:00:10. > :00:15.Welcome to Sunday Morning Live, I am Naga Munchetty. The killing of MP Jo
:00:16. > :00:20.Cox leads to her family calling for unity not hatred, we will discuss
:00:21. > :00:25.what legacy will be. Stephen Kinnock the MP who shared an office with Jo
:00:26. > :00:30.Cox gives us his view. Sir Cliff Richard will not face charges over
:00:31. > :00:35.sexual abuse claims but says police used him as bait. Should he ever
:00:36. > :00:39.have been named? Professor Richard Dawkins, revolutionaries biologist
:00:40. > :00:45.and atheist explains why his recent stroke did not shake his conviction
:00:46. > :00:50.that there isn't a God. Did you consider mortality what lies beyond?
:00:51. > :00:58.Nothing lies beyond. That never changed? Of course not, why should
:00:59. > :01:06.it? And Tim Peake returned to Earth, is it time to boldly go with more
:01:07. > :01:19.investment in space? He thinks so. Best ride I have been on.
:01:20. > :01:30.The guests are here ready to discuss those issues, and Tommy is here as
:01:31. > :01:34.well. Good morning, welcome to Sunday Morning Live, lots of
:01:35. > :01:38.Waverley to get in touch. You can contact us on Facebook and Twitter.
:01:39. > :02:04.Or you can call us. Lots of ways to get in touch, let's
:02:05. > :02:13.get you talking. Thank you. Let's meet our guests. Donna Dawson,
:02:14. > :02:20.Stephen Kinnock who is a close friend of Jo Cox, Joan Smith is a
:02:21. > :02:25.columnist, novelist and human rights activist and Peter Hitchens is a
:02:26. > :02:29.columnist for the mail on Sunday. In the middle of a frenetic referendum
:02:30. > :02:32.campaign normal politics came to a juggling halt this week as
:02:33. > :02:37.politicians and the public considered the shocking impact of
:02:38. > :02:43.the murder of MP Jo Cox. Even Cameron said where we see hatred and
:02:44. > :02:47.find division, we must try that out of our politics and out of our
:02:48. > :02:51.public life and out of our communities. Jeremy Corbyn said the
:02:52. > :02:54.recall of Parliament tomorrow will enable politicians to pay tribute to
:02:55. > :02:58.the Labour MP under half of everybody in the country who values
:02:59. > :03:04.democracy, free from the kind of brutality that Jo suffered. And her
:03:05. > :03:10.sister made a heartfelt plea of the family for something positive to
:03:11. > :03:13.come out of her tragic death. We have to continue this strength and
:03:14. > :03:22.solidarity in the days, months and years to come. As part of her
:03:23. > :03:30.legacy. And to focus on, as Jo would say, that which unites us and not
:03:31. > :03:35.which divides us. So, what are the implications of the death of Jo Cox
:03:36. > :03:37.for public life and society in general? We will discuss that with
:03:38. > :03:43.our guests in a moment but first let's hear from the Bishop of
:03:44. > :03:50.Huddersfield. I spoke to him short while ago before he went to attend a
:03:51. > :03:53.morning service. The Right Reverend Jonathon Gibbs, thank you for
:03:54. > :03:59.joining us, please tell us the mood of the community you have been in
:04:00. > :04:04.contact with? I think things have moved since Thursday and Friday, the
:04:05. > :04:08.initial reaction was one of huge shock and disbelief, trying to take
:04:09. > :04:13.in what had happened. I think now there is a huge sadness in the
:04:14. > :04:18.community as people either come together to reflect and support one
:04:19. > :04:23.another or simply need to be on their own. Tremendous sense of
:04:24. > :04:29.sadness and loss. Of course you had contact with Jo, you met her as part
:04:30. > :04:32.of her public duties, the reaction to her death has been staggering, a
:04:33. > :04:39.fund in her name has raised more than half ?1 million so far. What
:04:40. > :04:44.impact do you think she had? She was a remarkable and exceptional young
:04:45. > :04:48.women. She was a woman of passion for the causes she believed in, she
:04:49. > :04:53.had a wealth of experience from her work with Oxfam and brought back to
:04:54. > :04:59.her work as an MP. I concern for the vulnerable, and the plight of
:05:00. > :05:03.refugees. She was also an engaging human being, a wife and mother and I
:05:04. > :05:07.think that is part of why this tragedy hits are so hard. And she
:05:08. > :05:13.had the ability to engage with people on a personal level, everyone
:05:14. > :05:17.who has spoken of would say she was interested in them. That is why her
:05:18. > :05:22.legacy will live on the board as a person of passion for causes and
:05:23. > :05:28.compassion and interest in her village and beings. Her sister as
:05:29. > :05:32.part of a statement yesterday said the focus should now be on that
:05:33. > :05:39.which unites us and not which divides us, and message the family
:05:40. > :05:42.is very keen to impart to society. Absolutely, if anything positive has
:05:43. > :05:45.come out of this awful tragedy it is the way in which her death has
:05:46. > :05:48.brought people together across different communities. That's been
:05:49. > :05:52.reflected in the different services and events which have taken place
:05:53. > :05:56.all of which have been attended by people of all our different ethnic
:05:57. > :06:06.and faith community is. We are determined to build on her legacy
:06:07. > :06:09.and make a difference in the world in which we live for the good of all
:06:10. > :06:12.the communities we serve. One of the things many people are talking about
:06:13. > :06:14.is the tone of debate and the tone of attitudes towards MPs in public
:06:15. > :06:18.life. What are your thoughts? I think it's a huge challenge for us.
:06:19. > :06:21.Jo was able to talk about issues with enormous passion but also a
:06:22. > :06:25.tremendous warmth as a human being and I think that's the challenge to
:06:26. > :06:32.ask, how can we debate with passion the issues which matter to us but
:06:33. > :06:35.also treat one another with respect? Recognising our shared humanity?
:06:36. > :06:38.This is a time to look at the culture of politics in our nation
:06:39. > :06:43.and our world and this certainly should give us pause to reflect. The
:06:44. > :06:49.Bishop of Huddersfield Jonathon Gibbs speaking to me earlier, to our
:06:50. > :06:55.guests now, Stephen let me start with you, firstly let me say I am
:06:56. > :07:01.sorry you have lost a family member, you have our condolences, how did
:07:02. > :07:05.you find out what happened? I was in my constituency on Thursday and my
:07:06. > :07:10.researcher had gone into the office next door, Jo and I had adjoining
:07:11. > :07:14.offices, we effectively shared an office. He had gone to ask her
:07:15. > :07:19.research something and said she would like she had seen a ghost and
:07:20. > :07:23.asked what happened. She said Jo had been shot. He called me immediately
:07:24. > :07:30.and I was in South Wales and I just thought it was some kind of hawks. I
:07:31. > :07:34.could not fully believe it. I put the phone down and try to think what
:07:35. > :07:38.on earth that could mean. Then the events over the next few hours
:07:39. > :07:46.unfolded and we have lost a true ray of sunshine for both our Parliament
:07:47. > :07:51.and public life. She was a very special person. She was a close
:07:52. > :07:55.family friend, your mother in fact worked very closely with her and
:07:56. > :08:03.encouraged her to go into politics. What was she like? Joel was a ball
:08:04. > :08:08.of energy. -- Jo was a ball of energy. She was a warm and charming
:08:09. > :08:14.person, and relentless. She fought every day of her life to make this
:08:15. > :08:20.world a better place. She had values of international was, solidarity,
:08:21. > :08:25.compassion. She brought something to our politics and to the House of
:08:26. > :08:29.Commons which made her very special. When she stood up in the chamber,
:08:30. > :08:34.even though she was quite slight, quite petite, she just had this
:08:35. > :08:39.authority because she had been out there and done it. She had not come
:08:40. > :08:42.from inside the Westminster village, she had been out there in the
:08:43. > :08:48.refugee camps, working with the poorest and most abundant of all
:08:49. > :08:54.people in the world. When she engaged with you she listened. She
:08:55. > :09:00.was a great negotiator and a pragmatic politician who knew how to
:09:01. > :09:04.get things done. Truly a rising star of our politics. Her death has
:09:05. > :09:09.touched so many and shocked so many, we were talking about the campaign,
:09:10. > :09:15.the fundraising and her name which is now past ?600,000. What you think
:09:16. > :09:22.legacy should be? I think we need to take time to reflect on what she
:09:23. > :09:30.stood for. What Jo stood for was a sense of optimism and hope, a sense
:09:31. > :09:34.of community, that we solve problems by working together with our
:09:35. > :09:40.friends, with our allies. We do not solve them by isolating ourselves
:09:41. > :09:46.are behaving in a selfish manner. I think if we are going to secure her
:09:47. > :09:51.legacy we need to think about those values. And we also need to think
:09:52. > :09:57.about the fact that we can disagree without being disagreeable. That is
:09:58. > :10:01.what Jo was always so good at doing, she certainly disagreed with people,
:10:02. > :10:05.she was strident in her views on many things but she always did it
:10:06. > :10:09.with respect and empathy. And with a sense that you might not always have
:10:10. > :10:13.exactly the same view as somebody else but she could put herself in
:10:14. > :10:20.the shoes of that other person and engage with them and that is what
:10:21. > :10:27.made her such a fearless and brilliant politician. But also made
:10:28. > :10:34.her a wonderful mother and wife to Brendan. I knew Jo, the private
:10:35. > :10:40.person. I have known her for 20 years, as my family did. But I also
:10:41. > :10:46.had the privilege of seeing her work as a politician and when you put all
:10:47. > :10:51.of those together you have just somebody who touched all of our
:10:52. > :10:54.lives and in a sense, what is hard to come to terms with is you don't
:10:55. > :11:00.realise how much you loved her until she is gone. I think we are all
:11:01. > :11:04.struggling to come to terms with that. We really appreciate you
:11:05. > :11:08.coming on to Sunday Morning Live and talking to us about this. How should
:11:09. > :11:16.prized should we be that this has happened in Britain Donna? -- how
:11:17. > :11:19.surprised should we be. We are surprised on one level but we are
:11:20. > :11:23.part of an international scene, what is going on in America, we have
:11:24. > :11:28.never had a presidential campaign like we have at the moment with
:11:29. > :11:32.mudslinging, and incitement to public brawling. I have never seen
:11:33. > :11:36.the like and it's difficult not to feel that contagion coming over
:11:37. > :11:40.here, the Americanisation of English politics where we let the Passion of
:11:41. > :11:44.our individual politics to override us and take control and we lose
:11:45. > :11:48.respect for the other person 's point of view. We don't see their
:11:49. > :11:52.rights as clearly as we should and we think it gives us permission here
:11:53. > :11:57.to do the same. It's not really part of the British character to be like
:11:58. > :12:03.that. It's taken a wrong turn and I think we have become the politics of
:12:04. > :12:08.desperation, we are so intent on getting our point across that
:12:09. > :12:13.anything goes. Peter has British politics taken a wrong turn? I don't
:12:14. > :12:18.think it has, I think our politics has always had a certain amount of
:12:19. > :12:25.rock business, since the 17th century, the same with American
:12:26. > :12:30.politics, the things people use to say were pretty spectacular. But
:12:31. > :12:34.part of that is a safety valve. One of the reasons we have not had this
:12:35. > :12:42.political violence in this country, one of the reasons we escaped it in
:12:43. > :12:45.the 1930s, we didn't have huge numbers of men marching through the
:12:46. > :12:51.streets in coloured shirts shouting angry slogans because our
:12:52. > :12:56.parliamentary system which is adversarial and allows national
:12:57. > :13:01.disagreements to be exposed and properly expressed. That has
:13:02. > :13:06.provided a safety valve which protects against political violence.
:13:07. > :13:10.I don't think we have a particularly dangerous political system. I think
:13:11. > :13:13.we should not be so quick to say that events of this kind are
:13:14. > :13:21.necessarily caused by that. Obviously Joel was a delightful
:13:22. > :13:27.person who will be immensely missed -- Jo was a delightful person. I am
:13:28. > :13:33.sorry I did not know her but I disagree with her but it doesn't
:13:34. > :13:43.mean I have any personal animosity towards her. We are opponents, not
:13:44. > :13:49.enemies. An MP has not been shot or stabbed to death until now have
:13:50. > :13:54.they? There are instances of people being murdered in this country, or
:13:55. > :13:58.killed in unpleasant circumstances all the time, not necessarily
:13:59. > :14:05.because of politics, let's not jump to conclusions about causes of this
:14:06. > :14:14.event. Joan give us your view? I think we are in a culture which are
:14:15. > :14:18.demoralising. I think in the last few years we have seen a different
:14:19. > :14:22.kind of person coming into Parliament, more women, people who
:14:23. > :14:26.have experience in international aid and things like that. But it's gone
:14:27. > :14:30.hand-in-hand with the culture which is doing the opposite of what Peter
:14:31. > :14:36.says which is I disagree with your views and that makes you a terrible
:14:37. > :14:41.person. Last month, the misogyny in this is key, last month, Jess
:14:42. > :14:44.Phillips, a Labour MP in Birmingham launched an online campaign against
:14:45. > :14:48.bullying. In one evening 600 men came onto a social networking site
:14:49. > :14:57.and discussed whether or not they would like to rape her. That is not
:14:58. > :14:59.part of anybody's job. The idea that people can respond to applicable
:15:00. > :15:26.opponent like that disgusts and frightens me.
:15:27. > :15:31.It is not a politics problem. Because if you are creating that
:15:32. > :15:36.atmosphere in which you are telling people that it is OK to spew out
:15:37. > :15:40.though vitriol and spew out rape threat and death threats you are
:15:41. > :15:46.creating an atmosphere which is dangerous. Stephen, you're involved
:15:47. > :15:52.in politics. What is the atmosphere like, is it too vicious? It is too
:15:53. > :15:55.Venn mouse. I regularly get vicious e-mails and tweets and sometimes
:15:56. > :16:00.have had the police involved as well. When there are threats of
:16:01. > :16:03.violence. It has become something almost that politicians have come to
:16:04. > :16:08.expect. I think it is wrong that we should come to expect. What we don't
:16:09. > :16:20.know exactly, we don't know exactly what motivated this man to do what
:16:21. > :16:24.he did. The fact that he cried out death to traitors, people to
:16:25. > :16:27.Britain, shows that it was politically motivated. We should
:16:28. > :16:31.take the precautionary principle, which is that if there is the
:16:32. > :16:36.slightest chance that this sort of venom that's out there in social
:16:37. > :16:39.media and from the media itself, I would add, comes to create a
:16:40. > :16:46.permissive environment where people think it's OK the write and do that
:16:47. > :16:50.sort of thing, maybe it is not a huge leap into doing it. We should
:16:51. > :16:54.take the precautionary principle and address the issue on that basis.
:16:55. > :16:58.There's been a lot of reflection about the behaviour of politicians
:16:59. > :17:03.as well, and the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was talking earlier on
:17:04. > :17:07.The Andrew Marr Show. He has been calling for more tolerance. An MP
:17:08. > :17:12.has died. It's an attack on all of us. In her memory we have to create
:17:13. > :17:16.a more tolerant society. In her memory we have to reach out.
:17:17. > :17:20.Stephen, the recall of Parliament tomorrow. You are going to be
:17:21. > :17:24.speaking of the one of the questions Andrew Marr put to Jeremy Corbyn, or
:17:25. > :17:27.suggested, is this idea that politicians shouldn't be on opposing
:17:28. > :17:34.benches tomorrow. They should mingle and show. Maybe reflect Jo Cox's own
:17:35. > :17:40.strategy of reaching across parties for discussion. What will happen
:17:41. > :17:43.tomorrow? I don't know. That will be a decision of it's Speaker. It is
:17:44. > :17:49.something I would welcome. Something has changed. I do think this is,
:17:50. > :17:54.that a murder of a politician, and that must therefore change the way
:17:55. > :17:57.we think about politics, and mixing up on the benches tomorrow
:17:58. > :18:04.mightabout a good idea. The key point is that we have to make it
:18:05. > :18:08.clear to people that we understand that we are looking for a different
:18:09. > :18:15.kind of political discourse. And that we need to honour Jo's legacy
:18:16. > :18:20.by doing that. The purity of what she stood for is in such sharp
:18:21. > :18:24.contrast to the venom and poison that is out there. I do hope that
:18:25. > :18:28.that will give people pause to reflect over the coming days and
:18:29. > :18:31.weeks and months. We are obviously not using the word murder. The man
:18:32. > :18:35.has been charged and we are staying away from the details of this case
:18:36. > :18:39.in order not to prejudice the case that's under way. Donna, from a
:18:40. > :18:43.psychological point of view, when you consider this abuse, the best
:18:44. > :18:49.way of coping with this for someone in public life? It is to carry on
:18:50. > :18:53.being courageous. Carry on being able to say what you need to say,
:18:54. > :18:58.with a mindful eye to your own protection. We can't be stymied by
:18:59. > :19:04.bullies. We have to take stock of what's happening, of course. We have
:19:05. > :19:08.to move on with a doctor attitude. Courage, you've alls had to have
:19:09. > :19:15.courage in politics and convictions. Those will have to stay. There was a
:19:16. > :19:21.definite case of political murder a few years ago, the IRA's attempt to
:19:22. > :19:25.murder the entire Cabinet in the grand moment in Brighton, and
:19:26. > :19:30.politics carried on. The point made then by the Prime Minister is
:19:31. > :19:34.politics should carry and and this shouldn't be allowed to stop us from
:19:35. > :19:39.our open debate. It is an important lesson and one we should bear in
:19:40. > :19:43.mind in these events. Do you not think politics will change? I think
:19:44. > :19:49.we should not pre-Judge this case. We don't know. It is a case before
:19:50. > :19:52.the courts. I don't wish to prejudge it in any way by drawing
:19:53. > :19:56.conclusionings from it we are in the no a position to draw. The rhetoric
:19:57. > :20:01.when the Troubles in Northern Ireland were taking place was
:20:02. > :20:05.vicious. We wouldn't want to see a repeat of that. No, we wouldn't, and
:20:06. > :20:10.I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should. But what the problem in
:20:11. > :20:16.Northern Ireland was that people resorted to and made a successful, I
:20:17. > :20:19.have to say regrettably, political tool over Mowlam. Tably, political
:20:20. > :20:23.tool over Mowlam. And the proper -- out of murder, and the proper
:20:24. > :20:25.response was that the democratic process continues and scorns those
:20:26. > :20:29.who attempt to use political violence in a society that has no
:20:30. > :20:33.need of it, because we are free to achieve our ends without it. You've
:20:34. > :20:37.been getting in touch with us. Thank you. Texting and tweeting us on
:20:38. > :20:43.this. Tommy, you've been looking at this. That's right. Lots of people
:20:44. > :20:46.say they want to legacy of Jo Cox to be a better standard of political
:20:47. > :20:50.debate in the country. Many of you now think a lot of MPs should have
:20:51. > :20:55.their own protection. James is saying on Twitter, politics should
:20:56. > :21:00.be about debate, not hate. Politicians should attack problems,
:21:01. > :21:06.not people. Debs said we need a Jo Cox Bill in the House on Monday to
:21:07. > :21:10.formalise and enforce better political conduct and ethical
:21:11. > :21:15.nonpersonal debating. Elizabeth says I want most MPs to have more
:21:16. > :21:22.security, and I don't blame them. And another, it is good that all
:21:23. > :21:27.parliamentary parties have agreed to... Some thoughtful comments.
:21:28. > :21:31.Thank you. Stephen, one of the other issues that's been brought up there
:21:32. > :21:36.is about the security of politicians and obviously when they take part in
:21:37. > :21:42.their so-called surgeries, where they meet their constituents Which
:21:43. > :21:45.is what Jo was doing. Do you think protection should be racked up, that
:21:46. > :21:51.politicians should have more security? I think we have to get the
:21:52. > :21:54.balance right, because the access ability of MPs is absolutely
:21:55. > :21:59.critical. It is one of the parts of the f the job I enjoy most - being
:22:00. > :22:02.out there engaging with my constituents, trying to help people
:22:03. > :22:05.who can't some of problems on their own, givering a voice to the
:22:06. > :22:11.voiceless, which is what Jo dedicated her life to as well. I
:22:12. > :22:16.think we would be traducing Jo's legacy if we were to not continue
:22:17. > :22:21.with this healthy aspect of our politics. But I do think that all
:22:22. > :22:26.MPs should now carefully review their security arrangements. I do
:22:27. > :22:30.think that we should share with the police our schedule at least to some
:22:31. > :22:35.extent, particularly around surgeries, which are well publicised
:22:36. > :22:43.and by definition are out there in Community Centres or libraries, just
:22:44. > :22:48.so we get a sensible balance. I don't think we should bear many mind
:22:49. > :22:52.what it was that Jo was doing on Thursday and how important an
:22:53. > :22:57.element of that is of our democratic process. Do you feel more
:22:58. > :23:00.vulnerable? Are you actively looking at your security arrangements now?
:23:01. > :23:06.Yes we are. The police were already in a couple of times over the last
:23:07. > :23:10.few days. Days.. We will continue to look at them very carefully. Joan,
:23:11. > :23:15.do you think politicians should have more protection? It is a very
:23:16. > :23:18.difficult balance. One of the problems for MPs and for the police
:23:19. > :23:23.is when people send threatening e-mails, and I can think of an
:23:24. > :23:27.occasion when a friend of mine got three death threats by e-mail in a
:23:28. > :23:31.single morning. When that kind of stuff is coming in at the volume and
:23:32. > :23:35.rate that it is, how do you determine which of those people are
:23:36. > :23:40.kind of what we might call keyboard warriors and which are serious about
:23:41. > :23:43.doing something? It is not just MPs but their families who get
:23:44. > :23:51.threatened as well. That's a huge problem for the police. We've had
:23:52. > :23:57.two MPs before this, in 2000 and I think I can't remember the second
:23:58. > :23:59.one. Stephen Timms and Nigel Jones attacked while doing constituency
:24:00. > :24:07.surgeries, and now this third attack. We need to think more how to
:24:08. > :24:10.protect people. Trending on to protect people. Trending on Twitter
:24:11. > :24:13.now is the # thank your MP. Could this be the start of a more positive
:24:14. > :24:18.way of looking at MPs and the work they are doing? I really hope so.
:24:19. > :24:24.The problem with things that unfold in this way is you sometimes get an
:24:25. > :24:28.impetus for a few days or a week and everything goes back to normal. In
:24:29. > :24:31.the heat of the up-coming election it worries me that we'll get back to
:24:32. > :24:35.where we were in a few days or a week. We really need to reconsider
:24:36. > :24:39.how we are conducting ourselves. How we can learn to respect and show the
:24:40. > :24:43.same compassion that Jo did to all of her constituents, to each other.
:24:44. > :24:46.To each other's freedom to be able to hold an opinion without being
:24:47. > :24:52.attacked physically or being attacked in a cowardly fashion in an
:24:53. > :24:55.anonymous way on social media. We need to think of it, all of us need
:24:56. > :25:00.to think about it. Thank you very much. We'll continue the discussions
:25:01. > :25:06.throughout the programme. Thank you for joining us, and thanks for your
:25:07. > :25:14.comments. Do keep them coming in. Coming up, Sir Cliff riffed says his
:25:15. > :25:20.as was bungled from day one. Was he treated unjustly? Now, evolutionary
:25:21. > :25:24.biologist Professor Richard Dawkins this year celebrates four milestone
:25:25. > :25:30.anniversaries. Having released a book every ten years since The
:25:31. > :25:37.Selfish Gene was published in 1976. He is well known as a passionate,
:25:38. > :25:44.sometimes controversial advocate of atheism, mostly noticeable in his
:25:45. > :25:49.book, The God Delusion. I went to meet him and ask how he lost his
:25:50. > :25:54.faith as a child. You were raised as an Anglican? I went to Anglican. It
:25:55. > :25:58.was hard not to in my time. Virtually all schools were. But it
:25:59. > :26:02.didn't mean my parents raised me Anglican. When did you stop
:26:03. > :26:05.believing in God? I realised at age 9 there were lots of different
:26:06. > :26:13.religions and they couldn't all be right. I carried on believing in
:26:14. > :26:16.some sort of divine creator. And that disappeared when I finally
:26:17. > :26:24.understood Darwinism and the fact that you don't need any kind of
:26:25. > :26:30.designer to explain the beauty or elegance of life and the apparent
:26:31. > :26:35.design of life. Did Christianity Mold the person you are today? I
:26:36. > :26:38.think there is something rather decent about the Anglican religion
:26:39. > :26:46.in its modern form, not in history of course. It stands for a measure
:26:47. > :26:49.of tolerance which I admire. I have a certain nostalgia for my cultural
:26:50. > :26:53.background I suppose. Does it provide a moral code? No. It
:26:54. > :26:58.certainly doesn't provide a moral code. If it did, we would all be
:26:59. > :27:02.burning witches and executing people for breaking the Sabbath and that
:27:03. > :27:05.kind of thing. We do not get our morals from our historic religion.
:27:06. > :27:14.Not at all. It is a very good thing too. Do you think religion now is a
:27:15. > :27:18.force for good, or for evil? For evil, on balance. Why? Well, just
:27:19. > :27:23.look at what's happening in the Middle East. Look at the appalling
:27:24. > :27:27.things that are done mostly in the name of Islam but also in Africa in
:27:28. > :27:32.the name of Christianity. In Burma in the name of Buddhism. In India in
:27:33. > :27:37.the name of Hinduism. There are appalling things going on in the
:27:38. > :27:41.name of religion, which of course is not to say that individual members
:27:42. > :27:47.of those religions ions are doing evil things - the vast majority are
:27:48. > :27:55.not. But it only takes the minority, a minority indoctrine ated in
:27:56. > :27:59.childhood in a faith that doesn't require evidence or justification,
:28:00. > :28:04.that's evil and it causes evil in children growing you up. When
:28:05. > :28:08.children are taught about eitherism and religion. The tendency to tell
:28:09. > :28:12.people they belong to a political faith, to have a school that's
:28:13. > :28:15.imbued with just one faith, teach children about religion, by all
:28:16. > :28:18.means. It is very important in history. Very important in current
:28:19. > :28:22.politics. The Bible is very important in literature. But don't
:28:23. > :28:28.tell a child, you are a Catholic child and had this is what you
:28:29. > :28:37.believe. You would never believe of saying, you are a logical child or
:28:38. > :28:43.an existential child or a Keynesian child because your parents are, yet
:28:44. > :28:46.in the case of religion we do. We must stop labelling children. Let
:28:47. > :28:51.them discover their beliefs when they are old enough to do so. When
:28:52. > :28:57.you defend atheism, how close do you come to attacking religion? Is there
:28:58. > :29:02.a line that shouldn't be crossed? One line that shouldn't be crossed,
:29:03. > :29:05.ever, is is line of violence. Neither I nor my atheist colleagues
:29:06. > :29:09.every do that. It is right to attack religion. Right to attack false
:29:10. > :29:12.beliefs but do it on intellectual grounds, using argument and evidence
:29:13. > :29:17.rather than insult. Is it inevitable that you will insult someone and
:29:18. > :29:21.hurt people? You may hurt people, because they identify with their
:29:22. > :29:24.religion, which is a very unfortunate thing. You were not your
:29:25. > :29:29.religion. You are your own person. You are you. How do you cope with
:29:30. > :29:38.knowing that you have offended someone or hurt someone?
:29:39. > :29:46.I don't mind at all, I am quite happy to say if our religion is
:29:47. > :29:52.absurd. I noticed your voice is quite crackly, I imagine this is
:29:53. > :29:56.after your stroke, how are you feeling? I am doing fine, my voice
:29:57. > :30:00.is the main thing I had to worry about. I cannot sing but that's not
:30:01. > :30:06.something I need to do. When I talk, after a while my voice becomes
:30:07. > :30:13.increasingly croaky. Did you ever consider perhaps mortality are what
:30:14. > :30:18.lies beyond? Nothing lies beyond. That never changed? Of course not,
:30:19. > :30:25.why ever should it? I consider mortality from time to time, I
:30:26. > :30:29.suspect we all do. But certainly nothing lies beyond. The Church of
:30:30. > :30:35.England urged people to pray for you, did you appreciate that was it
:30:36. > :30:39.a waste of time? When my colleague at the philosopher was very ill with
:30:40. > :30:45.heart problems he was told people were praying for him so he said did
:30:46. > :30:51.you also sacrifice a goat? So a waste of time or a good token, a
:30:52. > :30:56.good gesture of kindness? I think any gesture of kindness is to be
:30:57. > :31:01.welcomed. At your stroke doctors urged you to avoid controversy and
:31:02. > :31:07.keep your stress levels down, i.e. Planning to follow that advice? So
:31:08. > :31:13.far as I can, yes. Are you making efforts to be more calm and
:31:14. > :31:17.measured? May be a bit, yes. I think the family might appreciate it.
:31:18. > :31:23.Professor Richard Dawkins, thank you so much for talking to us. A man who
:31:24. > :31:27.is never afraid to speak his mind. Still to come, getting used to
:31:28. > :31:29.gravity, Tim Peake returns to Earth, is it the signal for a UK space
:31:30. > :31:40.program? Hung out like live bait, that is how
:31:41. > :31:43.Sir Cliff Richard described his experience of almost two years under
:31:44. > :31:47.suspicion of historical sexual abuse. This week the Crown
:31:48. > :31:52.Prosecution Service announced he would face no further action due to
:31:53. > :31:55.a lack of evidence. Despite this he is worried his reputation and those
:31:56. > :31:59.of other people who have been through similar experiences could be
:32:00. > :32:03.tarnished forever. Should we have ever been aware of the allegations?
:32:04. > :32:05.Sir Cliff issued a statement and in it he said: THEY TALK OVER EACH
:32:06. > :32:17.OTHER Is he right or despite the dramatic
:32:18. > :32:22.experience for the accused is naming them an essential part of the
:32:23. > :32:29.justice system? Should those accused of sex crimes be named? Let us know
:32:30. > :32:34.your thoughts. We are joined by Nick Freeman, author and celebrity lawyer
:32:35. > :32:39.who campaigns for anonymity for accused people. Let me start with
:32:40. > :32:47.you, any sympathy, for Sir Cliff in the public nature of these
:32:48. > :32:51.allegations? Immense sympathy. People should be tried in court
:32:52. > :32:54.before an independent jury and the Crown should have to prove the case
:32:55. > :33:00.against them. They should not have to prove themselves innocent. As
:33:01. > :33:03.long as that law exists we are a free people and a free country. If
:33:04. > :33:07.it is gotten rid of we cease to be free and what is happening at the
:33:08. > :33:12.moment is the police are becoming far too powerful. The CPS is
:33:13. > :33:15.becoming far too powerful and trials are conducted without a presumption
:33:16. > :33:20.of innocence in the public domain long before they reach court. Anyone
:33:21. > :33:24.accused under the circumstances usually has their life ruined even
:33:25. > :33:28.if after a long struggle they find themselves proven not guilty. The
:33:29. > :33:34.justice system is innocent until proven guilty so what is the harm in
:33:35. > :33:39.naming the accused? The complainant has special protection and if that
:33:40. > :33:41.is the case I would say that is because of the unique stigma
:33:42. > :33:46.associated with this area, the complainant needs special protection
:33:47. > :33:51.and should be looked after well and so should the defendant. What I
:33:52. > :33:56.would propose is a system whereby anybody who is accused of sexual
:33:57. > :34:01.allegation is granted blanket anonymity. Not as Sir Cliff says,
:34:02. > :34:06.until charged, but until convicted. But I would leave the door open on
:34:07. > :34:11.every case so that the prosecution, the police, could go to a judge and
:34:12. > :34:15.say we believe it's in the public interest, for example we have a
:34:16. > :34:19.serial offender, that that anonymity should be lifted so other people
:34:20. > :34:24.could be encouraged to come forward. I think that would strike the
:34:25. > :34:28.balance which is needed. In the case of an accuser and an accused should
:34:29. > :34:32.they be treated the same? They should not, there is never any
:34:33. > :34:38.context in these discussions. It's about a few men who have had a
:34:39. > :34:44.unpleasant experience, contributed to in some ways by the way the
:34:45. > :34:49.police and popular press handle these events. But the context here
:34:50. > :34:53.is that the problem with rape, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse in
:34:54. > :34:57.this country is the vast number of perpetrator should get away with it.
:34:58. > :35:01.I have cheered the violence against women and girls board for the last
:35:02. > :35:07.two years and I see the data, last year five and a half thousand
:35:08. > :35:11.complaints of rape recorded by the Metropolitan police and senior
:35:12. > :35:18.officers say that represent at best one in five. That means it's more
:35:19. > :35:23.like 30,000 rapes just in London. This is your estimate? No, this is
:35:24. > :35:29.what the police are saying, that figure only represents one in five.
:35:30. > :35:34.It's an estimate, not a fact. Yes but it is supported by women who run
:35:35. > :35:38.rape crisis lines and refugees, who find the vast women who, to them for
:35:39. > :35:41.help if they don't go to the police because they fear they won't be
:35:42. > :35:46.believed because they don't understand that rape and child
:35:47. > :35:51.sexual abuse are serial crimes. You will have one person facing the
:35:52. > :35:56.ordeal of giving evidence in a trial and probably not being believed by
:35:57. > :35:59.the jury, so the point of what is being proposed, anonymity for
:36:00. > :36:03.defendants, is a further obstruction to justice because it is when
:36:04. > :36:07.someone is actually arrested or charged, that is when other people
:36:08. > :36:13.come forward. We can see from last week as well as Sir Cliff Richard,
:36:14. > :36:17.we saw the case of Sir Clement Freud and even his wife has accepted he
:36:18. > :36:25.was probably an abuser and got away with it for years. We can argue
:36:26. > :36:36.statistics but surely the point is we don't want to damage innocent
:36:37. > :36:42.reputations. Ice pose a system which, serial offenders, defendants
:36:43. > :36:44.are named as in Jimmy Savile and Georgia Hall. But when you're
:36:45. > :36:49.dealing with the cases we have heard about with Sir Cliff Richard, there
:36:50. > :36:53.was no suggestion he was a serial offender or even any offender at
:36:54. > :36:57.all, he was not even interviewed or arrested, why should he not be
:36:58. > :37:02.afforded protection? Where is the justice? That stigma will never
:37:03. > :37:05.leave him. Where is the justice for the thousands of women raped in this
:37:06. > :37:10.country and who will never see attackers brought to trial? The
:37:11. > :37:15.phrase was used to hang out by live bait, the impact this has on public
:37:16. > :37:19.figures, is that different? Absolutely, particularly now with
:37:20. > :37:25.social media amplifying rumours or accusations however and find it,
:37:26. > :37:29.that never goes away. -- unfounded. It rumbles on on Twitter and
:37:30. > :37:33.Facebook and people claim there is no smoke without fire. Unfortunately
:37:34. > :37:38.people will come forward and make false accusations which muddies the
:37:39. > :37:43.water, people who want to do it for financial reasons or are delusional
:37:44. > :37:46.is. Look at Paul gamba Chaney, it cost him ?200,000 in legal fees and
:37:47. > :37:53.lost work and he was never accused or charged, neither was Cliff
:37:54. > :37:59.Richard and yet the damage... And you can't recover that money. Why do
:38:00. > :38:03.we always go to this question of false complaints? Because it
:38:04. > :38:09.happens. The director of public prosecution commissioned research
:38:10. > :38:12.which shows it's very rare. There is car crime, people reporting the car
:38:13. > :38:16.is stolen when they haven't been, insurance fraud, why do we assume
:38:17. > :38:24.that women and children are liars? But if it can happen at all... You
:38:25. > :38:28.mentioned here stammer when he was director of public solution,
:38:29. > :38:38.research suggested 3% of allegations were false. It is proven we are
:38:39. > :38:42.talking about, not if we ourselves think it is false or true, if it is
:38:43. > :38:48.proven beyond reasonable doubt beyond an independent jury in court.
:38:49. > :38:51.Then you name the defendants. Anyone who is convicted you name them and
:38:52. > :38:55.they have everything which follows from that conviction. The way we are
:38:56. > :39:00.going at the moment is that the presumption of innocence is eroded.
:39:01. > :39:03.There is a point about passive and lazy policing, they can name some
:39:04. > :39:08.day, week rumours to the press and get people in the hope somebody
:39:09. > :39:13.comes forward. I think the police should be doing more work to ensure
:39:14. > :39:19.the original conviction, instead of getting other people to come in. The
:39:20. > :39:22.purpose of prosecution is not to advertise you are investigating
:39:23. > :39:28.someone, it is to prosecute an alleged crime and if the person who
:39:29. > :39:31.is accused of it is found guilty, punish him aha. It's not an
:39:32. > :39:45.advertising campaign to get more accusers. -- punish him or hard.
:39:46. > :39:51.There is no need to advertise prosecutions. This is about process
:39:52. > :39:56.and not the principles behind it, police are too slow quite often to
:39:57. > :39:59.investigate these complaints, particular historical ones which
:40:00. > :40:05.bring their own difficulties. The press behaves very badly. But the
:40:06. > :40:10.point I am making is that a single complainant, it may not even get to
:40:11. > :40:13.the person being charged because, particularly in historical cases
:40:14. > :40:16.weather is no physical evidence, it's only when other people come
:40:17. > :40:21.forward but you will get charges laid in the first place. Under what
:40:22. > :40:24.I am suggesting that would happen because investigating officers would
:40:25. > :40:28.say we think there is more to this than meets the eye we are going to
:40:29. > :40:31.the judge to make an application. And that would happen in the
:40:32. > :40:36.majority of those cases? How would it help anyone to make it easier to
:40:37. > :40:42.find innocent people guilty, what would be helped by that, what good
:40:43. > :40:46.would that do, to your cause or any cause? Hundreds of thousands of
:40:47. > :40:51.children are sexually abused, thousands of women are raped,
:40:52. > :40:55.teenagers, where is your concern for them? You are worried about the
:40:56. > :41:00.small number of celebrity defendants. I have concern for
:41:01. > :41:04.liberty, the limited powers of the state, not being able to put people
:41:05. > :41:09.in prison because it feels like it. Nobody is asking for it. That is
:41:10. > :41:13.what happens once you undermine the presumption of innocence. I am not
:41:14. > :41:18.any less concerned than you about the victims of genuine crime. If the
:41:19. > :41:25.accuser is a child should he or she be named? I think everyone should be
:41:26. > :41:31.named in trials, Justice in secret is justice denied. If the defendant
:41:32. > :41:34.is a child, I used, 17 or under, if it takes boys in a youth court the
:41:35. > :41:38.child cannot be named. If they are being tried in a magistrates Crown
:41:39. > :41:45.Court the judge has discretion that the identity should be withheld. You
:41:46. > :41:50.mentioned the media, how do you think the media, does it or does it
:41:51. > :41:54.not on the idea of the presumption of innocence? Not if it makes a good
:41:55. > :41:58.story. I think celebrities have highlighted this. If a name is
:41:59. > :42:05.leaked by the police, in this case to the media and the run with it,
:42:06. > :42:09.even when that person is later not charged, not actually arrested, it
:42:10. > :42:12.never really goes away. The reputation is damaged and I don't
:42:13. > :42:16.know how much time it would take to heal that. I think Sir Cliff has a
:42:17. > :42:24.right to feel aggrieved. Let's talk to Tommy, a lot of people reacting
:42:25. > :42:27.to this subject. A lot of messages, Joan might not like to hear this but
:42:28. > :42:29.the majority of people saying that Sir Cliff Richard should not have
:42:30. > :43:13.been named. Might never shake it off which is
:43:14. > :43:18.what the lawyer was saying. Absolutely, Joan, a lot of people
:43:19. > :43:22.disagreeing. A lot of them are disagreeing but none of them
:43:23. > :43:27.suggesting the context I am talking about. To say you should be able to
:43:28. > :43:31.bring charges after 20 years, Jimmy Savile was offending 40, 50 years
:43:32. > :43:35.ago. Some of these historical cases were 30, 40 years ago and those
:43:36. > :43:40.people are still entitled to redress. There is an old rule that
:43:41. > :43:45.hard cases make bad law and it's true. You cannot necessarily say
:43:46. > :43:48.that because it might mean someone is Gates prosecution because you
:43:49. > :43:56.would have a bad law which means other people are having their lives
:43:57. > :44:00.ruined by flimsy charges. We have robust system in place, the police
:44:01. > :44:03.are trained to look after complainant and are dealt with
:44:04. > :44:08.sympathetically at court. All sorts of provisions to look after the
:44:09. > :44:11.welfare but there is nothing to look after the welfare of a falsely
:44:12. > :44:15.accused defendant. We could talk about this for a lot longer but we
:44:16. > :44:20.will wrap it up for now, thank you for your comments come keep them
:44:21. > :44:24.coming in. After six months in orbit Tim Peake returned to Earth
:44:25. > :44:33.yesterday. During that time he has completed more than 2700 orbits,
:44:34. > :44:37.covering a distance of more than 140 million kilometres. He also ignited
:44:38. > :44:41.interest in space exploration. A parliamentary committee has been
:44:42. > :44:44.calling for a creation of a UK space program and it's not rocket science
:44:45. > :44:50.to know that could be an expensive business. So who did we launch of
:44:51. > :44:55.two probe if people think spending on more space is a good thing? Tommy
:44:56. > :45:06.of course. Forget international space travel,
:45:07. > :45:11.it is interstudio travel. I'm here at the science museum in London. We
:45:12. > :45:25.are all quite excited about the return of Tim Peake. Helen Sharman
:45:26. > :45:30.is the first British astronaut. How exciting is it to watch Tim land
:45:31. > :45:33.here for you? It is a relief to be honest that everything has happened
:45:34. > :45:37.fine, that he was safe and is smiling. Clearly he is well. I'm
:45:38. > :45:41.good, thanks. Very good. We are seeing a lot of youngsters here. Why
:45:42. > :45:46.is this so important for the next generation? This is pushing forward
:45:47. > :45:52.humanity's boundaries, making sure we are thinking about not just life
:45:53. > :45:55.on Earth. We are learning so much about working internationally,
:45:56. > :45:59.collaborating and improving everybody's lives in future. Being
:46:00. > :46:05.part of that exciting adventure. Hugely inspirational for any country
:46:06. > :46:08.involved in it. Obviously everyone is super enthusiastic about space
:46:09. > :46:13.travel here, but I'm going to boldly go out into the streets to see what
:46:14. > :46:16.regular folks think. Why is it so important that we explore the
:46:17. > :46:21.universe? I'm not sure if it is really so important to explore it. I
:46:22. > :46:26.think we should spend more money to explore here and how we live here on
:46:27. > :46:31.the Earth. We can't just be earth bound. Is that money well spent? Not
:46:32. > :46:36.really. Why? Because it could be spent on other things. Like homeless
:46:37. > :46:43.people and getting people jobs and things like that. I think space, in
:46:44. > :46:46.space a whole load of medical discoveries are being made that
:46:47. > :46:51.somebody down here who is suffering can be cured. Do you agree with your
:46:52. > :46:56.friend? It could be spent more on the NHS. It is at crisis point at
:46:57. > :46:59.the moment. The money going into space could be put into education
:47:00. > :47:02.and maybe a better health service. It is nd maybe a better health
:47:03. > :47:05.service. It is one of those things - do we sacrifice the future, which is
:47:06. > :47:09.important for their generation, or concentrate on the present. It is
:47:10. > :47:13.important on the back of that mission that we have our own
:47:14. > :47:16.national space programme. It is necessary to have some individual
:47:17. > :47:22.programme going, otherwise you are not going to attract the young to
:47:23. > :47:26.come forward. Britain, we are meant to be a superpower. We are talking
:47:27. > :47:33.about exiting the irand being a country on our own. It is something
:47:34. > :47:38.we should have a hand in that. We want to take over your planet. Stop
:47:39. > :47:47.investing your money to travel into space. It is a warning. This is my
:47:48. > :47:53.advice to you. I like Tommy's new friend. Tommy Sandhu, our very own
:47:54. > :47:59.rocket manty science museum. So should we be spending more money on
:48:00. > :48:06.space? Joining me is Sue Nelson, co-founder of the space boffins
:48:07. > :48:11.podcast, and a space scientist is with us, Monica Grady. Some
:48:12. > :48:14.misgivings, Monica, about the amount that's being spent, that we are in a
:48:15. > :48:20.time of austerity. Is it justified? It is. I can understand why people
:48:21. > :48:24.have misgivings, but when you see the benefit from Tim's programme,
:48:25. > :48:34.the inspirational nature of what he has achieved and what he is doing,
:48:35. > :48:37.and how our industry needs more scientists, technologies, engineers
:48:38. > :48:42.and mathematicians, we have to have some way of inspiring students to
:48:43. > :48:47.study those subjects. And Tim Peake has been a magnificent role model.
:48:48. > :48:56.And the yields that come from this, Donna. They are huge, the dividends.
:48:57. > :49:01.So would the science industry. We've put a British astronaut in space...
:49:02. > :49:06.The second. Helen Sharman was the first. All power to him and I'm glad
:49:07. > :49:09.he has done it. We'll get lots of dividends from the experiments he
:49:10. > :49:13.has done, et cetera, but for us to have our own space programme, we are
:49:14. > :49:17.not in the league of China or Russia. We already have our own
:49:18. > :49:21.space programme! LAUGHTER It is a luxury item in a
:49:22. > :49:25.nation where we have where we have great problems at home - to do with
:49:26. > :49:29.housing, our NHS system, which is crumbling. I would like those issues
:49:30. > :49:33.addressed before we think further afield. Are you saying this should
:49:34. > :49:37.be the end of it? Maybe stay on the fringes of it and contribute to the
:49:38. > :49:44.European Space Agency, if we can. But not to create our own space
:49:45. > :49:49.programme, not now. Nigh jaw just dropped on the floor. I saw that
:49:50. > :49:54.report saying that we have the UK Space Agency. The UK Space Agency
:49:55. > :49:59.puts money into the European Space Agency, so we are a big donator of
:50:00. > :50:06.funds. We get more than that back in terms of the benefits. You've also
:50:07. > :50:12.got to think that during the recession, the UK space industry was
:50:13. > :50:17.one of the few industries that actually, its profits went up. Its
:50:18. > :50:23.turnover increased. It has this aim to make ?40 billion turnover by
:50:24. > :50:28.2030. I have no tout it's going to do it, because it supplies jobs all
:50:29. > :50:34.over the country. There are companies, a company in Britain that
:50:35. > :50:39.its lithium-ion batteries could have been in Tim Peake's backpack while
:50:40. > :50:42.he was doing a spacewalk. We make a lot for the world in Britain. So it
:50:43. > :50:47.is good for the economy. What other benefits? It may be, but that's a
:50:48. > :50:53.reflection of how bad the rest of the economy is. Rubbish! We have a
:50:54. > :50:58.terrible economy. We hardly make anything. We are tremendously back,
:50:59. > :51:03.have a catastrophic current account balance. And here is an industry
:51:04. > :51:09.making a profit. So what, it is delusional to imagine we are a
:51:10. > :51:15.country that can engage in space exploration, which is a by product
:51:16. > :51:20.of ballistic research. Tim Peake was put up in space by the Russians,
:51:21. > :51:25.using technology from the 1950s. We have forgotten how to get a train
:51:26. > :51:30.from Brighton to London, so how should we be considering getting
:51:31. > :51:34.people into space. If you have money to spend, reconstruct our secondary
:51:35. > :51:38.education system, is bring back selective secondary education in
:51:39. > :51:44.grant schools. Then we might have people capable of space exploration.
:51:45. > :51:51.I heard Monica gasp. I'm going to explode!
:51:52. > :51:55.LAUGHTER. Please don't. The UK has a very, very vibrant space industry
:51:56. > :52:00.economy. Peter just said, we don't make anything. That is nonsense. Our
:52:01. > :52:06.space economy makes things. It makes components. We have a really, really
:52:07. > :52:11.vibrant, profitable company down in the south which makes satellites.
:52:12. > :52:16.It's a world-leader, world class. It makes things for Nasa. When you have
:52:17. > :52:20.a company, when you have companies like that, they employ people. Those
:52:21. > :52:25.people then go out and buy things. They have holidays. Holidays. They
:52:26. > :52:30.buy cars. They are making things. There's a component industry. There
:52:31. > :52:37.is HR companies. There's IT that service those other companies. For
:52:38. > :52:44.every ?1 that we pay into the European Space Agency, we get ?9
:52:45. > :52:47.back into our economy. That's a difficult statistic to bat against
:52:48. > :52:52.isn't it, Peter? It is not a matter of whether it brings in money. I
:52:53. > :52:56.would have thought it was for the economy. This is your argument. It
:52:57. > :53:00.is a wrong target for our money. I think if we've got money to spend,
:53:01. > :53:04.we've got other things to spend it on better. I would like to
:53:05. > :53:08.renationalise the railways and rebuild them. It is a thing we give
:53:09. > :53:14.to the world and now we can barely... At the moment if you go to
:53:15. > :53:21.Brighton on a weekday morning and ask commuters, they can't even get
:53:22. > :53:25.to London. We are talking about space exploration. You will get your
:53:26. > :53:29.say, I promise. Peter, you see absolutely no benefit to space
:53:30. > :53:33.exploration? There are some benefits from everything. I think if you are
:53:34. > :53:35.trying to work out, be the you are a cash-strapped, broke country on the
:53:36. > :53:39.edge of bankruptcy. If you are trying to work out how to spend
:53:40. > :53:45.money, space should be at the back of the queue. I can complete bat
:53:46. > :53:47.that off. Space is not just about putting somebody on the
:53:48. > :53:56.International Space Station. It is about the mobile phone in your one
:53:57. > :54:00.in your pocket, caster -- disaster monitoring after tsunamis. It is
:54:01. > :54:06.about sporting events. Other people can do all of this too. Climate
:54:07. > :54:13.change, you cannot say space is just that one thing. It is modelling
:54:14. > :54:19.people flow. All sorts of things. Space starts in low Earth orbit. We
:54:20. > :54:24.have a vibrant industry building those satellites which then do the
:54:25. > :54:29.telecommunications. They monitor traffic flow, monitor the railways -
:54:30. > :54:36.everything. If only we could have a day when all the satellites would
:54:37. > :54:44.switch off we would realise how special space is. Donna, has this
:54:45. > :54:49.changed your mind? This is a specialised industry but for me, I
:54:50. > :54:53.think for Britain other countries with bigger budgets should be doing
:54:54. > :54:59.the work. We shouldn't compete with that level. We don't have the money.
:55:00. > :55:04.Should Iceland have a space spam? If not, why not. There are lots
:55:05. > :55:11.increase Africa, for example. And do you think that's right? In Nigeria,
:55:12. > :55:16.do you think it is right? It creates jobs, inspires the youth. We are a
:55:17. > :55:21.high-tech company. To say we can't afford it. It is an international
:55:22. > :55:27.partnership. OK, let's calm down shall we? Let's go to our resident
:55:28. > :55:33.spaceman, to Tommy. He's back down to earth. People at home are talking
:55:34. > :55:38.how you guys are talking in the studio. Some are saying it helps our
:55:39. > :56:23.economy. Others are saying it is too costly to justify.
:56:24. > :56:31.I think John wants to see a little Martian.
:56:32. > :56:35.Tim Peake did lots of stuff to inspire children and did a lot of
:56:36. > :56:39.work on the International Space Station. Donna, what do you think of
:56:40. > :56:45.Tim Peake, regardless of the money spent, what do you think of what he
:56:46. > :56:49.has done? A huge example of courage and optimism and open mindedness.
:56:50. > :56:54.Yes he has inspired a lot of children. I hope they do go into
:56:55. > :57:01.science that in future we are in a better position to tackle space
:57:02. > :57:04.travel. Did he ever raise a smile? Yes, should cannot be glad for him,
:57:05. > :57:09.but it doesn't change the fact that we are not in the league of
:57:10. > :57:13.countries which is capable of maintaining a space mission. How
:57:14. > :57:17.should we take advantage of Tim Peake's appeal? He's been on the
:57:18. > :57:24.screen for the last six months or more. His name trips off our
:57:25. > :57:29.tongues. It happened before his mission, and during his mission and
:57:30. > :57:33.it will continue with science experiments that schools around the
:57:34. > :57:37.UK have been involved in. And there is the inspirational aspect, a whole
:57:38. > :57:42.generation of scientists the, probably our age, Monica, inspired
:57:43. > :57:47.by the Apollo Moon land Los Angeles. You will probably find the benefits
:57:48. > :57:51.of this on a personal level, let alone the science and future long
:57:52. > :57:58.haul travel for space. In 20 years' time or 10 years' time you will see
:57:59. > :58:05.it with the number of people who want to follow science. Monica, in
:58:06. > :58:08.one word, Tim Peake? Awesome. And thanks to our spaceman, Tommy.
:58:09. > :58:12.That's it for us this morning. Thanks to our guests and to you at
:58:13. > :58:19.home for joining the discussions too. We are not on next week because
:58:20. > :58:23.of coverage each the aftermath of the EU referendum, we're back in two
:58:24. > :58:27.weeks' time. Until then, have a lovely day. Goodbye.