Episode 2 Sunday Morning Live

what to do about appeals from the public to increase broadcaster's

Stuart Hall's sentence for sex offences. Some members of an Oxford

grooming gang have been jailed for life. What is to be done? A tougher

sentence or do they deserve a chance welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Also

coming up. Benefits caps are coming in and journalist Yasmin

Alibhai-Brown believes we are using losing compassion for those less

fortunate. They don't all smoke and Gamble and drink away their

benefits, they don't all shy away from work. Let's find our shared

humanity again. Let's stop the men rising the poor. Marrying out of

faith is one of the biggest dangers facing Judaism according to the

Chief Rabbi. Do interfaith marriages damage religion? We meet one couple

determined to follow religion. parents would be very disappointed

if I had even married or brought home a non-Jewish boyfriend.

guests are Ed West, the deputy editor of the Catholic Herald,

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a columnist with the independent, who first put

the story of one of Stuart Hall's victims to the police. And we are

joined by Rabbi Jonathan Romain. He wrote the book, the Jews of England.

We want to know what you think. If you have a webcam, you can join us

grieve, has just over a week to decide whether to ask the court of

appeal to review a sentence of broadcaster Stuart Hall. Last month,

Lee was sent to prison for 15 months for a string of child sex offenders

-- he was sent to prison for a string of child sex offences. It is

one of a number of recent cases raising questions about how we deal

with the perpetrators of these most emotive of crimes. Broadcaster

Stuart Hall received a 15 month sentence last month for the sexual

abuse of 13 girls, one aged only nine. Although he pleaded guilty to

the charges, at first he vehemently denied them. The allegations are

pernicious and callous and cruel and above all spurious. I am not guilty.

The attorney general Dominic grieve has received more than 150

complaints about the length of call sentence and is considering

referring the case to the court of appeal, which has the power to

increase the punishment. Two weeks again, five -- two weeks ago, five

men in Oxford were given life sentences for grooming and child

trafficking. This was the latest in a series of such cases involving men

of predominantly South Asian backgrounds. It led to special

messages being read out in Friday prayers at hundreds of mosques

across the UK, condemning child sex abuse. Sort yourself out, your

family, your community, your street. To get a child drug dependent and

sexually abuse that child, this is reprehensible. It is pure evil.

These men are pure evil. This week, the parole board has said Jon

Venables should be released from prison. He was jailed aged ten as

one of the killers of two-year-old James Bolger. Venables was released

in 2001, but sent back to jail in 2010 for accessing child

pornography. The latest sex offenders only prison in

Gloucestershire opened this month. The fifth of its kind in the UK. But

are long prison sentences the answer? Or is rehabilitation of

offenders the key to reducing these crimes?

That is the big issue, is it about long sentences or should we put more

emphasis on ring ability? Definitely come we should rehabilitation. --

more emphasis on rehabilitation? am not sure if it is qualitatively

different from any other serious crime. Yes, of course, you want to

punish the perpetrator but there has to be a follow on and we have to try

to rehabilitate if possible. That is the question for our text to vote.

Do child sex offenders deserve the Do child sex offenders deserve the

chance for reform? You can only vote chance for reform? You can only vote

once. Go online to vote for free. once. Go online to vote for free.

Results will be announced at the end Results will be announced at the end

Results will be announced at the end of the show. There are full terms

and conditions online. There is something about child sex abuse

which is particularly a motive. I wonder if it is so vilified a crime

that it means we don't want to think about helping. The Catholic Church

have got into a lot of trouble, partly because in the 60s and 70s

and 80s, it was believed that people 's sexuality could be treated with

therapy or in some ways changed. That was all part of the wider

belief of society at the time. Now most psychological thinking is that

people's sexual urges can't be changed at all. I think psychology

is still at such an early stage in development, that we can't be sure

enough to risk this. It is one of those areas where the emphasis

should definitely be on being more cautious. I would say, my own views

changed when I had children. It is all very well you saying that but if

you had to live near sex offenders, you wouldn't want to? That is true.

The problem with the church was they tried to use a cure as a cover-up.

They no longer now say that you can be changed. They did believe you

could be. I believe once someone has been brought to justice and

punished, there ought to be a second chance. Of course I would not like

to live next to a sex offender but I wouldn't like to live next to

anybody who committed a major crime. But what is the alternative? Unless

we create some kind of Devil 's Island and put these people in the

middle of the ocean, we have to rehabilitate people into wider

society. We certainly have to try. There may come a point where they

reoffend and reoffend and there is a cut a point. -- cut-off point.

Yasmin, you were involved in trying to bring about the prosecution of

Stuart Hall. What is your view? have to judge each case differently.

A child killer of a child, I would completely agree with what Jonathan

has said, you can't demonise these people totally. With Stuart Hall, I

got a letter, I wrote for the independent, I got a 3-page letter

from a victim. You often get these letters but there was something

about this letter which really got to me. After two days, I went to the

local police station. There was no name or address on the letter.

Except this to script and of how she had given a prize in school. That

was the bit that got me. A child getting a prize from a famous

person, and that famous person ruining her life, and very serious

allegations. Not the ones he has admitted to. The police were

fantastic, actually. Especially Lancashire police. They said he

wasn't on the radar until the letter arrived. I just think in his case,

the sentence is abysmally short. In other cases, with these Oxford

grooming gangs, maybe 20, 22-year 's is fine. -- 22 years is fine. These

men have no idea about loving sex with a woman, be it their wives or

the girls, they are really distorted men. On this idea of someone like

Stuart Hall, where it turns out there is a string of abuse, there is

a concern there is not enough focus on the victims and the sentence

should reflect how many times... The fact he denied it until very

close... Up to a certain point and then a certain number of offences

were admitted. Yes, just watching that clip, it was sickening, to say

it was a barefaced lie and then to be found totally guilty. You must

always render the people we don't see. We don't see the victims --

always remember. It is their pain and away their lives have messed up.

It is a terrible crime, to mess up people 's lives. Maybe the way they

bring up their children, it cascades down the generation, awful. I want

to bring in someone who has kindly agreed to talk about her experience.

You are a campaigner for voices for victims. Thank you for being willing

to talk to us for the new campaign does not affect the serious nature

of these types of offences. You were abused by a sports coach, is that

right, and other women have come forward and he was jailed for five

years? He was jailed for six and a half years. Presumably the court

gave reasons as to why they think that was appropriate. We were not

given reasons as to why that sentence was appropriate. For each

individual offence, he was charged from a minimum of 15 months to a

maximum of two years for each individual offence, which added up

to six and a half years. I felt that was in no way justifiable in

comparison to the psychological damage that we have since suffered.

Part of it is about punishment being proportionate and you don't feel it

was. There is also the question about whether giving him treatment,

the chance to reform and change his attitudes would have been something

you felt was important as well. were aware he would be undergoing

treatment, which I think is very important. I feel the emphasis is

placed on that to such an extent that justice to victims is not

delivered appropriately. What sort of sentence do you think is

appropriate for a crime as horrible as this? I have been informed that

paedophiles require about seven years of treatment so I think a

minimum sentence of that length would be a good start. Thank you so

much for speaking to us. I appreciate you being so honest.

think that really shows that before we can even punish or reform people,

we have got to know about the crimes. Enormous importance of the

victims speaking out, or family and friends who know or harp suspect

something is going on, but don't want to spill the beans -- half

suspect. They have to break through the barrier of shame. It is

institutional. The churches have protected these men for decades. Not

because the values were any different. Child sex has been

forbidden in this country from the late 19th-century. Everybody knows

it is wrong. They didn't think people could be treated in that way.

In the term of the Jon Venables case, I would agree about

compassion. Mary Belle was not handed after she committed a

terrible crime. I think you can have sympathy for both these children but

at the same time, if he is looking at child pornography, you have to

wonder how it could be treated. is Jon Venables. It is a fascinating

point, I wonder how many people can name the other person who killed

Jamie Bolger. The other person, Robert Thomson. People forget about

him because hopefully, he is now rehabilitated into society. You can

be compassionate towards Jon Venables but he is sick, if that is

the case. I have heard the argument made that we should stop calling it

child pornography, which implies it is out there. Actually you are

participating in child abuse by looking at it because these children

may have been abused in other ways as well. When you look at the Oxford

grooming case, a number of the men involved did get life sentences. I

wonder how far it is different. The social climate in which they were

operating, they were not individuals operating on their own, they were

part of a group of men who thought this was OK. There are these

grooming networks, they are all over the country, they are of all races

but there is a particular problem connected to certain groups and they

happened to be... It hurts me to say this because I am a Muslim but they

seem to be predominantly from Misslin background. -- of a Muslim

background. It is a kind of social activity, socially approved and

hidden activity, in some ways quite similar to the Catholic Church.

Something grows within a group and there is no one backing out of that

group. Some of the people in the families and communities must have

known. We have an imam from Bradford to talk to us. I understand that you

wrote that sermon about the evils of grooming, that was read out in a

number of mosques. Many people are asking, wasn't grooming in cases

asking, wasn't grooming in cases like Oxford partly about social

attitudes to women among musclemen? -- muslin then. Perhaps you can say

that that was an attitude but I work with young men from all backgrounds

and we are identifying a crisis of masculinity. It is about how

masculine and he is constructive. The world health organisation says

that one in three women globally is a victim of sexual violence.

let's talk about it in Oxford. We know that sexual abuse is a problem

in many countries but these cases in Britain has shocked us because of

the pattern that we're seeing. Muscle men in society have a

responsibility for protecting children. -- Muslim men. Numbers of

society have two protect all children. It is important that we do

not racial is crime. What is the answer? How do we protect the

children? These individuals are predatory individuals, and in the

street to grooming model, they operate in organised crime groups

that are highly sophisticated. They target these children to channel

them into abuse. Unfortunately, we are disconnected from the

front-line. I am sorry, I have to disagree on two points. You very

bravely and nobly made a brilliant speech for the mosques to speak out,

speech for the mosques to speak out, which shows that you understand

there is an issue to address. The Catholic Church did not do that. We

cannot say this applies to all groups. There is a particular

problem. It is a particular problem and we have two address it will stop

the something underlying something very particular. Let the Imam

answer. We have mentioned what to do about these vulnerable young

people, but what about the men who think it is OK to abuse them?

need more potential perpetrator programmes. We need to be more

proactive in preventing this. When we engage these young men are laid,

we can channel them away from that kind of abuse. Yes, there are

problems in particular communities, but it is important not to become

reflective from the general issue, which is that this crisis in

masculinity is making violence against carols and women in Norman

in many different layers. -- girls and women a norm. Thank you for

discussing this with us. Obviously, it is an issue within the Muslim

world and I am not sure if it is a religious or cultural issue, but

credit to the muscle is for dealing with this. It is a challenge to

priests and rabbis to give a similar sermon. -- the most limbs. The

reason we do not do it, the rest of society, is because we are

embarrassed and we do not like to think we have people within our

midst doing this. Most of society were aware of this. I have been

writing about this for 15 years and it is not true that it suddenly came

out. Finally, we have reached the point where we are talking about it.

People are talking about it. I want to bring another contributor in. He

is from an organisation that helps sex offenders reintegrate to

society. You work with these people who are vilified. Do you feel they

are getting a chance to reform? Perhaps I should explain. Circles is

a small group of locally selected volunteers, professionally

supervised. We work with men who have completed their sex offending

treatment in prison. They have been incarcerated for a number of years

the cars they have committed serious offences. But the ones that we are

working with have acknowledged through their treatment at the time

in prison that they have committed serious offences and they do not

want to reoffend. They will accept any help not to reoffend. It behoves

society that somebody is saying that, to give them every help not to

reoffend. Circles does that what we work carefully and closely with

police so that if there is a risk of a further offence taking place, that

individual will be reported to the police and might go back into

prison. So we support them in terms of social contact and practical

help, counteracting the isolation that these individuals feel, but

also it holds them to account by doing so with police and probation.

Remember, 80% of sexual abuse happens within the home. This is not

something that happens purely with grooming groups or celebrities. Most

abuse happens within the home. was a good point to raise. Thank

you. Import into view that point of view. Yasmin, do you feel we have

come a long way? We have, and we haven't. I think the judgements, the

artist who got no custodial sentence at all just recently, for his sex

crimes against young girls, and the Stuart Hall case, that says that

yes, we are beginning to wake up to this, post Jimmy Savile. But maybe

there is still, more than embarrassment, a social denial. It

is so hard to believe that in our society, this goes on all the time.

And it does. I want to bring in the viewers. I know this is a

contentious issue. Porsche says, sex offenders do not deserve a chance.

It is disgusting and wrong. Liam says there needs to be a balance

between punishment and treatment. Jess says, there ought to be

punishment but unless we support life sentences for everyone,

rehabilitation is essential. Thank you to everyone who has taken part

on this. And it is a question for our text vote. Do child sex

offenders deserve a chance to reform? If you think they do, text

the word, vote, followed by yes. If not, text no. Texts will be charged

caps come into effect across the UK. It is the trigger for a debate in

the General Synod of the ruling body of the Church of England, tonight.

They will be discussing welfare reform and consider a report

prepared for the meeting which warns that two categories are being

created, the deserving and the undeserving poor. Yasmin

Alibhai-Brown worries that we have lost compassion for those less

In the next few days, the latest benefit caps will hit families

across the UK. Once more, we will hear of scroungers, on the fiddle,

smoking and drinking away benefits. Be honest with yourself, do you know

believe that the needy are greedy parasites? Sadly, too many good

people do. Across Britain, as the latest cuts coming, more children

and their parents will be literally on the breadline, looking for food

in soup kitchens and food banks. In our land of plenty, we should feel

shame, but don't. We see these families as feckless, who deserve

and invite poverty. Yes, some people cheat the system. They are a small

minority. More understanding and less of the blame game would

influence policy-making. Ultimately, it would help juice the

lines at food banks. The next time you find yourself looking down on

those who have much less than you have, or blaming them for all our

ills, just stop. And think. The use of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Do you

agree or disagree? -- of the views. So do we demonise the poor? I think

there are occasional newspaper articles which emphasise those

fiddling the system but that is the nature of news. It tends to give the

bad the focus. In terms of politicians, I do not think there is

much of a language of demonisation. I hear it more in the liberal

press. Politicians themselves are quite careful about the language

they use. They are not.Give me examples. Only 1%, according to

government figures, only 1% of the problem with benefits are those who

cheat the system. Only 1%. When you listen to Iain Duncan-Smith or you

see the company which assesses disabled people, but all

compensation -- the whole conversation in this country,

triggered by right wing politicians, and not contradicted by the left,

has... Which politicians?Iain Duncan-Smith says that this is the

result of people cheating, the skivers, the shirkers, that is a

government message. Strivers versus shirkers. And that message has got

amended, that people on benefits are either cheats do not to work.

your column in the past, you have criticised the white working class

as tricking beer and sitting on the sofa. I do not mind them having

benefits. I have never said and I never will, I have never taken

benefits myself but when people are in that position, I think about

their children. You use the same language. I do not. This was in

relation to migration. Their hatred of migrants was a different issue.

am not sure if it is a matter of demonising, I think many people do

not understand. We run lunches for the homeless and one lady came in

and said they had brought some food to microwave. She did not think that

they might not have a microwave at home. What do we mean by the poor?

There are people on the streets who may have issues with dependency on

drugs or drink. But then we have these cases where we hear about

people with flatscreen TVs. Is there a definition of poverty as opposed

to relatively the poor? It is hard, -- relatively pure. When we do these

lunches for the poor, people inspected it to be full of drug

addicts, but no. Most people who come because they are homeless, or

they have no meals, they are good, educated, responsible. Most of them

had been in jobs but are not working. Many of them have been

caught in a spiral where they have had marital difficulties, lost their

home, got into debt, and suddenly you have white collar managers

sleeping in the park. Are you denying that there is an issue with

large numbers of people finding it hard to make ends meet? Do not deny

that. -- I do not deny that. I think the problem is low wages which makes

it hard for people to get into jobs. It comes back to migration to a

certain extent. This was a problem that should have been dealt within

1998. You can't blame migrants for this! I am not blaming migrants. I

am blaming the government who decided that this is politically

easier to import people to do jobs, rather than getting people into

work. Is there also a political discourse where people are being

talked about, and there is the idea that some people do not deserve the

benefits, which is why there is this cap. But then there is a different

treatment of bankers. People feel that bankers have taken more of our

money. There is more hatred towards the bankers. Either undeserving

bankers? They are all undeserving if they are making millions! The amount

of money cheated by benefits is much smaller than the amount cheated by

rich people. But it is more, located to try to get taxes out of very rich

people who might flee to switch alone. I think he is making the

point brilliantly. There is a divisive language. Iain Duncan-Smith

is a compassionate man. Even his critics would say, whether it has

terrible effects, he wants to help the poor. In terms of politics, it

does not actually make sense for the Tories to try to get people into

work does it does not matter for them. The very poor can sit there.

They do not cost the taxpayer that much money. As long as the money

rolls into banking, that is what happens. I do not want to get into

the politics too much. I think the issue of their demonisation is

interesting. Paul is from the Methodist Church. There is a lot of

discussion in the Anglican Church about whether there is a demonising

of the poor. Some people think that the Church should stay out of

politics and just do your work. are asking a question about whether

we should do charity and yes, we should. We have to ask why people

are in poverty. A large amount of it is injustice. I would like to take

the issue with the idea that the government does not demonise the

poor. 11 churches wrote the government saying that on three

occasions during the rollout of the benefits cap, the government said

things that were plain and straightforwardly untrue. All three

of them make the poorest look like cheats and scroungers. Can you tell

us what you felt was untrue? The most eye-catching one is Grant

Schaap said 900,000 people had come off benefits in order to do -- avoid

doing it this ability test because they would have failed it. Those

900,000 people were coming off benefits at cost to themselves

because they no longer qualified for it. We had people doing the right

thing being portrayed as scroungers and cheats by a government minister,

immediately before disability benefits were cut. That is

demonisation at its highest. Thank you. I want to bring in Matthew

Sinclair, the Chief Executive of the taxpayer 's allowance. Did you hear

what Paul Morrison had to say? don't think it is demonisation.

There is a debate, an open question about the extent to which people are

moving off benefits, because those benefits are becoming less

attractive, or because checks are becoming stronger. There have been

instances of benefit fraud. I think what the government has tried to do

is reform the benefit system to ensure that some of the dramatic

increases we are seeing in the cost of some benefits are arrested, so

that taxpayers are picking up the bill. They have enough pressures on

their own finances. At the same time they are trying to ensure benefits

are focused on those who need it the most. The answer isn't to lament the

rhetoric of the government, to get into this sense that the government

should keep quiet about benefits. The public are getting angry, people

get angry... It is a really good point, can I put it to the panel?

Actually, public attitudes, they do feel they are undeserving.

because the public attitudes have been fed by this story. The increase

in the number of benefit dependence is because there are more older

people, because there are no jobs, people are on benefits for the right

reasons. The story as told for the last six months, a fantastic act of

propaganda in this country. Is there a divide and rule aspect? It is

almost systemic. If you look back at the Bible, it constantly talks about

looking after the widow, the orphan, the stranger. The poorer

element of the society has always been there and it is almost

religious disposition to consider them. There will always be some

people who cheat but I would prefer there are a few people who get

through the net than the government penalised the vulnerable. Is there

an element of media distortion? Apparently only a couple of hundred

families have more than ten children on benefits. Those are the anomalies

that get reported. I don't agree with the idea that people are being

tricked into being poor. Most people respond to their everyday life and

most people are more hostile towards people on the same social level as

them who are cheating, which is why I think you get at the top, people

who hate each other... I don't think it is rich against poor. I don't

think so. After Dickens, Disraeli, the welfare state, what I loved and

admired about this country was that everybody felt a duty to those who

had less. That is more or less going from our culture. We will all be the

worse for it. There are also a lot of people who are doing what might

have once been called the big society thing, which seems to be a

politically dead idea. Religious groups and other groups have always

been there. We now have food banks, we have lunches for the homeless,

people running shelters for OAPs. We concern? -- really happening.

course it is. People have to go to food banks because there is not

well as an economic squeeze. This says benefits caps are not about

scroungers but lessening dependency on the state. Megan says, the right

wing media has done its job with the strivers and shirkers narrative.

Later, do interface marriages damage religion? -- interfaith marriages.

You can keep voting on our text poll. Do child sex offenders deserve

reform? You can only vote once and you have about five minutes before

story I wanted to talk about was the fact that John Paul II was going to

be made a saint. The ceremony is going to take place later this year.

As the Catholic on the panel, how should we view it? If you I not a

Catholic, it can seem an odd thing. John Paul II was a great man, one of

the great figures of the 20th century. I suppose this was likely

to happen. There are concerns amongst some Catholics that its aims

the happening very quickly. There is almost a saint inflation, I suppose.

John Paul II made a lot of saints. Along with Paul VI, the previous

Pope... Is it John the 21st? He doesn't need a second miracle,

apparently. I find it baffling. I find any human being elevated in

that way quite baffling, and I would include secular heroes as well. What

I remember about John Paul II are his views on contraception. And the

effect across Africa. And his views on HIV. I am sorry, I don't know how

that tallies with sainthood, miracle or not. And there was controversy

about child sex abuse and whether the Catholic Church under his

leadership did enough to deal with it. It proves he is a human being

with great characteristics and smaller ones. I am happy to sign up

to the fact he had heroic characteristics. Just as with other

people. A person stands by their life story, not whether they were

cured from an illness or not. Catholicism and it is a hard

religion to square with the modern world in many ways. The secular

society... Nelson Mandela is basically treated like a saint. I

don't think he is comedy has a lot Jordan. The government has been

quick to say that this is justice working and he will have a fair

trial. It took many years. For all our sakes I am glad he is gone but

they will have to find another demon. There is always one person

who kind of bodies evil. There were reasons why the government wanted to

get rid of him. I hope Jordan sticks with what it has promised. It is

better for him not to languish and die in one of our presence. He did

quite a lot to deserve his demonisation, he was an awful man

and he influenced lots of young guys and poisoned their minds. I am glad

they did it the right way, ultimately. The most important

aspect is not so much him but the British judicial system. Whether you

like him or not, been frustrated by him or not, it shows we take just a

seriously. You have been voting in our text poll this morning, do child

sex offenders deserve a chance to reform. The poll is now closing so

pleads to the text -- please do not text. We will bring you the result

at the end of the show. The outgoing chief rabbi has said marrying out of

faith is one of the biggest Ainger is facing Judaism -- one of the

biggest dangers facing. He declared that each such loss is a tragedy and

a family tree that has lasted 100 due, it was not really a question.

The only way someone can understand me properly, my traditions and

customs and heritage is to marry someone else who is Jewish.

husband, Ben, has the same view. friends knew what was important to

me I knew I was involved in my Judaism. It would never dawn on them

to suggest a non-Jewish person as a potential life partner. It frames

the rest of your life and how you act, and your morals and what you

think is important in life, and education and family and all those

values, in a way, are connected to or come out of my Judaism and my

connection to God. Inevitably, whoever I similar connections and

similar beliefs. Ben and Jessica's decision to marry within the faith

obviously delighted their parents. Both my parents would be hard to

come if I decided to leave my traditions, my culture, my up

ringing and marry someone of a different faith, or even no faith.

Just marrying someone out of Judaism. To spend the rest of your

life and have a life partner, inevitably you want someone who has

shared goals and history. And the connection to that wider family of

Judaism around the world. A major part of that history is World War II

and the persecution of Jews across Europe. To see the destruction that

the Holocaust did to the Jews, that someone tried to wipe us all out, it

only strengthens my Jewish belief and it only means that I want to

continue this tradition and our religion, and ensure that never

happens again. And that our children will also understand the importance

of marrying Jewish, so that our community and the Jewish people

future as more people marry out of their faith? Are other religions

facing the same problem? Would you marry out of your religion? Does it

matter at all? Tell us what you think. Jonathan, some people might

say it is a unique issue for the Jewish community because it is

partly based on ethnicity. It does concern people, doesn't it? It is a

wider issue and I wish them many happy years together. Certainly,

there are many advantages, whatever faith you are, to marrying somebody

of the same faith. Whether it is heading in the same direction,

bringing up children in the same way if it is a domestic faith where you

have food laws and festivals, there are so many benefits. You have to

say, Ben and Jessica, only 50% of the story. There are many people who

do marry out because it is a multi-faith society. People who work

together during the day play together at night and mixed faith

marriages are inevitable for that just because somebody marries out of

their faith, doesn't mean they are rejecting their faith. It is

something the rigid groups have got to come to terms with. Do you think

in the Jewish tradition, more people have to come to terms with it?

prefer it when people marry within the faith but you have to look at

the other 50%. A lot depends on whether they are lost or not as to

whether the community around them is hostile and says that you out, or

whether it recognises that these can still be Jewish or Muslim or Hindu.

Many of them still have religious feelings and a strong sense of

religious roots. It is not an either or. For some people, they can love

their God and their partner. Yasmin, you disagree? I am so against all of

this, whichever faith it is coming from. I am a Muslim and I go to the

mosque and pray. My husband used to be a Christian and he has not told

me what he is now! Neither of my children have been forced into

anything. They know what I pray and they sometimes pray with me. I find

it quite shocking actually that faiths can impose these things on

young people. Do you sympathise with the Jewish situation, because of the

historical issue? This is people making choices, not imposing.

said he would not want his children to do it. What happens if your child

does wants to marry out? Would the attitudes they -- with the attitudes

they have expressed, they would find a way to put pressure. I think this

is one end, saying to people that you are wrong to fall in love with

someone outside of the circle. is intolerable. What is your view,

Ed? It can seem that you can have a church wedding in this country if

you are vaguely Christian. But it is an issue for Catholics? I come from

a different situation. My parents are Anglican and Catholic, and that

was not a big issue in England. It was kind of next. The taxi driver

who picked us up was saying that his dad was a Protestant and his

brothers never spoke to him after marrying a Catholic so that is one

end of it. I can understand. Particularly, they mentioned that 70

years ago one third of the Jewish population in the world was

murdered. You can understand their needs to want to survive. Once the

barriers come down, face starts to, as much as we would like to be

liberal, it starts to go. And the children will probably not go to any

religious service. And atheists would say, what is the problem with

that? What Jonathan says is right. If you marry out and you are Jewish,

the partner becomes part of the wider community. That is what has

happened to Mike husband. My people have accepted him as one of them

although he is not one of us. That way, you expand your influence.

Actually, sometimes it is the other part, marrying in. There is no

reason why religions cannot be more welcoming. Religions become

welcoming. Accepted conversions is an interesting point. We're joined

by a rabbi, from the Northwood United Synagogue and Orthodox

tradition. What is your view on the idea that you could be more

welcoming and people would convert? Well, we want to embrace as many

people as we can but the concern is, particularly with interfaith

marriage, that it drives assimilation. That is a great

concern. For me as a rabbi, counselling individuals, it is very

clear from the evidence that interfaith marriages are more at

risk of failing. Because of the tension that is created. I do not

deny that interfaith marriages can work and Yasmin's example is fine,

but in general, interfaith marriages, unfortunately, are not as

stable. Critics might say that is because... I advise people, and I

have had examples of young Jewish men who have been dating and their

parents have been concerned. I have talked to them through important

issues. It is clear that couples often do not talk about religion at

the beginning of a relationship because it is not a romantic thing.

Good point. But as the relationship develops, and when they have

children, religion becomes important. Suddenly, questions like,

should we get our son circumcised or should he be baptised, suddenly

those questions caused tension. have raised interesting issues.

People can understand... Sorry to interrupt but people understand the

idea of guidance but to intervene and tell a couple that we do not

think you should marry because the marriage will not last, is that not

a different matter? Is that not about social pressure on the couple

rather than accepting a couple? giving people guidance not telling

them what to do. You have never told people to reconsider a

relationship? I want to give them the tools I which should make an

informed choice. -- by which to. Often, couples do not asked the

right questions when they set down to get married. If the couple said

to you that they have voted through but they still wanted to go ahead

with the marriage, what would you say? I would wish them every success

but I am with the Chief Rabbi on this and unfortunately, the evidence

holds that while some interfaith marriages can work, over the

generations, it will drive assimilation and assimilation will

drive interfaith marriages. It concerns me.

The rabbi is right that it is an issue. Marriage is minefield at the

best of times. Potentially, it is more explosive. My mother gave me a

question for the Chief Rabbi last week to say that lots of friends

have daughters in good relationships, and in the end, when

it came to marriage, Jewish partners felt they could not marry out and

that was social pressure. The other side was very welcoming, whatever

the faith. Some people will feel social pressure. I run seminars for

couples, and I must have cancelled 3000 couples. -- cancelled. They

have never said, shall we get married? They always say, we are

getting married, and how can you help. It is my choice to close the

door welcome them. -- or welcome them. And a curious thing happened.

Many couples said because they had to do the right things, in advance,

talking about issues, home life, circumcision, baptism, therefore the

marriage is stronger because of it. And the other thing is that some

couples have said that because they are the only Jew or Muslim in the

relationship, they have become more religious because they know that

they have two fly the flak and if it was not for them, the ceremony would

go. I think of Marilyn Monroe converting to Judaism. I was married

within the faith for a one-time and to say that that kind of safeguarded

the marriage was wrong. And how would we feel if white Christians

said the same, we do not want our people to marry out? We would be

quite upset. This happens with other faiths. There have been incidents

where there have been angry protests over mixed marriages. And I want to

bring in a doctor from the council of Singh Barrows. What is your view

on marrying out? Good morning. -- seek gurdwaras. Should seeks be

marrying out? It is going on at the moment. It is a free country and

people are making choices. They work together, and a folly jubilation is.

Is it right? -- form relationships. If they love each other, of course.

Every religion is part of love and if they love each other, there is a

chance they can meet the criteria. To do that, it helps to have the

same beliefs. Heather is from the interfaith marriage network. It

seems that a lot of what we are hearing is for interfaith marriages

to work, in the end, you have to be one faith so one person should

convert. Is that the solution? Perhaps not surprisingly, that is

not my view. I think conversion has to come from within and be an

individual choice. One aspect of this we have not talked about, and

we have been discussing it interestingly, is the individual

experience. I think people are changed at a personal level by an

interfaith relationship. Naturally, communities and families are scared

by what it means long-term and for the next generation, but for the

couple themselves, that is where the real encounter hast to happen and

has to be worked out. I think the either/or option, that if you were

marrying a Spaniard, you would stop speaking Spanish, you wouldn't. He

would engage both. You would form a culture somewhere between the two,

maybe taking the best of both. love that you use that phrase, that

it is a personal encounter. Is that the most useful way forward? Many

people here will be saying that it is an obsession by religious people

and that is the reason we have so much trouble. Because they are not

tolerant. All religions have had walls around them traditionally. But

in a modern world, this fundamentally clashes with the ideas

of individual freedom. I think there is a wider issue of parental

influence. We have gone to another extreme now. You were talking about

arranged marriage. It could be seen as an opportunity to evangelise.

Arranged marriage is fine if it is done with everybody's consent but

the idea that you have to live within the fold is wrong. It is

where we get to, forced marriages, in the end. And I think we recognise

that we are in a different social context. They all think that the

family that preys together, stays together, is not happening any more.

Like many rabbis, I am torn by a mixed face couple that are torn

between loyalty to tradition, but then they say that they are in love

and it is the best thing that has ever happened to them. Who am I to

disagree? Let's have this discussion in another generation and see where

we are. The text poll votes are in. We asked that the beginning of the

programming child sex offenders deserve a chance to reform. 21% said

that yes, they do, and 79% said no. It is a thing about who feels

strongly enough to contact us, but there is an acknowledgement that it

is not black and white. There is. Working with these people, it is not

easy and it does not always work. There are psychological things that

lead was talking about. We should give it ago possible. -- Ed. I have

gone into court and seen people up for a second offence, and you do

wonder, how must the survivors family feel? I would be furious. I

know what it takes... I would hate to be the judge making that

decision, knowing that you were responsible if it happened again.

But there is a change in attitudes. If you look at the 70s and how sex

abuse was treated, we bought getting fines for serious abuses. Maybe that

is the change, the reserve different social climate. Perhaps there can be

treatments. Firstly, we are talking about crimes against children, which

are always more emotive. Secondly, it is a relatively new crime in the

sense that it has been under the radar for so long. It is only now

coming into the open. We are beginning to treat it like we have

treated those other crimes for years and years. We will have to leave

that the session. -- that discussion. Thank you to our studio