Episode 10 Sunday Morning Live

Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. Good morning. I am Sian Williams with the

show that gets the heart on soul of the week's big stories. Today we are

getting reaction to the beheading of the British aid worker. After the

Oscar Pistorius case, is it time to televise trials here or would courts

turned to theatre? He is found guilty of culpable homicide. Beastie

is an increasing problem but is it fair to criticise people who are

overweight? -- obesity. And Sir Roger Moore talks about 007, his

life values and being a knight. Very nice to see you. Very nice to see

you. It is Roger. Not Sir Roger? Just Roger. I don't like Mary. And

James... All that coming up. We are at the

show in County Durham, a celebration of rural life with livestock on

display. Alison is there. Morning. Good morning. This is the 173rd show

and in its long history it has only been stopped by war and foot and

mouth. Around 10,000 people are expected to come to the beautiful

County Durham countryside over the weekend to see prize-winning Catalan

the beautiful horses you can see behind me. There is also a wife

carrying on petition. I am glad I am here by myself! We will be talking

to some of the people here about the big issues this week. Looking

forward to that. Let us meet some of our guests. We are joined by

journalist, writer, runner, Rosie. Toby Young, author and the founder

of the West London free school. Daytime TV star still broadcasting

on television and radio, and I meant. And Joshua Rosenberg, legal

commentator and presenter. Welcome, all of you. We want to know what you

think. You can comment by phone, text, Facebook, Twitter.

First, the murder of a British aid worker by the extremist organisation

Islamic State. David Haines was seized in Syria last year and had

been held hostage there. The Prime Minister said his murder was an act

of pure evil. A video appearing to show his beheading was released.

David Cameron has vowed to do everything possible to find the

killers. What can be done and what should be done? Toby, what do you

think that might it is terrible news to wake up to. -- what do you think?

It is terrible anyone claiming to be religious could say they're God

sanctions the murder of humanitarian aid workers. My hope is this will

strengthen the resolve of the British Parliament to participate in

as strikes. They have not ruled as tried out. Is it a possibly too? --

they have not ruled out air strikes. They have a Cobra meeting right now.

There will be a public clamour for action of some sort. We cannot just

sit by and let this happen. Neither can we always wait for America to

take the lead. Somewhat along the line, I assume Obama and David

Cameron aren't talking like mad at the moment. The public want action.

Do you agree, Rosie? Rain I do. Scotland, the referendum, it is

really important. But it does look like a distraction -- yes, I do. To

see an aid worker being murdered beggars belief. Appalling. Awful. I

want to bring in a professor of international relations at the

London School of Economics and an expert on jihadists. Welcome. Do you

think further military action would deter or bolster Islamic State?

First of all, this is a very complex phenomenon. There are no easy

answers. Also, a major point we need to get across is that the so-called

Islamic State had no interest in attacking Britain or the US. Its key

target has always been the governments in Iraq and Syria. It

has visceral hatred of the Shia liberation at home. The reason why

the so-called Islamic State has been killing Western hostages is because

it is retaliating for the American attacks against forces in Iraq and

the coalition constructed by the US to rollback and defeat the Islamic

State. Make no doubt about it, it is all out war now. Muslim leaders here

have said... I know you say so-called Islamic State, but it is

not Islamic, it does not follow Islam, it does not adhere to the

tenants of Islam, and it is not a state either. Absolutely. If you

compare the so-called Islamic State, Isis, Isil, various ways of

jihadists. There is no theology, no repertoire of ideas. It is a social

and intellectual wasteland. Actions speak louder than words. It is

savagery itself. Savagery is a strategy, irrational choice on the

part of the so-called Islamic State. If actions speak louder than words,

what action should the British Government take? One point must be

made very clear. Isis can not be defeated by American and British air

power. Neither the international coalition nor the regional coalition

will be able to destroy Isis. The only way is to dislodge it from the

local communities. It portrays itself as the defender of persecuted

Sunni communities. It has convinced them that it is defending Sunnis

against Shias. That is why you need to put out the sectarian fires

raging in Iraq and Syria and mobilise the Sunni community to

defeat Isil from the bottom as opposed from the down. Thank you for

joining us. Joshua, as a legal expert, the Prime Minister said

today that we must ensure the people face justice. Where do you start?

You start by not appeasing terrorism. You start by getting

tough on terrorists. You start by not making excuses for terrorism. I

am not going to discuss the precise military strategies, but the

terrorists exploit weaknesses that have come from the US leadership in

the past and you have got to show you simply will not put up with

this, whether it is British people murdered or American people or

anybody. We have limitations on our own military power, but in

conjunction with other countries, other democracies, we have got to be

absolutely clear to say this cannot carry on. We have got to make it

clear in language the terrorists understand. Do you think they would

listen? If anyone from the West says, this is unacceptable. When I

say language, I need action, bombing, troops on the ground a

military campaign to try to degrade and if possible defeat them. Surely

we are giving them strength, the longer we delay? Yes. Now, big news

story this week, the trial of Oscar Pistorius. The judge found him

guilty of Coppell Bull homicide, killing his girlfriend by mistake.

-- culpable homicide. It was shown live on television to a worldwide

audience. Was just as truly seen to be done? Should cameras be allowed

in courts here too? There was a scrum of photographers and cameras

around Pistorius every time he was outside the court. But it was what

the media was able to see inside that made this trial so dramatic. Mr

Pistorius, please stand up. The judge seemed unfazed by the cameras

as she read out the verdict. Instead he is found guilty of culpable

homicide. But in earlier parts of the proceedings, there had been

higher motion as Pistorius talked about the night he shot his

girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp -- high in motion. I was trying to protect

her. Later he was seen sobbing as he was found not guilty of murder. His

lawyers say the presence of the cameras put extra stress on him. In

her verdict, the judge raised concerns about the influence of the

cameras. The fact this case attracted much media attention,

especially soon after the incident and the fact that it became a topic

in many homes also did not persist. There was an Oscar Pistorius channel

during the trial and for some it was justice in the open. I am satisfied

so far. We get to see the processes. Here strictly limited filming has

been allowed in some Scottish courts and in England to the proceedings of

the appeal court have been open to cameras. Should be Pistorius trial

be regarded as an example to follow? Or is it evidence justice should

stay behind closed doors? That is our question for this week, showed

UK trials be televised? You have got about 30 minutes before the vote

closes. You can vote online for free on our website. Results of course

will be announced before the end of the programme. Did you watch? Yes, I

was riveted. Ira member watching the O.J. Simpson trial as well quite a

long time ago -- I remember watching. I thought it was an

incredible PR job. African justice. I was really impressed by the judge

and the whole business of and the way they televised it. I do not like

the feeling it gives me, that I was riveted by it. On the other hand,

you said in your report, should justice be kept behind closed doors?

It has to be open. Most trials now and you can go as a member of the

public will stop whether you should be watching as a member of a much

larger public on television, it makes me uneasy and I do not know

why. There is the celebrity 11. Like the O.J. Simpson trial, there was

someone you had heard of and a beautiful woman -- there is the

celebrity element. Do you think it holds as something about South

African justice? I did not follow it closely but I am in favour of the

principle of allowing trials to be televised. So many people have very

little faith in the criminal justice system and believe that it is

essentially corrupt. If they are accused of something, they believe

they will not be given a fair trial. To see a system working in a very

fair, judicious, measured way. It helps give people face. It is not

enough for justice to be done, it must be seen to be done. How

edifying is it when you see Oscar Pistorius vomiting into a bucket? It

was turned into a circus. The heightened thing of this beautiful

woman behind the door, I think people were watching it for a

variety of reasons, not at all always about the transparency of

justice. It is difficult to know who would gain from the televising of

law courts. The defendant might not gain if he or she comes out as

innocent. Their face has been on the television, they will never shake it

off. Jury 's could easily be nobbled if they are on television. Then

there is witness intimidation. My husband testified in a very serious

case of violence to do with a film he had shot for the BBC. We were

intimidated. We had to move house. We had to have a different car every

week. He bravely testified in court. His journey to court was

screened and monitored so that security could be sure he was not

being followed. Our house had a camera. We were very vulnerable.

That is without televising. Exactly. Can you imagine, I'm going to be on

television? Surely people who are going to intimidate would be

interested parties anyway. How many people are in the public gallery?

20. That is opposing ordinary viewers are likely to think, I could

intimidate that person. I think it will put witnesses. In this case,

the judge said she was concerned about the impact on the witnesses

and she thought perhaps they might have been affected by being part of

that. She made a special rule which we have not mentioned which was that

you could see Oscar Pistorius when he wasn't giving evidence and you

could hear him when he was given evidence but you could never see him

in the witness box, that was a compromise between allowing it to be

televised and not. She said she thought some of the witnesses had

been influenced by what had been reported. And of course, if you give

evidence on live television over the course of a couple of days and go

home after day one people will say I saw what you said but did you take

account of that and this and all the rest of it. Exactly. And why was

there no jury in this case? Was it because it was televised? No, that

is just a feature of their law. The criminal process will always be

contaminated by conducting trials in public, which is always an argument

for conducting high-profile trials in secret. There is a difference

between conducting trials in public and except in the most exceptional

circumstances trials should be the public. There is a difference

between that and everybody watching justice being done but in trials not

so. Can we clarify the position because it's different in Scotland

and the law has changed in the last couple of years. What can we see on

television? Parliament passed legislation in 1995 to say no

photography in court, until then there were snappers taking

surreptitious pictures, that apply to England and Wales. More than 20

years ago the judges said it does not apply here, our people don't

know what is going on and they allowed televised in of trials

providing everybody agreed and the BBC showed a number of trials 20

years ago this autumn. In England and Wales we have had restrictions

until very recently, the art -- a few months ago appeals could be

shown and we could see the live appeals and judges giving judgement

on appeals but not trials. Televising of appeals is likely to

be extended slightly, but some judges, including the Lord Chief

Justice, have misgivings about allowing trials to be shown where

there are alive witnesses. Appeals have no witnesses. You can tweet

from the court and let people into the public gallery. If justice is

going to be seen to be accountable and transparent and why not have it?

It may affect the way courts operate, it may deter witnesses from

giving evidence, witnesses do not have to give evidence. It may deter

defendants. Don't show the witnesses then. If people are worried about

being seen they can do it from behind a screen. So many people

wriggle out of jury service. If they were to be televised it would be

another reason to say I will get my boss to write in. It might make

people want to do jury service to appear on television. Not everybody

wants to be on television! Can you see the British public accepting

trials on television? Is there an appetite for it? The other worry I

have is they would want to watch the interesting bits, so you might find

people tune in for the prosecution case but don't want to listen to the

witnesses. It is as you say the relish and the anxiety of the most

salacious trials being screened and put on at a certain time which gives

it a different weight. Of course, some people might tune in for

reasons you disapprove of, some people might enjoy watching boxing

matches for reasons you disapprove of. I don't think the fact there is

a small minority of people that will get the wrong kind of satisfaction

is a reason not to do it. That is a risk across all walks of life.

Joshua, the Law Lords seem to differ on what they think about whether

this should happen. We have the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer saying we

don't want our courts turned into US style media circuses, and then there

was a consultation and the majority of those consulted said no. The Lord

Justice says he's troubled about what happened in South Africa. And

the President of the Supreme Court said he found the Oscar Pistorius

trial every impressive, so who's decision will it be? The Lord Chief

Justice of England and Wales, as far as the courts of England and Wales

are concerned, the Supreme Court is already televised, it is streamed

live and you can watch it if you want to. It's not particular popular

because it is legal argument. The broadcasters are keen to get control

over trials, and baddest to some extent why they are supporting this.

Trials are what people want to watch. Criminal trials. Lord Thomas

chief justice is concerned that it will affect the doing of justice in

the way I've suggested if it goes. On the other hand we are in favour

of open justice and that's why his predecessor allowed journalists to

tweet from court and that's why it is important to know what goes on in

court. Let's get some reaction from Stanhope Show and Alison.

I'm at the Stanhope Show and I've grabbed a few people to give us

their views on these pics. Anita Atkinson has been coming to the show

every year and is born and bred in these parts. Do you think these

trials should be televised? It is too much like Hollywood and not very

British. Apart from anything else the main reason is the pram costs of

-- Crown Prosecution Service has great difficulty getting witnesses

into court because it is an alien environment. Not many people have

been in a court room anyway, and to have to go into a courtroom which is

a nerve wracking thing and have to have a televised for the whole

world, no, I don't think that's right. Thank you for joining us. I'm

also with Mike Keeble, the commentator here. Do you agree with

her sentiment? I agree with what she said but I will add to that to say I

believe it was too choreographed. The sections I watched, with

somebody who is internationally known, full of international

sympathy because of his prosthetic legs and then the lawyer on the

prosecuting side trying to get international work in future and the

two did not mix. Thank you for joining us. That's it from the

Stanhope Show. We'll be back later to hear a few more views.

Thank you, Alison. The vote is still open. We want to hear what you

think, should UK trials be televised? You can only vote once.

If you think they should text the word vote followed by the word yes

and if you think they shouldn't text the word vote followed by the word

no. You can also vote on line. The results will be announced before the

end of the show. Still to come: On Sunday Morning Live, expanding

faith. The Church of England School where you don't have to be a

Christian to get in. He had a Licence to Kill, fighting

off the villains and the women. These days former 007 Sir Roger

Moore has a rather less frenetic life, but at the age of 86 he

certainly isn't killing time, he has just written a book called last man

standing, and he's starting a UK tour meeting audiences for an

evening of chat and anecdote. I caught up with Sir Roger, not shaken

and certainly not stirred, to talk girls, gadgets and growing old and

seeing friends on the other side. Sir Roger Moore. Roger. Just Roger,

not Sir. So lovely to see you. I know that you are about to start a

live tour called an evening with Roger Moore. So, what could I expect

of an evening with Roger Moore? Two hours' good sleep! I say we should

put on throw away your still knocks. What to expect, I talk about

everything in my life. After 86 years there seem to be a lot of

things to talk about, if I can remember them. What sort of

questions do people ask? What is your favourite Bond girl? I will

scratch that one off. And what do you say? I make up all sorts of

things. Children and young people say, what is your favourite gadget.

Barbara back was your favourite. The lady will have a Bacardi on the

rocks. For the gentleman, vodka martini, shaken, not stirred. One of

the watches as your favourite gadget, would it have been? Yes, the

magnetic watch. You brought to your bond generosity of spirit and a

humour and he was of course very debonair, but it was very different

from Sean Connery's James Bond. Sean Connery, as Daniel Craig today,

looks like a killer. I could squeeze them to death with my eyes. How do

you squeeze somebody to death with your eyes? Not so hard! With one

raised eyebrow? Gravity has taken over completely. I suppose the

template for your James Bond was Simon Templer from the Saint, only

without the guns and the weapons. Very suave and using your fists a

bit if you needed to fight. It was exactly the same as I played Ivanhoe

400 years before. So you are saying you played at the same way for them.

They all came out the same! It's the easiest way! Doing all that acting

business. You are so it's self-deprecating about you acting.

Well, I've seen myself! Why? In a couple

of things I've been allowed to act, but usually it's because I look sort

of heroic, which I suppose I'm not. Was that a bit frustrating?

I suppose that was acting. To look heroic and not blink too

much. When we did The Spy Who Loved Me, on

one of those sets that you know is going to get blown up on a Bond

film. Before the explosions started my make-up artist came through and

said here you go, Roger. I put my earplugs in. Barbara said, why are

you doing that? I said, because we are going to have a lot of

explosions. I said, when I move move at the same time, we have two really

move. I thought if I stood near you I would be safe. I said, no, it's

James Bond they are trying to kill, so when I run run with me! I was

heroic there, she nearly drowned and I dragged her out. It was worth it.

Ringo Starr is very grateful! CHUCKLES

As well as your anecdote about James Bond which you will regale the

audience with when you go on tour you have written another book called

Last Man Standing. I happen to have a copy of the book. Handy. As you

can see we are sitting in the chairs. Trevor Howard, David Niven.

I'm the last man standing. They are all unfortunately dead. I talk about

them. It must be so difficult when you are so close to people like

David Niven, and such good friends, not to have them around any more.

David was the first of my friends that really affected me, the death.

He had motor neurone disease. He was in the high street and a man said,

David, how are you? David said, all right. I've got motor neurone

disease. And he said yes and I've got a new Mercedes. And David

started to laugh. And when he laughed his laughter was very close

to tears. I miss him. In the book when you talk about David Niven,

Trevor Howard and Gregory Peck, you say you think they are looking down

on you from heaven. Do you have a religious faith at all? Well, yes. I

was asked by a dialogue director once in California, do you believe

in God? I said, yes. I believe in intelligence. I believe that we are

created for some purpose. And I think that the purpose probably is

to learn, to experience and to use that. And he said, fine, but some of

us are born a little bit more fortunate than others because of the

circumstance of birth and geography. He said, you are very

fortunate, you are 6-foot, so why do you only stand five foot ten? Stand

6-foot to. What did he mean by that? He said he have been given this and

it is wrong not to do something with it. -- 6-foot two. You have been

through diabetes, pneumonia. Double pneumonia. Really? I'm an old hand

at it. Pacemaker fitted? Yes. What gets you through those periods of

illness? You have mentioned you do have a belief in something, in some

God, does that help when you become ill? I don't think I'm frightened. I

think it's going to be a big adventure. You are going to find

out. Nobody has ever come back to tell us. Your mother taught you to

be humble and have some humility and look at where you were born and that

others haven't got the same. I suppose you took that philosophy

into your Unicef work, didn't you? I was very fortunate enough that

Audrey Hepburn was a friend and she called me one morning and asked me

if I would go to Amsterdam with her to co-host the International

children's awards, which was a Unicef programme. She was an

extraordinary, warm, passionate lady. You know, that's one of the

things, I might see her on the other side. And what do you think you have

learned in 86 years? Have you got life lessons? I've learned that it's

better to smile in adversity. I've learned to appreciate all my

mother's maxims, that I cried because I had no shoes until I met a

man who had no feet. Your motto is: Embrace every moment. You seem to

be. Live today and don't tread on too many toes. Live for the day and

don't tread on too many toes? Yes. And every day may be your last! But

not today! Sir Roger Moore, it's been such a pleasure talking to you.

Thank you for your time. The delightful Roger Moore on living

life and losing friends. Just after we recorded that interview he lost

another close colleague, Richard Kiel, who was Jaws in two Bond

films. Roger Moore said he was distraught. He played villains in

the wake and The Spy Who Loved Me. Is What happens if someone calls you

fat or tells you you are carrying too many pounds?

We have some of the highest levels of obesity in Western Europe.

Shaming people over the body size, weight discrimination, can

apparently result in comfort eating. That is according to a study from

University College London. Obesity is the UK's fastest-growing health

problems and cost the NHS more than ?5 billion a year. Speaking out

about someone's wait, will it help or hinder the debate? We are joined

by a woman who describes herself as a size acceptance campaigner. Our

overweight people discriminated against? They are nonexistent.

Dehumanised. The report you have just shown has no heads. We cannot

identify... We see it in newspapers, magazines we do not exist. Then we

complain obesity is going higher and higher. If it is a disease, we are

treating it wrong. We are looking at it... Big conglomerates benefit out

of scaring people into losing weight and they get away with it. When you

say, we do not exist, I am not sure what you mean. If I want to present,

they will not give me the job, I am too fat, I do not fit... I am not

going to be attractive to the viewers. That is based only on the

way I look. It is not acceptable in society. You think people who are

overweight are discriminated against because they do not get the jobs

they should do? They are not viewed in an equal way. Rosie. This is a

disease that in a few years time might encompass 50% of the

population, crippled the health service. The other day, a diabetic

consultant said that obesity was going to be worse than lung cancer.

It was going to affect more people and be devastating to the health

service. To ambulances that will have to have stronger stretchers,

airlines... Hold on. You had your say. It is scaremongering. Even if I

was given a job, I will pay for two seats. Everything will need to be

strengthened because people are too overweight. When did this fight

against obesity start? You are not ignored. We are. Hang on, both of

you. The viewers will not be able to hear you talking over one another.

What we are talking about now is whether you should say, effectively,

calling someone that is discriminatory. It is. The lead

author of this thesis published from UCL said that fat is was one of the

last socially acceptable forms of prejudice. That is true. I do not

know if it is fair to call someone fat but the question is, is it

helpful? It is not helpful. The only way to deal with the health

implications, the NHS applications, is to talk about health and not

about weight and size. If we look at that, the nature of obesity, some

people are thin on the outside and have the worst sorts of fat around

their internal organs. If we can completely shift away from the way

you look to how healthy you are, then we will find something people

will have to face up to the fact that they are unhealthy too. That is

a good point. If you are thin, you are bullied at school sometimes as

much as if you are overweight. Not as much. I think the argument that

has been made in this paper is completely absurd. They are saying,

you should not discriminate against overweight people because if you do

then they are likely to become even more overweight. That is essentially

saying you should not be fatist for fatist reasons. It is a ridiculous

reason. That is not what it is saying. The reason we should not

discriminate is because it is wrong, not because they will be more

overweight. Let us get the views from Alison at the Stanhope Show. We

have moved into the area where the healthy prize-winning vegetables

grown by local people are on display. I am joined by Emma a

teacher. You must see what goes into children's lunchboxes, why is this

problem of obesity? That is a lot in the press but it does not seem to

get back home. The children do not taste the food enough to enjoy it.

We try a lot in school, part of the curriculum and activities, but it is

not part of their daily life. That is the barrier. The children know it

is out there but they do not have it enough for it to be part of their

daily diet. I am also with Steve, a keen gardener. What is your view on

the issue? It is not just down to diet. It is exercise as well. Even

if you get them to eat vegetables, they do not get out enough and do

enough running around. They sit around with computer screens too

long. That is my opinion. If they were outdoors growing vegetables,

would that be better? I would love to get them involved. Those are the

views from Stanhope Show in County Durham today. Back to you.

Whose fault is it that we have a growing obesity crisis? I think the

food companies need to be looked at. It seems to me that ten years ago,

20 years ago, there was a trade-off. People got rid of fat in their foods

because that was meant to be the bad thing. Foods tasted bland. Now sugar

was put in. They need to look at processed foods. People need to be

encouraged to eat vegetables. Shops and marketplaces selling vegetables

should be given incentives. This will not solve the problem we are

talking about today. We have to stop discriminating. We have to create or

change the culture and change the language because it is not only

affecting people my size but it is affecting people your size. If you

put on a few pounds, you would lose your job and be assaulted. Look at

the stars... This is very bad for you to be that size. You cannot

tell. This is discrimination. I do not want to be talking about myself,

but I am sure my GP is watching and he is going to probably ring and

said, she is one of our healthiest patients. You cannot judge someone

while looking at them. You do not know the underlying conditions that

make me less fat. It has got to be about health not size. Is it really

helpful to point out to somebody that they are carrying too much

weight when if you are carrying too much weight, you know you are and

you have probably talked to someone about it if you want to. Is it

helpful to tell a smoker to stop smoking? Is it helpful to tell an

alcoholic to cut back on the booze? I would say it is the same. You have

to find the right way to do it. I definitely think obesity is bad, for

the individual, for all of us, it is going to cripple the National Health

Service. But by blaming people and making fun of them... You only have

to look at the newspapers today, Pauline Quirke has put weight on

again and they are saying, she is piling on the pounds. Here we go all

over again. Demonisation. It would drive me straight back to the

biscuit covered! They do not talk about men like that. She is too fat,

too then, to this, too that. I think the solution is not to make

overweight people feel bad, it is to encourage all people to do more

exercise, particularly children. Parents have become paranoid about

letting their children out of the house. So obsessed with the risks

and dangers of what might happen to them. Children do not have the same

opportunities to play and exercise and run around. Ask any primary

school teacher, they say there is a problem with the acceptance of

bigger sizes. If you ask parents nowadays, do you think your child

might have a bit of a weight problem is at Babel said, no. -- a bit of a

weight problem, they will say, no. We have to change the language and

culture. People are born different sizes. Let us stop fighting fat

because it is hurting the children and there is anorexic, Bellini.

People are thinking of killing themselves

People are thinking of killing If we want the nation to be healthy,

we have to showpiece -- show people who are healthy and the bees. All

right. -- obese. We must leave it. Thank you very much. You have been

voting on our question this morning, should UK trials be televised? The

vote is closing so do not tax because your vote will not count but

you may still be charged. We will bring you the result at the end of

the show. Schools are back, a sigh of relief for most parents, but not

those who did not get into the school of their choice. Do you

belong to the right face? Just how religious are you? This week it was

said that no taxpayer funded faith schools should dominate on religious

grounds. First, a visit to a faith school that has thrown its doors

open to all -- should discriminate on religious grounds. This school in

Surrey is a new primary school. I want you to think... It opened last

year with 30 pupils on this week admitted 30 more. It has an open

admissions policy so while its ethos is rooted in tradition Christian

values it admits children of all faiths and none. We do not reserve a

percentage of places for any churchgoing children. We operate on

a geographical locality. We opted for that policy because it was a

direct response to the need for school places in this part of the

borough and specifically in this part of the parish. The school

balances its Christian faith with a religious teaching that is diverse.

Our religious education policy is broad and it is geared to give the

children the knowledge and skills of other religions, world faiths and of

other elements of spirituality. So that children will be equipped to

make choices for themselves as they grow up. We thank you for your care.

There is a collective act of worship every morning. Parents can choose

for their children to opt out if they wish, however no parent has

chosen to do so. Piece he with you. And also be with you. I wanted my

children to know there is a God but also to understand there are other

religions. During the daily prayers, she is included. But every time God

is mentioned and how kind he has been, she is to visualise it as her

God so that in our case it would be Allah. This diversity is welcomed by

Christian parents too. We are attracted by the open inclusion

policy because it reflected the Christian ethos of the school. Open

to all regardless of faith. It meant our daughter Woodsy people from the

local community, not just people going to the local church -- it

meant our daughter would see people. This teacher thinks faith

schools do not have to be exclusive and can broaden people's attitudes.

A well-run faith school that is clear about its own distinctiveness

within the context of broader issues can be an extremely successful,

open-minded place which allows children's own thinking and

spirituality to grow and develop in whatever direction it takes.

St Mary's School in Hampton in Surrey. What about other faith

schools? Are they so open in their admissions? Joining us now, Andrew

Copson, the chief executive of the British humanist Association.

Welcome. And a representative from Catholic voices who is a teacher in

a Catholic school. Thank you for joining us. Over to you first. Our

faith schools divisive? Absolutely not. I work in a faith school and I

think the school like the one we have just heard of is fantastic.

Catholic education works and that's why the schools are so

oversubscribed. They are not divisive because we teach Christian

values, things like tolerance, justice and accepting people. That's

what Jesus did and that's what Catholics do. You would accept

Muslims and anybody of any faith in Catholic schools? Some Catholic

schools do. The main thing we have to look at as parental choice. If

I'm a Catholic and I want to send my child to a Catholic school I should

have that choice. If there is another parent who is of a different

faith and they want to send theirs to a Muslim or a Sikh school

brilliant. If there are schools that have a diverse mix there is room for

all of them. In the Catholic system we have got schools doing well and

if we were to get rid of them that would be crazy. Catholics are

taxpayers, shouldn't they have schools funded by the taxpayers? All

people and parents are taxpayers and they should have schools but if we

say everyone should have a school that is distinctive to their

particular parental belief passing this on to their child will would

have as many schools as parents and children. The question of whether

faith schools are divisive, by their definition they are divisive.

Despite this piece about this faith school now. Why was that a puff

piece, a school in Northampton opening its doors to all. It was

untypical. What is distinctive about faith schools in law is they can

select their pupils on the grounds of parental religion, they can teach

a narrower curriculum than other schools. That doesn't mean they're

not examples of faith schools in the system that don't do that, but what

is distinctive about them opposed to other schools is that the law allows

them to do that. I think when you have a mechanism of selection within

the state system that separates children according to parental

religion which has ethnic segregate effects, socially economic segregate

a re-Fx, that is divisive. It is divisive because it is divisive in a

way that is different from other selection procedures. Nearly every

selection mechanism and every school has to select their pupils in a

divisive way. If it is catchment area it is people who can afford to

live within the catchment area of the school which will typically

discriminate against those on low-income is. Of course schools

have to select and discriminate but the argument is is it legitimate to

select on these grounds? I think it is for the reasons you said. Parents

have a right, within reason, to educate their children according to

their own values. That is a right enshrined in protocol one, Article

two, of the human rights Convention. That means allowing faith schools to

coexist alongside secular schools, so people who have a particular

faith can bring up their children and educate their children in that

faith. To make all schools secular, as Andrew would like to do, would be

to say to people of faith you can only send your children to secular

schools which is as a liberal as sending Leigh are telling people who

are secular that they can only send them to faith schools. A third of

the schools are faith based in England and the rest are secular. It

is extraordinary in the 21st-century we are using education and faith in

the same sentence and I don't think we should. The only reason we find

it an issue in this country is because historically faith schools

appear to be getting it right. They are doing something that a lot of

our schools are not doing. I would content it's nothing to do with the

faith, it's to do with best likely of fashion values, they have good

old-fashioned educational values. I send all of my four children to a

faith school but not because of the faith, because of the quality of the

education. You are not a believer but they still went to a school

where they taught a particular set of religious values? Yes. Did you

not think that was hypocritical? Yes it was. But that is what I'm

saying, that's what we should be looking at, faith schools have got

it right. But we know why that is. The academic evidence shows that the

reason why faith schools have higher exam results and academic

achievements is because religious selection leads to social economic

selection. All of the evidence shows that and that's why they have higher

results. There are plenty of state schools, religious faith state

schools which don't discriminate on social grounds and still get well

above-average results. That's just one example. If you look at the data

overall and adjust it to look at the catchment area of those schools you

see again and again that religious selection leads to this. We have

talked about Christian faith mainly. I want to bring in somebody

who will talk about Muslim schools joining us from our Birmingham

studio, traffic Purtell, from the Association of Muslim schools. Open

to the programme. -- graphic there are only about 18 of these

schools, so who funds the rest of them? There are a number that are

privately funded. These faith schools have been in our system for

a long time. Faith -based schools have been part of the infrastructure

of the country for hundreds of years. I agree with what the lady

said that they work and they give parents a choice in terms of moral

and ethical code which children are dear to during the course of their

education. And that's why they work. -- which children are dear to. The

reason for being divisive is not substantiated. Surely you get an

equal moral code in a secular school but it just doesn't happen to have

religious foundations. The particular religion, whether it is

Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, seekers, has a particular type of

code particular to that religion -- the people that want to go to that

school will follow that code so it is specific to that faith and that's

why it works. Parents make that choice, pupils make that choice.

That is a fundamental part of our society. Thank you for joining us.

From the Association of Muslim schools. I could feel you itching to

jump in. I half agree with him. He was trying to make the point that

faith schools work because of the faith and I think exactly the

opposite. I think faith schools work because historically they seemed to

have embraced the right values. The Church of England set up a lot of

the schools in the first place in the 1800 's. Why are we saying that

faith schools seem to have a better academic record if that appears to

be the case? One of the fundamentals of all good schools is a shared

ethos, a vision that everyone in the school shares from the top to the

bottom, staff, parents and pupils all share the same vision, all

singing from the same hymn sheet, whether it is a faith school or a

secular school. And the reason faith schools typically are very good is

because they are bound together by this shared ethos. Secular schools

can have a shared ethos too but that's what makes faith schools

work. That is totally untrue, there is no data evidence that suggests

that's the case. There is no evidence to suggest faith schools

are successful because of their ethos, Norman told. There is strong

evidence that shows they are successful because of the socio

economic the higher status people that they attract. -- none at all. I

don't think that is true. There are dozens of faith schools in full

countries that still do well. Most of those schools were established in

poorer area. They take from a wider area that comes into that. They may

not be from the same social economic place as the place where the school

is. I want to get back to her point. If she is saying that faith schools

do have something then it is crazy to say they have that thing isn't

the faith. If it isn't the faith what else could it be? There is

something that these schools do have. If we look at the faith of...

All the world's religions would say dignity of the human being. I'm not

saying other people don't agree with that. Let him answer to that. You

can only referred to the evidence from every single secular school in

England which demonstrated the apparent economic success was due to

socioeconomic status. If you look at religious schools on value added,

the extent to which they bring a child up having gone in the first

year to how much value is added to their education at the end, it's not

a better system than others. Those statistics are not debatable. We

will have to leave under debatable statistics. Thank you all. I

question your statistics and I question yours! You have been voting

in our text and online vote today. Should UK trials be televised. Here

is what you told us. 22% of you voted yes, they should. 78% said no

they shouldn't be televised. Let's have a quick reaction to that vote

result. Toby. I'm shocked. I think the Pistorius trial in South Africa

was a good example of white trials should be televised. Lots of people

in South Africa if they had not seen that trial would have concluded the

reason he got off was because he was a rich white celebrity. Having seen

the trial and seemed there was a competent black judge and the reason

he was not convicted was because he was not found guilty of murder

beyond a reasonable doubt, they will be convinced that the criminal

justice system is fair. That is just a snapshot but what do you think?

It's like the referendum, we were debating it. If we televised trials

in this country how would we do it? Lots of people are worried about the

little points we brought up, but I'm quite surprised people don't want to

see justice in action because it is fascinating. Thank you for joining

us. That's it for this morning so thanks to everyone in the studio,

and of course those who joined us from the Stanhope Show with Alison.

We are going to be back of course at the same time next Sunday, so thanks

for all of your thoughts this morning. I do hope you will join me

then. Until then, goodbye. or to stay part of

the United Kingdom?