:00:08. > :00:15.Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Good morning. I am Sian Williams with the
:00:16. > :00:21.show that gets the heart on soul of the week's big stories. Today we are
:00:22. > :00:28.getting reaction to the beheading of the British aid worker. After the
:00:29. > :00:34.Oscar Pistorius case, is it time to televise trials here or would courts
:00:35. > :00:39.turned to theatre? He is found guilty of culpable homicide. Beastie
:00:40. > :00:45.is an increasing problem but is it fair to criticise people who are
:00:46. > :00:53.overweight? -- obesity. And Sir Roger Moore talks about 007, his
:00:54. > :01:04.life values and being a knight. Very nice to see you. Very nice to see
:01:05. > :01:07.you. It is Roger. Not Sir Roger? Just Roger. I don't like Mary. And
:01:08. > :01:29.James... All that coming up. We are at the
:01:30. > :01:37.show in County Durham, a celebration of rural life with livestock on
:01:38. > :01:43.display. Alison is there. Morning. Good morning. This is the 173rd show
:01:44. > :01:49.and in its long history it has only been stopped by war and foot and
:01:50. > :01:56.mouth. Around 10,000 people are expected to come to the beautiful
:01:57. > :01:59.County Durham countryside over the weekend to see prize-winning Catalan
:02:00. > :02:04.the beautiful horses you can see behind me. There is also a wife
:02:05. > :02:11.carrying on petition. I am glad I am here by myself! We will be talking
:02:12. > :02:14.to some of the people here about the big issues this week. Looking
:02:15. > :02:22.forward to that. Let us meet some of our guests. We are joined by
:02:23. > :02:27.journalist, writer, runner, Rosie. Toby Young, author and the founder
:02:28. > :02:33.of the West London free school. Daytime TV star still broadcasting
:02:34. > :02:41.on television and radio, and I meant. And Joshua Rosenberg, legal
:02:42. > :02:46.commentator and presenter. Welcome, all of you. We want to know what you
:02:47. > :03:05.think. You can comment by phone, text, Facebook, Twitter.
:03:06. > :03:13.First, the murder of a British aid worker by the extremist organisation
:03:14. > :03:18.Islamic State. David Haines was seized in Syria last year and had
:03:19. > :03:23.been held hostage there. The Prime Minister said his murder was an act
:03:24. > :03:27.of pure evil. A video appearing to show his beheading was released.
:03:28. > :03:31.David Cameron has vowed to do everything possible to find the
:03:32. > :03:35.killers. What can be done and what should be done? Toby, what do you
:03:36. > :03:46.think that might it is terrible news to wake up to. -- what do you think?
:03:47. > :03:50.It is terrible anyone claiming to be religious could say they're God
:03:51. > :03:53.sanctions the murder of humanitarian aid workers. My hope is this will
:03:54. > :03:59.strengthen the resolve of the British Parliament to participate in
:04:00. > :04:10.as strikes. They have not ruled as tried out. Is it a possibly too? --
:04:11. > :04:16.they have not ruled out air strikes. They have a Cobra meeting right now.
:04:17. > :04:22.There will be a public clamour for action of some sort. We cannot just
:04:23. > :04:26.sit by and let this happen. Neither can we always wait for America to
:04:27. > :04:33.take the lead. Somewhat along the line, I assume Obama and David
:04:34. > :04:41.Cameron aren't talking like mad at the moment. The public want action.
:04:42. > :04:45.Do you agree, Rosie? Rain I do. Scotland, the referendum, it is
:04:46. > :04:54.really important. But it does look like a distraction -- yes, I do. To
:04:55. > :05:01.see an aid worker being murdered beggars belief. Appalling. Awful. I
:05:02. > :05:04.want to bring in a professor of international relations at the
:05:05. > :05:09.London School of Economics and an expert on jihadists. Welcome. Do you
:05:10. > :05:17.think further military action would deter or bolster Islamic State?
:05:18. > :05:23.First of all, this is a very complex phenomenon. There are no easy
:05:24. > :05:28.answers. Also, a major point we need to get across is that the so-called
:05:29. > :05:34.Islamic State had no interest in attacking Britain or the US. Its key
:05:35. > :05:39.target has always been the governments in Iraq and Syria. It
:05:40. > :05:47.has visceral hatred of the Shia liberation at home. The reason why
:05:48. > :05:54.the so-called Islamic State has been killing Western hostages is because
:05:55. > :06:00.it is retaliating for the American attacks against forces in Iraq and
:06:01. > :06:06.the coalition constructed by the US to rollback and defeat the Islamic
:06:07. > :06:12.State. Make no doubt about it, it is all out war now. Muslim leaders here
:06:13. > :06:16.have said... I know you say so-called Islamic State, but it is
:06:17. > :06:20.not Islamic, it does not follow Islam, it does not adhere to the
:06:21. > :06:26.tenants of Islam, and it is not a state either. Absolutely. If you
:06:27. > :06:33.compare the so-called Islamic State, Isis, Isil, various ways of
:06:34. > :06:38.jihadists. There is no theology, no repertoire of ideas. It is a social
:06:39. > :06:42.and intellectual wasteland. Actions speak louder than words. It is
:06:43. > :06:47.savagery itself. Savagery is a strategy, irrational choice on the
:06:48. > :06:53.part of the so-called Islamic State. If actions speak louder than words,
:06:54. > :06:58.what action should the British Government take? One point must be
:06:59. > :07:05.made very clear. Isis can not be defeated by American and British air
:07:06. > :07:08.power. Neither the international coalition nor the regional coalition
:07:09. > :07:16.will be able to destroy Isis. The only way is to dislodge it from the
:07:17. > :07:24.local communities. It portrays itself as the defender of persecuted
:07:25. > :07:30.Sunni communities. It has convinced them that it is defending Sunnis
:07:31. > :07:35.against Shias. That is why you need to put out the sectarian fires
:07:36. > :07:38.raging in Iraq and Syria and mobilise the Sunni community to
:07:39. > :07:44.defeat Isil from the bottom as opposed from the down. Thank you for
:07:45. > :07:47.joining us. Joshua, as a legal expert, the Prime Minister said
:07:48. > :07:54.today that we must ensure the people face justice. Where do you start?
:07:55. > :07:59.You start by not appeasing terrorism. You start by getting
:08:00. > :08:04.tough on terrorists. You start by not making excuses for terrorism. I
:08:05. > :08:07.am not going to discuss the precise military strategies, but the
:08:08. > :08:11.terrorists exploit weaknesses that have come from the US leadership in
:08:12. > :08:15.the past and you have got to show you simply will not put up with
:08:16. > :08:19.this, whether it is British people murdered or American people or
:08:20. > :08:25.anybody. We have limitations on our own military power, but in
:08:26. > :08:29.conjunction with other countries, other democracies, we have got to be
:08:30. > :08:33.absolutely clear to say this cannot carry on. We have got to make it
:08:34. > :08:38.clear in language the terrorists understand. Do you think they would
:08:39. > :08:42.listen? If anyone from the West says, this is unacceptable. When I
:08:43. > :08:46.say language, I need action, bombing, troops on the ground a
:08:47. > :08:56.military campaign to try to degrade and if possible defeat them. Surely
:08:57. > :09:05.we are giving them strength, the longer we delay? Yes. Now, big news
:09:06. > :09:12.story this week, the trial of Oscar Pistorius. The judge found him
:09:13. > :09:18.guilty of Coppell Bull homicide, killing his girlfriend by mistake.
:09:19. > :09:24.-- culpable homicide. It was shown live on television to a worldwide
:09:25. > :09:31.audience. Was just as truly seen to be done? Should cameras be allowed
:09:32. > :09:35.in courts here too? There was a scrum of photographers and cameras
:09:36. > :09:39.around Pistorius every time he was outside the court. But it was what
:09:40. > :09:48.the media was able to see inside that made this trial so dramatic. Mr
:09:49. > :09:52.Pistorius, please stand up. The judge seemed unfazed by the cameras
:09:53. > :10:00.as she read out the verdict. Instead he is found guilty of culpable
:10:01. > :10:04.homicide. But in earlier parts of the proceedings, there had been
:10:05. > :10:09.higher motion as Pistorius talked about the night he shot his
:10:10. > :10:15.girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp -- high in motion. I was trying to protect
:10:16. > :10:20.her. Later he was seen sobbing as he was found not guilty of murder. His
:10:21. > :10:24.lawyers say the presence of the cameras put extra stress on him. In
:10:25. > :10:29.her verdict, the judge raised concerns about the influence of the
:10:30. > :10:33.cameras. The fact this case attracted much media attention,
:10:34. > :10:38.especially soon after the incident and the fact that it became a topic
:10:39. > :10:43.in many homes also did not persist. There was an Oscar Pistorius channel
:10:44. > :10:52.during the trial and for some it was justice in the open. I am satisfied
:10:53. > :10:55.so far. We get to see the processes. Here strictly limited filming has
:10:56. > :10:59.been allowed in some Scottish courts and in England to the proceedings of
:11:00. > :11:05.the appeal court have been open to cameras. Should be Pistorius trial
:11:06. > :11:10.be regarded as an example to follow? Or is it evidence justice should
:11:11. > :11:23.stay behind closed doors? That is our question for this week, showed
:11:24. > :11:27.UK trials be televised? You have got about 30 minutes before the vote
:11:28. > :11:34.closes. You can vote online for free on our website. Results of course
:11:35. > :11:41.will be announced before the end of the programme. Did you watch? Yes, I
:11:42. > :11:46.was riveted. Ira member watching the O.J. Simpson trial as well quite a
:11:47. > :11:53.long time ago -- I remember watching. I thought it was an
:11:54. > :11:59.incredible PR job. African justice. I was really impressed by the judge
:12:00. > :12:05.and the whole business of and the way they televised it. I do not like
:12:06. > :12:09.the feeling it gives me, that I was riveted by it. On the other hand,
:12:10. > :12:15.you said in your report, should justice be kept behind closed doors?
:12:16. > :12:20.It has to be open. Most trials now and you can go as a member of the
:12:21. > :12:24.public will stop whether you should be watching as a member of a much
:12:25. > :12:29.larger public on television, it makes me uneasy and I do not know
:12:30. > :12:36.why. There is the celebrity 11. Like the O.J. Simpson trial, there was
:12:37. > :12:41.someone you had heard of and a beautiful woman -- there is the
:12:42. > :12:46.celebrity element. Do you think it holds as something about South
:12:47. > :12:50.African justice? I did not follow it closely but I am in favour of the
:12:51. > :12:55.principle of allowing trials to be televised. So many people have very
:12:56. > :12:59.little faith in the criminal justice system and believe that it is
:13:00. > :13:03.essentially corrupt. If they are accused of something, they believe
:13:04. > :13:08.they will not be given a fair trial. To see a system working in a very
:13:09. > :13:13.fair, judicious, measured way. It helps give people face. It is not
:13:14. > :13:20.enough for justice to be done, it must be seen to be done. How
:13:21. > :13:27.edifying is it when you see Oscar Pistorius vomiting into a bucket? It
:13:28. > :13:31.was turned into a circus. The heightened thing of this beautiful
:13:32. > :13:35.woman behind the door, I think people were watching it for a
:13:36. > :13:39.variety of reasons, not at all always about the transparency of
:13:40. > :13:45.justice. It is difficult to know who would gain from the televising of
:13:46. > :13:50.law courts. The defendant might not gain if he or she comes out as
:13:51. > :13:55.innocent. Their face has been on the television, they will never shake it
:13:56. > :14:00.off. Jury 's could easily be nobbled if they are on television. Then
:14:01. > :14:05.there is witness intimidation. My husband testified in a very serious
:14:06. > :14:11.case of violence to do with a film he had shot for the BBC. We were
:14:12. > :14:16.intimidated. We had to move house. We had to have a different car every
:14:17. > :14:23.week. He bravely testified in court. His journey to court was
:14:24. > :14:27.screened and monitored so that security could be sure he was not
:14:28. > :14:37.being followed. Our house had a camera. We were very vulnerable.
:14:38. > :14:42.That is without televising. Exactly. Can you imagine, I'm going to be on
:14:43. > :14:47.television? Surely people who are going to intimidate would be
:14:48. > :14:53.interested parties anyway. How many people are in the public gallery?
:14:54. > :14:58.20. That is opposing ordinary viewers are likely to think, I could
:14:59. > :15:02.intimidate that person. I think it will put witnesses. In this case,
:15:03. > :15:06.the judge said she was concerned about the impact on the witnesses
:15:07. > :15:14.and she thought perhaps they might have been affected by being part of
:15:15. > :15:18.that. She made a special rule which we have not mentioned which was that
:15:19. > :15:21.you could see Oscar Pistorius when he wasn't giving evidence and you
:15:22. > :15:25.could hear him when he was given evidence but you could never see him
:15:26. > :15:28.in the witness box, that was a compromise between allowing it to be
:15:29. > :15:32.televised and not. She said she thought some of the witnesses had
:15:33. > :15:36.been influenced by what had been reported. And of course, if you give
:15:37. > :15:40.evidence on live television over the course of a couple of days and go
:15:41. > :15:43.home after day one people will say I saw what you said but did you take
:15:44. > :15:49.account of that and this and all the rest of it. Exactly. And why was
:15:50. > :15:56.there no jury in this case? Was it because it was televised? No, that
:15:57. > :16:00.is just a feature of their law. The criminal process will always be
:16:01. > :16:04.contaminated by conducting trials in public, which is always an argument
:16:05. > :16:11.for conducting high-profile trials in secret. There is a difference
:16:12. > :16:17.between conducting trials in public and except in the most exceptional
:16:18. > :16:20.circumstances trials should be the public. There is a difference
:16:21. > :16:28.between that and everybody watching justice being done but in trials not
:16:29. > :16:32.so. Can we clarify the position because it's different in Scotland
:16:33. > :16:38.and the law has changed in the last couple of years. What can we see on
:16:39. > :16:41.television? Parliament passed legislation in 1995 to say no
:16:42. > :16:44.photography in court, until then there were snappers taking
:16:45. > :16:48.surreptitious pictures, that apply to England and Wales. More than 20
:16:49. > :16:51.years ago the judges said it does not apply here, our people don't
:16:52. > :16:54.know what is going on and they allowed televised in of trials
:16:55. > :17:01.providing everybody agreed and the BBC showed a number of trials 20
:17:02. > :17:06.years ago this autumn. In England and Wales we have had restrictions
:17:07. > :17:10.until very recently, the art -- a few months ago appeals could be
:17:11. > :17:14.shown and we could see the live appeals and judges giving judgement
:17:15. > :17:18.on appeals but not trials. Televising of appeals is likely to
:17:19. > :17:21.be extended slightly, but some judges, including the Lord Chief
:17:22. > :17:24.Justice, have misgivings about allowing trials to be shown where
:17:25. > :17:30.there are alive witnesses. Appeals have no witnesses. You can tweet
:17:31. > :17:33.from the court and let people into the public gallery. If justice is
:17:34. > :17:39.going to be seen to be accountable and transparent and why not have it?
:17:40. > :17:42.It may affect the way courts operate, it may deter witnesses from
:17:43. > :17:47.giving evidence, witnesses do not have to give evidence. It may deter
:17:48. > :17:52.defendants. Don't show the witnesses then. If people are worried about
:17:53. > :17:56.being seen they can do it from behind a screen. So many people
:17:57. > :18:00.wriggle out of jury service. If they were to be televised it would be
:18:01. > :18:05.another reason to say I will get my boss to write in. It might make
:18:06. > :18:12.people want to do jury service to appear on television. Not everybody
:18:13. > :18:15.wants to be on television! Can you see the British public accepting
:18:16. > :18:20.trials on television? Is there an appetite for it? The other worry I
:18:21. > :18:23.have is they would want to watch the interesting bits, so you might find
:18:24. > :18:29.people tune in for the prosecution case but don't want to listen to the
:18:30. > :18:33.witnesses. It is as you say the relish and the anxiety of the most
:18:34. > :18:38.salacious trials being screened and put on at a certain time which gives
:18:39. > :18:42.it a different weight. Of course, some people might tune in for
:18:43. > :18:46.reasons you disapprove of, some people might enjoy watching boxing
:18:47. > :18:50.matches for reasons you disapprove of. I don't think the fact there is
:18:51. > :18:54.a small minority of people that will get the wrong kind of satisfaction
:18:55. > :18:58.is a reason not to do it. That is a risk across all walks of life.
:18:59. > :19:01.Joshua, the Law Lords seem to differ on what they think about whether
:19:02. > :19:05.this should happen. We have the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer saying we
:19:06. > :19:09.don't want our courts turned into US style media circuses, and then there
:19:10. > :19:14.was a consultation and the majority of those consulted said no. The Lord
:19:15. > :19:18.Justice says he's troubled about what happened in South Africa. And
:19:19. > :19:21.the President of the Supreme Court said he found the Oscar Pistorius
:19:22. > :19:26.trial every impressive, so who's decision will it be? The Lord Chief
:19:27. > :19:30.Justice of England and Wales, as far as the courts of England and Wales
:19:31. > :19:33.are concerned, the Supreme Court is already televised, it is streamed
:19:34. > :19:41.live and you can watch it if you want to. It's not particular popular
:19:42. > :19:45.because it is legal argument. The broadcasters are keen to get control
:19:46. > :19:49.over trials, and baddest to some extent why they are supporting this.
:19:50. > :19:54.Trials are what people want to watch. Criminal trials. Lord Thomas
:19:55. > :19:59.chief justice is concerned that it will affect the doing of justice in
:20:00. > :20:03.the way I've suggested if it goes. On the other hand we are in favour
:20:04. > :20:07.of open justice and that's why his predecessor allowed journalists to
:20:08. > :20:10.tweet from court and that's why it is important to know what goes on in
:20:11. > :20:16.court. Let's get some reaction from Stanhope Show and Alison.
:20:17. > :20:20.I'm at the Stanhope Show and I've grabbed a few people to give us
:20:21. > :20:26.their views on these pics. Anita Atkinson has been coming to the show
:20:27. > :20:30.every year and is born and bred in these parts. Do you think these
:20:31. > :20:34.trials should be televised? It is too much like Hollywood and not very
:20:35. > :20:40.British. Apart from anything else the main reason is the pram costs of
:20:41. > :20:43.-- Crown Prosecution Service has great difficulty getting witnesses
:20:44. > :20:46.into court because it is an alien environment. Not many people have
:20:47. > :20:51.been in a court room anyway, and to have to go into a courtroom which is
:20:52. > :20:55.a nerve wracking thing and have to have a televised for the whole
:20:56. > :21:00.world, no, I don't think that's right. Thank you for joining us. I'm
:21:01. > :21:05.also with Mike Keeble, the commentator here. Do you agree with
:21:06. > :21:10.her sentiment? I agree with what she said but I will add to that to say I
:21:11. > :21:13.believe it was too choreographed. The sections I watched, with
:21:14. > :21:18.somebody who is internationally known, full of international
:21:19. > :21:22.sympathy because of his prosthetic legs and then the lawyer on the
:21:23. > :21:25.prosecuting side trying to get international work in future and the
:21:26. > :21:28.two did not mix. Thank you for joining us. That's it from the
:21:29. > :21:34.Stanhope Show. We'll be back later to hear a few more views.
:21:35. > :21:39.Thank you, Alison. The vote is still open. We want to hear what you
:21:40. > :21:43.think, should UK trials be televised? You can only vote once.
:21:44. > :21:47.If you think they should text the word vote followed by the word yes
:21:48. > :21:55.and if you think they shouldn't text the word vote followed by the word
:21:56. > :22:01.no. You can also vote on line. The results will be announced before the
:22:02. > :22:03.end of the show. Still to come: On Sunday Morning Live, expanding
:22:04. > :22:05.faith. The Church of England School where you don't have to be a
:22:06. > :22:19.Christian to get in. He had a Licence to Kill, fighting
:22:20. > :22:23.off the villains and the women. These days former 007 Sir Roger
:22:24. > :22:27.Moore has a rather less frenetic life, but at the age of 86 he
:22:28. > :22:32.certainly isn't killing time, he has just written a book called last man
:22:33. > :22:36.standing, and he's starting a UK tour meeting audiences for an
:22:37. > :22:40.evening of chat and anecdote. I caught up with Sir Roger, not shaken
:22:41. > :22:45.and certainly not stirred, to talk girls, gadgets and growing old and
:22:46. > :22:53.seeing friends on the other side. Sir Roger Moore. Roger. Just Roger,
:22:54. > :22:56.not Sir. So lovely to see you. I know that you are about to start a
:22:57. > :23:03.live tour called an evening with Roger Moore. So, what could I expect
:23:04. > :23:12.of an evening with Roger Moore? Two hours' good sleep! I say we should
:23:13. > :23:21.put on throw away your still knocks. What to expect, I talk about
:23:22. > :23:25.everything in my life. After 86 years there seem to be a lot of
:23:26. > :23:29.things to talk about, if I can remember them. What sort of
:23:30. > :23:38.questions do people ask? What is your favourite Bond girl? I will
:23:39. > :23:43.scratch that one off. And what do you say? I make up all sorts of
:23:44. > :23:48.things. Children and young people say, what is your favourite gadget.
:23:49. > :23:55.Barbara back was your favourite. The lady will have a Bacardi on the
:23:56. > :24:01.rocks. For the gentleman, vodka martini, shaken, not stirred. One of
:24:02. > :24:09.the watches as your favourite gadget, would it have been? Yes, the
:24:10. > :24:13.magnetic watch. You brought to your bond generosity of spirit and a
:24:14. > :24:23.humour and he was of course very debonair, but it was very different
:24:24. > :24:32.from Sean Connery's James Bond. Sean Connery, as Daniel Craig today,
:24:33. > :24:36.looks like a killer. I could squeeze them to death with my eyes. How do
:24:37. > :24:47.you squeeze somebody to death with your eyes? Not so hard! With one
:24:48. > :24:52.raised eyebrow? Gravity has taken over completely. I suppose the
:24:53. > :24:58.template for your James Bond was Simon Templer from the Saint, only
:24:59. > :25:03.without the guns and the weapons. Very suave and using your fists a
:25:04. > :25:11.bit if you needed to fight. It was exactly the same as I played Ivanhoe
:25:12. > :25:18.400 years before. So you are saying you played at the same way for them.
:25:19. > :25:23.They all came out the same! It's the easiest way! Doing all that acting
:25:24. > :25:24.business. You are so it's self-deprecating about you acting.
:25:25. > :25:34.Well, I've seen myself! Why? In a couple
:25:35. > :25:37.of things I've been allowed to act, but usually it's because I look sort
:25:38. > :25:55.of heroic, which I suppose I'm not. Was that a bit frustrating?
:25:56. > :25:57.I suppose that was acting. To look heroic and not blink too
:25:58. > :26:05.much. When we did The Spy Who Loved Me, on
:26:06. > :26:08.one of those sets that you know is going to get blown up on a Bond
:26:09. > :26:16.film. Before the explosions started my make-up artist came through and
:26:17. > :26:22.said here you go, Roger. I put my earplugs in. Barbara said, why are
:26:23. > :26:28.you doing that? I said, because we are going to have a lot of
:26:29. > :26:33.explosions. I said, when I move move at the same time, we have two really
:26:34. > :26:38.move. I thought if I stood near you I would be safe. I said, no, it's
:26:39. > :26:47.James Bond they are trying to kill, so when I run run with me! I was
:26:48. > :26:53.heroic there, she nearly drowned and I dragged her out. It was worth it.
:26:54. > :26:56.Ringo Starr is very grateful! CHUCKLES
:26:57. > :27:00.As well as your anecdote about James Bond which you will regale the
:27:01. > :27:06.audience with when you go on tour you have written another book called
:27:07. > :27:13.Last Man Standing. I happen to have a copy of the book. Handy. As you
:27:14. > :27:23.can see we are sitting in the chairs. Trevor Howard, David Niven.
:27:24. > :27:28.I'm the last man standing. They are all unfortunately dead. I talk about
:27:29. > :27:32.them. It must be so difficult when you are so close to people like
:27:33. > :27:38.David Niven, and such good friends, not to have them around any more.
:27:39. > :27:50.David was the first of my friends that really affected me, the death.
:27:51. > :27:58.He had motor neurone disease. He was in the high street and a man said,
:27:59. > :28:08.David, how are you? David said, all right. I've got motor neurone
:28:09. > :28:13.disease. And he said yes and I've got a new Mercedes. And David
:28:14. > :28:17.started to laugh. And when he laughed his laughter was very close
:28:18. > :28:22.to tears. I miss him. In the book when you talk about David Niven,
:28:23. > :28:27.Trevor Howard and Gregory Peck, you say you think they are looking down
:28:28. > :28:35.on you from heaven. Do you have a religious faith at all? Well, yes. I
:28:36. > :28:44.was asked by a dialogue director once in California, do you believe
:28:45. > :28:50.in God? I said, yes. I believe in intelligence. I believe that we are
:28:51. > :28:57.created for some purpose. And I think that the purpose probably is
:28:58. > :29:02.to learn, to experience and to use that. And he said, fine, but some of
:29:03. > :29:05.us are born a little bit more fortunate than others because of the
:29:06. > :29:13.circumstance of birth and geography. He said, you are very
:29:14. > :29:21.fortunate, you are 6-foot, so why do you only stand five foot ten? Stand
:29:22. > :29:25.6-foot to. What did he mean by that? He said he have been given this and
:29:26. > :29:31.it is wrong not to do something with it. -- 6-foot two. You have been
:29:32. > :29:42.through diabetes, pneumonia. Double pneumonia. Really? I'm an old hand
:29:43. > :29:46.at it. Pacemaker fitted? Yes. What gets you through those periods of
:29:47. > :29:51.illness? You have mentioned you do have a belief in something, in some
:29:52. > :29:58.God, does that help when you become ill? I don't think I'm frightened. I
:29:59. > :30:03.think it's going to be a big adventure. You are going to find
:30:04. > :30:08.out. Nobody has ever come back to tell us. Your mother taught you to
:30:09. > :30:13.be humble and have some humility and look at where you were born and that
:30:14. > :30:17.others haven't got the same. I suppose you took that philosophy
:30:18. > :30:22.into your Unicef work, didn't you? I was very fortunate enough that
:30:23. > :30:27.Audrey Hepburn was a friend and she called me one morning and asked me
:30:28. > :30:32.if I would go to Amsterdam with her to co-host the International
:30:33. > :30:36.children's awards, which was a Unicef programme. She was an
:30:37. > :30:45.extraordinary, warm, passionate lady. You know, that's one of the
:30:46. > :30:49.things, I might see her on the other side. And what do you think you have
:30:50. > :30:58.learned in 86 years? Have you got life lessons? I've learned that it's
:30:59. > :31:06.better to smile in adversity. I've learned to appreciate all my
:31:07. > :31:12.mother's maxims, that I cried because I had no shoes until I met a
:31:13. > :31:18.man who had no feet. Your motto is: Embrace every moment. You seem to
:31:19. > :31:25.be. Live today and don't tread on too many toes. Live for the day and
:31:26. > :31:31.don't tread on too many toes? Yes. And every day may be your last! But
:31:32. > :31:35.not today! Sir Roger Moore, it's been such a pleasure talking to you.
:31:36. > :31:42.Thank you for your time. The delightful Roger Moore on living
:31:43. > :31:46.life and losing friends. Just after we recorded that interview he lost
:31:47. > :31:51.another close colleague, Richard Kiel, who was Jaws in two Bond
:31:52. > :31:52.films. Roger Moore said he was distraught. He played villains in
:31:53. > :32:04.the wake and The Spy Who Loved Me. Is What happens if someone calls you
:32:05. > :32:07.fat or tells you you are carrying too many pounds?
:32:08. > :32:13.We have some of the highest levels of obesity in Western Europe.
:32:14. > :32:17.Shaming people over the body size, weight discrimination, can
:32:18. > :32:23.apparently result in comfort eating. That is according to a study from
:32:24. > :32:28.University College London. Obesity is the UK's fastest-growing health
:32:29. > :32:34.problems and cost the NHS more than ?5 billion a year. Speaking out
:32:35. > :32:40.about someone's wait, will it help or hinder the debate? We are joined
:32:41. > :32:45.by a woman who describes herself as a size acceptance campaigner. Our
:32:46. > :32:52.overweight people discriminated against? They are nonexistent.
:32:53. > :33:00.Dehumanised. The report you have just shown has no heads. We cannot
:33:01. > :33:08.identify... We see it in newspapers, magazines we do not exist. Then we
:33:09. > :33:13.complain obesity is going higher and higher. If it is a disease, we are
:33:14. > :33:22.treating it wrong. We are looking at it... Big conglomerates benefit out
:33:23. > :33:28.of scaring people into losing weight and they get away with it. When you
:33:29. > :33:33.say, we do not exist, I am not sure what you mean. If I want to present,
:33:34. > :33:39.they will not give me the job, I am too fat, I do not fit... I am not
:33:40. > :33:46.going to be attractive to the viewers. That is based only on the
:33:47. > :33:51.way I look. It is not acceptable in society. You think people who are
:33:52. > :33:55.overweight are discriminated against because they do not get the jobs
:33:56. > :34:03.they should do? They are not viewed in an equal way. Rosie. This is a
:34:04. > :34:06.disease that in a few years time might encompass 50% of the
:34:07. > :34:14.population, crippled the health service. The other day, a diabetic
:34:15. > :34:19.consultant said that obesity was going to be worse than lung cancer.
:34:20. > :34:24.It was going to affect more people and be devastating to the health
:34:25. > :34:30.service. To ambulances that will have to have stronger stretchers,
:34:31. > :34:40.airlines... Hold on. You had your say. It is scaremongering. Even if I
:34:41. > :34:46.was given a job, I will pay for two seats. Everything will need to be
:34:47. > :34:53.strengthened because people are too overweight. When did this fight
:34:54. > :35:01.against obesity start? You are not ignored. We are. Hang on, both of
:35:02. > :35:06.you. The viewers will not be able to hear you talking over one another.
:35:07. > :35:12.What we are talking about now is whether you should say, effectively,
:35:13. > :35:18.calling someone that is discriminatory. It is. The lead
:35:19. > :35:25.author of this thesis published from UCL said that fat is was one of the
:35:26. > :35:32.last socially acceptable forms of prejudice. That is true. I do not
:35:33. > :35:38.know if it is fair to call someone fat but the question is, is it
:35:39. > :35:43.helpful? It is not helpful. The only way to deal with the health
:35:44. > :35:48.implications, the NHS applications, is to talk about health and not
:35:49. > :35:54.about weight and size. If we look at that, the nature of obesity, some
:35:55. > :35:58.people are thin on the outside and have the worst sorts of fat around
:35:59. > :36:02.their internal organs. If we can completely shift away from the way
:36:03. > :36:06.you look to how healthy you are, then we will find something people
:36:07. > :36:11.will have to face up to the fact that they are unhealthy too. That is
:36:12. > :36:16.a good point. If you are thin, you are bullied at school sometimes as
:36:17. > :36:21.much as if you are overweight. Not as much. I think the argument that
:36:22. > :36:27.has been made in this paper is completely absurd. They are saying,
:36:28. > :36:31.you should not discriminate against overweight people because if you do
:36:32. > :36:38.then they are likely to become even more overweight. That is essentially
:36:39. > :36:49.saying you should not be fatist for fatist reasons. It is a ridiculous
:36:50. > :36:53.reason. That is not what it is saying. The reason we should not
:36:54. > :37:00.discriminate is because it is wrong, not because they will be more
:37:01. > :37:05.overweight. Let us get the views from Alison at the Stanhope Show. We
:37:06. > :37:10.have moved into the area where the healthy prize-winning vegetables
:37:11. > :37:18.grown by local people are on display. I am joined by Emma a
:37:19. > :37:23.teacher. You must see what goes into children's lunchboxes, why is this
:37:24. > :37:27.problem of obesity? That is a lot in the press but it does not seem to
:37:28. > :37:34.get back home. The children do not taste the food enough to enjoy it.
:37:35. > :37:38.We try a lot in school, part of the curriculum and activities, but it is
:37:39. > :37:43.not part of their daily life. That is the barrier. The children know it
:37:44. > :37:49.is out there but they do not have it enough for it to be part of their
:37:50. > :37:54.daily diet. I am also with Steve, a keen gardener. What is your view on
:37:55. > :37:59.the issue? It is not just down to diet. It is exercise as well. Even
:38:00. > :38:03.if you get them to eat vegetables, they do not get out enough and do
:38:04. > :38:08.enough running around. They sit around with computer screens too
:38:09. > :38:13.long. That is my opinion. If they were outdoors growing vegetables,
:38:14. > :38:18.would that be better? I would love to get them involved. Those are the
:38:19. > :38:23.views from Stanhope Show in County Durham today. Back to you.
:38:24. > :38:29.Whose fault is it that we have a growing obesity crisis? I think the
:38:30. > :38:35.food companies need to be looked at. It seems to me that ten years ago,
:38:36. > :38:39.20 years ago, there was a trade-off. People got rid of fat in their foods
:38:40. > :38:46.because that was meant to be the bad thing. Foods tasted bland. Now sugar
:38:47. > :38:52.was put in. They need to look at processed foods. People need to be
:38:53. > :38:56.encouraged to eat vegetables. Shops and marketplaces selling vegetables
:38:57. > :39:00.should be given incentives. This will not solve the problem we are
:39:01. > :39:07.talking about today. We have to stop discriminating. We have to create or
:39:08. > :39:12.change the culture and change the language because it is not only
:39:13. > :39:16.affecting people my size but it is affecting people your size. If you
:39:17. > :39:22.put on a few pounds, you would lose your job and be assaulted. Look at
:39:23. > :39:28.the stars... This is very bad for you to be that size. You cannot
:39:29. > :39:33.tell. This is discrimination. I do not want to be talking about myself,
:39:34. > :39:37.but I am sure my GP is watching and he is going to probably ring and
:39:38. > :39:42.said, she is one of our healthiest patients. You cannot judge someone
:39:43. > :39:49.while looking at them. You do not know the underlying conditions that
:39:50. > :39:54.make me less fat. It has got to be about health not size. Is it really
:39:55. > :39:58.helpful to point out to somebody that they are carrying too much
:39:59. > :40:01.weight when if you are carrying too much weight, you know you are and
:40:02. > :40:09.you have probably talked to someone about it if you want to. Is it
:40:10. > :40:12.helpful to tell a smoker to stop smoking? Is it helpful to tell an
:40:13. > :40:19.alcoholic to cut back on the booze? I would say it is the same. You have
:40:20. > :40:25.to find the right way to do it. I definitely think obesity is bad, for
:40:26. > :40:29.the individual, for all of us, it is going to cripple the National Health
:40:30. > :40:34.Service. But by blaming people and making fun of them... You only have
:40:35. > :40:38.to look at the newspapers today, Pauline Quirke has put weight on
:40:39. > :40:46.again and they are saying, she is piling on the pounds. Here we go all
:40:47. > :40:50.over again. Demonisation. It would drive me straight back to the
:40:51. > :40:59.biscuit covered! They do not talk about men like that. She is too fat,
:41:00. > :41:05.too then, to this, too that. I think the solution is not to make
:41:06. > :41:09.overweight people feel bad, it is to encourage all people to do more
:41:10. > :41:12.exercise, particularly children. Parents have become paranoid about
:41:13. > :41:17.letting their children out of the house. So obsessed with the risks
:41:18. > :41:24.and dangers of what might happen to them. Children do not have the same
:41:25. > :41:28.opportunities to play and exercise and run around. Ask any primary
:41:29. > :41:33.school teacher, they say there is a problem with the acceptance of
:41:34. > :41:36.bigger sizes. If you ask parents nowadays, do you think your child
:41:37. > :41:47.might have a bit of a weight problem is at Babel said, no. -- a bit of a
:41:48. > :41:50.weight problem, they will say, no. We have to change the language and
:41:51. > :41:56.culture. People are born different sizes. Let us stop fighting fat
:41:57. > :42:02.because it is hurting the children and there is anorexic, Bellini.
:42:03. > :42:09.People are thinking of killing themselves
:42:10. > :42:10.People are thinking of killing If we want the nation to be healthy,
:42:11. > :42:25.we have to showpiece -- show people who are healthy and the bees. All
:42:26. > :42:30.right. -- obese. We must leave it. Thank you very much. You have been
:42:31. > :42:34.voting on our question this morning, should UK trials be televised? The
:42:35. > :42:39.vote is closing so do not tax because your vote will not count but
:42:40. > :42:43.you may still be charged. We will bring you the result at the end of
:42:44. > :42:48.the show. Schools are back, a sigh of relief for most parents, but not
:42:49. > :42:52.those who did not get into the school of their choice. Do you
:42:53. > :43:03.belong to the right face? Just how religious are you? This week it was
:43:04. > :43:09.said that no taxpayer funded faith schools should dominate on religious
:43:10. > :43:14.grounds. First, a visit to a faith school that has thrown its doors
:43:15. > :43:21.open to all -- should discriminate on religious grounds. This school in
:43:22. > :43:26.Surrey is a new primary school. I want you to think... It opened last
:43:27. > :43:31.year with 30 pupils on this week admitted 30 more. It has an open
:43:32. > :43:35.admissions policy so while its ethos is rooted in tradition Christian
:43:36. > :43:39.values it admits children of all faiths and none. We do not reserve a
:43:40. > :43:46.percentage of places for any churchgoing children. We operate on
:43:47. > :43:55.a geographical locality. We opted for that policy because it was a
:43:56. > :43:58.direct response to the need for school places in this part of the
:43:59. > :44:04.borough and specifically in this part of the parish. The school
:44:05. > :44:08.balances its Christian faith with a religious teaching that is diverse.
:44:09. > :44:14.Our religious education policy is broad and it is geared to give the
:44:15. > :44:20.children the knowledge and skills of other religions, world faiths and of
:44:21. > :44:25.other elements of spirituality. So that children will be equipped to
:44:26. > :44:31.make choices for themselves as they grow up. We thank you for your care.
:44:32. > :44:35.There is a collective act of worship every morning. Parents can choose
:44:36. > :44:40.for their children to opt out if they wish, however no parent has
:44:41. > :44:48.chosen to do so. Piece he with you. And also be with you. I wanted my
:44:49. > :44:53.children to know there is a God but also to understand there are other
:44:54. > :45:00.religions. During the daily prayers, she is included. But every time God
:45:01. > :45:05.is mentioned and how kind he has been, she is to visualise it as her
:45:06. > :45:13.God so that in our case it would be Allah. This diversity is welcomed by
:45:14. > :45:16.Christian parents too. We are attracted by the open inclusion
:45:17. > :45:21.policy because it reflected the Christian ethos of the school. Open
:45:22. > :45:27.to all regardless of faith. It meant our daughter Woodsy people from the
:45:28. > :45:31.local community, not just people going to the local church -- it
:45:32. > :45:35.meant our daughter would see people. This teacher thinks faith
:45:36. > :45:41.schools do not have to be exclusive and can broaden people's attitudes.
:45:42. > :45:44.A well-run faith school that is clear about its own distinctiveness
:45:45. > :45:50.within the context of broader issues can be an extremely successful,
:45:51. > :45:53.open-minded place which allows children's own thinking and
:45:54. > :46:01.spirituality to grow and develop in whatever direction it takes.
:46:02. > :46:08.St Mary's School in Hampton in Surrey. What about other faith
:46:09. > :46:12.schools? Are they so open in their admissions? Joining us now, Andrew
:46:13. > :46:16.Copson, the chief executive of the British humanist Association.
:46:17. > :46:19.Welcome. And a representative from Catholic voices who is a teacher in
:46:20. > :46:25.a Catholic school. Thank you for joining us. Over to you first. Our
:46:26. > :46:32.faith schools divisive? Absolutely not. I work in a faith school and I
:46:33. > :46:36.think the school like the one we have just heard of is fantastic.
:46:37. > :46:38.Catholic education works and that's why the schools are so
:46:39. > :46:44.oversubscribed. They are not divisive because we teach Christian
:46:45. > :46:47.values, things like tolerance, justice and accepting people. That's
:46:48. > :46:51.what Jesus did and that's what Catholics do. You would accept
:46:52. > :46:55.Muslims and anybody of any faith in Catholic schools? Some Catholic
:46:56. > :47:00.schools do. The main thing we have to look at as parental choice. If
:47:01. > :47:04.I'm a Catholic and I want to send my child to a Catholic school I should
:47:05. > :47:07.have that choice. If there is another parent who is of a different
:47:08. > :47:11.faith and they want to send theirs to a Muslim or a Sikh school
:47:12. > :47:15.brilliant. If there are schools that have a diverse mix there is room for
:47:16. > :47:19.all of them. In the Catholic system we have got schools doing well and
:47:20. > :47:23.if we were to get rid of them that would be crazy. Catholics are
:47:24. > :47:28.taxpayers, shouldn't they have schools funded by the taxpayers? All
:47:29. > :47:30.people and parents are taxpayers and they should have schools but if we
:47:31. > :47:36.say everyone should have a school that is distinctive to their
:47:37. > :47:40.particular parental belief passing this on to their child will would
:47:41. > :47:44.have as many schools as parents and children. The question of whether
:47:45. > :47:47.faith schools are divisive, by their definition they are divisive.
:47:48. > :47:53.Despite this piece about this faith school now. Why was that a puff
:47:54. > :47:58.piece, a school in Northampton opening its doors to all. It was
:47:59. > :48:02.untypical. What is distinctive about faith schools in law is they can
:48:03. > :48:05.select their pupils on the grounds of parental religion, they can teach
:48:06. > :48:09.a narrower curriculum than other schools. That doesn't mean they're
:48:10. > :48:12.not examples of faith schools in the system that don't do that, but what
:48:13. > :48:17.is distinctive about them opposed to other schools is that the law allows
:48:18. > :48:19.them to do that. I think when you have a mechanism of selection within
:48:20. > :48:24.the state system that separates children according to parental
:48:25. > :48:28.religion which has ethnic segregate effects, socially economic segregate
:48:29. > :48:36.a re-Fx, that is divisive. It is divisive because it is divisive in a
:48:37. > :48:40.way that is different from other selection procedures. Nearly every
:48:41. > :48:45.selection mechanism and every school has to select their pupils in a
:48:46. > :48:48.divisive way. If it is catchment area it is people who can afford to
:48:49. > :48:50.live within the catchment area of the school which will typically
:48:51. > :48:54.discriminate against those on low-income is. Of course schools
:48:55. > :48:59.have to select and discriminate but the argument is is it legitimate to
:49:00. > :49:04.select on these grounds? I think it is for the reasons you said. Parents
:49:05. > :49:09.have a right, within reason, to educate their children according to
:49:10. > :49:13.their own values. That is a right enshrined in protocol one, Article
:49:14. > :49:17.two, of the human rights Convention. That means allowing faith schools to
:49:18. > :49:20.coexist alongside secular schools, so people who have a particular
:49:21. > :49:24.faith can bring up their children and educate their children in that
:49:25. > :49:29.faith. To make all schools secular, as Andrew would like to do, would be
:49:30. > :49:35.to say to people of faith you can only send your children to secular
:49:36. > :49:38.schools which is as a liberal as sending Leigh are telling people who
:49:39. > :49:42.are secular that they can only send them to faith schools. A third of
:49:43. > :49:46.the schools are faith based in England and the rest are secular. It
:49:47. > :49:49.is extraordinary in the 21st-century we are using education and faith in
:49:50. > :49:53.the same sentence and I don't think we should. The only reason we find
:49:54. > :49:57.it an issue in this country is because historically faith schools
:49:58. > :50:00.appear to be getting it right. They are doing something that a lot of
:50:01. > :50:04.our schools are not doing. I would content it's nothing to do with the
:50:05. > :50:08.faith, it's to do with best likely of fashion values, they have good
:50:09. > :50:11.old-fashioned educational values. I send all of my four children to a
:50:12. > :50:15.faith school but not because of the faith, because of the quality of the
:50:16. > :50:19.education. You are not a believer but they still went to a school
:50:20. > :50:25.where they taught a particular set of religious values? Yes. Did you
:50:26. > :50:30.not think that was hypocritical? Yes it was. But that is what I'm
:50:31. > :50:37.saying, that's what we should be looking at, faith schools have got
:50:38. > :50:40.it right. But we know why that is. The academic evidence shows that the
:50:41. > :50:43.reason why faith schools have higher exam results and academic
:50:44. > :50:46.achievements is because religious selection leads to social economic
:50:47. > :50:51.selection. All of the evidence shows that and that's why they have higher
:50:52. > :50:54.results. There are plenty of state schools, religious faith state
:50:55. > :50:58.schools which don't discriminate on social grounds and still get well
:50:59. > :51:04.above-average results. That's just one example. If you look at the data
:51:05. > :51:06.overall and adjust it to look at the catchment area of those schools you
:51:07. > :51:10.see again and again that religious selection leads to this. We have
:51:11. > :51:14.talked about Christian faith mainly. I want to bring in somebody
:51:15. > :51:18.who will talk about Muslim schools joining us from our Birmingham
:51:19. > :51:20.studio, traffic Purtell, from the Association of Muslim schools. Open
:51:21. > :51:30.to the programme. -- graphic there are only about 18 of these
:51:31. > :51:38.schools, so who funds the rest of them? There are a number that are
:51:39. > :51:42.privately funded. These faith schools have been in our system for
:51:43. > :51:45.a long time. Faith -based schools have been part of the infrastructure
:51:46. > :51:48.of the country for hundreds of years. I agree with what the lady
:51:49. > :51:54.said that they work and they give parents a choice in terms of moral
:51:55. > :52:00.and ethical code which children are dear to during the course of their
:52:01. > :52:06.education. And that's why they work. -- which children are dear to. The
:52:07. > :52:13.reason for being divisive is not substantiated. Surely you get an
:52:14. > :52:17.equal moral code in a secular school but it just doesn't happen to have
:52:18. > :52:21.religious foundations. The particular religion, whether it is
:52:22. > :52:23.Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, seekers, has a particular type of
:52:24. > :52:31.code particular to that religion -- the people that want to go to that
:52:32. > :52:34.school will follow that code so it is specific to that faith and that's
:52:35. > :52:39.why it works. Parents make that choice, pupils make that choice.
:52:40. > :52:45.That is a fundamental part of our society. Thank you for joining us.
:52:46. > :52:51.From the Association of Muslim schools. I could feel you itching to
:52:52. > :52:54.jump in. I half agree with him. He was trying to make the point that
:52:55. > :52:58.faith schools work because of the faith and I think exactly the
:52:59. > :53:01.opposite. I think faith schools work because historically they seemed to
:53:02. > :53:05.have embraced the right values. The Church of England set up a lot of
:53:06. > :53:08.the schools in the first place in the 1800 's. Why are we saying that
:53:09. > :53:13.faith schools seem to have a better academic record if that appears to
:53:14. > :53:17.be the case? One of the fundamentals of all good schools is a shared
:53:18. > :53:20.ethos, a vision that everyone in the school shares from the top to the
:53:21. > :53:24.bottom, staff, parents and pupils all share the same vision, all
:53:25. > :53:28.singing from the same hymn sheet, whether it is a faith school or a
:53:29. > :53:33.secular school. And the reason faith schools typically are very good is
:53:34. > :53:38.because they are bound together by this shared ethos. Secular schools
:53:39. > :53:41.can have a shared ethos too but that's what makes faith schools
:53:42. > :53:44.work. That is totally untrue, there is no data evidence that suggests
:53:45. > :53:47.that's the case. There is no evidence to suggest faith schools
:53:48. > :53:51.are successful because of their ethos, Norman told. There is strong
:53:52. > :53:54.evidence that shows they are successful because of the socio
:53:55. > :54:02.economic the higher status people that they attract. -- none at all. I
:54:03. > :54:06.don't think that is true. There are dozens of faith schools in full
:54:07. > :54:12.countries that still do well. Most of those schools were established in
:54:13. > :54:17.poorer area. They take from a wider area that comes into that. They may
:54:18. > :54:22.not be from the same social economic place as the place where the school
:54:23. > :54:27.is. I want to get back to her point. If she is saying that faith schools
:54:28. > :54:31.do have something then it is crazy to say they have that thing isn't
:54:32. > :54:34.the faith. If it isn't the faith what else could it be? There is
:54:35. > :54:45.something that these schools do have. If we look at the faith of...
:54:46. > :54:47.All the world's religions would say dignity of the human being. I'm not
:54:48. > :54:55.saying other people don't agree with that. Let him answer to that. You
:54:56. > :54:58.can only referred to the evidence from every single secular school in
:54:59. > :55:03.England which demonstrated the apparent economic success was due to
:55:04. > :55:06.socioeconomic status. If you look at religious schools on value added,
:55:07. > :55:10.the extent to which they bring a child up having gone in the first
:55:11. > :55:14.year to how much value is added to their education at the end, it's not
:55:15. > :55:18.a better system than others. Those statistics are not debatable. We
:55:19. > :55:24.will have to leave under debatable statistics. Thank you all. I
:55:25. > :55:30.question your statistics and I question yours! You have been voting
:55:31. > :55:37.in our text and online vote today. Should UK trials be televised. Here
:55:38. > :55:45.is what you told us. 22% of you voted yes, they should. 78% said no
:55:46. > :55:51.they shouldn't be televised. Let's have a quick reaction to that vote
:55:52. > :55:55.result. Toby. I'm shocked. I think the Pistorius trial in South Africa
:55:56. > :55:57.was a good example of white trials should be televised. Lots of people
:55:58. > :56:02.in South Africa if they had not seen that trial would have concluded the
:56:03. > :56:05.reason he got off was because he was a rich white celebrity. Having seen
:56:06. > :56:08.the trial and seemed there was a competent black judge and the reason
:56:09. > :56:12.he was not convicted was because he was not found guilty of murder
:56:13. > :56:16.beyond a reasonable doubt, they will be convinced that the criminal
:56:17. > :56:20.justice system is fair. That is just a snapshot but what do you think?
:56:21. > :56:25.It's like the referendum, we were debating it. If we televised trials
:56:26. > :56:28.in this country how would we do it? Lots of people are worried about the
:56:29. > :56:36.little points we brought up, but I'm quite surprised people don't want to
:56:37. > :56:39.see justice in action because it is fascinating. Thank you for joining
:56:40. > :56:43.us. That's it for this morning so thanks to everyone in the studio,
:56:44. > :56:46.and of course those who joined us from the Stanhope Show with Alison.
:56:47. > :56:51.We are going to be back of course at the same time next Sunday, so thanks
:56:52. > :56:53.for all of your thoughts this morning. I do hope you will join me
:56:54. > :57:48.then. Until then, goodbye. or to stay part of
:57:49. > :57:51.the United Kingdom?