Episode 1 Sunday Morning Live

Welcome to Sunday Morning Live, I am Naga Munchetty. The killing of MP Jo

Cox leads to her family calling for unity not hatred, we will discuss

what legacy will be. Stephen Kinnock the MP who shared an office with Jo

Cox gives us his view. Sir Cliff Richard will not face charges over

sexual abuse claims but says police used him as bait. Should he ever

have been named? Professor Richard Dawkins, revolutionaries biologist

and atheist explains why his recent stroke did not shake his conviction

that there isn't a God. Did you consider mortality what lies beyond?

Nothing lies beyond. That never changed? Of course not, why should

it? And Tim Peake returned to Earth, is it time to boldly go with more

investment in space? He thinks so. Best ride I have been on.

The guests are here ready to discuss those issues, and Tommy is here as

well. Good morning, welcome to Sunday Morning Live, lots of

Waverley to get in touch. You can contact us on Facebook and Twitter.

Or you can call us. Lots of ways to get in touch, let's

get you talking. Thank you. Let's meet our guests. Donna Dawson,

Stephen Kinnock who is a close friend of Jo Cox, Joan Smith is a

columnist, novelist and human rights activist and Peter Hitchens is a

columnist for the mail on Sunday. In the middle of a frenetic referendum

campaign normal politics came to a juggling halt this week as

politicians and the public considered the shocking impact of

the murder of MP Jo Cox. Even Cameron said where we see hatred and

find division, we must try that out of our politics and out of our

public life and out of our communities. Jeremy Corbyn said the

recall of Parliament tomorrow will enable politicians to pay tribute to

the Labour MP under half of everybody in the country who values

democracy, free from the kind of brutality that Jo suffered. And her

sister made a heartfelt plea of the family for something positive to

come out of her tragic death. We have to continue this strength and

solidarity in the days, months and years to come. As part of her

legacy. And to focus on, as Jo would say, that which unites us and not

which divides us. So, what are the implications of the death of Jo Cox

for public life and society in general? We will discuss that with

our guests in a moment but first let's hear from the Bishop of

Huddersfield. I spoke to him short while ago before he went to attend a

morning service. The Right Reverend Jonathon Gibbs, thank you for

joining us, please tell us the mood of the community you have been in

contact with? I think things have moved since Thursday and Friday, the

initial reaction was one of huge shock and disbelief, trying to take

in what had happened. I think now there is a huge sadness in the

community as people either come together to reflect and support one

another or simply need to be on their own. Tremendous sense of

sadness and loss. Of course you had contact with Jo, you met her as part

of her public duties, the reaction to her death has been staggering, a

fund in her name has raised more than half ?1 million so far. What

impact do you think she had? She was a remarkable and exceptional young

women. She was a woman of passion for the causes she believed in, she

had a wealth of experience from her work with Oxfam and brought back to

her work as an MP. I concern for the vulnerable, and the plight of

refugees. She was also an engaging human being, a wife and mother and I

think that is part of why this tragedy hits are so hard. And she

had the ability to engage with people on a personal level, everyone

who has spoken of would say she was interested in them. That is why her

legacy will live on the board as a person of passion for causes and

compassion and interest in her village and beings. Her sister as

part of a statement yesterday said the focus should now be on that

which unites us and not which divides us, and message the family

is very keen to impart to society. Absolutely, if anything positive has

come out of this awful tragedy it is the way in which her death has

brought people together across different communities. That's been

reflected in the different services and events which have taken place

all of which have been attended by people of all our different ethnic

and faith community is. We are determined to build on her legacy

and make a difference in the world in which we live for the good of all

the communities we serve. One of the things many people are talking about

is the tone of debate and the tone of attitudes towards MPs in public

life. What are your thoughts? I think it's a huge challenge for us.

Jo was able to talk about issues with enormous passion but also a

tremendous warmth as a human being and I think that's the challenge to

ask, how can we debate with passion the issues which matter to us but

also treat one another with respect? Recognising our shared humanity?

This is a time to look at the culture of politics in our nation

and our world and this certainly should give us pause to reflect. The

Bishop of Huddersfield Jonathon Gibbs speaking to me earlier, to our

guests now, Stephen let me start with you, firstly let me say I am

sorry you have lost a family member, you have our condolences, how did

you find out what happened? I was in my constituency on Thursday and my

researcher had gone into the office next door, Jo and I had adjoining

offices, we effectively shared an office. He had gone to ask her

research something and said she would like she had seen a ghost and

asked what happened. She said Jo had been shot. He called me immediately

and I was in South Wales and I just thought it was some kind of hawks. I

could not fully believe it. I put the phone down and try to think what

on earth that could mean. Then the events over the next few hours

unfolded and we have lost a true ray of sunshine for both our Parliament

and public life. She was a very special person. She was a close

family friend, your mother in fact worked very closely with her and

encouraged her to go into politics. What was she like? Joel was a ball

of energy. -- Jo was a ball of energy. She was a warm and charming

person, and relentless. She fought every day of her life to make this

world a better place. She had values of international was, solidarity,

compassion. She brought something to our politics and to the House of

Commons which made her very special. When she stood up in the chamber,

even though she was quite slight, quite petite, she just had this

authority because she had been out there and done it. She had not come

from inside the Westminster village, she had been out there in the

refugee camps, working with the poorest and most abundant of all

people in the world. When she engaged with you she listened. She

was a great negotiator and a pragmatic politician who knew how to

get things done. Truly a rising star of our politics. Her death has

touched so many and shocked so many, we were talking about the campaign,

the fundraising and her name which is now past ?600,000. What you think

legacy should be? I think we need to take time to reflect on what she

stood for. What Jo stood for was a sense of optimism and hope, a sense

of community, that we solve problems by working together with our

friends, with our allies. We do not solve them by isolating ourselves

are behaving in a selfish manner. I think if we are going to secure her

legacy we need to think about those values. And we also need to think

about the fact that we can disagree without being disagreeable. That is

what Jo was always so good at doing, she certainly disagreed with people,

she was strident in her views on many things but she always did it

with respect and empathy. And with a sense that you might not always have

exactly the same view as somebody else but she could put herself in

the shoes of that other person and engage with them and that is what

made her such a fearless and brilliant politician. But also made

her a wonderful mother and wife to Brendan. I knew Jo, the private

person. I have known her for 20 years, as my family did. But I also

had the privilege of seeing her work as a politician and when you put all

of those together you have just somebody who touched all of our

lives and in a sense, what is hard to come to terms with is you don't

realise how much you loved her until she is gone. I think we are all

struggling to come to terms with that. We really appreciate you

coming on to Sunday Morning Live and talking to us about this. How should

prized should we be that this has happened in Britain Donna? -- how

surprised should we be. We are surprised on one level but we are

part of an international scene, what is going on in America, we have

never had a presidential campaign like we have at the moment with

mudslinging, and incitement to public brawling. I have never seen

the like and it's difficult not to feel that contagion coming over

here, the Americanisation of English politics where we let the Passion of

our individual politics to override us and take control and we lose

respect for the other person 's point of view. We don't see their

rights as clearly as we should and we think it gives us permission here

to do the same. It's not really part of the British character to be like

that. It's taken a wrong turn and I think we have become the politics of

desperation, we are so intent on getting our point across that

anything goes. Peter has British politics taken a wrong turn? I don't

think it has, I think our politics has always had a certain amount of

rock business, since the 17th century, the same with American

politics, the things people use to say were pretty spectacular. But

part of that is a safety valve. One of the reasons we have not had this

political violence in this country, one of the reasons we escaped it in

the 1930s, we didn't have huge numbers of men marching through the

streets in coloured shirts shouting angry slogans because our

parliamentary system which is adversarial and allows national

disagreements to be exposed and properly expressed. That has

provided a safety valve which protects against political violence.

I don't think we have a particularly dangerous political system. I think

we should not be so quick to say that events of this kind are

necessarily caused by that. Obviously Joel was a delightful

person who will be immensely missed -- Jo was a delightful person. I am

sorry I did not know her but I disagree with her but it doesn't

mean I have any personal animosity towards her. We are opponents, not

enemies. An MP has not been shot or stabbed to death until now have

they? There are instances of people being murdered in this country, or

killed in unpleasant circumstances all the time, not necessarily

because of politics, let's not jump to conclusions about causes of this

event. Joan give us your view? I think we are in a culture which are

demoralising. I think in the last few years we have seen a different

kind of person coming into Parliament, more women, people who

have experience in international aid and things like that. But it's gone

hand-in-hand with the culture which is doing the opposite of what Peter

says which is I disagree with your views and that makes you a terrible

person. Last month, the misogyny in this is key, last month, Jess

Phillips, a Labour MP in Birmingham launched an online campaign against

bullying. In one evening 600 men came onto a social networking site

and discussed whether or not they would like to rape her. That is not

part of anybody's job. The idea that people can respond to applicable

opponent like that disgusts and frightens me.

It is not a politics problem. Because if you are creating that

atmosphere in which you are telling people that it is OK to spew out

though vitriol and spew out rape threat and death threats you are

creating an atmosphere which is dangerous. Stephen, you're involved

in politics. What is the atmosphere like, is it too vicious? It is too

Venn mouse. I regularly get vicious e-mails and tweets and sometimes

have had the police involved as well. When there are threats of

violence. It has become something almost that politicians have come to

expect. I think it is wrong that we should come to expect. What we don't

know exactly, we don't know exactly what motivated this man to do what

he did. The fact that he cried out death to traitors, people to

Britain, shows that it was politically motivated. We should

take the precautionary principle, which is that if there is the

slightest chance that this sort of venom that's out there in social

media and from the media itself, I would add, comes to create a

permissive environment where people think it's OK the write and do that

sort of thing, maybe it is not a huge leap into doing it. We should

take the precautionary principle and address the issue on that basis.

There's been a lot of reflection about the behaviour of politicians

as well, and the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was talking earlier on

The Andrew Marr Show. He has been calling for more tolerance. An MP

has died. It's an attack on all of us. In her memory we have to create

a more tolerant society. In her memory we have to reach out.

Stephen, the recall of Parliament tomorrow. You are going to be

speaking of the one of the questions Andrew Marr put to Jeremy Corbyn, or

suggested, is this idea that politicians shouldn't be on opposing

benches tomorrow. They should mingle and show. Maybe reflect Jo Cox's own

strategy of reaching across parties for discussion. What will happen

tomorrow? I don't know. That will be a decision of it's Speaker. It is

something I would welcome. Something has changed. I do think this is,

that a murder of a politician, and that must therefore change the way

we think about politics, and mixing up on the benches tomorrow

mightabout a good idea. The key point is that we have to make it

clear to people that we understand that we are looking for a different

kind of political discourse. And that we need to honour Jo's legacy

by doing that. The purity of what she stood for is in such sharp

contrast to the venom and poison that is out there. I do hope that

that will give people pause to reflect over the coming days and

weeks and months. We are obviously not using the word murder. The man

has been charged and we are staying away from the details of this case

in order not to prejudice the case that's under way. Donna, from a

psychological point of view, when you consider this abuse, the best

way of coping with this for someone in public life? It is to carry on

being courageous. Carry on being able to say what you need to say,

with a mindful eye to your own protection. We can't be stymied by

bullies. We have to take stock of what's happening, of course. We have

to move on with a doctor attitude. Courage, you've alls had to have

courage in politics and convictions. Those will have to stay. There was a

definite case of political murder a few years ago, the IRA's attempt to

murder the entire Cabinet in the grand moment in Brighton, and

politics carried on. The point made then by the Prime Minister is

politics should carry and and this shouldn't be allowed to stop us from

our open debate. It is an important lesson and one we should bear in

mind in these events. Do you not think politics will change? I think

we should not pre-Judge this case. We don't know. It is a case before

the courts. I don't wish to prejudge it in any way by drawing

conclusionings from it we are in the no a position to draw. The rhetoric

when the Troubles in Northern Ireland were taking place was

vicious. We wouldn't want to see a repeat of that. No, we wouldn't, and

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should. But what the problem in

Northern Ireland was that people resorted to and made a successful, I

have to say regrettably, political tool over Mowlam. Tably, political

tool over Mowlam. And the proper -- out of murder, and the proper

response was that the democratic process continues and scorns those

who attempt to use political violence in a society that has no

need of it, because we are free to achieve our ends without it. You've

been getting in touch with us. Thank you. Texting and tweeting us on

this. Tommy, you've been looking at this. That's right. Lots of people

say they want to legacy of Jo Cox to be a better standard of political

debate in the country. Many of you now think a lot of MPs should have

their own protection. James is saying on Twitter, politics should

be about debate, not hate. Politicians should attack problems,

not people. Debs said we need a Jo Cox Bill in the House on Monday to

formalise and enforce better political conduct and ethical

nonpersonal debating. Elizabeth says I want most MPs to have more

security, and I don't blame them. And another, it is good that all

parliamentary parties have agreed to... Some thoughtful comments.

Thank you. Stephen, one of the other issues that's been brought up there

is about the security of politicians and obviously when they take part in

their so-called surgeries, where they meet their constituents Which

is what Jo was doing. Do you think protection should be racked up, that

politicians should have more security? I think we have to get the

balance right, because the access ability of MPs is absolutely

critical. It is one of the parts of the f the job I enjoy most - being

out there engaging with my constituents, trying to help people

who can't some of problems on their own, givering a voice to the

voiceless, which is what Jo dedicated her life to as well. I

think we would be traducing Jo's legacy if we were to not continue

with this healthy aspect of our politics. But I do think that all

MPs should now carefully review their security arrangements. I do

think that we should share with the police our schedule at least to some

extent, particularly around surgeries, which are well publicised

and by definition are out there in Community Centres or libraries, just

so we get a sensible balance. I don't think we should bear many mind

what it was that Jo was doing on Thursday and how important an

element of that is of our democratic process. Do you feel more

vulnerable? Are you actively looking at your security arrangements now?

Yes we are. The police were already in a couple of times over the last

few days. Days.. We will continue to look at them very carefully. Joan,

do you think politicians should have more protection? It is a very

difficult balance. One of the problems for MPs and for the police

is when people send threatening e-mails, and I can think of an

occasion when a friend of mine got three death threats by e-mail in a

single morning. When that kind of stuff is coming in at the volume and

rate that it is, how do you determine which of those people are

kind of what we might call keyboard warriors and which are serious about

doing something? It is not just MPs but their families who get

threatened as well. That's a huge problem for the police. We've had

two MPs before this, in 2000 and I think I can't remember the second

one. Stephen Timms and Nigel Jones attacked while doing constituency

surgeries, and now this third attack. We need to think more how to

protect people. Trending on to protect people. Trending on Twitter

now is the # thank your MP. Could this be the start of a more positive

way of looking at MPs and the work they are doing? I really hope so.

The problem with things that unfold in this way is you sometimes get an

impetus for a few days or a week and everything goes back to normal. In

the heat of the up-coming election it worries me that we'll get back to

where we were in a few days or a week. We really need to reconsider

how we are conducting ourselves. How we can learn to respect and show the

same compassion that Jo did to all of her constituents, to each other.

To each other's freedom to be able to hold an opinion without being

attacked physically or being attacked in a cowardly fashion in an

anonymous way on social media. We need to think of it, all of us need

to think about it. Thank you very much. We'll continue the discussions

throughout the programme. Thank you for joining us, and thanks for your

comments. Do keep them coming in. Coming up, Sir Cliff riffed says his

as was bungled from day one. Was he treated unjustly? Now, evolutionary

biologist Professor Richard Dawkins this year celebrates four milestone

anniversaries. Having released a book every ten years since The

Selfish Gene was published in 1976. He is well known as a passionate,

sometimes controversial advocate of atheism, mostly noticeable in his

book, The God Delusion. I went to meet him and ask how he lost his

faith as a child. You were raised as an Anglican? I went to Anglican. It

was hard not to in my time. Virtually all schools were. But it

didn't mean my parents raised me Anglican. When did you stop

believing in God? I realised at age 9 there were lots of different

religions and they couldn't all be right. I carried on believing in

some sort of divine creator. And that disappeared when I finally

understood Darwinism and the fact that you don't need any kind of

designer to explain the beauty or elegance of life and the apparent

design of life. Did Christianity Mold the person you are today? I

think there is something rather decent about the Anglican religion

in its modern form, not in history of course. It stands for a measure

of tolerance which I admire. I have a certain nostalgia for my cultural

background I suppose. Does it provide a moral code? No. It

certainly doesn't provide a moral code. If it did, we would all be

burning witches and executing people for breaking the Sabbath and that

kind of thing. We do not get our morals from our historic religion.

Not at all. It is a very good thing too. Do you think religion now is a

force for good, or for evil? For evil, on balance. Why? Well, just

look at what's happening in the Middle East. Look at the appalling

things that are done mostly in the name of Islam but also in Africa in

the name of Christianity. In Burma in the name of Buddhism. In India in

the name of Hinduism. There are appalling things going on in the

name of religion, which of course is not to say that individual members

of those religions ions are doing evil things - the vast majority are

not. But it only takes the minority, a minority indoctrine ated in

childhood in a faith that doesn't require evidence or justification,

that's evil and it causes evil in children growing you up. When

children are taught about eitherism and religion. The tendency to tell

people they belong to a political faith, to have a school that's

imbued with just one faith, teach children about religion, by all

means. It is very important in history. Very important in current

politics. The Bible is very important in literature. But don't

tell a child, you are a Catholic child and had this is what you

believe. You would never believe of saying, you are a logical child or

an existential child or a Keynesian child because your parents are, yet

in the case of religion we do. We must stop labelling children. Let

them discover their beliefs when they are old enough to do so. When

you defend atheism, how close do you come to attacking religion? Is there

a line that shouldn't be crossed? One line that shouldn't be crossed,

ever, is is line of violence. Neither I nor my atheist colleagues

every do that. It is right to attack religion. Right to attack false

beliefs but do it on intellectual grounds, using argument and evidence

rather than insult. Is it inevitable that you will insult someone and

hurt people? You may hurt people, because they identify with their

religion, which is a very unfortunate thing. You were not your

religion. You are your own person. You are you. How do you cope with

knowing that you have offended someone or hurt someone?

I don't mind at all, I am quite happy to say if our religion is

absurd. I noticed your voice is quite crackly, I imagine this is

after your stroke, how are you feeling? I am doing fine, my voice

is the main thing I had to worry about. I cannot sing but that's not

something I need to do. When I talk, after a while my voice becomes

increasingly croaky. Did you ever consider perhaps mortality are what

lies beyond? Nothing lies beyond. That never changed? Of course not,

why ever should it? I consider mortality from time to time, I

suspect we all do. But certainly nothing lies beyond. The Church of

England urged people to pray for you, did you appreciate that was it

a waste of time? When my colleague at the philosopher was very ill with

heart problems he was told people were praying for him so he said did

you also sacrifice a goat? So a waste of time or a good token, a

good gesture of kindness? I think any gesture of kindness is to be

welcomed. At your stroke doctors urged you to avoid controversy and

keep your stress levels down, i.e. Planning to follow that advice? So

far as I can, yes. Are you making efforts to be more calm and

measured? May be a bit, yes. I think the family might appreciate it.

Professor Richard Dawkins, thank you so much for talking to us. A man who

is never afraid to speak his mind. Still to come, getting used to

gravity, Tim Peake returns to Earth, is it the signal for a UK space

program? Hung out like live bait, that is how

Sir Cliff Richard described his experience of almost two years under

suspicion of historical sexual abuse. This week the Crown

Prosecution Service announced he would face no further action due to

a lack of evidence. Despite this he is worried his reputation and those

of other people who have been through similar experiences could be

tarnished forever. Should we have ever been aware of the allegations?

Sir Cliff issued a statement and in it he said: THEY TALK OVER EACH

OTHER Is he right or despite the dramatic

experience for the accused is naming them an essential part of the

justice system? Should those accused of sex crimes be named? Let us know

your thoughts. We are joined by Nick Freeman, author and celebrity lawyer

who campaigns for anonymity for accused people. Let me start with

you, any sympathy, for Sir Cliff in the public nature of these

allegations? Immense sympathy. People should be tried in court

before an independent jury and the Crown should have to prove the case

against them. They should not have to prove themselves innocent. As

long as that law exists we are a free people and a free country. If

it is gotten rid of we cease to be free and what is happening at the

moment is the police are becoming far too powerful. The CPS is

becoming far too powerful and trials are conducted without a presumption

of innocence in the public domain long before they reach court. Anyone

accused under the circumstances usually has their life ruined even

if after a long struggle they find themselves proven not guilty. The

justice system is innocent until proven guilty so what is the harm in

naming the accused? The complainant has special protection and if that

is the case I would say that is because of the unique stigma

associated with this area, the complainant needs special protection

and should be looked after well and so should the defendant. What I

would propose is a system whereby anybody who is accused of sexual

allegation is granted blanket anonymity. Not as Sir Cliff says,

until charged, but until convicted. But I would leave the door open on

every case so that the prosecution, the police, could go to a judge and

say we believe it's in the public interest, for example we have a

serial offender, that that anonymity should be lifted so other people

could be encouraged to come forward. I think that would strike the

balance which is needed. In the case of an accuser and an accused should

they be treated the same? They should not, there is never any

context in these discussions. It's about a few men who have had a

unpleasant experience, contributed to in some ways by the way the

police and popular press handle these events. But the context here

is that the problem with rape, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse in

this country is the vast number of perpetrator should get away with it.

I have cheered the violence against women and girls board for the last

two years and I see the data, last year five and a half thousand

complaints of rape recorded by the Metropolitan police and senior

officers say that represent at best one in five. That means it's more

like 30,000 rapes just in London. This is your estimate? No, this is

what the police are saying, that figure only represents one in five.

It's an estimate, not a fact. Yes but it is supported by women who run

rape crisis lines and refugees, who find the vast women who, to them for

help if they don't go to the police because they fear they won't be

believed because they don't understand that rape and child

sexual abuse are serial crimes. You will have one person facing the

ordeal of giving evidence in a trial and probably not being believed by

the jury, so the point of what is being proposed, anonymity for

defendants, is a further obstruction to justice because it is when

someone is actually arrested or charged, that is when other people

come forward. We can see from last week as well as Sir Cliff Richard,

we saw the case of Sir Clement Freud and even his wife has accepted he

was probably an abuser and got away with it for years. We can argue

statistics but surely the point is we don't want to damage innocent

reputations. Ice pose a system which, serial offenders, defendants

are named as in Jimmy Savile and Georgia Hall. But when you're

dealing with the cases we have heard about with Sir Cliff Richard, there

was no suggestion he was a serial offender or even any offender at

all, he was not even interviewed or arrested, why should he not be

afforded protection? Where is the justice? That stigma will never

leave him. Where is the justice for the thousands of women raped in this

country and who will never see attackers brought to trial? The

phrase was used to hang out by live bait, the impact this has on public

figures, is that different? Absolutely, particularly now with

social media amplifying rumours or accusations however and find it,

that never goes away. -- unfounded. It rumbles on on Twitter and

Facebook and people claim there is no smoke without fire. Unfortunately

people will come forward and make false accusations which muddies the

water, people who want to do it for financial reasons or are delusional

is. Look at Paul gamba Chaney, it cost him ?200,000 in legal fees and

lost work and he was never accused or charged, neither was Cliff

Richard and yet the damage... And you can't recover that money. Why do

we always go to this question of false complaints? Because it

happens. The director of public prosecution commissioned research

which shows it's very rare. There is car crime, people reporting the car

is stolen when they haven't been, insurance fraud, why do we assume

that women and children are liars? But if it can happen at all... You

mentioned here stammer when he was director of public solution,

research suggested 3% of allegations were false. It is proven we are

talking about, not if we ourselves think it is false or true, if it is

proven beyond reasonable doubt beyond an independent jury in court.

Then you name the defendants. Anyone who is convicted you name them and

they have everything which follows from that conviction. The way we are

going at the moment is that the presumption of innocence is eroded.

There is a point about passive and lazy policing, they can name some

day, week rumours to the press and get people in the hope somebody

comes forward. I think the police should be doing more work to ensure

the original conviction, instead of getting other people to come in. The

purpose of prosecution is not to advertise you are investigating

someone, it is to prosecute an alleged crime and if the person who

is accused of it is found guilty, punish him aha. It's not an

advertising campaign to get more accusers. -- punish him or hard.

There is no need to advertise prosecutions. This is about process

and not the principles behind it, police are too slow quite often to

investigate these complaints, particular historical ones which

bring their own difficulties. The press behaves very badly. But the

point I am making is that a single complainant, it may not even get to

the person being charged because, particularly in historical cases

weather is no physical evidence, it's only when other people come

forward but you will get charges laid in the first place. Under what

I am suggesting that would happen because investigating officers would

say we think there is more to this than meets the eye we are going to

the judge to make an application. And that would happen in the

majority of those cases? How would it help anyone to make it easier to

find innocent people guilty, what would be helped by that, what good

would that do, to your cause or any cause? Hundreds of thousands of

children are sexually abused, thousands of women are raped,

teenagers, where is your concern for them? You are worried about the

small number of celebrity defendants. I have concern for

liberty, the limited powers of the state, not being able to put people

in prison because it feels like it. Nobody is asking for it. That is

what happens once you undermine the presumption of innocence. I am not

any less concerned than you about the victims of genuine crime. If the

accuser is a child should he or she be named? I think everyone should be

named in trials, Justice in secret is justice denied. If the defendant

is a child, I used, 17 or under, if it takes boys in a youth court the

child cannot be named. If they are being tried in a magistrates Crown

Court the judge has discretion that the identity should be withheld. You

mentioned the media, how do you think the media, does it or does it

not on the idea of the presumption of innocence? Not if it makes a good

story. I think celebrities have highlighted this. If a name is

leaked by the police, in this case to the media and the run with it,

even when that person is later not charged, not actually arrested, it

never really goes away. The reputation is damaged and I don't

know how much time it would take to heal that. I think Sir Cliff has a

right to feel aggrieved. Let's talk to Tommy, a lot of people reacting

to this subject. A lot of messages, Joan might not like to hear this but

the majority of people saying that Sir Cliff Richard should not have

been named. Might never shake it off which is

what the lawyer was saying. Absolutely, Joan, a lot of people

disagreeing. A lot of them are disagreeing but none of them

suggesting the context I am talking about. To say you should be able to

bring charges after 20 years, Jimmy Savile was offending 40, 50 years

ago. Some of these historical cases were 30, 40 years ago and those

people are still entitled to redress. There is an old rule that

hard cases make bad law and it's true. You cannot necessarily say

that because it might mean someone is Gates prosecution because you

would have a bad law which means other people are having their lives

ruined by flimsy charges. We have robust system in place, the police

are trained to look after complainant and are dealt with

sympathetically at court. All sorts of provisions to look after the

welfare but there is nothing to look after the welfare of a falsely

accused defendant. We could talk about this for a lot longer but we

will wrap it up for now, thank you for your comments come keep them

coming in. After six months in orbit Tim Peake returned to Earth

yesterday. During that time he has completed more than 2700 orbits,

covering a distance of more than 140 million kilometres. He also ignited

interest in space exploration. A parliamentary committee has been

calling for a creation of a UK space program and it's not rocket science

to know that could be an expensive business. So who did we launch of

two probe if people think spending on more space is a good thing? Tommy

of course. Forget international space travel,

it is interstudio travel. I'm here at the science museum in London. We

are all quite excited about the return of Tim Peake. Helen Sharman

is the first British astronaut. How exciting is it to watch Tim land

here for you? It is a relief to be honest that everything has happened

fine, that he was safe and is smiling. Clearly he is well. I'm

good, thanks. Very good. We are seeing a lot of youngsters here. Why

is this so important for the next generation? This is pushing forward

humanity's boundaries, making sure we are thinking about not just life

on Earth. We are learning so much about working internationally,

collaborating and improving everybody's lives in future. Being

part of that exciting adventure. Hugely inspirational for any country

involved in it. Obviously everyone is super enthusiastic about space

travel here, but I'm going to boldly go out into the streets to see what

regular folks think. Why is it so important that we explore the

universe? I'm not sure if it is really so important to explore it. I

think we should spend more money to explore here and how we live here on

the Earth. We can't just be earth bound. Is that money well spent? Not

really. Why? Because it could be spent on other things. Like homeless

people and getting people jobs and things like that. I think space, in

space a whole load of medical discoveries are being made that

somebody down here who is suffering can be cured. Do you agree with your

friend? It could be spent more on the NHS. It is at crisis point at

the moment. The money going into space could be put into education

and maybe a better health service. It is nd maybe a better health

service. It is one of those things - do we sacrifice the future, which is

important for their generation, or concentrate on the present. It is

important on the back of that mission that we have our own

national space programme. It is necessary to have some individual

programme going, otherwise you are not going to attract the young to

come forward. Britain, we are meant to be a superpower. We are talking

about exiting the irand being a country on our own. It is something

we should have a hand in that. We want to take over your planet. Stop

investing your money to travel into space. It is a warning. This is my

advice to you. I like Tommy's new friend. Tommy Sandhu, our very own

rocket manty science museum. So should we be spending more money on

space? Joining me is Sue Nelson, co-founder of the space boffins

podcast, and a space scientist is with us, Monica Grady. Some

misgivings, Monica, about the amount that's being spent, that we are in a

time of austerity. Is it justified? It is. I can understand why people

have misgivings, but when you see the benefit from Tim's programme,

the inspirational nature of what he has achieved and what he is doing,

and how our industry needs more scientists, technologies, engineers

and mathematicians, we have to have some way of inspiring students to

study those subjects. And Tim Peake has been a magnificent role model.

And the yields that come from this, Donna. They are huge, the dividends.

So would the science industry. We've put a British astronaut in space...

The second. Helen Sharman was the first. All power to him and I'm glad

he has done it. We'll get lots of dividends from the experiments he

has done, et cetera, but for us to have our own space programme, we are

not in the league of China or Russia. We already have our own

space programme! LAUGHTER It is a luxury item in a

nation where we have where we have great problems at home - to do with

housing, our NHS system, which is crumbling. I would like those issues

addressed before we think further afield. Are you saying this should

be the end of it? Maybe stay on the fringes of it and contribute to the

European Space Agency, if we can. But not to create our own space

programme, not now. Nigh jaw just dropped on the floor. I saw that

report saying that we have the UK Space Agency. The UK Space Agency

puts money into the European Space Agency, so we are a big donator of

funds. We get more than that back in terms of the benefits. You've also

got to think that during the recession, the UK space industry was

one of the few industries that actually, its profits went up. Its

turnover increased. It has this aim to make ?40 billion turnover by

2030. I have no tout it's going to do it, because it supplies jobs all

over the country. There are companies, a company in Britain that

its lithium-ion batteries could have been in Tim Peake's backpack while

he was doing a spacewalk. We make a lot for the world in Britain. So it

is good for the economy. What other benefits? It may be, but that's a

reflection of how bad the rest of the economy is. Rubbish! We have a

terrible economy. We hardly make anything. We are tremendously back,

have a catastrophic current account balance. And here is an industry

making a profit. So what, it is delusional to imagine we are a

country that can engage in space exploration, which is a by product

of ballistic research. Tim Peake was put up in space by the Russians,

using technology from the 1950s. We have forgotten how to get a train

from Brighton to London, so how should we be considering getting

people into space. If you have money to spend, reconstruct our secondary

education system, is bring back selective secondary education in

grant schools. Then we might have people capable of space exploration.

I heard Monica gasp. I'm going to explode!

LAUGHTER. Please don't. The UK has a very, very vibrant space industry

economy. Peter just said, we don't make anything. That is nonsense. Our

space economy makes things. It makes components. We have a really, really

vibrant, profitable company down in the south which makes satellites.

It's a world-leader, world class. It makes things for Nasa. When you have

a company, when you have companies like that, they employ people. Those

people then go out and buy things. They have holidays. Holidays. They

buy cars. They are making things. There's a component industry. There

is HR companies. There's IT that service those other companies. For

every ?1 that we pay into the European Space Agency, we get ?9

back into our economy. That's a difficult statistic to bat against

isn't it, Peter? It is not a matter of whether it brings in money. I

would have thought it was for the economy. This is your argument. It

is a wrong target for our money. I think if we've got money to spend,

we've got other things to spend it on better. I would like to

renationalise the railways and rebuild them. It is a thing we give

to the world and now we can barely... At the moment if you go to

Brighton on a weekday morning and ask commuters, they can't even get

to London. We are talking about space exploration. You will get your

say, I promise. Peter, you see absolutely no benefit to space

exploration? There are some benefits from everything. I think if you are

trying to work out, be the you are a cash-strapped, broke country on the

edge of bankruptcy. If you are trying to work out how to spend

money, space should be at the back of the queue. I can complete bat

that off. Space is not just about putting somebody on the

International Space Station. It is about the mobile phone in your one

in your pocket, caster -- disaster monitoring after tsunamis. It is

about sporting events. Other people can do all of this too. Climate

change, you cannot say space is just that one thing. It is modelling

people flow. All sorts of things. Space starts in low Earth orbit. We

have a vibrant industry building those satellites which then do the

telecommunications. They monitor traffic flow, monitor the railways -

everything. If only we could have a day when all the satellites would

switch off we would realise how special space is. Donna, has this

changed your mind? This is a specialised industry but for me, I

think for Britain other countries with bigger budgets should be doing

the work. We shouldn't compete with that level. We don't have the money.

Should Iceland have a space spam? If not, why not. There are lots

increase Africa, for example. And do you think that's right? In Nigeria,

do you think it is right? It creates jobs, inspires the youth. We are a

high-tech company. To say we can't afford it. It is an international

partnership. OK, let's calm down shall we? Let's go to our resident

spaceman, to Tommy. He's back down to earth. People at home are talking

how you guys are talking in the studio. Some are saying it helps our

economy. Others are saying it is too costly to justify.

I think John wants to see a little Martian.

Tim Peake did lots of stuff to inspire children and did a lot of

work on the International Space Station. Donna, what do you think of

Tim Peake, regardless of the money spent, what do you think of what he

has done? A huge example of courage and optimism and open mindedness.

Yes he has inspired a lot of children. I hope they do go into

science that in future we are in a better position to tackle space

travel. Did he ever raise a smile? Yes, should cannot be glad for him,

but it doesn't change the fact that we are not in the league of

countries which is capable of maintaining a space mission. How

should we take advantage of Tim Peake's appeal? He's been on the

screen for the last six months or more. His name trips off our

tongues. It happened before his mission, and during his mission and

it will continue with science experiments that schools around the

UK have been involved in. And there is the inspirational aspect, a whole

generation of scientists the, probably our age, Monica, inspired

by the Apollo Moon land Los Angeles. You will probably find the benefits

of this on a personal level, let alone the science and future long

haul travel for space. In 20 years' time or 10 years' time you will see

it with the number of people who want to follow science. Monica, in

one word, Tim Peake? Awesome. And thanks to our spaceman, Tommy.

That's it for us this morning. Thanks to our guests and to you at

home for joining the discussions too. We are not on next week because

of coverage each the aftermath of the EU referendum, we're back in two

weeks' time. Until then, have a lovely day. Goodbye.