:00:13. > :00:17.There are 120,000 dysfunctional families in England according to
:00:17. > :00:21.the Government's figures. Their own adviser says they need tough
:00:21. > :00:25.intervention to break the cycle of failure. Is it simply a waste of
:00:25. > :00:35.time? Should we just remove the children from really troubled
:00:35. > :00:48.
:00:48. > :00:52.Good morning. Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. This week, the head
:00:52. > :00:55.of the Government's troubled families unit, Louise Casey, said
:00:55. > :00:59.the state needs to intervene swiftly with troubled families to
:00:59. > :01:06.turn their lives around. Is this state interference demonising the
:01:06. > :01:09.poor? James O'Brien thinks we are too soft on failed parents. We need
:01:09. > :01:13.to take more children away from inadequate parents. We need to cut
:01:13. > :01:19.all biological ties and give them as soon as is humanly possible to a
:01:19. > :01:22.mother and father who really, really want them. In the beginning
:01:22. > :01:27.God created the heaven and the Earth, the opening words of the
:01:27. > :01:32.Bible. Some creationists believe it literally took six days and rules
:01:32. > :01:34.out evolution. The green light has been given to creationists to set
:01:35. > :01:38.up their own free schools, but should the state be funding
:01:39. > :01:42.religious groups like that to educate children?
:01:42. > :01:46.Faster, Higher, stronger. That is the Olympic motto, which you may
:01:46. > :01:50.have forgotten in the latest furore over branding and censorship of
:01:51. > :01:56.everything from footwear to French fries. The alembics are meant to be
:01:56. > :02:02.the purest expression of athletic endeavour. -- the Olympics. But has
:02:02. > :02:05.it lost its soul? A very warm welcome to my guests.
:02:05. > :02:09.George Hargreaves is a religious minister and political campaigner
:02:09. > :02:14.who leads the Christian Party. In a previous career in the music
:02:14. > :02:18.business, he wrote many hits. Angela Epstein rides for the Jewish
:02:18. > :02:22.Chronicle. She has written for many publications over 20 years and is
:02:22. > :02:27.known for her outspoken views about hating dogs and hating dog owners
:02:27. > :02:32.even more. James O'Brien is a radio presenter
:02:32. > :02:42.and journalist. His controversial style led to the rapid Dizzee
:02:42. > :02:42.
:02:42. > :02:52.Rascal declaring him as bad bloke who beat people up on the radio. --
:02:52. > :03:01.
:03:01. > :03:06.that bloke. You can give your views The Government says that we have
:03:06. > :03:08.got a core problem with 120,000 families in England. They are
:03:08. > :03:12.dysfunctional and they carry out a high proportion of anti-social
:03:12. > :03:17.behaviour and crime and their children are trapped in a cycle of
:03:17. > :03:21.criminality. What should we do about it? The Government says it is
:03:21. > :03:29.time the state intervened in a more robust way. Few would argue that
:03:29. > :03:33.the child at risk of sexual or physical abuse should not be taken
:03:33. > :03:39.away, but is it right to take them away from families that just cannot
:03:39. > :03:43.cope? James O'Brien thinks so. need to take more children away
:03:43. > :03:47.from inadequate parents. We need to cut all biological ties and give
:03:47. > :03:53.them as soon as is humanly possible to a mother and father who really,
:03:53. > :03:57.really want them. And I am talking about children who are being
:03:57. > :04:03.neglected or living in a family that is clearly failing them, not
:04:03. > :04:07.just the children that are being abused. We live in a country where
:04:08. > :04:11.a child identified as neglected, endangered or even abuse is forced
:04:11. > :04:16.to endure concerted and often desperate efforts to keep him or
:04:16. > :04:23.her with precisely the people who have let them down so badly and so
:04:23. > :04:27.often. I was 28 days old when I was adopted and there is not a person
:04:27. > :04:36.on the planet with parents more loving were devoted than mine. That
:04:37. > :04:41.is more important than blood, surely? They would be the luckiest
:04:41. > :04:45.doctors in the land if they took delivery of their son at two or
:04:45. > :04:52.three years old. Even then a reputable damage would have been
:04:52. > :04:57.done to my basic nutrition and cognitive ability. -- irreparable
:04:57. > :05:00.damage. It chilled my blood to say so, but you should not get a
:05:00. > :05:06.limited chances to be a decent parent. The state has got to
:05:07. > :05:11.intervene more. This is not about the rights of adults. It is about
:05:11. > :05:13.children's welfare. The tyranny of biology that enslaves our social
:05:14. > :05:18.services actively ensures that hundreds of children have their one
:05:18. > :05:24.chance at a decent life taken away from them at birth. Let's give it
:05:25. > :05:28.back to them. Let's give them to people who can care for them.
:05:28. > :05:33.is the question. Should we be taking more of these children are
:05:33. > :05:36.away? No, we should be trying to empower the families. It should be
:05:37. > :05:41.a last resort to take children away from their natural parents. That is
:05:41. > :05:50.the question for our vote today. Should we take children away from
:05:50. > :05:56.problem families? If you think that we should, text the word yes and if
:05:56. > :06:00.no, a text the word no. You can also vote online on our website.
:06:00. > :06:03.Please visit the website for full terms and conditions and we will
:06:03. > :06:07.show you how you voted at the end of the programme. I suppose the
:06:07. > :06:10.concern is that you are keeping the family together, which has to be
:06:10. > :06:14.better than putting them into children's homes which is the only
:06:14. > :06:17.option in the short term. In the short term possibly, but the
:06:17. > :06:20.children's home can be seen in an ideal world as a very brief
:06:21. > :06:24.stopover before being placed in a proper adoption. What happens at
:06:24. > :06:28.the moment is that these children, because they are trying to enter
:06:28. > :06:33.our families, and enabled the natural link to be sustained, these
:06:33. > :06:38.children get shunted about from pillar to post. I am not buying
:06:38. > :06:41.into the Government's numbers on the 120,000 problem families. The
:06:41. > :06:45.specific cases that most people that look into this have knowledge
:06:45. > :06:48.of are the beginning and the end of the argument for me. Children
:06:48. > :06:53.identified at three months old, brought to the attention of
:06:53. > :06:59.potential are dog days before they are one, and not actually placed
:06:59. > :07:02.for two years. -- potential adoptive parents. I am aware of a
:07:02. > :07:05.case because the mother had had a second child by a different father,
:07:05. > :07:09.they reset the test of whether she was going to provide a decent home
:07:10. > :07:14.or not, even though the second father was not present. It is
:07:14. > :07:18.chance after chance, what is up to a point of wonderful thing, but
:07:18. > :07:22.that point needs to be lowered. They need to recognise what is best
:07:22. > :07:25.for the child, not the tyranny of biology that says that the natural
:07:25. > :07:31.link is better than putting a child with a demonstrably loving and
:07:31. > :07:34.functional family. Tyranny? I am a local Reverend in the East End of
:07:34. > :07:40.London in a black majority church and this thing of taking children
:07:40. > :07:44.away is ruining family after family. We have case after case, even last
:07:44. > :07:48.week, a woman in the maternity ward was threatened to have a child
:07:48. > :07:51.taken away if she did not answer the question in the way the social
:07:51. > :07:55.services wanted. It is a tyranny not happening just two children but
:07:55. > :07:59.to families and communities. That is a systemic problem. And it needs
:07:59. > :08:05.to be addressed. You cannot just take them away. In the black
:08:05. > :08:09.community, this is an epidemic that has got to stop. We don't need this
:08:09. > :08:12.nanny state, this nationalisation of child care. We need to start
:08:12. > :08:16.working with families and communities. Who is going to
:08:16. > :08:20.empower the families if not the nanny state? I think the word
:08:20. > :08:24.family is bandied around by such easy grace by everybody. What is a
:08:24. > :08:27.family? It is parents offering unconditional love and putting the
:08:27. > :08:32.welfare of the child before anything else. It is not happening
:08:32. > :08:37.and it is tantamount to abuse. If the child is not getting that a
:08:37. > :08:42.list of kindness, love, food, biological care, cognitive to care,
:08:42. > :08:46.call it what you want, then it is tantamount to abuse. By withdrawing
:08:46. > :08:51.the child from that family, we do not have to put a time lock on that.
:08:51. > :08:55.Maybe it is shocking the parents into seeing what the ramifications
:08:55. > :08:59.of if they continue in the way they have been conditioned to behave. It
:08:59. > :09:03.also gives the child some respite care. If you have a situation where
:09:03. > :09:06.somebody is drinking, using drugs, whatever it is that is collapsing
:09:07. > :09:10.the infrastructure of that family, then obviously they need a chance
:09:10. > :09:15.to regroup. The child needs to have a chance to have that respite care
:09:15. > :09:20.so that the whole situation can be looked at. When it is this horrible
:09:20. > :09:24.mish-mash of parents and children, how can you do that? You are not
:09:24. > :09:29.denying that parents have sometimes had every chance and they are
:09:29. > :09:33.neglecting their children? Yes, and this is a last resort. Parents have
:09:33. > :09:41.been disempowered. They do not know how they are supposed to discipline
:09:41. > :09:44.their kids and set the boundaries. Rear early? Absolutely. We have had
:09:44. > :09:53.the laws against smacking. So you make children safer by letting
:09:53. > :10:02.their parents had then? That his genius. What happens in Hackney,
:10:02. > :10:05.and children of smut. Let's not say they are hit. They are beaten by
:10:05. > :10:11.policemen with truncheons. I am saying let's be consistent. If I
:10:11. > :10:14.cannot use Corporal punishment on a child, then tell the police there
:10:14. > :10:20.cannot be to my children as well. Parents are disempowered by their
:10:20. > :10:23.own behaviour. It becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. If you give
:10:23. > :10:29.that responsibility to others rather than parenting, for which
:10:29. > :10:33.there is no manual, they will book, I have four children of my own, all
:10:33. > :10:37.by the same father and after marriage. -- no rule book. The fact
:10:37. > :10:41.is that there was no rule book and I was as clueless with number four
:10:41. > :10:45.as I was with number one. Do you think parenting classes will solve
:10:45. > :10:49.this? I used to work in Barnardo's and we put together parenting
:10:49. > :10:53.classes. They are part of the solution but the main solution is
:10:53. > :10:59.the community itself. What used to happen and what can still happen is
:10:59. > :11:03.parents taught their children. In the community. That has been
:11:03. > :11:08.fragmented by so much intervention by social services whereby parents
:11:08. > :11:11.do not know what they can teach. That system comes back and if that
:11:11. > :11:15.community is re-established then we do not need to take children away
:11:16. > :11:18.from parents that are not providing basic care. You have just establish
:11:18. > :11:22.the fact that children are not growing up in that wonderful world
:11:22. > :11:26.and they should be given a chance to grow up in better circumstances.
:11:27. > :11:31.The reason why... I do not like the phrase respite care particularly
:11:31. > :11:35.because this is not about chances. This is not about giving someone a
:11:35. > :11:38.brick. This is taking a child and giving it two loving parents who
:11:39. > :11:43.are desperate, desperate to increase their family and having a
:11:43. > :11:46.baby that is wanted. If you have got somebody at the age of two, one
:11:46. > :11:51.of the first pieces of advice you are given by social services is not
:11:51. > :11:56.to go on holiday for a year. Do not go away overnight? Do you know why?
:11:56. > :12:00.The child does not think it will be coming home. That is the system as
:12:00. > :12:03.it stands. It is not about the family from which the child has
:12:03. > :12:07.been taken away. It is about the bureaucratic nightmare motivated by
:12:07. > :12:15.this tyranny of biology to which the child is then subjected. Show
:12:15. > :12:19.me a society which operates as you have just described and I will show
:12:19. > :12:22.you society which does not need to take children away. That is the
:12:22. > :12:26.society that we are seeking to build three churches and community
:12:26. > :12:32.programmes and action. What you do not see is the parents, the
:12:32. > :12:36.families, the extended families, fighting to get their children back.
:12:36. > :12:41.I want to bring in a contributed joining us on webcam. Nicola, thank
:12:41. > :12:44.you for speaking to us. Your mother was an alcoholic and you had real
:12:44. > :12:47.problems in your childhood. Some would say you and your siblings
:12:47. > :12:52.would have been better off taking out of the home. What was the
:12:52. > :12:55.reality for you and what did you feel? I think that would not have
:12:55. > :13:00.helped us, the problems that we encountered, and the problems that
:13:00. > :13:04.still plague us in adulthood. They would not have been resolved by
:13:04. > :13:08.ripping our family apart. Even though you had real problems as a
:13:08. > :13:13.child at home, do think there is a case for others that did need it?
:13:13. > :13:16.What did you think you needed from the state if not to be taken away?
:13:16. > :13:19.What would have made a difference for us would have been support for
:13:19. > :13:23.my mother so we could have done something about resolving her
:13:23. > :13:27.alcoholism. The problems we had as children, not being able to express
:13:27. > :13:31.and deal with our emotions, not being properly cared for, would not
:13:31. > :13:35.have been resolved by putting us into a respite care situation. It
:13:35. > :13:38.would have been just as bad and we would still have emotional problems
:13:38. > :13:42.today. The only difference is that we would have been cleaner and
:13:42. > :13:47.better fed. My siblings helped me to get through that situation and
:13:47. > :13:50.without them I do not know how I would have survived. James, where
:13:51. > :14:00.there are siblings, they do feel that it is important to keep them
:14:01. > :14:02.
:14:02. > :14:06.I am not here to say that you should have been put in a
:14:06. > :14:12.children's home, but I do think you should have had the chance to be
:14:12. > :14:15.raised by a mother or father, rather than by your siblings. The
:14:15. > :14:20.siblings issue is all about people who have not got anything to
:14:20. > :14:24.compare it to. What is more valuable, to keep children in care,
:14:24. > :14:28.as happens now, for two or three years, because you can place the
:14:28. > :14:35.younger one but not the older one, so that neither of them get placed?
:14:35. > :14:41.How can that possibly be preferable, no children with improvement or
:14:41. > :14:43.some children with improvement? What Nicholas said was that what we
:14:43. > :14:48.really would have helped would have been her mother to have the right
:14:48. > :14:53.sort of support. Just looking at it objectively, I'm not sure how the
:14:53. > :14:58.mother is supposed to get the right sort of support, when she is in the
:14:59. > :15:01.very eye of her personal storm. Surely, you have to deconstruct
:15:01. > :15:05.that situation, give her the support she needs, absolutely. We
:15:05. > :15:10.are not just looking at the children in a vacuum, we have to
:15:10. > :15:14.look at how we can help the parents, too. But the two cannot co-exist,
:15:14. > :15:19.when they are all together. I want to bring in another contributor on
:15:19. > :15:24.the phone. We are joined now by an or foreign journalist. We know that
:15:24. > :15:28.the state has made big mistakes in breaking up families, and we know a
:15:28. > :15:33.lot about what has happened in care homes are - what is your view on
:15:33. > :15:42.the right thing to do with children? I think we have to apply
:15:42. > :15:46.common sense. Louise Casey, who are the government person responsible
:15:46. > :15:50.for families, I think has a lot of common sense. I agree with some of
:15:50. > :15:54.what has been said. There have been social workers who did not know
:15:54. > :15:58.what they were doing, who wrenched children away and put them into
:15:58. > :16:02.care homes and destroyed their lives. I think the biggest problem
:16:02. > :16:07.is that social workers have not got the responsibility, too many people
:16:07. > :16:11.are involved. For instance, that mother, who needed help with
:16:11. > :16:15.alcoholism, in a proper system, there would be one social worker
:16:15. > :16:21.allocated to a problem family, whose job was to help them through
:16:21. > :16:24.the system. The real problem is the mother's alcoholism. At the same
:16:24. > :16:29.time, that person would need to keep an eye on the children. This
:16:29. > :16:33.brings us on to the question of resources. If I can just say one
:16:33. > :16:36.thing, it is just that there is an enormous waste of resources. If you
:16:36. > :16:40.have got up to 10 officers of the state getting involved with one
:16:40. > :16:44.family, and passing the buck from one to the other, it is just as
:16:44. > :16:48.expensive as having one social worker, with sense and experience,
:16:48. > :16:52.who knows about being a parent, dealing with that family and taking
:16:52. > :16:55.a degree of personal responsibility. We are joined as well by a social
:16:55. > :17:02.worker and Labour councillor from Norwich. Every time we have looked
:17:02. > :17:05.at social care, we keep finding the same things - social work is low-
:17:05. > :17:08.paid and low status, and there are not enough of them. Is the reality
:17:08. > :17:12.not that you should be taking many more young infants away from their
:17:12. > :17:22.families, but you do not, because you have not got the money or the
:17:22. > :17:33.
:17:33. > :17:37.expertise? Yes, that is one factor. However, listening to the very
:17:37. > :17:44.interesting contributions here, James, I very much understand your
:17:44. > :17:49.compassion around the welfare of children, but I fall very much in
:17:49. > :17:53.the same camp as George, because I, like George, have the personal
:17:53. > :17:58.experience of being out there in the field, and wherever possible, I
:17:58. > :18:04.believe that children should stay with their biological parents. As a
:18:04. > :18:08.social worker, I have seen very few positive outcomes for children that
:18:08. > :18:15.have been taken away from their biological parents. That is what
:18:15. > :18:19.the research tells us a. That's precisely for the reasons I have
:18:19. > :18:23.been detailing, because the system is a busted flush, because you're
:18:23. > :18:28.trying too hard to retain contacts after the children have been taken
:18:28. > :18:36.away, that's because you're giving grandma more contact with the child,
:18:36. > :18:40.instead of placing a child with proper new parents. I am happy to
:18:40. > :18:43.sit here as someone who was raised by non- biological parents, and do
:18:43. > :18:48.battle with anybody who claims that I could have been raised in a more
:18:48. > :18:53.loving and devoted environment. That is my personal experience. It
:18:53. > :18:57.is possibly more pertinent than yours. Is it the case that people
:18:57. > :19:01.are leaving children in miserable homes rather than daring to take
:19:01. > :19:05.them away from the biological parents? I have been part of
:19:05. > :19:12.removing children from homes, I have been part of removing them on
:19:12. > :19:16.the very day that the referral has come in. I am not anti-removal.
:19:16. > :19:22.What I am saying is that knee-jerk reactions to certain cases which
:19:22. > :19:26.have been big in the media, resulting in the removal of
:19:26. > :19:30.children, is not the answer. These children belong with their
:19:30. > :19:37.biological parents, it is their biology. This is not about abuse,
:19:37. > :19:42.it is about neglect. Can I just put a Christian perspective, a Jewish
:19:42. > :19:45.one as well, the Ten Commandments, it is central to our faith that
:19:45. > :19:49.there should be a relationship between the child and its parents.
:19:50. > :19:59.And that should be an honourable relationship. So, we would resist
:19:59. > :20:07.the idea, from a faith standpoint, of ripping away any biological link.
:20:07. > :20:11.I'm afraid, but if you want to put a religious perspective on it, the
:20:11. > :20:19.central tenet of Christian and Jewish faith is the sanctity of
:20:19. > :20:24.life, the protection of life. course! How can you on a rei mother
:20:24. > :20:28.and father who have been in some way threatening that life? -- how
:20:28. > :20:33.can you honour a mother and father? What children need above everything
:20:33. > :20:39.else is continuity. I know that James takes issue with me about
:20:39. > :20:48.respite care, but if parents cannot give children the continuity they
:20:48. > :20:51.need, you need somebody who will provide that. You spoke about my
:20:51. > :20:55.family live somehow breaking the 10 Commandments, because I was adopted.
:20:55. > :20:59.Let me just point out to you that becoming a mother or father is not
:20:59. > :21:04.just simply about having a baby. It is about how you nurture that child.
:21:04. > :21:07.You do not have to be biologically related to be a mother or father,
:21:07. > :21:12.and you not have to be biologically related to honour your mother and
:21:12. > :21:15.father. We need to end the discussion then some. I would just
:21:15. > :21:19.like to point out that you made some comments about policing in
:21:19. > :21:23.Hackney, and obviously, all of that is unsubstantiated. We need to
:21:23. > :21:28.leave that discussion there. I want to bring in some comments from our
:21:28. > :21:32.viewers. This one says, a child should only be taken away from its
:21:32. > :21:36.biological family if there is a proven risk. This one says, we as a
:21:36. > :21:40.society have let down children in various ways. Feckless parents are
:21:40. > :21:44.just a small part of the problem. This one says, has James worked on
:21:44. > :21:54.the ground with families? I have worked with hundreds and I have
:21:54. > :22:04.seen their lives turned around with support. You can vote by texting
:22:04. > :22:07.
:22:07. > :22:17.us... Or you can vote online. You have about 20 minutes before the
:22:17. > :22:18.
:22:18. > :22:22.The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has approved the setting up
:22:22. > :22:27.of three free schools, run by Christian groups, which held
:22:27. > :22:32.creationist use. Many scientists are at the forefront of a campaign
:22:32. > :22:36.against such schools. -- creationist views. But with many
:22:36. > :22:41.parents seeking to send their children to such schools, should a
:22:41. > :22:46.parent not have the right to choose? The British Humanist
:22:46. > :22:50.Society, which opposes all faith schools, says any teaching of
:22:50. > :22:55.creationism is unacceptable in a state funded school in the 21st
:22:55. > :22:59.century. Creationism is the belief that God created the universe. Some
:22:59. > :23:03.Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in a literal six-day
:23:03. > :23:06.creation, as in Genesis, rejecting the idea of the Big Bang creating
:23:07. > :23:16.the universe over billions of years. But others have a more allegorical
:23:16. > :23:20.view, and some say that evolution is part of God's plan. But some
:23:20. > :23:23.creationists like to emphasise that evolution is only a theory,
:23:23. > :23:28.regarding creationism as a valid alternative, which should be taught
:23:28. > :23:32.not just in religious education, but in science. Many atheists and
:23:32. > :23:36.scientists are appalled at the idea, saying science teaching must be
:23:36. > :23:42.based on the mainstream consensus, not on faith. Under government
:23:42. > :23:46.rules for free schools, creationism cannot be taught in science. So, if
:23:46. > :23:50.it is taught only in religious education, where is the harm? Is it
:23:50. > :23:56.dangerous to allow children to be taught in schools run by
:23:56. > :24:00.creationists? Or has society evolved to such a point where all
:24:00. > :24:09.such things can be debated in schools? You can make your point on
:24:09. > :24:16.Skype, or on Twitter, phone, text, or e-mail. George, you're a
:24:16. > :24:22.creationist, and you tried to set up a school. I believe in a God
:24:22. > :24:28.which does not need anything to be God. Creation and evolution - a
:24:28. > :24:33.evolution takes lots of time, maybe no God, according to the humanists.
:24:33. > :24:37.Creation needs lots of God, and a little bit of time, maybe no time.
:24:37. > :24:41.I am on that side of the argument. This is why it is a great way to
:24:41. > :24:46.get involved and science. You have dropped your plan to set up the
:24:46. > :24:52.school, have you not? I asked David Cameron personally, are you going
:24:52. > :24:56.to allow me to teach creationism in science classes? He squirmed and
:24:56. > :25:02.told me to speak to Michael Gove. So that's the reason you dropped it.
:25:02. > :25:07.Yes, I cannot do it. Have a listen to what I'm about to say. I used to
:25:07. > :25:11.run a school for eight years. You can engage children in the question
:25:11. > :25:19.about time. One of these theories has a lot of time, one has a little
:25:19. > :25:27.bit of time. Let's have the discussion about this - why can't
:25:27. > :25:35.you just tee in religious education? You have got all sorts
:25:35. > :25:39.of professors who will say, actually, science has always been
:25:39. > :25:46.about the contesting of arguments. When the Government starts to say,
:25:46. > :25:51.you cannot teach this in science... James, your kids go to a Catholic
:25:51. > :25:55.faith school... I went to a Catholic school as well. I was
:25:55. > :25:59.taught biologically -- biology and the theory of natural selection by
:25:59. > :26:05.a Benedictine monk. He did not believe that the world was conjured
:26:05. > :26:10.out of nothingness in six days, and on the 7th day, God rested. He saw
:26:10. > :26:15.the Old Testament as, at best, an allergist. The reason we teach
:26:15. > :26:18.science in science and these things in religious classes is that you're
:26:18. > :26:23.opening the door to literalism and fundamentalism. If you argue that
:26:23. > :26:26.every single word in the Old Testament is historical fact, and
:26:26. > :26:29.the code by which we must live, then you're doing that thing which
:26:29. > :26:33.we are all familiar with, you're opening the door to slavery, to
:26:33. > :26:41.homophobia, to not eating shellfish, to not being allowed to touch
:26:41. > :26:44.animals. The problem with biblical literalism is that first of all, it
:26:44. > :26:52.worries me, because there is a certain amount of evangelism about
:26:52. > :26:56.it. It is too or over-enthusiastic. Secondly, the great minds who have
:26:57. > :27:02.studied Christian or Jewish scholarship do not actually know
:27:02. > :27:09.whether, when God created the world in six days, what a game meant.
:27:09. > :27:14.We're just giving it a modern-day interpretation. Six days could mean
:27:14. > :27:17.six epochs of time. One great rabbinic philosopher said, there
:27:17. > :27:23.will be men who will know all about science, and there will be men who
:27:23. > :27:32.know all about religion. The men that know about only one of them do
:27:32. > :27:37.not know anything, he said. George, why would you want to bring that
:27:37. > :27:41.into a science class? Science and education is about enabling people
:27:41. > :27:45.to question things. What the Government have done here is to set
:27:45. > :27:49.a precedent, of saying, you may not ask this question in a science
:27:49. > :27:55.class. What is going to be the next question you cannot ask in a
:27:55. > :28:01.science class? You cannot do French in a science class! We are not
:28:01. > :28:08.talking about languages. You're talking about teaching a myth.
:28:08. > :28:12.Scientists have written about creation. They are scientists.
:28:12. > :28:18.is a demonstrable fact... It can be proven, which is what science is
:28:18. > :28:20.about. You have got two kinds of science, the science of origins,
:28:20. > :28:24.and the science that you can demonstrate. If you put phosphorus
:28:24. > :28:33.in water, it will explode. And then you have got the science of
:28:33. > :28:38.origin... That's not science. It happened. What did? You can't prove
:28:38. > :28:44.it. So, everything that cannot be proved cannot be discussed in a
:28:44. > :28:51.scientific way? It would not be science! You could not prove, until
:28:51. > :28:56.somebody prove it, that you could not split and aplomb. -- you could
:28:56. > :29:02.not split an atom. So, your point is that all scientific argument is
:29:02. > :29:07.the same as theological argument? It is not the same, but I am sale,
:29:07. > :29:13.there is a place... You would be telling children, in a school, that
:29:13. > :29:17.this was a fact, if this is what you believed? We will take the
:29:17. > :29:23.Bible as fact in religious education, in science, if we take
:29:23. > :29:30.the creation of a tree as a fact, we will on pack it in a scientific
:29:30. > :29:37.argument, and there are scientists out Benz and doing it. -- unpacked.
:29:37. > :29:42.It is about civil liberties, apart from anything else. We have James
:29:42. > :29:46.now, a lecturer in science education. At the moment, these
:29:46. > :29:56.free schools can only teach creationism in re-use education,
:29:56. > :30:01.
:30:01. > :30:07.Well, the problems that you have got is not what is being taught and
:30:07. > :30:12.where, it is how it is being taught. I think George is mixing up science
:30:12. > :30:16.and religion. Science is about the explanation of the natural world.
:30:16. > :30:21.It does not consider the metaphysical. It does not consider
:30:21. > :30:25.the supernatural. You have got to remember that when you start
:30:25. > :30:30.undermining the theory of evolution, as I think may well happen in
:30:31. > :30:34.creationists schools, it then leads to children... I believe it is an
:30:34. > :30:38.intellectual abuse of children. You end up with children not
:30:38. > :30:42.understanding science, not being able to articulate the central
:30:42. > :30:47.tenant of biology. I think the creation schools and certainly the
:30:47. > :30:54.six-day biblical creationists are more harmful to religion than a
:30:54. > :31:04.theism or any other form of an to Christianity. -- atheism or any
:31:04. > :31:05.
:31:05. > :31:08.other form of anti- Christianity. What he is saying is that there is
:31:08. > :31:15.an abuse that happens if you have creationist teaching that makes
:31:15. > :31:22.them somehow not able to articulate. There are creationists that cannot
:31:22. > :31:26.tier their own shoelaces? We are talking about science here. Correct
:31:26. > :31:30.me, but James is saying that if we teach creation in the science class,
:31:30. > :31:34.it will somehow muddle that person up and they will not be able to
:31:34. > :31:39.articulate and grapple with science? Children become adults. I
:31:39. > :31:43.can give you names and addresses of children who have become adults and
:31:43. > :31:48.scientists and not gone to creationist universities, Warwick
:31:48. > :31:53.and Oxford, and got PhDs. That is because they start to think and
:31:53. > :31:57.grapple. That is what you have got to do. Go-ahead, James. You cannot
:31:58. > :32:04.just turn around and no 100 scientists. In America, yes, they
:32:04. > :32:08.have got there because scientists. They have 600 PhD scientists who
:32:08. > :32:13.believe that evolution is very dodgy and creationism is correct.
:32:13. > :32:18.In America, they created a list and you could only draw in that list if
:32:18. > :32:22.you were a scientist called Stephen or something like that, and they
:32:22. > :32:27.immediately had thousands. -- only joined that list. It is not a
:32:27. > :32:30.question of numbers, they had thousands. It is mixing up the
:32:30. > :32:35.natural with the supernatural. If you have children in the classroom,
:32:35. > :32:40.they are very impressionable. If you implant the misconception about
:32:40. > :32:45.science as a child, it is almost impossible to remove that
:32:45. > :32:49.misconception and creationism is a misconception. I want to bring in
:32:49. > :32:54.another contributor on webcam, Professor of thermodynamics at
:32:54. > :33:03.Leeds University. You are a scientist but you also support
:33:03. > :33:13.George's position. Shouldn't creationism be kept in church?
:33:13. > :33:15.
:33:15. > :33:21.Thank you. I am actually a professor of something else. You
:33:21. > :33:27.have to follow where the evidence leads. You cannot, as your previous
:33:27. > :33:31.caller was suggesting, suddenly ban Christians. Christians have
:33:31. > :33:38.believed in the Bible for centuries and actually they represent the
:33:38. > :33:42.ethos of a halt vast tranche of people, not necessarily Christians,
:33:42. > :33:46.but to accept that you have got to allow a genuine debate following
:33:46. > :33:49.where the evidence leads and the science in the classroom, and
:33:49. > :33:54.obviously the religious knowledge classroom, it goes without saying
:33:54. > :33:58.that when it comes to Christianity, you teach with what the Bible says
:33:58. > :34:02.and it speaks about creation. you and apologies for the confusion
:34:02. > :34:09.on the technical side. We have Professor McIntosh now, a
:34:09. > :34:18.creationist and a professor. Can somebody correct me? Can I see
:34:18. > :34:22.Professor McIntosh now? Are you looking at me at the moment? Right,
:34:22. > :34:28.Professor McIntosh, produce say hello, please? Hello. Can you hear
:34:28. > :34:37.me? I can. I had confusion in my ear. Have you just been speaking?
:34:37. > :34:43.was just speaking. Can I just say, we are talking about Christian
:34:43. > :34:46.teaching in the Bible. As a Jewish woman, the central point of our
:34:47. > :34:52.faith is the Bible, the Old Testament, and it talks about
:34:52. > :34:59.creation. That does not negate scientific teaching. We do not know
:34:59. > :35:03.ritually what the teaching, the words of the Bible, mean. --
:35:03. > :35:08.literally. Greater minds than ours created the world. Who knows what
:35:08. > :35:13.six days constitutes? As an orthodox Jewish girl who believes
:35:13. > :35:20.in the Bible and is up holding her faith, to negate any scientific
:35:20. > :35:24.rationale in the world, I just see it as articulating the work of God.
:35:24. > :35:31.I would be appalled if my children were not allowed to consider all
:35:31. > :35:36.the possibilities that science brings. Science may demand proof,
:35:36. > :35:41.but the fact is that it articulates what creation does. It does not sit
:35:41. > :35:47.as something that goes beyond the creationist argument. The two are
:35:47. > :35:50.inextricably woven. Apologies for the confusion. You are an
:35:51. > :35:55.educationist and Anglican priest. Should creationists be running
:35:55. > :35:59.schools? I have no objection to them running schools, but the
:35:59. > :36:04.important thing is that in science lessons, creationism is not
:36:04. > :36:09.presented as valid science because the reality is that it is only a
:36:09. > :36:13.minute minority of scientists but are comfortable with creationism.
:36:13. > :36:17.It is fine to discuss it in schools. And nearly always the best place to
:36:17. > :36:22.discuss it is in a religious education lesson. But in science,
:36:22. > :36:25.it is not a good idea to give the impression that we understand
:36:25. > :36:28.everything and know everything. Basically we want to present what
:36:28. > :36:38.is widely accepted and then encourage children to discuss
:36:38. > :36:43.uncertainties. Briefly, why do you object to his way of doing it?
:36:43. > :36:48.Science has always been low voices. Stephen Hawking for 40 years had a
:36:48. > :36:54.theory about black holes that was the accepted norm and one man in
:36:54. > :36:59.California said that you were wrong. And to know what, he was right. A
:36:59. > :37:05.small number of people, sometimes they are right. That is because
:37:05. > :37:10.they are allowed to have... talking about the theory of the
:37:10. > :37:14.paradigm shift? Even he would not recognise what you have just said.
:37:14. > :37:20.Paradigm shift is about the best observation of the observable
:37:20. > :37:23.evidence and evolution is the best solution of the observable evidence.
:37:23. > :37:27.It was John Paul II who apologised posthumously for Galileo for
:37:27. > :37:32.rendering him a heretic for arguing that the Earth resolved around the
:37:32. > :37:37.Sun and of the other way round. Just because it has happened for
:37:37. > :37:42.100 years does not mean it is right. Exactly and even if it has gone on
:37:42. > :37:47.for decades... It is about observable evidence. We do it in
:37:47. > :37:53.science class. That is what I am as before. Thank you very much for
:37:53. > :37:56.that spirited discussion. -- that is what I'm asking for. George
:37:56. > :38:01.needs to understand the nature of teaching. It is about young people
:38:01. > :38:06.exploring ideas and making up their own minds. Do not believe science,
:38:06. > :38:09.it has been proved wrong. And this woman says that creationism should
:38:09. > :38:14.be taught alongside Darwinism and children can make up their own
:38:14. > :38:17.minds. Thank you to our contributors. Later on Sunday
:38:17. > :38:20.Morning Live, blue skies are forecast for the opening of the
:38:20. > :38:26.Olympic Games, we think, but has the whole event been overshadowed
:38:26. > :38:36.by negative coverage and whingeing? Could the British just be Olympic
:38:36. > :38:37.
:38:37. > :38:41.complainers? Have the Games been tarnished by the sponsorship? You
:38:41. > :38:46.can keep voting in our opinion poll, about taking children away from
:38:46. > :38:52.problem families. If you think that we should, text yes, and if you
:38:52. > :39:00.think not, text no. Text messages will be charged at the standard
:39:00. > :39:04.message writ. You have five minutes before the opinion poll closes. --
:39:04. > :39:08.at the standard message rate. It is time for our moral moments of
:39:08. > :39:16.the week but I feel we have had plenty already! James, you have
:39:16. > :39:19.chosen a story about milk. Yes, the milk of human kindness! Real milk.
:39:19. > :39:22.Dairy farmers have protested at various processing plants around
:39:22. > :39:26.the country because they claim they cannot make one penny profit of one
:39:26. > :39:31.pint of milk because the supermarkets have squeezed until
:39:31. > :39:36.the pips are not squeaking but popping. Some supermarkets have now
:39:36. > :39:40.yielded. Morrisons is the latest, following the Co-op in simply
:39:40. > :39:44.raising milk payments among the protests. What is tragic is that
:39:44. > :39:47.they would not do so without the exercise of pressure by the farmers.
:39:47. > :39:51.It seems to be an increasingly common trend across the country
:39:51. > :39:56.that under the regime of uncontrollable capitalism, you are
:39:56. > :40:00.not allowed to object, strike, take industrial action, protest, without
:40:00. > :40:05.being labelled as some sort of enemy of the stick by vast swathes
:40:05. > :40:09.of the media. But it is working... This is why people do it because
:40:09. > :40:14.they are being treated unjustly. It is dairy farmers today, doctors
:40:14. > :40:18.last month, students last year. Slowly but surely, especially in
:40:18. > :40:21.the context of banking scandals and rampant commercialism by
:40:21. > :40:27.supermarkets, we are waking up to the fact that they are not going to
:40:27. > :40:37.look after us unless we jolly well make them. Interesting. Now, at the
:40:37. > :40:39.
:40:39. > :40:44.acquittal of PCTs Simon Harwood. -- PC Simon Harwood. My concern is
:40:44. > :40:48.that he was a policeman at the time. With his record in other police
:40:48. > :40:52.forces, how did this man get the job in a Met Police? They are
:40:52. > :40:57.talking about total policing, being professional. Surely this man
:40:57. > :41:02.should never have been a policeman. The issue if the disclosure of
:41:02. > :41:06.previous records of complaints about his behaviour. That was not
:41:06. > :41:11.taken to the jury. I am taking it one step further. There are issues
:41:11. > :41:16.of law there, but why was he a policeman on the day? The thing is
:41:16. > :41:22.that justice has to be done at the point of sale and this happens all
:41:22. > :41:27.the time, only after he and his crime has been committed, it turns
:41:27. > :41:31.out that the person has got form. Are we going to continue the
:41:31. > :41:35.process of justice just looking at the crime in a vacuum, isolation,
:41:35. > :41:39.or do we look at the person in terms of their criminal profile and
:41:40. > :41:43.make that known to the jury? Particularly as a police officer.
:41:43. > :41:48.Nine of the complaints were not upheld and something was something
:41:48. > :41:51.on a police. I think that George is quite right to identify his
:41:51. > :41:56.presence in the police service on that day as the bone of contention.
:41:56. > :42:00.The verdict was arrived at by a jury who had every single word of
:42:00. > :42:03.evidence and saw every moment of footage. This tide of disapproval
:42:03. > :42:12.of the verdict is not only ridiculous but quite insulting to
:42:12. > :42:17.the notion of trial by jury. There was a protest and I tweeted them.
:42:17. > :42:22.Are you asking for no more trial by jury, fair trials but not for cops?
:42:22. > :42:30.Where does that then? But he should not have been there. And your
:42:30. > :42:36.Storry is about a Nazi. -- your story. Yes, at a 97 year-old war
:42:36. > :42:41.criminal arrested in Budapest and charged with war crimes after a
:42:41. > :42:45.tip-off by one of the notorious Nazi hunting centres. There will
:42:45. > :42:49.always be the clarion call of protest about the fact that this
:42:49. > :42:55.man is very elderly. When you look at him, there is visual sympathy
:42:55. > :43:00.because you see this Bente, greying figure. He is accused of complicity
:43:00. > :43:05.in sending 16,000 young people to their deaths in Auschwitz in 1944.
:43:05. > :43:09.These are crimes against humanity on the most enormous scale and we
:43:09. > :43:14.cannot say that justice cannot be done because this man has reached...
:43:14. > :43:17.He has had the great fortune to live his life in freedom over 60
:43:17. > :43:22.years. 6 million victims did not have that opportunity and they
:43:22. > :43:30.should not be the tiniest protest that we are taking this man it to
:43:30. > :43:38.trial because he is 97. There should be everything that can be
:43:38. > :43:42.thrown at him. Do you agree? agree with Angela. That is nice! He
:43:42. > :43:46.has committed an allegedly heinous crime and if you do that, there are
:43:46. > :43:52.consequences. Judgment and mercy go together. The Dutchman should be
:43:52. > :43:56.that he will go to prison and die in prison. -- the judgment. The
:43:56. > :44:00.merciful thing is that he will not be killed. I think he said he was
:44:00. > :44:04.only following orders. That is not good enough. Thank you very much
:44:04. > :44:09.indeed. You have been voting in our opinion poll about taking children
:44:09. > :44:13.away from problem families. The opinion poll is closing now so
:44:13. > :44:23.please do not text because you could be charged. We will bring you
:44:23. > :44:24.
:44:24. > :44:27.London's Olympic organisers have assured us that it will be a
:44:28. > :44:37.glorious festival of sporting culture. But a lot of news coverage
:44:38. > :44:39.
:44:39. > :44:45.has been negative. So, are we being too negative, or has the London
:44:45. > :44:48.Olympics lost its soul? Serving years of waiting will end this week,
:44:48. > :44:53.when the Olympics get under way in London. Yet the nation remains
:44:53. > :44:58.divided between a sense of pride, and one of moral indignation.
:44:58. > :45:02.Traditionally, the Olympic message has been one of promoting peace,
:45:02. > :45:06.participation and understanding to sport. Many feel this message has
:45:06. > :45:10.now been lost to commercialisation, with corporate sponsors calling the
:45:10. > :45:14.shots. Some of the most highly visible sponsors are fast food
:45:14. > :45:19.corporations, in a country where one in three children are
:45:19. > :45:22.overweight. Some people feel this is sending a worrying message.
:45:22. > :45:26.People have been moved from their homes, and others have had missiles
:45:26. > :45:31.placed on their roofs. Soldiers back from Afghanistan are filling
:45:31. > :45:35.in for private firms, who were paid millions, but failed to recruit
:45:35. > :45:39.enough staff in time. Supporters of the Games same money from the
:45:39. > :45:42.massive sponsorship deals is what makes the Olympics possible, and
:45:42. > :45:48.the spectacle of world record- breaking athleticism will be the
:45:48. > :45:53.lasting memory from the Games. They say the legacy of urban
:45:54. > :45:56.regeneration will benefit the country in the long term. But will
:45:56. > :46:06.that got away our current concerns about short-term commercial
:46:06. > :46:12.
:46:12. > :46:16.exploitation? -- outweigh. I am very excited to J -- to say that we
:46:16. > :46:22.are joined by the Olympic champion Kriss Akabusi, and also by the
:46:22. > :46:26.author Mark Perryman. James O'Brien is still with us as well. Kriss,
:46:26. > :46:29.you were at Los Angeles, which is when many people say the Olympics
:46:29. > :46:34.got transformed into this big, commercial enterprise. London does
:46:34. > :46:39.not seem to be excessive, in comparison to that, does it?
:46:39. > :46:46.could say that, and quite clearly, for a successful Olympic Games, you
:46:46. > :46:51.do need commercial activity. The capital was bankrupt, the taxpayers
:46:51. > :46:55.were paying ad infinitum. In 1984, America showed that actually, you
:46:55. > :47:04.could have a vibrant Olympic Games and make sure that you had a
:47:04. > :47:07.lasting legacy, and that the state also had a few bob as well. But to
:47:07. > :47:11.mini-states end up out-of-pocket, so is it really worth it? It is
:47:11. > :47:15.definitely worth it. If you think about it, in the Olympic Games, we
:47:15. > :47:19.have got 26 World Championships happening at one moment. You have
:47:19. > :47:23.got young people from across the globe expressing themselves in
:47:23. > :47:28.terms of their physical prowess, and you're trying to find the best
:47:28. > :47:31.of human endeavour in one moment. Quite clearly, it is a moment where
:47:31. > :47:38.the world lays down its arms and comes together to show all that is
:47:38. > :47:43.best about human beings. If London went the way that Montreal went, in
:47:43. > :47:46.that case, it would not be about the Endeavour, would it? They it is
:47:46. > :47:51.why it is important in a capital society that you have the public
:47:51. > :47:57.will, and the business will, to make sure that this is one of the
:47:58. > :48:00.greatest, most passionate events ever seen. We are British, and a
:48:00. > :48:05.lot of the journalism has been British, it has been negative, is
:48:05. > :48:08.that the problem? I think the journalism is reflecting some
:48:08. > :48:12.anxieties. The anxieties are that all the claims made for the
:48:12. > :48:16.Olympics, that they would deliver sustainable jobs, lift
:48:16. > :48:24.participation in sport, increased tourism, have not got a scrap of
:48:24. > :48:30.evidence, from all that groups, dating back to 1984. -- from all
:48:30. > :48:35.the Games. Secondly, if you watch the Home Games from your sofa, in
:48:35. > :48:41.what sense is it a home Games? My argument is to open up the model of
:48:41. > :48:44.the Olympics, so it is a Games for all, not just for the few. I am a
:48:44. > :48:50.cheerleader, but you have got me on with Kriss Akabusi, the most
:48:50. > :48:53.cheerful man on the planet! To me, speaking as a former newspaper
:48:53. > :48:59.journalist, it is about getting up in the morning and looking for
:48:59. > :49:06.something to throw tomatoes at. It is what they do. Even with soldiers
:49:06. > :49:11.from Afghanistan sleeping rough? you have paid �700 million to have
:49:11. > :49:14.your logo on the screen, and therefore insulate London against
:49:14. > :49:18.the kind of bankruptcy which Montreal suffered, you would be
:49:18. > :49:21.pretty peeved if Tom Daley was then accidentally photographed walking
:49:21. > :49:26.past someone wearing a T-shirt of one of your main commercial rivals,
:49:26. > :49:30.after he had had a gold medal, touch wood, put around his neck. So,
:49:30. > :49:34.I think a lot of people are focusing on the frame, it is an
:49:34. > :49:37.ugly frame, but the Mona Lisa does not become a less beautiful picture
:49:37. > :49:42.because it is in an ugly frame. The Olympics will be a beautiful,
:49:42. > :49:47.beautiful picture. I am not a romantic, clearly the Olympics
:49:47. > :49:52.needs sponsors. But let's not forget who the number one sponsor
:49:53. > :49:56.is, us, the British taxpayer. We are meeting today on the day that
:49:56. > :50:00.Bradley Wiggins will win the Tour the France. My mission is for an
:50:00. > :50:07.Olympics which goes all round Britain, we have a yachting race,
:50:07. > :50:12.cycling race, all around Britain, which is free to watch. How do
:50:12. > :50:15.Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester, Sheffield, feel that they are part
:50:16. > :50:22.of these pimps? Open it up for the whole country, not just a
:50:22. > :50:26.relatively small numbers, who have got these high-priced tickets. --
:50:26. > :50:33.these games? We have been talking about how far journalists are
:50:33. > :50:38.knocking the Olympics - are you one of the haters? No, not at all. You
:50:38. > :50:41.say it is a British thing that we're complaining about this, I
:50:41. > :50:45.think every single Olympics that I can remember has gone through
:50:45. > :50:51.something like this. I was in Sydney in the year 2000, and it was
:50:51. > :50:57.exactly the same, in the build-up. They were saying, the security has
:50:57. > :51:00.gone too far. People were saying, it has sold its soul, we're not
:51:00. > :51:06.going to be ready in time. When it happened, everybody had a fantastic
:51:06. > :51:10.time. It was the most extraordinary time to be in Sydney. The whole
:51:10. > :51:15.city had a wonderful party. Every single event, everyone got involved
:51:15. > :51:21.in, and there was an amazing feeling of unity. It may or may not
:51:21. > :51:27.happen in London like that. But I want to say, everyone should hold
:51:27. > :51:32.off on doing it down. Let's see what happens first, it might be
:51:32. > :51:37.absolutely wonderful. One of the concerns is that athletes
:51:37. > :51:39.themselves are arguably being turned into commodities, and there
:51:39. > :51:43.have been used but the stories about athletes wearing certain
:51:43. > :51:47.brands, dressing in a certain way, so surely, that is more commercial
:51:47. > :51:52.than in your day? It is certainly more commercial than it was in my
:51:52. > :51:56.day. We were at the back end of amateurism, moving into
:51:56. > :52:01.professionalism, so I did earn a few bob, but nothing compared to
:52:01. > :52:06.what they can get today. We have got a young man in London, called
:52:06. > :52:16.Dai Greene, who hopefully we'll break by a British record and will
:52:16. > :52:20.become British champion. A guy called David Emery, he had to
:52:20. > :52:24.retire at 28 years old, to go and look after his family. Hopefully
:52:24. > :52:28.Dai Greene has got another 10 years, because of that commercial aspect,
:52:28. > :52:32.that his talent deserves to give him. It is really important that
:52:32. > :52:38.when you're at the top of your tree, in any sphere, but you have an
:52:38. > :52:43.opportunity to maximise it, in the Western world. In the Western world,
:52:43. > :52:47.the value is measured by pounds, shillings and pence. Yes, in
:52:47. > :52:53.athletics, the people who put the most bums on seats will inevitably
:52:53. > :52:58.make the most money. We have looked at athlete, but I want to bring in
:52:58. > :53:02.a contributor, a butcher from Weymouth, where the sailing events
:53:02. > :53:06.are taking place - you tried to get into the Olympic spirit a couple of
:53:06. > :53:10.years ago, tell us what happened. Actually, it was about six years
:53:11. > :53:16.ago, when we first earned writes for the Olympics. We got all
:53:16. > :53:25.excited about having the sailing in Weymouth. I put a sign up above the
:53:26. > :53:30.shop, saying, 2012 underneath, with five rings made out of sausages.
:53:30. > :53:35.And you got no end of grief from the brand police over this, didn't
:53:35. > :53:40.she? Actually, it set up there minding its own business for about
:53:40. > :53:44.18 months. Everybody walked past and smiled. We never sold any more
:53:44. > :53:48.sausages, but it was entering into the spirit of things. But then
:53:48. > :53:53.somebody came along and said, you could get into a lot of trouble
:53:53. > :53:58.over that. I said, why is that? Because of your Olympic sign. I
:53:58. > :54:07.said, but it is made out of sausages. What is the end
:54:07. > :54:16.situation? Well, now, we have got five frying pans up. That solved it,
:54:16. > :54:20.then! This is about security, and individual businesses. This is the
:54:20. > :54:25.real scandal. The reason we need tens of thousands of security staff
:54:25. > :54:30.in the first place is to defend the interests of sponsors. I have got
:54:30. > :54:34.my list of banned objects, which I cannot take into the Olympic Park,
:54:34. > :54:38.and it includes an extra packet of sandwiches. Trained soldiers will
:54:38. > :54:42.be preventing me going to the Olympic park with too many
:54:42. > :54:47.sandwiches, because they do not want me eating cheese and pickle,
:54:47. > :54:51.they want me to be eating a Big Mac. We are joined now by a coach, who
:54:51. > :54:57.has got concerns over the key sponsors, and what they say about
:54:57. > :55:00.the state of our health? Definitely. We all know that some of the
:55:00. > :55:03.sponsors are companies which produce products full of sugar and
:55:03. > :55:07.fat. It was not that long ago that tobacco was a major part of
:55:07. > :55:12.sponsorship for the Olympics. We knew even then that tobacco was not
:55:12. > :55:16.good for our health. The legacy from the Olympics might be that
:55:16. > :55:19.some athletes have done really well, but it will also be that companies
:55:19. > :55:23.which produce projects which are not particularly good for us, their
:55:23. > :55:29.profits will be increasing, because more children, more people, will be
:55:29. > :55:36.eating and drinking their products. Very briefly, that is a concern,
:55:36. > :55:42.surely, Kriss? Yes, it takes massive commercial companies to get
:55:42. > :55:47.involved in the Olympic Games. Perhaps certain sponsors it
:55:47. > :55:51.shouldn't have been considered, or do you think anything-goes?
:55:51. > :55:57.anything goes, for example, certainly cigarettes should not be
:55:57. > :56:01.involved. But where do you draw the line? There is a fine line, but I
:56:01. > :56:05.don't know where it is. Thank you all very much indeed. This one on
:56:05. > :56:14.Twitter says, the Olympics is an amazing event. It brings everybody
:56:14. > :56:19.together. It is athletes who are not on �200,000 a week. Next week,
:56:19. > :56:29.we will be back. But turning to our vote for today, here's what you
:56:29. > :56:32.
:56:32. > :56:39.James, the public mood is obviously on your side, so what does this say,
:56:39. > :56:42.do you think? It is important to clarify a couple of things. I am as
:56:42. > :56:47.much accelerating massively accelerated adoption, as I am the
:56:47. > :56:53.removal of children. It is a government policy, too. It is, so,
:56:53. > :56:57.fingers crossed. Yes, it will involve breaking some adult hearts,
:56:57. > :57:02.but the life of the children will be massively improved. What is your
:57:02. > :57:05.view on this? I am a recent parent, looking forward to taking a three-
:57:05. > :57:09.year-old to the Olympics, and a loving parent is probably the most
:57:09. > :57:13.important job in society, never mind Olympic athletes, with all due
:57:13. > :57:19.respect. The loving parents are the people who deserve a gold medal,
:57:19. > :57:25.and we need more loving parents. Kriss, it concerns people that
:57:25. > :57:32.there are so minutely affected children, and yet it is a large
:57:32. > :57:35.number, who are in unsuitable families? I would agree that the
:57:36. > :57:43.best place for any child, first and foremost, is with their natural
:57:43. > :57:47.parents. But sometimes, it cannot always be. It depends on the level
:57:47. > :57:50.of abuse which is going on. But I know that when I was in a
:57:50. > :57:53.children's home, the majority of the children that were taken from
:57:53. > :57:57.abusive parents still wanted to go back home to their parents at the
:57:57. > :58:00.weekend. I was a child who was left in the children's home at the
:58:00. > :58:10.weekend, when all of those are the kids went back to their mums and
:58:10. > :58:12.
:58:12. > :58:16.dads. Thank you very much all of you. Do not texted or call, the