Episode 18 Sunday Morning Live

How do you feel about the police this morning, following the latest

on "Plebgate" this morning, following the latest

Good morning, I'm Samira Ahmed. Also on today's programme: Today is the

Hindu festival of Diwali, and many Hindus will be using the swastika in

their celebrations, but can this ancient symbol be reclaimed from the

Nazis? For me personally the swastika means

hope. And the Pope has suspended a German

Church leader dubbed the "bishop of bling" over his alleged lavish

spending. We ask, can you be rich and religious? Joining me this week

are Lord Lord Blair, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan

Police. Phil Scraton, Professor of Criminology at Queens University in

Belfast, and author of Hillsborough: The Truth. And a columnist from The

Independent, Owen Jones. We want to know what you think, so if you have

a webcam you can join us via Skype, or give your views on Twitter or

phone. Who would have thought that a senior

politician riding his bike would have cost him his job and sparked

off a long drawn-out debate over the severe weather warning at the of the

police -- integrity of the place. The Independent Police Complaints

Commission has announced an investigation into the so-called

"Plebgate" affair. The then Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell attempted to

cycle through the gates of Downing Street.

It was alleged Mr Mitchell called the officers plebs, something which

he has always strenuously denied. However, Mr Mitchell accepted he did

not treat the police with respect and apologised to the officer

concerned. Despite that, he ended up having to resign. The Metropolitan

Police say eight people arrested as part of the investigation into the

so-called "Plebgate" affair have been rebailed to a date in late

November. After the initial incident, Mr Mitchell held a meeting

with Police Federation representatives in an attempt to

clear the air. He maintains that comments to the press after that

meeting misrepresented what's he had said, and he had a secret recording

which backed up assertion. I give you my word that I never used those

words. Police Federation officers told the Home Affairs Select

Committee that their account of the meeting with Mr Mitchell was

accurate. They stood by it and had not misrepresented his views. You

don't think you've done anything wrong? At the moment no, I'm not

convinced that we have done anything wrong. A survey of rank and file

police officers said that "Plebgate" had damaged the Police Federation,

and suggested that 91% of those questioned believe it is time for

the organisation to change. Two of the Police Federation officers who

appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee have been summoned

to reappear next week. "Plebgate" isn't the first time the integrity

of the police has been questioned. The most damning criticism came last

year from the Hillsborough Independent Panel into the disaster

in which 96 Liverpool football fans died. It revealed that police had

deliberately altered more than 160 witness statements in an attempt to

blame Liverpool fans for the fatal crush. That cover-up lasted more

than 20 years, so can we now trust the police? Professor Phil Scraton

was part of that panel and the primary author of the report into

the tragedy. Here is his Sunday Stand.

Southall, or grieve, Steen Lawrence, Jean-Paul de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson,

"Plebgate" - moments in contemporary policing. Momentary Egypt, bad

apples, or consequences of a deeper mind-set. Following Stephen

Lawrence's brutal murder Lord Macpherson found institutional

racism throughout the Metropolitan Police. A decade earlier my research

into policing in the city of Liverpool arrived at the same

conclusion. A warm spring afternoon in Sheffield, on Hillsborough's

terraces 96 men, women and children lost their lives in densely packed

pens, like cattle pens. Hundreds injured, are thousands traumatised,

the bereaved and survivors expected thorough impartial investigations of

the condition text and circumstances. But it didn't happen.

I co-authored two in-depth report reviewing a venue and organisation

unfit for return, neglect in the duty of case, systemic failures in

the investigations and inquests, and widespread review and alteration of

police statements. Yet the victims remain vilified by a predominantly

hostile media fed by deceitful police officers, opportunist

politicians and those eager to deflect responsibility. They

infected outcomes and soured public consciousness. Two decades on in

Liverpool's an quan Cathedral I delivered the Hillsborough

Independent Panel's report to families. 1 3 findings distilled

from 2 million documents, disclosed by over 80 agencies. Our analysis

revealed evidence corrupted and institutional deficiencies in police

and medical investigations. Families vindicated, survivors exonerated.

Within minutes came a prime ministerial public apology for the

double injustice endured by families and survivors. It triggered

unprecedented investigations into 2,000 officers from approximately 30

forces, extending to all corporate bodies involved. 96 inquest verdicts

were quashed. Disturbingly, current police-led Hillsborough

investigations have no informed oversight, nor are they supported by

independent research. The Home Affairs Committee recently judged

the independent Independent Police Complaints Commission as woefully

underewined and hamstrung. Public trust in the police has diminished.

Effective independent monitoring now has to be secure if that trust is

ever to be recovered. Professor Phil Scraton with his view there. What do

you think? Can we now trust the police? Ian Blair? We have to as a

society, but it is obvious from Phil's report there that it is very

easy to lose. The question for you are our text and online vote this

week: Do you trust the police? Text VOTE fold by Yes or No to 81771.

Phil, new allegations about "Plebgate", but couldn't one say

there are always going to be a few case of wrongdoing, and that if you

put them in proportion it is wrong to malign the police force as a

whole? I think there are two issues here, Samira. The first issue is

individual cases, "Plebgate" is an individual case. It is an instance,

it happens in a flash, and then we have all the fallout that comes as a

consequence of that and we have to have ways of investigating, that

understanding that, getting to the bottom of it. Then you have issues

much more systemic, for example as I say in the film, Lord Macpherson's

comments on institutionalised racism within the Metropolitan force. This

is a much bigger issue, Hillsborough is a much bigger issue. A single

issue can be indicative of a much bigger issue. That require as much

more careful, most of more sustained inquiry and investigation, overseen

by people who are truly independent. That, to me, is the distinction

between what we would see the individual, the individual case, the

specific issue of bad apples or whatever we want to call it, and on

the other hand system that's systemic, something that's

underlying within a force. And you think there's a problem, that it is

bigger than a few individual cases? Oh, of course. I think that the

issue we can see that here in Northern Ireland, in terms of the

Historical Enquiries Team, when you put many millions of pounds into an

investigation into an inquiry that is supposed to have the faith of

people who live in those communities, then we, we are duty

bound to ensure independence, thoroughness in and accountability.

This is an issue of truth, yes, but also fundamentally, and this is what

the families would always tell us in all of these cases, it is an issue

of justice. Justice for them doesn't mean a head on the stick. It doesn't

mean an individual. It means understanding and getting to the

bottom of and exposing the issues that are systemic. Particularly with

"Plebgate", I wonder how much of this new round, the new questions

that the police, are because of who he was, who Andrew Mitchell was. I

would like the take this opportunity to publicly apologise to Andrew

Mitchell. Others should as well. I was among those who believed the

version of Egypt of the Sun newspaper and the Police Federation.

I think others should have been a lot more critical. Your question is

right. Andrew Mitchell to his credit has said if this can happen to a

Tory Cabinet Minister with all the power and influence and prestige

that comes with that post, what hope for a young plaque man in Brixton?

The other point to make is rightfully, and everyone should

support his campaign for truth and for justice, but what does it say

about our society where someone, a privileged Tory Cabinet Minister who

is well connected in the media, can get truth, can clear his name

effectively in the space of a few months, while it took the working

class families of Liverpool, whose children, whose fathers went full of

excitement and joy to a football match and ended up in body bags in a

make-do gymnasium? It took them a courageous stand, but it took 25

years to get truth let alone justice. It is the idea of how long

that cover-up was sustained and the scale of collusion over it. I

couldn't agree more. I described it as the worst example of a police

cover-up in western history. Hillsborough is a disaster for

police. A dreadful event and I praise Phil and his team with the

been of Liverpool who did that inquiry. There are a number of

points ina we need to consider. The Metropolitan Police considered the

definition of institutional racism and has done a huge amount to deal

with it. I personally think there's a number of organisations, including

the BBC, which could be easily described as institutionally racist.

Sure, but we are talking about the police today. We are. I'm just

saying these big organisations will always have a thin underlying line

of cast... With "Plebgate" too. I haven't finished yet. There seems to

be a pushing all the time to get more information, the police come

across as being very defensive. I think the police have moved into a

defensive mind-set and that's partially to do with the phone

hacking inquiry. It seems that the police have closed down, and I wish

they were being more open. I would like to know for instance why the

main "Plebgate" inquiry is taking so long? What we've got here is the

overture to the main performance. What we need to understand is

whether what Owen has said the true, that Andrew Mitchell's account is

truthful or not. We don't know. You've been in the police a long

time. What's your understanding about what's going on and how the

police are handing these allegations? This allegation it

seems to me seems to handled so slowly. I can't comment on what's

happening in it. Where we go to though, and I think what Phil has

done in that film, quite rightly, is to connect a series of apparently

unconnected events, but they may not be. There is definitely room for a

view a police that now needs to be re-examined. I actually wrote a code

of ethics for the police 20 years ago. When did the police get a code

of ethics? They should have had it 20 years ago but the Home Secretary

turned it down. One of the issues Ian is talking about is here - how

long do you have to wait? The issue of Hillsborough isn't about the

families waiting 20 years for justry. It is that a whole swathe of

senior police officers, of people involved in that process throughout

that time, were in denial. That denial was reinforced over and again

by Ian's colleagues. Throughout that period of 20 years. That, to me, is

part of the issue. It is not just about how long we wait. It is about

having appropriate oversight that comes very quickly to the fore, that

actually represents the views of those who are seeking justice, and

delivers. That's the issue. Just to pick up the point Ian made about

institutional racism in the police. You are right. Racism isn't specific

to the police. We still live in a racist society. The point is this.

The police are uniquely able to deprive citizens of their liberty.

That's why institutional racism is such an issue there. If we look at

Release the drugs charity, it looked at Government statistics. Official

Government statistics show if you are black you are nearly half as

likely to take drugs as a white person. Yet in London you are six

times more likely as a plaque person to be stopped and searched on

suspicion of possession of drugs. If you are found with cannabis on you

and you are black you are five times more likely to be charged with that

offence than if you were a white person. There is one explanation for

that, and that is racism. It comes a long time after Macpherson, a long

time after the Stephen Lawrence investigation, and we have to

address that as a society otherwise it raises fundamental questions

about democracy. Leroy Logan is a former police officer. What do you

make of the status of the police and the trust? Ian Blair, I think, feels

overall that the police have changed for the better, even if there are

still issues? Unfortunately, it is very disappointing that we are still

in the same position. It's quite clear that the lack of

accountability and transparency we are seeing in the police being held

to account. What we seeing with the young people I am working with,

through the Voyage programme, the Community Youth Coalition, it is

clear that young people see that officers are not held to account,

they are not being supervised properly. As a result of that, they

think, well, if a senior minister can be stitched up, they believe

every young black person, people from minority groups especially,

candy in a similar position. And it happens on a day-to-day basis. How

did you feel as an officer? Did you feel things were getting better, or

did you feel like some of these young people you talk about? It was

getting better, after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. I gave evidence to

the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and said that the police were

institutionally racist. Then we saw the group chaired by the Home

Secretary holding chief constables to account. The performance

indicators were clear. As a result of that, what gets measured gets

done. Unfortunately, since it has been devolved to chief constables,

it is like marking their own homework. I just wanted to put that

to Ian Blair. Unfortunately, issues on race and transparency have

slipped. I want Ian Blair to respond to these concerns. Good morning,

Leroy. I actually want to agree with Leroy. I was part of that Stephen

Lawrence Steering Group. I believed when I became the deputy

commissioner in 2000, just after the Stephen Lawrence report, that race

was the most important issue in policing. What about now? I have

watched it going down the agenda and I think it is wrong. Why? Other

things, as always in life, takeover. Who decides that? It was never fully

addressed. The bottom line is, I conducted the first research in

Toxteth and Liverpool, after the uprising in the community. For that

five or six year period, and I have written a lot about it, the

relationship between the police and the Liverpool born black community

was not an all-time low. There were slight improvements. There are

issues that have not been dealt with. When we talk about

institutionalised racism, and there is a distinction between what Claude

MacPherson calls institutional racism, and institutionalised

racism. Where it becomes embedded in the ideology. This is why the young

people that Leroy is talking about have little or no faith in the

police, I don't believe we have got into the depth of that and really

challenged it. There has to be outside input on that on a day by

day basis. One of the other issues is deaths in police custody. You are

far more likely to die as a result of being after police contact or

police custody if you are black. For example, Sean Rigg in Leicester. It

is only because of the campaigning of his sister that it comes to the

fore. We had a whitewash of an inquiry, exposing the failings of

the IPCC, how toothless it is. Because it is so dominated by

ex-police officers, for example, it does not hold the police to account.

You end up in a situation where predominantly young black men are

dying in police custody. I want to look at some of the changes in

police culture that is apparently addressing these issues. We are

joined by one of the police commissioners, Julia Mulligan, a

Police and Crime Commissioner. You have heard the concerns. They seem

to be these long-term ones. In your new job, what sense do you get of

how things are? Are you optimistic? I am actually optimistic. I think

there is a new generation of chief constables coming forward now that

understand the principle of openness and transparency needs to be

embedded in police culture. We are seeing a new code of ethics being

produced by the College of policing. 20 years after Ian Blair proposed

that? How will you do that? Can you tell me, briefly, how do you restore

public trust? I agree with a lot of the commentators, the discussions

around the need for independent investigations. change we are trying

to bring in a more independent scrutiny of police. It needs to be

independent from top to bottom. What is your view on who should be

scrutinising the police? A lot of this is a matter of political will.

The reason race was on the agenda was that Jack Straw was determined

that it would be. You have got to keep the pressure on to make that

sort of change. In terms of the IPCC, it needs to be strengthened

massively. But it also needs to have the right people, with the right

skills. Getting those that are not police officers in there is quite

difficult. Because the police are the people that know how to

investigate things. I know that David Davis talked about how in

California they have started wearing microphones and it has brought down

the use of force by police by two thirds. Are those the kinds of

measures we should be thinking about? You can have specific

responses. Listening to Julia, with all due respect, over 20, 30, 40

years, I have heard that kind of comment, things are improving,

things are getting better, and we don't see anything on the ground. At

a local level, the oversight of the police, the strengthening of the

commissioners and, of course, it was notoriously difficult to get people

out to vote for that. But that kind of intervention at a local level is

important. On the big cases, there has to be a standing commission of

some sort that provides oversight, that provides understanding, that

brings that level of independence and discipline. It is not that the

police cannot investigate the police, they are the only people

equipped to do so. But you have to have that discipline that oversees

those investigations. We have had so many of these episodes now, we

effectively need a public commissioner, a Royal commission as

it would be called, which would not be full of establishment patsies,

but would actually be witnesses, many of those that are affected by

the recent scandals. Another scandal is women that had relationships with

undercover police officers with false identities. We will not go

into the detail of that. One of those women feels that she was raped

by the state. We talk about phone hacking being intrusive. These are

people that had relationships under false pretences with people that got

into their lives, lived with them and, in one case, have a child with

them. You need a Royal commission that looks at issues like racism,

issues like Hillsborough, issues like Ian Tomlinson, and make sure

that we change the police. Picture we have an IPCC that can hold on to

account. We must not throw the baby out with the bath water. Every day

there are police officers doing extremely brave, marvellous things.

We must not smear them all. But, certainly, I have been calling for a

Royal Commission with others for so long that I have almost forgotten

it. It is more than 50 years since there was a Royal commission into

the police. When the Conservatives were coming into power, we were

asking them, can we have a Royal commission? They said they did not

have enough time to do it. Thank you very much. Some of your thoughts,

from those of you watching at home. Norman says, with lies and cover-up

from the police, how can anyone trust them again? Andy says, there

seems to be eight culture of dishonesty and closed ranks in the

police force. I don't trust them at all. John says, I do trust the

police, apart from plebgate, times and attitudes have changed. Melanie

says, we have no choice but to trust the police. But I want to see

transparency and discipline from the rank and file. Our vote is open. The

question is, do you trust the police? You can only vote once.

You have around 20 minutes before the vote closes. Still to come on

Sunday Morning Live, how one man and his family gave up their wealth for

religion. We sold the house. We gave our dog away and moved back to

inland. Today, Hindus will be celebrating Diwali, the Festival of

light. Used as part of the celebrations will be an ancient

symbol regarded as auspicious by them, the swastika. But many see it

as a symbol of evil, due to the use by the Nazis. Hindus and Jains see

it as a divine blessing and many want to reclaim it. That is the

focus of a programme on BBC One. He made what seemed at the time and

insignificant decision. Adolf Hitler adopted a symbol for his national

democratic socialist party. It was a symbol which, over the next two

decades, would become synonymous with hatred, fear and a regime that

slaughtered millions. The swastika. The swastika means nazism, it means

evil, death and genocide. In Auschwitz, it was an emblem I hated.

I didn't even want to see it. But the swastika has a long and complex

history. For thousands of years, this has been a religious symbol

with a sacred past. A sign of benevolence, luck and good fortune.

For the nearly 1 billion Hindus around the world today, it lies at

the heart of their religious practices and beliefs. For me,

personally, the swastika means hope. It means purity, or spaciousness.

The swastika will be used by Hindus to evoke a sense of the sacred, to

draw the attention of the divine to human undertakings. I'm sorry about

a view sound issues in that report. The story of the swastika, that

documentary, is on later today on BBC One. The campaign to reclaim the

swastika will be made harder by the anniversary next week of Crystal

Mac, where Nazis carried out a series of rebel attacks against Jews

throughout Germany. What do you think about the swastika? Can it

shake off its Nazis this year and is? You can take part in the debate

through webcam, phone, e-mail or online. Joining me is Kiran Bali and

Jewish writer and comedian David Schneider. How would you like to see

the swastika used in Diwali unwired -- and why is it so important. Light

over darkness, knowledge over ignorance, and with the swastika

healing and hope from the hatred of Hitler. This is an ancient symbol

that still maintains its pre-eminence amongst many religious

symbols in many cultures and traditions. We need to separate

accurate facts from distortions. Hitler knew what he was doing when

he appropriated a symbol like that. Have the Nazis damaged it

irreparably because of the fact they used it? They tried to damage it,

they tried to propagate fear and hatred. But for the billion people

who see this as a symbol of hope, or spaciousness and benevolence, we

have to work with those communities that were hurt by what Hitler has

done and change their perceptions. This can only be done through

interfaith dialogue. What do you make of it? Is there a case for

saying there is a victory in trying to reclaim it? It was interesting,

there was such an emotional reaction for me to seeing the swastika. If

the question is can it be a symbol of hope? Clearly it is, for many

people. For me it remains the symbol of ultimate evil. You are right, it

is an ancient symbol. But symbols change. The word gay means different

to what it was, everything changes, awful and nice... What does it mean?

Awful used to men full of awe. For many Jews and many people in the

West, as you are aware, it has a meaning that is the opposite of

hope. I suppose there is a dialogue to camp there. I would say, with

people like me, good luck. We need to look at the bigger picture. I

want to bring in Ian. Who owns swastika now? The answer to that

question, I have no idea. What my position on this would be, it should

be redeemable but I don't think it is. Ever? I don't think it is

redeemable for centuries. Look at what's happening in Greece. The

golden dawn are using a swastika, a right-wing racist massively

nationalist party, what symbol did they adopt? The swastika. It is a

wonderful idea but it is early. There are still people alive who saw

the swastika flying over Germany and Europe. It's the worst crime in

human history. Sit partly a matter of time? Is it partly geography, as

Dave was saying, that in the western world you can't expect to show it

publicly, however it is in India? They don't understand the use of it.

This is where education comes in. We must look at the majority of people

who see this as a symbol of goodness. Even in the last couple of

days I've been educated about the meaning it has tore Hindus, but it

is about context and at the moment the swastika, overwhelmingly in the

West, among non-Hindus and Jains and Buddhists, hate a different meaning.

I would be slightly worried if it was totally reclaimed, because it

would make me worry that the evil associations of the swastika will

have been forgotten and therefore Hitler and what happened there might

be. We share that deep hurt and anguish, but it is an opportunity as

well. There is so much time and resource going into interfaith

dialogue and understanding. Sit partly about where you see it?

Daubed on a wall. It is like when you do it as a comedian, when you

make a comment on television, you've got to be aware of who your audience

is. It is all about the context, so there'll be things I would say

privately to friend I might not say here on television. It's the same

with having a symbol like the swastika that it is obviously fine

within your community, but if you were to bring into it my community

or home it would have a different resonance. It is just being

sensitive. Absolutely, and common sense. You've played Goebbels. I

have. Listen, I'm an actor - I will do anything! But explain that. You

happen to be of Jewish background. Yes. Not like you can't touch it or

deal with it. Absolutely. I do comedy about the Holocaust. That's

because I'm aware of the context, I'm aware of the people I will be

performing it to, so when I performed Goebbels, when I was

Goebbels, it was in a film where it was satirising the Third Reich and

the insignia and the symbols I felt I could stand behind it and defend

why my performance of Goebbels was on the side of good rather than

evil. Isn't it being done with good intent... Nobody are going to say

the Hindus and their swastika use is bad. I think we can do that by

people experiencing the use of the swastika in the temples and the

homes of the Hindu community. I do think it is going to take centuries.

It is like the Vikings. You can see children's cartoons with Vikings

now. They are funny. They weren't at the time. Sit like the Spanish

Inquisition? Exactly. I think there is a matter of respect for the dead

killed by the Nazis. Not tonight dead who were killed in the camps

but the people who died fighting the Nazis. This is the biggest event of

the 20th century, the number of deaths is so enormous that it is

just a bit about taking more time, let people who are involved die, so

otherwise people I think will get pretty offended. I would like to

bring in a contributor on webcam, the deputy chairman of the Institute

of Jainology. I know in your faith the swastika is important. Used an

experience at your son's wedding, is that right? That is correct. The

swastika is an inauspicious symbol in Jainism. If you go to a Jane

temple you will find this set of symbol

PROBLEM WITH SOUND What did you change about your son's wedding

invitations when sending hem out? Generally in western countries we

feels not right the put the symbol where it is visible to other people,

because they have the wrong impression about the swastika. So

you had them pasted up on the invitation, the you sent them back?

In my son's wedding the invitation card had the symbol inside but the

angle at which it was posted was printed with a swastika, which I had

to reorder without the swastika. Because I felt that the people

coming into contact with thisful like the postmen might get the wrong

idea of who we are. You've heard people saying about trying to

reclaim it, that it is too sensitive for history and it is not just a

matter of survivors of the whole cause, but something fend them in

the West. I know you teach courses about its history. Do you genuinely

think you can reclaim it any time soon? Not soon, but it will take

time, but it will take effect gradually. When we teach the

courses, we try to explain the meaning in various faiths. We wanted

to understand that there are difference and views can differ, so

we should expect each other's views. OK. Thank you. I would like to bring

in Alex Goldberg, a chaplain o University of Surrey. I understand

you've changed your mind on the issue of reclaiming the swastika.

Can you tell us how? Good morning Samira, yes. Whenever I see a

swastika I do re in its image. David was saying that, it remind me of the

Holocaust, and racism, what was done under that banner in the 1920s and

30s. But having had interfaith dialogue with Hindus and Jains and

others it is about good. Let me give you another example. There was a

telecommunications advert in Britain 10-15 years ago, the future is

bright, the future is orange. If you put that down 500 yards from your

studio, there'll be uproar. In London it doesn't mean anything. We

have to realise that the hindy community -- Hindu community it

means something different for Jews... I was walking past the

Indian High Commission. If somebody drops a swastika down the bottom of

my street it is a symbol of hate and those people should be prosecuted

and charged with criminal damage. The German Metropolitan Polices

tried to ban it -- the German MEPs tried to ban it. That would be

terribly unfair to the Hindus. Is part of the problem that the

swastika has often been used by pop stars as a provocative and

deliberately insulting gesture and that adds to the problem trying to

reclaim it? We must not allow the misuse of the swastika to with the

-- to be the dominant factor. The symbols have been misused in the

past. The burning cross was used to terrorise people, the native

Americans. These are horrific events, but you still see the cross

everywhere don't you, because we associate the cross with religion,

God and hope. Ian, that's a comparison that people might make,

the cross doesn't have those associations over although. No, that

misuse of the burning Crosby the Ku Klux Klan or something is always

small, but the prosecution by the Nazis was so massive it will last

forever. My issue is or my worry is in 30 years, I know that young

people are starting to get tattoos, non-Hindus, atheists, swastika

tattoos because they are trying to reclaim it. My worry is that if it

is totally reclaimed will we still remember the negative side? My time

question is, sit almost the worst thing to say when everybody with a

living meme Royal Family the war has died, that's when we should reclaim

it. It is not just about the Holocaust, I'm not a Jew banging on

about the Holocaust forever, but I feel it is important that we

remember about evil in this world. The cast a is a very convenient coat

peg for us to debate evil. Even though we would want, that it is

important to remember the swastika as an evil thing so we can learn for

that. But we should not have double standards between the cross and the

swastika. Both have been misused for horrific purposes but we need to

work together to be optimistic and challenge that use of it. Thank you.

Alan says isn't it sincesensitive to use the symbol as long as there are

Holocaust survivor alive today. Lauren says if it could be reclaimed

as a symbol of hope, it should be reclaimed. John says the damage has

been done. Thank you. You've been voting on the

question: Do you trust the police. The vote is closing on that now, so

do not text or you may still be charged. We'll bring the result at

the end of the show. The Pope has suspended a senior

Catholic cleric who has been dubbed by the media as the "bishop of

bling". Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst has been asked to step down from his

diocese in Germany pending the outcome of a Church enquiry. He's

been criticised over the ?27 million refurbishment of his residence.

Pope Francis has crit sides clerics who live too lavishly. He told hem

not to live like Princes and has chosen to live in a Vatican

guesthouse rather than HIV in a papal apartment. Is it wrong for

religious leaders to live in style? Should those of fifth live humbly?

We visited a group of Catholics in England whose members have chosen to

live a life of poverty. The Catholic worker farm community

in Hertfordshire is part of a movement founded in the 1930s which

believes in works of mercy and poverty as a way of life. There are

185 such communities around the world. This one is run with the help

of volunteers by Americans Scott and Maria albreak. Scott had a big house

and a $50,000 a year salary in Chicago, but after he became a

Christian it made him reassess his life. I started reflecting on the

gospel reading where Jesus meets the rich young man and says, if you wish

to be perfect, go and sell all that you have and come and follow after

me. So he and his wife sold everything and moved to England to

set up the farm in 2006. The community grows much of its own food

and gives shelter to homeless people. There are 17 here at the

moment. One of those is Marie, originally from South Africa, who

wended -- who ended up destitute after the British man she married

left her. I couldn't have coped, because he been sleeping on the

streets rusks I had been riding buses. A friend had given me money

ever week, so I was sleeping on buses. It was exhausting. Here item

office isn't on material wealth, and the volunteers and guests devote

themselves to working on the land and regular prayer sessions. Hall

Hywelia, allieuia, I am the way, the truth and the lights says the Lord.

No-one can come to the Father except through me... We live in voluntary

poverty here, because it creates the space for us to Minister effectively

to the women and children. Scott believes that there is no bar to

being wealthy and religious. But you have to share your good fortune, and

he uses the words of St Paul as his guiding motto. Paul says, true

religion is this. To help the widow and the orphan. So I suppose you can

be wealthy and be truly religious in the Pauline sense, but that means

that you have to use your wealth to help the widow and the orphan. So,

is being poor closer to Godliness or can you be rich and religious? We

are joined once again by Owen Jones. Dave, I want to start but, is it a

core Christian belief thaw can't be rich and religious? Obviously I'm

Jewish, but a lot of my best friends are Christians. In fact I got

married in a church - sorry mum. And I think it, obviously there's a

sense in the New Testament and the Old, what attracts me about both is

the love thy neighbour and looking after the vulnerable, as the guy

just said there. Far be it for me to say you can't be rich and be

Christian, I'm more a political person. I find it weird that I have

to try and get my head around how someone can be right-wing and

Conservative and a good person. That's a terrible thing to say There

is a view of Jesus as a socialist figure, easier for a rich man to get

into heaven... Easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

Religion, and I say this as an atheist, you get a certain breed of

atheist that says religion is the root of evil. Religions have been

used to history to justify everything. My great uncle was a

Methodist preacher and a socialist. He used his Christianity to justify

that socialism. But look at the losses, it was used to justify

Franco's regime in Spain. But it was also used to create so-called

liberation theology in Latin America. Religion can be used to

justify all sorts of very different and conflicting positions. People

are very selective about the various texts they used to justify it. I

would like to bring in Michael Walsh. He is a Catholic historian

and a former Jesuit priest. In light of the latest allegations about this

German bishop, I just wonder how Catholics view these scandals, given

that we know there is a great deal of wealth and property,

historically, that the Catholic Church has? I would be surprised

if... The Catholic Church, as such, doesn't have any money. It is the

bishop that has the money, the dioceses. Some of them are wealthy,

some of them are not. Particularly those in Germany, where there is a

tax on all Christians that are paid over to the church. How significant

is what the Pope said about this? Obviously there is an investigation

is still ongoing. His background in Latin America, liberation theology,

tell us a bit about that tension in the Catholic Church about its

relationship with poverty and wealth? Well, religious orders,

people that enter religious life, have always taken a vow of poverty.

One of the problems with the church, one of the facts about the

church, is that it is inherited. The Vatican, if something has to be done

with it, you can't just hand it over. Particularly the idea that

this Pope is telling bishops and senior clerics to live not like

princes, it sounds like there is an attempt to change something about

the senior church, clerics, their relationship with wealth and status,

doesn't it? Absolutely, yes. He is not so much telling them, he is

acting it out. That leaves an even greater impression than just telling

them. He is living it out and it is very impressive. I think Catholics

will be very moved by it. Is it something of a Western obsession

about wealth somehow being an religious? The term filthy rich. In

Hinduism, it's a different attitude? We need to interpret the word wealth

in its right context. It doesn't always refer to monetary wealth. But

we are talking about monetary wealth. We are taught about living a

basic life, that we need some amount of wealth for survival. We should

not become too attached to amassing huge amounts of wealth. One of the

fascinating things about Hindu culture, there is a goddess of

fortune. People do invoke Ganesh. Is that potentially problematic? The

practice of faith does vary. Some people do everywhere by the book,

some will not. Is not about how you use your wealth? You can be wealthy

and use it well in a religious and good way. You can be poor and not

use your wealth well and not be a good person? Victorian

philanthropists, they did a number of great deeds in the name of

Christianity? People hark back sure that Victorian age of philanthropy,

which was justified by Christian belief and faith. It was this idea

that the poor should wait for the benevolence of the rich. You have a

patchwork provision of services and so on because of that. It was

Clement Attlee who said that charity is a grey and loveless thing. If a

rich man wants to help the poor, they should pay their taxes gladly.

It was an idea of moving away from this patchwork, where you wait,

piecemeal, for the rich to help the poor from the goodness of their

hearts, anti-tax people on the basis of their wealth to provide universal

services for all. I would reject that path. The Christian Socialist

's themselves rejected that in favour of a universal provision.

Very focused on making a difference to real-life, people deliberately

giving up possessions? A lot of people are making contribution to

charity, both visibly and anonymously. I want to bring in

another contributor, Rabbi Goldsmith, who works at a synagogue

in London. Should religions be anti-wealth? I don't think they

should be at all. Without wealth, you don't have food security for the

many, you do not have security shelter for the many, you don't have

education to meet shared with the many and you don't have communities

that can manage to include. Wealth is actually a necessary thing. As we

have been hearing, we have been seeing it at the bottom of the

screen when people have been contributing, what matters is that

if you are wealthy, you consider a corner of your field, whatever it is

you have, to be shared with the poor. It is a duty. It does not

belong to you, it belongs to the poor, the orphan and the widow. That

is a value I never shared with other religions. In Islam, it is a

fundamental pillar of the faith that you give a 10th of your income to

charity. Is that something that more people should think about if they

regard themselves as religious? Absolutely. It is also an obligation

in Judaism to give. The idea is that you do not own a portion of your

wealth. It must be given to other people. The other thing is, you are

also not supposed to give away some of your wealth that you then become

a burden on the community. It is interesting, seeing the tape earlier

on of the gentleman that did exactly that. He reminds me of a piece by a

rabbi who says, who is rich is the person satisfied with their lot. You

could see that is what they managed to create. Giving away wealth is not

a secret. Where do you think we go from here? I'm interested in this

idea that on one hand material wealth is to be renounced in

Hinduism, and yet there is a great celebration of material prosperity

in a lot of Hindu cultures? Somethings are utilised to help to

understand the Divine better. We use light to see things, that helps us

to obtain spiritual enlightenment. That is why you might see some

temples that look very magnificent. People worry about that, also

cathedrals. There is Karl Marx's view that religion is the opiate of

the masses. People come to fancy temples... Going to some of the

cathedrals of southern Europe, they are so impressive. You think, yes,

they were built to impress. But the amount of gold, in the Vatican as

well, the value of some of those paintings and what you could do with

that, I think it is very alienating. That is what was

inspiring about your video. That feels more religious and authentic.

The big question with politicians and religious leaders is, does your

wealth mean you are out of touch with people that are needy? A Latin

American priest said, when I help the poor they called me a saint,

when I asked why they were poor, they called me a communist. He was

killed. There was a strain of religious people that have been

active, not just saying you have to be charitable, but question the way

society is organised and why you end up with these inequalities. The

point you make about Karl Marx, I just wanted to but in, I did a video

all about Karl Marx last week, but that quote is often very

misunderstood. What he said was that religious expression, if you like,

was an expression of real suffering and a protest against that

suffering. He was not damning religious people, if you like, or

saying we should treat them with disrespect. He was saying, actually,

it is the conditions which, if you like, religion and people being

devoutly religious is almost a kind of protest against suffering. In

Hinduism, I know from Ioan family background, I have Hindu relatives

that talk, well, there is a sense of karma, it will be rewarded.

Sometimes it can be used to tell people they should accept poverty

and inequality? , karma is about reading what you sow. The focus is

not the material side of it. Both are sacred and both are used to

enlighten the soul. The worship that goes on in these temples, it is a

support network, it allows people to come together with dialogue. Is it

not true that religion offers a comfort, which can be a good thing

for people that are very in need? It is also that question, if you get

them to question why they are in need and take away religion, maybe

they will start changing things and that could be a good thing? I am

afraid we have to leave that discussion. The question you have

been voting on in our online vote today is if you trust the police.

Here is what you told us. 20% of you said yes. 80% said no. These are not

scientific polls, it is the people that choose to take part. But people

feel strongly. That is a strong... I think we are taking it at a very

specific point in time, plebgate is really prominent. But that shows

just what needs to be done for the police to regain trust. Some of the

comments, one says, some individual police officers are trustworthy but

the police, generally, are not. Another says, confidence has been

lost, not only through cases with a high level of publicity but through

small, everyday decisions that show a lack of common sense. Gill says,

nothing disgusts me more than police corruption. However, the good guys

outnumber the bad guys. Christine says there is good and bad in all

walks of life and the bad ones are usually at the top. It's a shame

bobbies on the beach take the flak. I think it shows the disconnect and

the endemic lack of trust that people have for the police force.

The point is not about individual police officers, it is systemic

issues, the culture. Away to address this is to have a royal commission.

We need to look at undercover police officers, the miners strike,

Hillsborough, all of that together. Far-reaching reforms, holding police

to account, making sure all communities are treated equally, no

matter who they are and taking on the culture of conspiracy. As a

member of a police authority, I have experienced first-hand the excellent

work that the majority of the police force are doing. We must continue to

support them. Also, we must have proper accountability. Briefly, do

you think they can do it? Under this new structure, they must continue to

work to find the best solution to ensure we have top accountability

and we are able to show that the police are doing their job

properly. On plebgate, I wonder who their PR person is. They should sort

it out quickly. There is so much evasion going on, it is damaging. We

have to leave it there. Thanks to everyone that has taken part in

today's programme, my contributors through webcam and all of my studio

guest scholar Owen Jones, David Schneider and Kiran Bali, and

Professor Phil Scraton who joined us earlier. Do not text or call the

phone lines any more, they are closed. You can continue the

conversation online. The links are on the website. There is no Sunday

Morning Live next week because of the remembrance commemorations. Do

join us again in a fortnight. From everybody on the team, good by.