Episode 19 Sunday Morning Live

A British Marine is awaiting sentence for shooting dead an Afghan

insurgent. It's been called a "heinous crime" by his

Commander-in-Chief. Others say he deserves some clemency because of

the stress he was under. Falklands veteran Simon Weston is one of

those. We ask you to decide: Should crimes committed in war be treated

leniently? Good morning, I'm Samira Ahmed. Also

on today's programme: This week, Prince Charles described the

countryside as "the unacknowledged backbone of our national identity."

But are we ruining it by placing too much focus on cities? Sorry about

that, I am Samira Ahmed and I am really here! Also on the programme,

Prince Charles described the countryside as the unacknowledged

backbone of our community. But are reruining it by placing too much

emphasis on our cities. And, Ann Widdecombe tells us why she believes

repenting for our sins could make us a less selfish society. Joining me

this week are Jennie Bond, who was the BBC's royal correspondent for 14

years. Nick Ferrari, radio talk show host and newspaper columnist. And

vicar and environmental campaigner, Reverend Peter Owen-Jones.

The horrors of war are well documented, but where do you draw

the line? That debate has been ignited by the case a Marine found

guilty by a court martial of shooting a prisoner in Afghanistan.

-- shooting dead a prisoner in Afghanistan. He is due to be

sentenced on the 6th of December and faces a mandatory life sentence. But

is that fair for a soldier under the unique stresses of constant combat?

Or is murder always murder whether it happens on the battlefield or the

high street? We'll debate that in a moment. First the background - and I

must warn you that this film contains some content which people

may find distressing. Marine A was found guilty of killing a badly

wounded insurgent who had been taken prisoner. The two Marines with him,

known as B and C, were acquitted. The case came to light after a

helmet camera video of the incident was found by civilian police on a

laptop belonging to one of the Marines.

Anybody want to do first aid on this idiot? Nope. I'll put one in his

head, if you want. Take your pick. Shortly after this point, a gunshot

is heard. The footage shows Marine A shooting the Afghan prisoner with a

pistol. Shuffle awful this mortal coil

you... It is nothing he wouldn't do to us. Obviously this doesn't go

anywhere, fellas, I've just broken the Geneva convention. Marine A said

he thought the insurgent was already dead and his defence mentioned

incidents where the Taliban had hung body parts of Marine A's dead

comrades from trees. Chief Chief of the Defence Staff made it clear that

Marine A must face the normal course of justice and there could be no

special pleading. No serviceman or woman of the British armed forces

above the law. They are not above the law, the law of the country,

international law, or the law of armed conflict. This was a heinous

crime. Judicial process has found this individual guilty. And it would

be quite wrong for the armed forces to adopt some special pleading, some

sort of exemption. Nevertheless the unique stresses of war should be

taken into account in sentencing, according to one former Army

officer. We don't know what sort of pressure he was under, however cool

he may have sounded on that tape, and how premeditated it may have

sounded. I believe that some sort of clemency should be exercised in this

case of this chap. So, should leniency be shown to members of the

Armed Forces who commit crimes while under stress in conflict zones, or

should they face the full weight of the law, to stand as a warning to

others? The case of Marine A. Nick, should there be leniency in cases

like this? I want to see the same level of leniency exented to this

Marine who puts his life on the line for this country, as we regularly

see in our courts for civilians every day of every week. It is a

question for our text and online vote this week. Should there be

leniency for soldiers who commit crimes in conflict. Text the word

VOTE followed by YES or No to 81771. .

Peter, I was wondering this, idea that a murder on the high street is

perhaps different to a killing in these circumstances. Do you think

there's a distinction to be made? I don't think there is any distinction

to be made. I think what disturbs me greatly about this is that here we

are saying that someone, Marine A, has committed a war crime. The crime

is war. I think we've all just to get our heads around this. The very

idea that 20 minutes earlier he could have been involved in a

battle, he could have killed three or four people and that's fine, we

don't need to worry about that, and we should draw a distinction here?

It is complete madness. We live in a world controlled and policed by men

with guns. Good Lord, how long are we going to have to endure this? I

want to bring Jennie in here. I think in York work, you've gone out

to war zones and spent time talking to soldiers. I wonder what your view

is on this issue I'm afraid I find it clear cut. A crime - a heinous

crime indeed - has been committed. I see no case for leniency. It is

cold-blooded murder. He is saying in one instance that he thought the

member of the Taliban was dead already, and yet he is suggesting

administering first aid. It was a vicious, nasty murder and I think it

should be treated as such I'm afraid. Nick? No, of course he's got

to serve time. I've never suggested he shouldn't. But let's go back.

Let's deal with this block, incredible bravery that he shows and

the provocation, again it is no excuse, and I will watch my

language, if it is true that there were limbs festooned on trees while

on patrol, apologies to everybody, he was under extreme provocation. I

can run through lists of people in courts now who ran over a small

child, no insurance and served four months. A woman did roughly the same

thing, I know this isn't premeditated murder, 8 months. Just

this week the mother of baby B, I know it wasn't murder, allowing the

torture of her child, came out after four years and is out shopping. Give

me a break. These people get leniency, why doesn't the soldier?

He shouldn't. As for your point, with due respect, every soldier is

culpable. Absolutely. No circumstances? You want every

soldier nicked? Away cannot draw a distinction between Marine A who

shoots apparently... There is a massive distinction. We cannot and

30 minutes earlier... He was in combat, being shot at. What are you

meant to do? All people in combat being shot are murdered. There are

chaplains who serve in the military and they can make a distinction

between the duty of a soldier, which can include to kill, and the

obligation to prisoners of war. You seem to have a more, would it be

fair to say a pacifist attitude to the principle of war in general? Do

human beings on this planet... We are just about to see Simon on

television, do we want to keep sorting out our differences by

killing each other? It is ludicrous, it is barbarous. To make a

distinction that one act, that one act of a man with a Guardian in a

field is any worse than hiding behind a wall and shooting... Could

the of, my friend. In something like the Falklands, where people are

invaded against their will, what do we do? We have to keep talking. Oh

please! I don't want to get into a debate about diplomacy. This is a

discussion about war situations. What would we feel if this was the

other way around, if it had been Marine A lying there groaning and he

was... They are doing it all the time. They are terrorists. Would we

feel that the member of the Taliban who had executed in cold blood

Marine A, would we feel that leniency should be shown to him? No,

probably not. No. I rest my case. I want to bring in a military

perspective here, and I'm delighted we are joined by Simon Weston, the

Falklands veteran and former Welsh guard. Thank you for coming on

Sunday Morning Live. What do you think of this case and whether

leniency should be shown to a soldier in the position of Marine A?

First of all I think we need to keep everything inville. I think we've

got poles of opinion on the Pam. Someone who is very religious and

believes we should pick up the pen and do nothing when somebody is

killing people wantonly. Jennie is looking at it from the a very legal

point of view, but unfortunately what we have to deal with is the

reality as you've got in the middle. It's the simple case that these guys

have been under mass provocation, but it is not just that moment, for

the whole length of time from the moment they hit the ground they are

seeing their own colleagues and friends butchered and murdered by

the Taliban. The Taliban seem to be able to do what we want and we seem

to have no recourse about it. It is not a case that one thing makes the

other thing right. This gentleman who has clearly done wrong and

admits he's done wrong, he should face justice, but the justice should

be tempered with the realism of what this man has done for the last 16-17

years of his life in all the different combat zones. He's risked

his life continuously and led men all the time and taken

responsibility for those which carries a huge burden as well. His

duty of care to his men has been immense. We must not forget what

he's done. The fact that this has let to this moment where he lost all

his humanity. That's all I can think. He lost sense. He lost

humanity. And he took somebody's life. With with he could have been

saved or not wasn't relevant. It wasn't his job to take his life at

that point. He was no longer a threat. But then we have to broaden

out the whole perspective. We have men shooting men at two miles with a

rifle. How do we though that person at the other end of the contact was

actually a threat to those people at that point in time? But we let those

people wander around with immunity and impunity. We use drones. We have

to draw a distinction. War is not a pleasant thing. Not a friendly

thing. It is going to see people do things that are very unpopular, very

unpleasant. This guy is probably the nicest man you probably ever will

meet walking the street. But he wasn't walking the street. He was in

a war zone. He had spent hours under attack. They had to call in an air

to bring that attack to a halt and then they went out looking for them.

OK. Can I ask you to pause for a moment because we have another

perspective from Frank from Cambridge. He's a barrister and a

former military intelligence officer. You served in Iraq and I

understand you've been a civilian adviser in Afghanistan. You may have

heard Simon there saying we need to show leniency to people like Marine

A. I think what we need to remember is that thousand thousands of our

soldiers have found themselves in situations like that over the last

decade, including people I served with on operations that I took part

in, who managed not to murder their prisoners, who managed not to betray

their calling in the world's finest armed service, the Royal Marines. I

take what Simon said, or that part of it which I heard, about him

having returned superb service, to have got to that point where he is a

Sergeant in the Royal Marines, our finest, best-trained infantry, but

he's betrayed that trust now. Whilst the circumstances of this murder,

let's not forget that's what happened, these guys dragged this

wounded and now prisoner to a place where decent soldiers couldn't see

them, and then Marine A shot him pretty cold-bloodedly in the chest.

That's murder. It is special circumstances, but we need not lose

sight of the fact this is an out and out murder. It's a war crime. Simon,

your response to that. Fist of all I never said he deserved leniency, I

said he deserves justice. The justice shouldn't be meted out by

public and popular opinion. I accept what the barrister is saying, but

ultimately how does he know that this is the

does he know, because he's not there with everybody. We have to take into

account that we don't ever get to bring the Taliban to justice. They

never get to see the justice that should be meted on them. As a Scots

soldier should be meted on them. As a Scots

off and was found butchered and shot to death many, many times. The fact

of the matter is this is what happens to decent people who go to

conflict. Sometimes they snap. Let me put that to Frank.

conflict. Sometimes they snap. Let concern, that the enemy they are up

against not following the Geneva convention and the stresses on

theseles are unique. I was a soldier, I've done four tours of

theseles are unique. I was a operations in pretty front line

conditions, including Iraq and Bosnia. But however I am a

barrister. One doesn't need to be a barrister or indeed a lawyer to

understand that whilst they may not be compliant with the Geneva

conventions, we certainly are. This is something that's drummed into

soldiers every year, every year soldiers are instructed, they have

to be what's called MATS, annual training, that the law of armed on

theflect a#34r50is to them -- applies to them whatever. It is not

palatable what the Taliban do to our soldiers on the rare occasions they

capture them. It is disgusting, but we cannot judge ourselves by their

standards. Nick, what is your view of two very different military

arguments. There is no question that this man has to serve time. I am

arguing that he is deserving of the same leniency that we see exhibit to

in our courts almost every single day. The sort of leniency that we

apply to others. Just because we believe this man should behave to a

higher bar - and he should - he is deserving of the leniency, and that

this is the point I am making. Jennie Bond. I feel that these

extending renting circumstances are being a bit exaggerated. They are

saying that maybe he snapped under the strain of war. There is no sign

in the evidence I have heard of him actually snapping. There was a

discussion about what they should do with this man, where they should

shoot him and whether they should shoot him, and a certain glee in

carrying out this murder, it seems. There was laughter, it seemed. I

don't think there was glee. It was grim resolution. It is a tragedy. It

is a tragedy for that man and for his family. How often, how many more

years are we going to sit here talking about this type of tragedy?

As long as we normalise war within a society, I think that is the crime,

that war is actually normalised. It is barbaric, and we should do far

better at stopping it. Simon, I am struck by the fact that a number of

senior military figures in the MoD have come out and said that no

leniency should be shown. What is your view on that? Justice has to be

justice. He is guilty, no doubt about that, but we have to temper

everything with the realism of what he does. The barrister can say that

they train people all the time, but he knows that people do do things

that are beyond the pale. In this case, Simon, do you think you should

serve a life sentence? Or should he be given, in his sentencing,

something that reflects the points you make? It should reflect the

points that I and the gentleman in the middle have made. The fact that

this chap has been through what he has been through, he's done what

he's done. But there are murderers in this country who do much worse

things, and they get much lighter sentences. If we are going to apply

civilian law to the military, we are getting it badly, badly wrong. In

your view, what would be a fair sentence? I am not a legal person. I

would not dare to suggest. But a life sentence on somebody who has

done incredible service to his country, I think that would be a

huge crime in itself. I was wondering how far a case like this

is isolated. In the military, do they suspect there was a lot more?

In that sense, was it that he was caught and many others haven't, and

that is part of the reason there is our knees in him taking a life

sentence? As I said, some 90% of soldiers can manage to take

prisoners, bring them to first aid, transport them to hospital, without

shooting them. That is the common experience. However, there are

isolated occasions where this doesn't happen. I'm afraid this

probably isn't the meantime this has happened, which is one reason why we

need to show we cannot accept this type of behaviour in the Royal

Marines or in British Army soldiers, or in air force airmen. This may not

be isolated. I suspect that down the road, we will come to more cases

like this. We need to show right now that this is not something we can

accept. With respect, it is not as if it is an epidemic. I didn't say

that. I said there are isolated cases. There were no epidemics of

war crimes in British forces. This guy has been nailed to the cross

unjustly. There is nothing unjust about being convicted for murder.

Where you take your victim out of the battlefield. I agree, but not

life. Peter, what is your view. The reputation of the army, it is said,

is affected in this case. We shouldn't be questioning what the

Army is doing in Afghanistan because the circumstances is so particular.

I think we have to look at how we define bravery.

I think we have to look at how we boundaries are in terms of where we

actually use weapons. It is never going to be clear-cut, because you

are in a life-and-death situation all the time. That is going to

clearly affect someone's judgement. But I would say that murder is

murder, whether it is premeditated or whether it happens to be on the

battlefield. It is important that we recognise that our men, our

soldiers, are better than this. They are better than the Taliban. Just

because bits of bodies strewn in trees does not mean we should debase

ourselves to their level. The mandatory life sentences laid down,

and I think that is what it should be - with parole, obviously. I want

the last word to go to Simon Weston, particularly on the reputation of

the military and how it might be affected in this case. That is the

big worry. We are doing all this in such a public forum. It should never

be hidden away from truth or justice, but I think we have

probably betrayed the Armed Forces to a degree, allowing it to be such

a public debate. I don't think the media should ever have been given

access to all this, because I think everything gets blown out of

proportion. Look to justice system will deal with this gentleman in the

way it is appropriate. He has committed murder. Nobody is saying

he should be let off, but it should be done in a military way, away from

everyone else, like the Americans do. Thank you so much. I just have

two read some of the view comments from home on this. Rob says, I think

the soldiers should be shown leniency. We are at war, and he did

his own job. Kirsty says, if you acted illegally, you should be

punished. Being a soldier has no bearing on it. Alan says, there

should be no leniency for soldiers. They should be held to the highest

standards, considering the power they wield. Thank you for your

contributions on that. Our boat on this is open. The question is,

should there be leniency for soldiers who commit crimes in

conflict? Text the word VOTE followed by YES or NO to 81771. You

have around 20 minutes. Still to come on Sunday morning live - Ann

Widdecombe hits out at me-generation. We seem to say these

days, why not? Why shouldn't I? Rather than, what is the value of

it? This week, news around the world has

been dominated by the appalling aftermath of the typhoon which hit

the Philippines. The death toll from the disaster now stands at 3600.

Half a million people have been made homeless. A worldwide aid effort is

under way, with the British government donating ?50 million as

well military help. More money has been donated by the public. People

have given a lot of money, at a time where things are tough here at home,

and in the same week as Children In Need. It has been an interesting

response, hasn't it? It has been a great response. All of us can always

do much more, but ?33 million and climbing is wonderful. Let's see if

we can double that. Jennie Bond, disasters on this scale can make

people feel helpless, because they happen again, and it seems

impossible to change things. How have you viewed the reaction? I

think everyone wants to give and keep on giving because the images

keep coming. It is a dreadful situation. I think it shakes

people's faith in God, I would have thought. It certainly makes me

question how there could be a god, and how he could possibly be

omnipotent if he allows such terrible disasters to keep on

coming. It does seem an obvious question. If anyone of us believe

that we have an intrinsic right to our next breath, we are deluding

ourselves. We live on and on stable planet with unstable weather

systems. We seem to think it is fine to walk around with guns to sort out

our issues. We live in a dangerous place. If we want to accept the

liberty of freedom, we have to accept that these are the conditions

we live in. To blame God for a typhoon, or for other disasters... I

thought he was in control. I thought he was all powerful. He is meant to

be, isn't he? Of course he isn't! I have faith, and I think something

like this is totally beyond control of the Lord or a God. It happens

because the earth shifts on its access. Well I've learnt something!

We have free choice. Something like this is driven by the wind and the

weather, and the moon and the seas, and to suggest that God could

control it at the very idea that God is in control might suit certain

elements of the church, but if he is in control, there is no freedom. I

would far rather be free, accept things the risks that come with that

in an adult way, rather than saying that it is all up to somebody else.

When you talk about man-made control, there has been a debate

about the possible impact of climate change, and there is a scientist at

the UN whose family was in one of the affected islands, and who was

crying and pleading for the developed world to think more

seriously how they can act to prevent these things. This is an

infrastructure disaster, where you can't get a din. It is extremely

difficult to get that aid in. I used saying that we are guilty for

creating this? -- are you saying? God has immediately been left off

the book, because he is the one raping the Earth's supplies, or

driving cars all over America and burning all that fuel. This is

man's decision. It is man's choice to do it. As an environmental

campaigner, do you have a view that humans should be doing more to

prevent the disastrous after-effect of a natural disaster? It is very

difficult. Take the fracking debate. We are promised endless energy for

50 years, but it is a fossil fuel. No one seems to be mentioning that.

If we keep on burning fossil fuels, we know pretty much that climate

change is as a result of human activity. Let's not dance around

this. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot keep burning fossil fuels,

and then say that it is all right to continue to do so, and yes, there

will be the odd storm. We've just got to wake up. We are screwing the

planet. An alternative view might be that these an actual disasters, and

all we can do is help clean up afterwards. That is the sad truth of

it. I was just making the point that, if I had a faith, which I

don't, it would have been severely shaken by witnessing that

unnecessary suffering. I think it is fantastic that the British

government have put up so much money, more than America, and that,

to me, is what the aid budget should be all about, not sending money to

India. This is what foreign aid is all about, and credit to the

government for that. Thank you. Prince Charles celebrated his 65th

birthday this week. He was in Sri Lanka representing the Queen at the

Commonwealth Summit. He also spoke up about rural Britain. Acting as

guest editor of the magazine Country Life, he wrote, Country Life has to

be sustained. Without it, we would be all the poorer. The countryside

is also close to reference Peter Owen-Jones' heart. This is his

Sunday stand. Over the last 50 years, the

countryside is fast becoming a forgotten land, and really that fate

should concern us all, because it is the countryside that produces our

food and increasingly our energy. Each time in the countryside when a

village shop shuts, when the bus service is run down, when a pub

closes, and currently there are about three closing every week, what

is lost at that point is a point of contact. And it is contact that

forms the base of community. Hello boys. Aren't you lovely?

Country life is being socially and culturally undermined for really two

connected reasons. The first is that most of the available cash being

spent on the Government is being spent to enhance the lives of those

who live in cities. HS2 and Crossrail just being a couple of

examples. Secondly, it is becoming increasingly clear that decisions

taken affecting the countryside are being made by an urban political and

media elite. Most of whom would not be able to name ten British

butterflies. This country is one community of citizens, and we need

to start to treat each other, urban and rural, equally. I love the

cities in this country. They are fast becoming citadels of glass and

steel, centres for energy and imagination. But what we really need

is a new cultural vision for the countryside. One that we can all

share in creating a future for the land. To harness some of the

imagination and energy that has created our cities. And express it

on the land that actually sustains. The views of Peter Owen-Jones

accompanied by the lovely views of his village. Apparently the cows

were so happy that they wouldn't even moo while the camera crew was

there. Does he have a point? Nick? I am a

townie and I want to live there. Property price -- property there is

beautiful. The reason that cities attract all the cash is that all the

people live there. It is the cities that are driving the economy.

London, the city that I have a radio show in... All the people do not

live there. The vast majority of people do live there. It is the

economic powerhouse that drives country. H 2 knot withstanding, you

have to look after where people go to work all the time. People work in

the country. I know, but in vast numbers and in the factories and

offices. Of course they work in the country, damn hard. 52% less in the

countryside than in the cities. This is just basically unjust. I want to

bring in Jennie here, because you live in the country now but have

lived this the city. I spent 30 years living in London and the last

10 living in a very remote part of Devon. The quality of life is a lot

better in the country. But this figure that Peter mentioned is

appalling, because we do need money in the countryside. We do need the

basic infrastructure. In my village there is no public transport, so as

we grow older, and if we cannot drive, we are stuck. The norrest

shop is four miles away. We need that support and resource.

Particularly because Prince Charles has come out as a champion of the

countryside, and it was in Country Life, which if you look at that

magazine it doesn't imply that the countryside is full of poverty. I

wonder if people think the countryside is run by and for rich

down-sizers or people with second homes. Don't get me started on

second homes. Bring it all up. With second homes there should be a real

disincentive to have a second home. People should be penalised until

they decide to live there. Why? Because they are killing the

communities. Do we live in North Korea now? Because you've done well

and you have a bit of cash and you want to buy a place in the Cotswolds

or Norfolk... You can do that but you have to pay a huge amount of

money for it in my view, because it is killing our country life. I'm

writing a book of walks at the moment and I'm spending a lot of

time tramping around the countryside. If you go to the

villages in the South West, all the hot beauty spots, the Lakes, the

Pembrokeshire coast, some of these villages have completely died

because of people buying second homes in what they consider to be

pretty places. It means that people aren't there to actually keep the

pub going, the school and the village shop going. Whole villages

have been decimated by second homes. What about form -- farmers? Prince

Charles argument is that we don't value them, that it is not

affordable for people to keep that life going. Some hill farmers earn

?8,000 a year and yet their produce goes to supermarkets and the

retailers make a huge amount of profit on the pittance that they are

earning. What's your view about how farmers view about how the City

value things that they grow and provide? There is increasing

polarisation between the countryside and the urban areas. The countryside

isn't just a postcard which people living in towns pass through to get

to where they are going. It is where people live, work and raise their

families. It's a cultural problem. Most of our British culture is

channelled through the urban channels. We hear very little about

what's actually going on culturally in the countryside. It has become a

forgotten land. Prince Charles is worried about hill farmers earning 8

grand? What about people who get up tomorrow and clean hospital floors

in London and Birmingham and Sheffield earning ?11,000 what about

them? Sadly when you are ill, and may it never happen to you, you have

to go to a big city. We can't get broadband because there aren't

enough people living there, and that's largely because of the second

homes. Because we live in a remote part of the country, where we need

to communication more than ever, we are not allowed to have it. I want

to bring in another townie to back you up, Nick. Ed joins us presumably

from your urban hot spot with your broadband. Are you an arrogant

townie who doesn't appreciate what farmers do for you to stock your

supermarket? I certainly couldn't name ten butterflies, so I feel

guilty about that. I love the countryside. I just, I think there

is no accident that this trend continues of people moving to towns

and out of the countryside. Nobody forces people to sell their homes to

second homeowners. They choose to because they want a new life or want

more money. It is part of the trends that have been going on for

thousands of years that people prefer to live in the cities than

the countryside. What about people who want to preserve a kind of life

that they feel is under threat because the City doesn't understand

them? They have to find a way to make it work. I don't think anyone

is entitled to any sort of life really. Help them where they can,

but also if their life isn't sustainable any more I don't see why

everyone else should prop them up. Peter, why should everyone prop it

up? We need to look at what sustain ability is. If you are living in

London or any of the great cities you can only eat because of what's

produced in the countryside. Is the city life in that sense sustainable?

People living in cities are living the most unsustainable lifestyles,

basically fed off the back of the people living in the country. I

bought a pack of chicken breasts in a supermarket the other day and they

were from Holland. The apples I bought were from Africa or New

Zealand. Of course I value what farmers do. Let's be honest, there

is a lot of imported food in Britain, Peter. That's a huge

problem our farmers. They don't have enough chicken presumably, or

orchards. No, the plight of the countryside is largely economic. But

if we are importing cheaper food. We live under a capitalist system. And

that's wrong as well is it? So the military... Not at all, that's not

wrong, it is just the way it is. I find it strange that you are saying

you bought chicken breasts from poll land. Only because I noted on the

label, and I thought what a shape. I would have loved them to come from

Suffolk or somewhere. Why didn't you look harder? I only had a certain

amount of time, Jennie! We know there is an issue about whether the

economic system is skewed against farmers. What about the issue of

attitudes in the country? I have heard it said by a lot of people

that there can be hostility to multicultural Britain in villages

that there can be hostility to and people who've met hostility when

they've gone there. Is that part of the reason why people don't value

the countryside? They think the people who live

the countryside? They think the attitudes? They do think we are a

lot of country oiss I'm sure. My mum lives

lot of country oiss I'm sure. My mum true. It is not fair at all. I'm now

on your side. I hate this word backward, but it doesn't help that

there is only one bus a day out of the village. No bus at all.

there is only one bus a day out of imagine that with no public

transport? The idea of attitudes perhaps being conservative with a

small c and hostile to change. I don't think that's the case. I think

the people living in the countryside, they get the same media

as everybody else, so are aware of the same issues. The very idea that

people are in anyway more racist in the countryside, I find that

absolutely appalling. The great danger is that townies, and I don't,

treat the countryside as some giant theme park. That would be really

scary for folk. In many ways that's how the media treats the

countryside, as a giant theme park. Let me read a few comments from

people at home. Paul says, is I wonder what percentage of people in

the country would be pleased if town folk moved in?

-- Ben says e exploiting it to a degree that's not sustainable. Thank

you all. You've been voting on the question.

. Should there be leniency shown to soldier commit crimes in conflict.

The vote is closing down. We'll discuss the result at the end of the

show. The former Government Minister, Ann

Widdecombe, is not what you would normally consider the shy and

retiring type. She sounded off as a Conservative MP, became one of the

nation's favourites dancers, and has appeared in panto and opera. She

says the world has become too self centred, and attacks what she calls

me generation. Her new book, Sackcloth And Ashes, is devoted to

penance and penitence, which she says would do all of us more good.

Sangita Myska went to meet her. You concentrate quite a bit of the book

talking about the me, me, me generation. Yes. What do you mean by

that and how, in your opinion, have we come to that stage? We live an

extremely self absorbed materialistic Sebly obsessed me

society. There's lots of manifestations of that, the death of

shame for example, which I think is a very widely observed one. And the

belief of some young girls that you can be a celebrity overnight. We

have a society which encourage that sort of ambition instead of internal

reflection. Instead of pondering on what is the meaning of life, what is

one's role, what can we do, what do we make of the world around us?

There's a much greater obsession with self, with shopping. With

falling off pavements on a Friday night. With longing to be the person

who is the overnight success on a talent show. There's a desire for

the instantaneous gratification. To what extent do you think you've

benefitted from the me, me, me culture? I don't think I've ever

regarded myself as the centre of anything. Quite inevitably when I

did something like Strictly Come Dancing and it became the completely

unexpected sensation of that season, and nobody would have predicted. I

thought I would be on there for three weeks. I would be a terrible

liar if I said I didn't enjoy that and didn't get massive benefit from

it, as there were loads of spin-offs from it afterwards. And I certainly

did. But on the other hand, that was a few months of my life. Actually at

the time I was in politics, as any politician will tell you, it is one

long period of trying to put things right. You may not alls succeed, for

individual constituents, for national institutions. For whatever

it may be. Your whole life is gathered to other people's demands.

You say in the book that penance has become full of negative association.

Is that render it meaningless in today's society? I do think it is

meaningless, but it is associated with negatives. For example, if you

take Lent. It is giving up. People think that it is negative. You are

doing something hard in giving up. But what it is aimed at, through the

reflection you produce, is that you will lead a better life. It doesn't

mean that you are going to live -- give up chocolate forevermore, but

rather than that, you have reflected the reasons for your penance, and

you want to lead a better life. That is an unmistakable result of

penance. If it isn't, what is the point? You also touch on sacrifice

and fortitude, and suggest that it has gone out of fashion. Many people

watching this programme may have been through real hardship,

particularly recently because of the economic downturn, and they might

take offence at this? I haven't said that there is no such thing as

misfortune in this world, clearly there is. Take the Philippines, for

example. I haven't said there isn't suffering. What I have said is that

we have lost a great wheel of the concept of fortitude, by which you

worked through the problem. You didn't seek an instant solution. You

didn't ditch a marriage after a year. You didn't go out and buy

absolutely everything in the world on credit because you didn't want to

go through saving up for it. What role has penance played in your life

as a committed Christian? I have always done an annual penance, which

I always grown about, and am always delighted when it is over, but I

find it is very beneficial. For the Christian, there is an almost daily

penance, because your daily consciousness, you are daily saying

sorry to God, that is your act of contrition, and you are daily making

up for it in some way. Our penance is tend to be private now, though.

One of the things you did in the book, it struck me, is provide a

pathway to penance. Repentance is one of the first steps you need to

take. Do you have any regrets? Do you have anything that you wish you

had said sorry for, or anything you have actually repented? Anything I

have actually repented! Come on! Christianity is a daily act of

repentance. If you just lose your temper, you must repent. We all do

that. If you are asking me if there is anything of a huge order of

magnitude that the world would consider a huge order of magnitude -

if that is what you are asking me, I am sorry to disappoint you and the

tabloids, but the answer is no. Thank you very much for talking to

Sunday Morning Live. Ann Widdecombe on doing the right

thing and the wrong thing. Let us know if you agree or disagree. There

was no mention of the Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz moment on come

dancing! -- on Strictly. What is your idea of penance? It is a very

old-fashioned idea. I don't think my daughter would begin to understand

it. I agree with her on this self-centred idea of celebrity, but

penance and repentance, it seems to me, in itself is rather

self-centred, in that you are pending so that you can get to

heaven. You are talking to this the couple priest. We have a vicar here

who is shaking his head! I have never done confession. Apparently,

you don't look at them face-to-face. Why not? You should look someone in

the eyes and say, I'm sorry. You shouldn't be looking at a vicar and

saying sorry, you should be going to the person against whom you have

transgressed. Peter. Penance is self-centred. It is an interesting

thesis. When penance is self-centred, and when one is doing

it to get to heaven, one is to losing oneself that this is in any

way possible. The great thing about penance... I agree with Ann

Widdecombe. I find that difficult to say! At I do. -- but I do. The type

of society that has been created over my lifetime - I am 55 - is

pretty ugly in places. We all need to say... I find it interesting that

we are living in a society where the idea of spiritual growth, taking

spiritual responsibility, is gaining the meant rather than losing it. But

is it done in a self-centred way? I do think it is. All this talk of

personal development... Ann Widdecombe is saying that we should

turn the clock back to a sense of shame. I am a massive fan of Ann

Widdecombe. A good question from the interviewer, who suggested that Ann

Widdecombe had benefited from Strictly. When she highlighted

issues such as... I didn't know you could have an abortion in your

lunchtime! Without doubt, we are talking about the fact that a young

boy is going to become famous because he is going to become a

football player. Or a young girl thinks she is going to become famous

because she becomes a celebrity. The idea that one should be ashamed to

have left a marriage. These are things that were stigmatised until

incredibly recently. We want to turn the clock back on that? I think that

if you give a year into something you have gone into with your eyes

open, that is a fair point. If you trade and marriage in over a year,

that is not a long time. What about the idea that this moral character

has been eroded, that people don't get married before they have

children. I don't think that the moral character of the country has

been eroded because people get married before they have children. I

think it is because we lack a sense of holistic shame. We really lacked

any future, because we are all so busy getting stuff and buying stuff

and doing exactly what we please. I don't get what we have to be ashamed

of? We have just seen a whole thing on the Philippines and the

possibility that that has been caused by global warming. I don't

see any change in behaviour in any way from our advanced industrial

culture to stop that. I think that penance is time to reflect. It is

time to actually learn from what is actually making you feel ashamed. I

think that is a good thing. Ann Widdecombe gives an example of John

Profumo, the politician who was disgraced in a sex scandal in the

early 60s, who dedicated his life to charity work. We have seen a lot of

political scandals in recent years, and it is not long before they are

back on the telly. Is that what she is getting at? Shame in the sense of

needing to rethink where you went wrong and what you should do as a

consequence? Yes, and there is nothing wrong with that. There is

nothing wrong with being reflective on where we are going and the

spiritual consequence. But I think she takes things to a bit of an

extreme. This whole idea of penance is something that is quite foreign

to me. I think it is a beautiful thing, and we have lost it in our

society. I think the idea that we could do better, not in terms of

making more money or being more attractive, but in terms of being

more compassionate and loving others. I think the penance is

actually stepping back and saying, I really didn't do that very well.

Isn't it more than that? Otherwise it is just you reflecting on

yourself. Is it about going out and performing some act of community?

Lots of churches in America, where members of their congregation commit

adultery, they make them go and stand in the road with a big

placard. I am not advocating that, because I think that is demeaning,

but I am advocating self reflection, and if you happen to believe in God,

if you happen to believe in a divine force, that might inform it. As a

society, and we can see this in our politics, we lack any real sense of

time to reflect, time to actually garner what we feel and move

forward. If you ever have done anything that has inconvenienced or

hurt someone, how do you make amends for that? I hoped I would go up to

them and say directly, I have hurt you... But you are busy woman. How

do you have time? I have never understood, and I think it is rather

counter-productive, this idea that you confess your sins as a total --

two at total stranger. And you are forgiven. What would be penance for

you, Nick, if you could think of the situation that you would have liked

to do better on? In a perfect world, I would like to do exactly, but

sometimes you don't or can't, because the relationship has been

fractured. I would like to think that I would show some sort of

repentance in the eyes of the Lord. To go off and do something else in

the community? Absolutely. Our justice system still has an idea of

penance about it. I don't happen to think it is a good idea to lock men

and women up, and less they are particularly dangerous to society,

but I think that if we were more creative as a society, about how

people were rehabilitated, people could get to know themselves better.

Bank you. You have been voting in our text and

online vote today about whether there should be lenient the in the

case of soldiers and crimes they commit in conflict. Here's what you

told us in your boat. 86% of those of you who voted said that leniency

should be shown, and 14% said that there shouldn't. Marie says that

leniency should be granted as he was in a war zone and potentially

prevented more deaths. Joe says that there should be leniency, because

these guys put their lives on the line so we can live in safety. An

anonymous one says that these crimes should be dealt with more severely,

as they do in men's damage to our reputation as the country. -- they

do immense damage. He isn't above the law. He has been caught and

sentenced, and all I have been argued is leniency. Although is the

-- although these are not scientific polls, we know that there is a

strong feeling on this. It is not right to treat it as any other

murder in civilian life. I think that opinion has been swinging. The

opinion has been quite divided on various programmes. I kind of agree

with you that he perhaps should be given parole rather earlier than

later. Peter. I think it is a tragedy. To be discussing leniency

and whether he should be getting a harsher sentence I think it's pretty

hideous. As a society, we need to stop sorting our differences out

with bullets. Is there too much of sentimentality about the Armed

Forces? Don't want to question them? I don't question their bravery under

fire, but I think we need to have a bigger definition of what bravery

is. I am going to go and speak at 5pm on this. We need to be more

generous in the way we express this. Thank you all for your contribution.

Thank you to everyone who has taken part in today's show. My studio

guests, Jennie Bond, Nick Ferrari and Peter Owen-Jones. Thank you very

much for your contributions, and you can continue the conversation

online. The links are on our website. Next week is the last show

of our current series. Goodbye.