something

immoral. What they are doing is running their businesses like any

of us, the best way that they can. I don't want to pay more tax than I

have to, nor do you. I'm not claiming everything that I do is

Fairtrade. Do you buy this idea that you can change the law if you

want to, otherwise leave them alone? Or do you think it matters

that they have a public image about fairness? Morally, it is wrong.

Legally, we cannot do anything about it unless the law changes.

You have to change the law. You cannot sail the one hand what they

are doing is really, really awful, but what they are doing is

following the letter of the law. think you can make a moral judgment.

My dad, growing up, he always paid his taxes. He was a doctor in the

NHS, he had a little bit of extra money and he they share that the

Inland Revenue you exactly what he got and he would declare that taxed.

There are many people in this country that do want to pay their

tax, do want to declare it. Why do these corporations get away with

it? You lobby, you are in the right place. I will lobby, it doesn't

make it right. The big bosses, they are not in it together with the

rest of us and they are the ones with the share options. They often

worth much more than their salaries and it benefits them to get the

maximum shareholder profit and not pay tax? You are all looking into

the wrong way. You're just playing devil's advocate, you know. Pot,

kettle! I am just telling you... you think banks behave morally?

They put us in a financial crisis, behaving neatly, but immorally.

you think there were acting immorally? I think they behave how

they felt that they should behave. Everybody took advantage of it.

can't agree, we have to leave it. Bring in politicians, tell them off.

One thing you have all agreed on is that politicians could and should

change the law on tax. A couple of viewers' comments. Neil says, as

well as there are loopholes they will be exploited. The blame lies

at the feet of the Inland Revenue. They created the rules, they are

responsible and they are cutting jobs in terms of inspectors, which

might have an effect in terms of catching tax avoidance.

Later, should state funded faith schools be banned from selecting

their pupils on religious grounds? Or would an open-door policy for

all be an attack on faith itself? You can make your views known

online or on the phone. And the current poll colour are Israel's

It is time for the moral moments part of the programme. We have

chosen two big stories. First, the appalling case of this young woman

who died in Galway hospital, was having a miscarriage. Clearly, she

asked for an abortion because the foetus was going to die and she

died herself because she was told she could not have an abortion.

Apparently, they were told, this is a Catholic country. Mass protests

yesterday. What is your view? honestly sympathise with the family.

First, it is sad that this poor woman has died and it should

actually be about her. But it has turned into, of course, the

abortion row. This, to me, is clearly a combination of medical

negligence, absolutely, and Irish abortion laws. They need to sort

all that out. At the end of the day, this woman should not have died.

She should have come first, regardless of what the law says.

She should have been taken care of. It's interesting, there is a

dispute that apparently she could, it seems, have had an abortion

under Irish law. But there are so much confusion that the doctors

decided they could not intervene until the foetus had died? I hope

they are actually struck off, jailed, quite frankly. I think it's

appalling. Listen, I don't like religion, as you know. I think

organised religion has a lot to answer for a round the world. That

is appalling. I sympathise, diet with those people demonstrating in

Ireland. It should be up to a woman herself to decide. -- I am with

those people demonstrating. This is homicide, really. The investigation

is under way, we don't know what happened, so we cannot comment on

what is the case. But it has raised a great deal of concern about

Ireland's abortion laws. I want to bring you in to comment on your

other story, as well, Adrian Smith, he happens to be a Christian, he

won a case with a breach of contract with an employer, he was

demoted after posting a comment on gay marriage on Facebook?

believed that Turkey should not be forced to perform gay marriages.

What is fascinating is Peter Tatchell, well-known human rights

campaigner, gay rights campaigner, he was actually willing to speak up

for him and praised the decision. There are a lot of his case is

going on about Christine discrimination. The overwhelming

majority are bogus. But in a few cases, and Peter Tatchell has done

this on a number of occasions, he has said that we need to protect

freedom of speech. There is an important issue about people's

rights to say what they believe. I don't agree with your position, I

sometimes think you're position is bigoted, but I respect your right

to take it. I wish more Christians would follow his example and extend

the kind of hand of friendship across this barrier. I'm struck by

the fact that what had happened to him, his salary was cut by 40%, he

was demoted. It looked quite shocking, how he was treated in

what the judge said was... Well, he justified it by saying it was free

speech and it was disproportionate. Are you surprised? I was,

apparently it was against the code of conduct of the trust he was

working for. I think the line that shocked me was that he wrote that,

you know, whatever he feels, he feels that it is an equality too

far to have gay men get married in a church. What gives him the right

to say that? On a private Facebook page. Well, it's not really private.

You put something on Facebook... That a good point. A lot of other

situations with people, if you go one Facebook, Twitter, you have to

understand you are broadcasting and you're subjected to the same rules

we are on the television. A lot of people are discovering that this

Art Israel's military attacks just a fad? Please don't text because

your botha macro won't count. We This week, a national survey found

almost three-quarters of adults are in favour of overhauling the way

state-funded fate schools select their pupils. But just choosing

pupils according to what religion they belong to amount to

discrimination, and would removing that might be an attack on

religious freedom? Faith schools include some of the

most popular and academic success than in the country. Many parents

will do almost anything to get their children into them. However,

many find the doors closed and their faces because they do not

belong to a faith. Now what campaign group called the Accord

Coalition is trying to stop schools selecting pupils based on religion.

Many believers say this amounts to an attack not only on tradition but

on faith itself. They claim it is vital children learn about their

religion from their curriculum and by mixing with children of the same

fate. Many parents argue it is not their religion is a prerequisite to

get your child through the doors of the best church schools. And those

opposed to faith schools say more mixed environments help prevent

racism, homophobia and segregation. Some atheist campaigners, such as

Richard Dawkins, even regard faith schools as a form of brainwashing.

But those who support faith schools say they are at the heart of a

healthy multicultural society that respect parental choice. So should

schools be allowed to choose according to a child's religion, or

is it time to end such selection? You can join in by webcam or phone,

text, e-mail or online. We welcome back Charlie Wolf. Do you have a

faith background, have been chosen to give your children a faith

upbringing? No, my kids do not go to a fate school. They go to a

multicultural school. They learn about all different types of faith.

I love that they do that. And you wouldn't send them to a faith

school? I wouldn't, not that we have one. If you have one and was

doing really well in the league tables? The bid was a good school

it would be a different matter. At the end of the day, I'm quite happy

they are going to a school where it is truly multicultural. They do get

to learn about other religions and other points of view and get to

make up their own minds. I want them to grow up and decide for

themselves. We live in a country where there are so much tension

around religion and division. You look at America, where you are from

a rich elite, where 40 or 50 years ago there was this terrible racial

segregation. Why should we be encouraging religious segregation?

It's all about choice. I have a son that goes to whey-faced school. My

main motivator wasn't so much faith, I knew he would get a better

secular education. British state education scares me. To be fair,

yours is a particular case because your child is not in a state faith

school. You're right. It would be nice to have the extra resources,

but I don't want any more politically correct fluff being

showered on us, we get enough already, even in a face school. He

gets a better education. I'm proud that he is learning of his Jewish

heritage, even though it was an afterthought. It has not harmed him.

They have an ethos that talks about their community and other people.

We live in a diverse community. His two best friends are two so Malian

girls living down the street from us. If it's what parents want for

their child's upbringing? Charlie talked about toys. Our local

primary school is a fake school, so we didn't really have a choice. --

faith school. We had to go there, so I got stuck in, became a school

governor, tried to get them to change the admissions policy, but

they didn't. There are some good faith schools and some bad, but the

fact in the round, church schools take fewer children eligible for

free school meals, they take fewer children with special educational

needs. Stonewall studies tend to suggest there's an increase in

homophobic bullying. All the statistics suggest that this

negative discrimination in employment in admissions isn't good.

When I was a governor of the school, we have advertised price just to

get a decent colour of head teacher. -- advertised twice to get a decent

colour back of head teacher, because we asked for a Christian to

be the head teacher of the school. And yet you are saying the schools

tend to do better. And I'm not saying that, they don't tend to do

better. Many faith schools do well in some areas. I want to bring in

Neil Hamilton, he is a former Conservative MP, but he also

happens to be a former teacher in the Catholic School. Why do you

think faith schools often seem to do better academically? In general,

there is a great sense of discipline and attentiveness to

detail. In schools which have that kind of background. It is a

generalisation, and all generalisations, including this one,

are false in a sense. Nevertheless, I think the atmosphere of a faith

school is often very different from one which isn't. Particularly that

is true in inner cities. Neil, did you ever feel guilty when you were

a teacher about the children who happened not to be Catholic and

therefore could not get a place at your school? I taught at a direct

grant school, they were abolished in the 70s. They have a certain

proportion of their pupils who were paid for by the local authority. We

did have a wide catchment area. It wasn't entirely Catholic pupils. I

wasn't a Catholic myself, even though I'd taught in the school. We

taught a wide range of curriculum. Religious studies involved learning

about other variants of Christian faiths as well. Why do you think it

is that in the round, faith schools take fewer children from deprived

backgrounds, and quoting 2009 House of Commons Library report, which is

generally a source of impartial information I have no idea and I

don't care, quite frankly! I rest my case. To me, this is all about

parental choice. It is all part of a free society. What you are

complaining about is actually one of the ill effects of the

nationalisation of education. That's the trouble with this

country. Parents who have to send their children to state schools, if

they have the purchasing power to choose for themselves and have the

same freedoms as richer people, you wouldn't have these problems.

one to bring in Andrew Penman, a journalist. What we haven't

discussed openly is how many parents in this country by about

religion to go to church to try to get their kit into the good faith

School in the neighbourhood. Tell me what happened with you.

certainly did not want my children to have a faith education, I'm not

a big fan of indoctrinating children. I simply wanted them to

go to their local state school. This state school was the opposite

side of the road from where I live in south-west London at the time,

but living that Close was no guarantee of getting a place

because one of the many religions we have in this country, the Church

of England, had decreed that half of all places would go to the

children of people who were Anglicans or, like me, were

prepared to fake it being an Anglican. New have a system in

which a large chunk of the population is discriminated against,

denied a choice. I was denied the choice of getting my children into

their local state school unless I faked being Anglican. And you did?

You could say it is fair enough that half of the places in that

school went to the children of Anglicans, if Anglican families

paid for half the teachers - but they didn't. The salaries of

everyone in that school was paid for by all taxpayers. My reasoning

was, why should some taxpayers be discriminated against, like I was?

I want to put what you raised to another contributor. David Conway

is a research fellow at Civitas and all that reports on the issue of

faith schools. It can't be right that British parents are having to

live to try and get their kids a decent education. That is a system

problem, isn't it? It can't be right but the fact is, contrary to

what the man who did lie said, faith communities who sponsor faith

schools, do pay a substantial premium for being able to have

those schools in the form of 10 % of capital costs. Therefore there

is no extra money per head per child spent by the state on

voluntary-aided schools. Bat is a technical argument. What about the

moral argument of parents are taking religion to get their

children into a decent school? believe considerations of fairness

have to do with morality, don't you? More than that, as I have said,

I don't think it is a good thing that parents should live. Though I

do sympathise with the gentleman who did. As was pointed out,

community schools tend to be very bad. But the wait for what is a

pupil premium. Not by doing away with good schools. I want to leave

it there. I want to bring in Richie Thomson from the British humanist

Association. We know your association is campaigning against

faith schools. Some would say you are more interested in getting

religion out of public life, rather than be interest of schooling.

are not interested in getting religion out of public life, bare

cars should - but there are some places where we should be a part of

life. We do believe in teaching religious education in schools. We

think it is important that children are brought up knowing that those

who have backgrounds different from themselves, of what is true and

close to their hearts. But we do think it is wrong that state funds

are used to segregate children by the religion of their parents. They

often socially select as well. Jonathan Bartley mentioned about

free school meals. That a certain faith is true and that others are

false. In the end, in your son's school or anyone's religious school,

you are really being taught your faith is right and everyone else's

is wrong, aren't you? necessarily. Judaism is more of an

ethnicity than religion. He is taught about the holidays, his

background and identity. But he's also taught about Christian

holidays. We are living like - that we live in a diverse society. I am

happy to know that he is going to a school with children who have

families that have the same goals that I do. I'm sure there is an

oddball or two in the school... he not learn that from you at home?

He gets both. Does he need to have that? We are out of time. Thank you

all so much. The big issue of the day - we asked you to vote on the

issue of Israel's military action, is it justified? 44 % of those of

you and text in said yes, it is. 56 % said No. I had this feeling that

people who choose to contribute on this debate probably have a strong

side. It has come out almost equal. You weren't in the first discussion,

what is your view on this? I agree with James on this. I feel you just

need to find the solution from now. You need to move forward. This has

been going on for years. I do sympathise with the Palestinians, I

do feel that they do feel targeted. They don't have an independent

state. I do feel if they were given that, people could move forward.

Thank you to everybody who has taken part in today's lively show.

To meanie et -- de Nina Wadia, Charlie Wolf, Jonathan Bartley and

all of our contributors. Please don't text or call the phone lines

any more. You can continue the conversation online on the website.