Episode 12 Sunday Morning Live

Welcome to Sunday Morning Live, I'm Naga Munchetty.

On today's programme, education or integration?

As the Government relaxes rules on admissions,

could we see some schools select more pupils based on their faith?

Police in Nottingham have reclassified sexism a hate crime.

Other forces may follow suit, but should it treated

I have been ignored and further approached, and then people come to

me and when I see no, they don't stop, that is when it an issue.

A group of MPs want cannabis legalised for medical use,

like in other countries around the world.

Better known for vegetable plots than romantic ones,

green-fingered giant Alan Titchmarsh tells Tommy what it's

When I started writing fiction in 1998, I didn't really know what sort

of fiction writer I would be. And I wrote it down and I thought, crumbs,

I think I'm a romantic novelist. Which, you know, is often used as a

pejorative term but actually it's what life is about, it's the

substance of life. And X Factor star Jahmene Douglas

treats us to a performance of "I Wish" in tribute

to World Peace Day. And so is Tommy - ready to share

all your thoughts with us. Morning. You guys are key to this

show. We want you to get in touch and tell us what you think about any

of these topics. Get in touch through Facebook and Twitter. Don't

forget to use the hashtag #bbcsml when you are tweeting. Or you can

call us on our number: Send us a video message if you like.

Put your name on the messages we know who you are. We like a video

message. Rabbi David Meyer is a former

headmaster and is executive director of the Partnership

for Jewish Schools. Cristina Odone is a writer

and director of the Centre Andrew Copson is the chief executive

of the British Humanist Association. And Jay Lakhani is the director

of the Hindu Academy. The Government has announced

plans for more selective Grammar schools have been emotively

debated in the past few days, but part of the education reforms

will also see the removal of a 50% At the moment, faith schools,

including over 2,000 popular Catholic schools,

must keep 50% of their places open to children, regardless

of the religion or beliefs The removal of the cap would allow

100% religious selection. We are asking, is it right to

abolish the cap or will it mean a more divided generation of

schoolchildren? Lets talk to our panel. Rabbi, what impact do you

think this has had on faith schools over the past six years? I think the

concept of having a quota system has in effect created a situation where

you will have for the sake of argument, a seek school, where 50%

of the children would be accepted because their parents want them to

get a Sikh education. But the next child who is wishing to apply,

perhaps a Sikh child whose parents wanted him to be educated within

that framework will be told, I'm sorry, you cannot enter the reign

enter that school because we are often going to force a child whose

parents may come from a different background and say that instead of

this child is going to have to come inside the Sikh school and be

educated in this way. And in many ways, as opposed to broadening

opportunities, it is actually discriminating against children that

want to be educated within a certain environment and sing, no, I'm sorry,

because of your faith, you will not be accepted. What are the

invocations of the Prime Minister removing the cap? The capital was

introduced four new faith schools, introduced by the previous

government and this government. Many people think that we should not have

the new religious schools in the state system because when they

select children on religious grounds, they lead to segregation in

society. The cap was a way of mitigating that segregation, so

removing that cap removes the only mechanism that we have is to try to

make sure that children were mixing together from different backgrounds

rather than being separated. The cap has not stopped new faith schools

from opening. A third of the new free schools over the last six years

have been religious schools. But it has meant that they have had to open

up to peoples of different backgrounds. And is that a good

thing? The Catholic community has been criticised for wanting to

prioritise children of one faith and not promoting integration. I think

the Rabbi spoke wisely about the difficulty of discriminating against

somebody because they are of a Catholic religion and wants to go to

a catholic school. It makes no sense to keep them out because of a cap.

But also the idea of capping schools that, like the Catholic schools, are

more likely to be built in poorer areas, and have an ethnically

diverse student body, and are more likely to get a good or excellent

Ofsted report, should we be quashing the schools of this excellence? Of

course not, we should be promoting them. And that is what removing the

cap will do. I want to establish everyone's views. I teach at Eton

College, one of the most ancient faith schools in this country. It is

a very progressive school because it allows people like me to interact

with the candidates and promote a more open system of thinking. I

believe in a secular democracy. It is possible when the faith schools

are more open-minded. What worries me is that if we are using public

funding to allow an individual faith or a cultish group to promote a

divisive system, are we being fair to the public or are we damaging the

health of the nation? You mean tax gets? Catholics pay taxes, and this

may come to you as a surprise, but they pay taxes. Everyone pays taxes.

We cannot divide the system so that everybody gets exactly the school

they want. You said earlier that this cap quashes schools, it

doesn't. It opens them up to more children in precisely the areas you

are talking about. It does not quash them. The idea that instead of

thinking of it as a 50% cap of children from religious backgrounds,

think of it as a guarantee of a 50% people from different backgrounds.

Then it seems different. We are used to our education system. We are in

fact one of only four countries in the world, the others are Ireland,

Estonia and Israel, who allow their state schools to select in this way.

What worries me is not whether you allow children to get into faith

schools but what faith is being promoted. If it promotes an

exclusive agenda, or an agenda that offers reward for financial

activities, it is a prescription for bad behaviour. We need to take into

account the needs of a modern, growing society. To promote an

exclusive agenda in the name of a faith school or to promote an idea

in return for financial activities, is strongly damaging the greater

society. The pushing of an agenda by a school, how concerned should

people be about that? It is important to understand that there

are approximately one third of the schools in this country that are

faith schools. Of free schools, only about a fifth. Of our society today,

it has been built on this actual breakdown of a third of the schools

being faith schools and two thirds not being. If you look at the

graduates and what we have treated in our society today, we have an

incredible liberal society. People from every aspect of faith feel

comfortable living in this society and it is built on that foundation.

To turn around and suggest that faith schools are in some way

limiting people's ability to mix or integrate, our society proves that

is not true. And when you look at Northern Ireland, for instance,

everybody always says, look at how faith schools segregated the

communities in Northern Ireland. But actually because of segregation in

Northern Ireland was the two-tiered society they had created were --

where Protestants were class a and Catholics were class be. As long as

we cater to people saying that, yes, your abilities are respected, then

we will not have segregation. I think that those backgrounds should

be catered for individually in shared community schools. I think

children from different backgrounds should be raised to respect each

other but knowing each other in the schools they share. Learning with an

alongside people from different backgrounds. It is dangerous to

argue from the past about the present. It is true that we have had

this system for a long time but the number of places that are faith

schools are increasing. More children from Jewish parents are

educated in Jewish schools than ever in the past. Because they are

oversubscribed! They are excellent. They are only oversubscribed if they

are academically successful. The research is unequivocal but one of

the main reasons they are academically successful is that they

are religiously selective. That is a vicious cycle. If you are suggesting

that children enter into a religious school and are academically more

able than every single religious leader in our country should be

standing up and saying, be religious because your children will be more

academically successful. Middle-class parents, everybody

knows this, are more able to game a couple dated system than other

people. People who have time to go to church and do voluntary work,

people who have time to explore the system and understand the system are

more likely to take advantage. It is true that faith schools perform

better academically when selection is control. But it is not just

because of faith. Some of the issues that arrive in the name of faith are

valuable for academic achievement. The idea of respect and discipline

is crucial and comes directly from faith. These ideas are necessary in

order for us to achieve better academic results. It is so important

because education does not mean learning facts. Education means

disciplining the mind to become focused and able to look at a

particular theme in a refined manner, and tickets to its

conclusion. Discipline is a crucial word that we are missing out in the

system of teaching or education. What about the idea that the Prime

Minister has suggested, ensure cohesion, that twins schools,

schools of different faith are twinned with one another? Could that

be effective? I think twinning schools in a vulcanised system is a

second-best system when we could have children running together in

the first place. I don't think we should divide children up and then

boss them to meet each other. I think we should have shared schools

in the first place. I was trying to set up a Hindu and Church of England

School combined. To do this, you will help academic excellence

because people of both faiths will be able to interact with each other

and see the strengths and weaknesses of various faiths in an academic,

honest and open manner. This would bring out natural integration

without imposing it on the children. Docking of imposition, we have

spoken to Richard docking is on this programme and he has said that a

parent forcing their children into a faith school is tantamount to child

at risk. -- Richard Dawkins. -- child abuse. It brings up the idea,

are you narrowing a child's opportunity to be integrated into

wider society by just sending them to a faith school, to be among

like-minded people and not in a community reflected by a wider

society. Richard is a wonderful scientist but less of a philosopher

than he thinks years. I think if I had a daughter, I would send her to

eat in because I love the idea of making sure, if I have a son, I

would send him to eat in college because I love this idea of having a

big spiritual dimension, of being part of the curriculum. I think that

is wonderful. But already she is raised in a Catholic way, she has

attended catholic state school and guess what, that dimension is very

much one of the reasons why we decided to send her to a catholic

state school, because we wanted her to be that much more open to what

the world and beyond the world could bring. My experience, of doing an

assembly at catholic schools, it has been very warm, and open and

embracing. I was very impressed. The reason is this. The aspect of

education that people forget, the idea of respect. Respect is not a

minor thing. It is not an old-fashioned world. It simply says

that when a youngster shows respect to a particular subject or the

subject carrier, straightaway the daughter of communication opens up

and they can interact warmly with each other. When I say respect, it

is important to work out whether a school has an in-built ethos of

respect. Eton College has two things I like, respect and discipline.

Schools that invite you, presumably, will be by definition those that are

more inclusive. But the reality is that there is a broad spectrum from

positive to negative of different faith schools in our country. But

faith schools are the only schools that occupy the negative end of the

spectrum in that... What about the Trojan horse schools? That was an

interesting example of schools where the governing body had been taken

over by people with strong religious agendas. But they were state

schools, secondary schools. This was an incredible example of how secular

schools could be much more narrow-minded. But the law was able

to intervene and stop that from happening. If the same thing had

been happening at state faith schools they would have been legal.

It is important to understand that faith schools have the same system

of inspection as regular schools Except in addition they have an

additional level of requirement. An outstanding school in this country

at the moment will not require further inspection, but an

outstanding faith school does so. Keeping and monitoring what's going

on inside state schools is a far better system than trying to

suddenly push it away. If we stopped having faith education in this

country through the faith system, we will push it out and lint be in an

unmonitored environment. That's potentially horrific. Andrew? Ofsted

do not inspect the religious elements of favourite schools, but

rather than seeing that as a good thing as you do, I think that's a

negative thing. One of the things that the British Humanist

Association and others have been campaigning for is for off said to

examine those parts of religious schools. When I was on the religious

education council for ten years I went to see RE in lots of faith

schools and saw lots of lots of good practice but also really bad

practice. I think it is a disadvantage of state schools.

You've been sending us your texts and tweets on this.

Let's hear some of your reactions from Tommy.

Loots of people are saying how faith schools should be abolished to avoid

segregation. A few people are saying faith schools should exist just to

give parents a choice. One of the commentses that that

religion needs to be taught in all our schools? I believe that. It

should be on the curriculum in every state school. One of my objections

to state faith schools is the way the law allows them to their o their

curriculum. That's a mistake. Children need to learn about a fuel

range of religions and beliefs in an open and objective atmosphere. I

think the vast majority of schools teach a range of religions. Whether

humanism is included is a discussion for another time. It's been

highlighted this discussion about the cap is really a discussion about

whether settle there should be faith schools or not and whether that

limits the opportunities for our students and whether removing faith

schools would promote more tolerance in our society. All the evidence

suggest the opposite. You take a look at societies like France, for

example, where there are no religious faith schools. But yet

radicalism and a lack of tolerance is going through the roof. So it

isn't about removing faith schools. It's about ensuring that we have

effective education within our schools. And bad examples of that

exist within faith school systems and indeed outside of it. Those have

to be addressed, but removing opportunities is not the solution.

Jay, a final word. A short word, please. We have the best social

democracy the world has ever seen. It is necessary to promote a spirit

ideal democracy in our system. Thank you for your thoughts. It is going

to remain interesting. Keep your thoughts coming in.

Still to come on Sunday Morning Live: Alan Titchmarsh tells Tommy

about trading gardening secrets with Nelson Mandela.

He told me the story about how important plants were to him. He

said, when I was in Robben Island the prison yard I had two tomato

plants I grew in the corner. They were the only thing in my life that

I had any control over. Racism and homophobia are taken

seriously as hate crimes, but sexism is often dismissed

as "banter" or harmless. Now, Nottinghamshire Police has

become the first force in the country to record harassment

of women as a hate crime. The policy was officially launched

in May, and now could be taken up by other police forces including

Devon and Cornwall, In the first month, the force

received 21 reports of misogynistic hate crime,

which included verbal abuse, threats of violence, assault

and unwanted physical contact. What's the difference

between an admiring glance And is it the kind of behaviour that

can be policed? Tommy took to the streets

of Nottingham to see how people I'm in Nottingham where sexual

harassment is the now recorded as a hate crime. It is equal to that of

racism and homophobia. But what I want to know is do people around

here think that the likes of wolf whistling is just the banter of

merry men, or should we be taking this sort of sexism a little more

seriously. Have you ever been wolf whistled at or jeered at by guys? I

have actually. It seems inappropriate. Yes, I find it

creepy. I would rather came up to me and talked to me rather than wolf

whistling. If someone wolf whistles you it is a compliment. It gist you

a boost. It is not sexual or a hate crime. When should women take it to

as a compliment or feel it is a step too far. If they are walking past

builders and hear a wolf whistle, leave it as that. If there's more,

that's crossing the line. Sometimes they are showing off and they are

harmless but if they come up to you and don't leave you alone, that's

pretty bad. What about a grope on the bottom? That's different. You

shouldn't be touched. Should schools be doing Minister to educate guys in

particular about harassment and how to talk to women, and sexism?

Definitely, the earlier you start the better. It is all down the

parents and how people are raised as to what's acceptable and what isn't.

Has the law gone too far? In my eyes, it probably has. At the end of

the day it's a bit of fun. The police should get involved. In this

day and age everything has changed from how it was in my day,

yesteryear. How are they going to police that? If someone wolf

whistles you, you will be arrested? That's ridiculous. I've had issues

when I've been wolf whistled at and ignored and then further approached.

They come up to me and I say no. And when they don't stop, that's when it

becomes an issue. If it is intense sexual harassment, yes, but if it is

whistles, that's not as important as serious crimes that are going on at

the moment. We're joined now by

radio presenter for Talk2meradio.com Jon Gaunt, and

journalist and feminist Sarah Ditum. Also joining us down the line

from our Nottingham studio, one of the women who was at

the forefront of the campaign for classification of sexism

as a hate crime there, Nottingham Women's Centre

manager Melanie Jeffs. Thank you very much for joining us,

Melanie. Thank you. Jon, how would you define a hate crime? That's a

difficult question. The way it's defined by law, as I understand it,

if the person believes it is a hate crime, I think there's too much

emphasis on this. I think the police have many more important things to

worry about. Clearly we have laws already for racism. We have laws for

assault. Those are laws that are in place. I think this overobsession

with political correctness is just absolute nonsense. I can't define

it. This lady you have got, or the woman, should I say, maybe she can

define it. We'll all have different definitions. That's the problem in

this area. If anything it causes more trouble. I would hazard a guess

that Nottinghamshire place have more important things to do. Sarah? I'm

astonished to hear that hate crimes are so hard to define when we've

been monitoring them and surviving them for years now. For some reason

out of all of the identities that are systematically victimised, women

have been left out. We've monitored for race, religion, sexuality, if

you if you are a woman and you are attacked because you are a woman,

there hasn't been a system for registering it now. You would know,

if you had read the literature. I would love to know. Enlighten me.

I'm going to enlighten you with Melanie down the line. She's been

involved in this and working with the police have to this classified

as hate crime. What's the main point of this? This is about behaviour

that a man pert traits towards a woman because of her gender. It is

dependent on what the victim believes to be offensive and

threatening to her, or not. It is important to note that in terms of

the crimes and offences that have come through to the police so far we

haven't had one instance of wolf whistling. We've had serious sexual

assaults. Harassment, public order offences. What this has done has

given women the confidence to come forward and report things that are

already crimes but previously they felt were things they have to put up

with and deal with just because they are women. I agree with that. You

booked me today to talk about should wolf whistling be a hate crime, to

which my answer is no. Not many people do it now. I spoke to my

mates and they said what sort of winker would do that, yeah? I have

two daughters myself, but if we are go to talk about hate crimes, are we

going to look at the Muslim religion in this country, where women are

treated as second class citizens, where women go around in burkhas or

hijabs. They are the real hate crimes. Let's get real and talk

about that. If a woman has been sexually assaulted, if it were my

daughter, I would want the full weight of the law to come down. My

daughter is at Oxford University and she talks about the rape culture

there, whether it is testosterone young men who think they can get a

woman drunk and screw her. That's the real problem. I was booked

because you were telling me it was about wolf whistling and sexist

banter. All of which I don't like, it is unpleasant and it is really

unpleasant for a woman to hear and we should stop it. And we are

talking about the level of political correctness as well. Jay, this is

what we are talking about. How far do we go in our complaints and

sensitivities. We are not talking about whether it is OK for a woman

to be treated as a second class citizen or rape... Or the Labour

Party. In Birmingham in the last election, I find it sexist and

illegal and it should be stopped. This is talking about levels of

political correctness. You you have to be careful, as it disturbs the

social fabric. At the same time protect the women as thousands of

viewers suffered tremendous abuse, so it is necessary to put a

protective measure in place. I agree with that. A better way of doing

this, rather than policing it, as it is a subjective element. The way to

do this according to me would be to empower the women to stand up for

their own rights. That's what we are teaching. If you allow that to

happen, then the pendulum will swing the other way. You may think women

are always down trodden, but if you do a survey in this country and see

who is ruling the roost in the home, in every home in England, you will

find it's the women. The reason is simple... That is simply not the

same thing as having political power and that is no recommend on pence

for the fact that two of us are murdered every week because we are

women. The easiest way to empower women to stand up, to stand their

ground. That's the best way of reacting. Cristina, there is also

the issue of men experiencing sexism. Should they be afforded the

same protections? We have to recognise that it can be really

unpleasant to be a woman standing on a very busy tube and somebody

presses against you. You just think, OMG, what do I do? Horrendous. It

can be very unpleasant to be a man who because he is a man gets a slap

on the bottom, or a wolf whistle. All of that can be unpleasant.

Unpleasant, but should it be cat gorised as a crime? We have to step

pack and say, I have a 13-year-old daughter, I want her to be able to

take the tube on her own and for her to be able to navigate that very

difficult path that is being in a crowded tube with lots of men going

into the City while she goes to her school, and feel that she knows how

to react. Absolutely. What we are talking about with monitoring

misogyny as a hate crime is if a woman is sexually assaulted on the

tube the police are able to record it as a hate crime. I'm just talking

about somebody pressing against you... But that's irrelevant to the

Nottingham initiative. It isn't about criminalising people being a

bit smutty and sexist in public. It is about when a crime happens

perpetrated by a man fence a woman that is specifically because she is

female, it is about registering the hate crime aspect of that. You can

register it as a hate crime, but what we have to be careful of, there

is now a mood among young people to create safe spaces in universities

which means that nothing can happen that could possibly offend anybody.

Let's not pretend to ourselves that streets can become like that. That's

what the Nottingham... Melanie, we're talking about whether

women feel more confident in reporting these crimes. Is this part

of this initiative? If I can pick up the point about women needing to be

empowered, it is worrying when you start to put the emphasis on the

women and say that they need to deal with it. But having this in place,

women have told me it makes them feel like they have this in their

back pocket and they can stand taller in the street because they

know that if they need to use it, they can do. But it is not always

safe to do that. In terms of the points made about wolf whistling,

remember that every single wolf whistle reminds a woman of her

position as a piece of public property in the street for men to

look at and judge. Even if women... You are mixing really serious crimes

with something as light and frivolous as a wolf whistle. By

doing that, you are belittling the point. It is like Emily Thornbury

getting an Sky News and not being able to answer to the French Foreign

Minister was. And then she said to the newscaster, you're sexist. That

is exactly the kind of thing we should be getting away from. The

initiative is not helping. But we do not have these discussions when we

are talking about race or homophobia. For some reason women

have always been taught that they have to deal with this. This is the

backdrop of your lives from the moment you are nine or ten, until

you are so old that you are invisible so why is it so difficult

for us to stand up and give women the confidence to walk through the

streets without being judged by men? We do have those discussions. And I

have been doing phone in radio for 30 years. Things have got better for

the groups she talked about and rightly so. I am a father of two

daughters and I want them to be treated fairly. We have a mayor in

London who has banned pictures of scantily dressed women on the tube.

It is just nonsense. We're not living in Saudi Arabia. We all

objectify sometimes, not me, but we objectify other people and their

figures. Later a member the Pepsi-Cola advert, I know there is a

paladin going on here because men are traditionally in charge, but it

is a change in politics and rightly so. -- a power thing going on here.

And there is a change in politics with the Ukip leader being a woman

and Nicola what surname. I want a meritocracy and I want women to get

on but let's keep it in perspective. You're not want to carry an injury

because some moron does a wolf whistle. Most people, men included,

and I live in the real world with working-class men, they tell me that

they would go mad if they saw another blog do that because they

think they are idiots. -- another bloke do that. Tommy, I imagine lots

of reaction on Twitter? It has gone crazy. Many agree that harassment is

a crime. Sally says, enough is enough, of

course sexism is a hate crime. Is that what it is? Stewart's

comment, saying that we raised... We raised our eyebrows at that. To

imagine that there is any equality in a society where as a woman you go

on TV and I will certainly go on Twitter and have monstrous comments

about the way I look, in a way that you guys will not get. I will be

judged on my appearance and presentation and things will be

found wanting about me because I am female. To say there is no issue

with sexism in society where every time a woman wants to enter public

life, to the extent of leaving your house, you have to confront that.

Neither one of us said that this is not an issue. To say that endemic

street level harassment is not a problem is crazy. It is a problem. I

am saying, let's not try to legislate to create this nirvana of

a safe street. But we're not legislating against that stuff,

we're talking about making the connection between misogynistic

demotivated acts of violence, recording them and seeing a pattern,

and being able... Your definition of an act of violence is too wide

ranging. I have not defined wolf whistling as an act of violence. I

have faith in womankind. They are coming back in force, with

vengeance. I am more worried about the role of men in society in days

to come. Thank you so much. Melanie, thank you so much as well.

Most of us will know Alan Titchmarsh as the driving force

of the television gardening world who taught us how to plant petunias

and nurture our seedlings, but nowadays, he's equally well

known to some as a writer of raunchy romantic novels.

Tommy went to meet Alan to talk about flowers, faith

What a phenomenal career you have had, four decades in the business

and countless books. Where does the drive and ambition come from? I

don't know. I get told off, will you sit down?! I am generally interested

in things, I am not a workaholic, I am a fan of stimulations. I am keen

and I have been lucky to try lots of different things. I got sidetracked

in horticultural journalism, then radio and TV and other areas. It has

been a case of is somebody says, would you like to have a crack at

that, and I think, all right. If I think I can do it or it will be

interesting, I will have a go. You are seen as a bit of a national

treasure. Do you feel like one? I am not a national institution, I should

be in one! I am very flattered when people say that. Grounds Force, a

phenomenon of a show. 12 million people watched it in its heyday. Is

that the moment when you thought, my word, I am big-time and I have made

it. I have been on television for 17 years, so I was used to the odd

person saying hello. But when Ground Force went out on BBC Two, they

moved it to BBC One because it was too popular. It was the Great

British Bake Off of its day. It moves to BBC One and suddenly almost

everybody in the street knew me and said hello. To change lives, which I

profoundly believe a garden can do, is a great delight. When you look

back on those years, and the things that you achieved, what stands out

as a highlight? Was it flying the Spitfire? Was it doing Nelson

Mandela's Garden? That was a real highlight. Tonight we are travelling

to South Africa because this garden is for someone a bit special. We

went there and we made a garden for Madiba, and we said, can you get him

back for five o'clock on day three. And they said, he is in Washington

with President Clinton, so we will try. At five o'clock that day, the

motorcade came down the road, and my heart was going like crazy. He came

out of the corner and it was lovely. He had the most quiet, enormous

charisma. Grace, he had. He told me the story about how important plants

were to him. And he said, when I was in Robben Island, the prison yard, I

had two tomato plants that I grew in the corner, and it was the only

thing in my life I had any control of, nothing else. And I watered them

and one of them started to die. It died and eventually I give it a

burial because it was so important to me. I said, I will look after

this garden for as long as I can. Absolutely lovely. The writing, you

are seen as a popular romantic fiction writer. Is that because

there is a romantic in you? Are you quite dramatic at home? When I

started writing fiction in 1998, I did not know what sort of fiction

writer I would be, I just knew I wanted to tell a story. And I wrote

it down. And then, or crumbs, I think I am a romantic novelist. It

is often used as a pejorative term but actually it is what life is

about. It is the substance and staff of life. My new book is about a

middle-aged man. It is interesting because I started off with a 30 hero

in my first novel and I am now writing about mid 50s. I am lying

about my age now. I have suddenly realised that my heroes have grown

up with me and I now write about older men. Let's talk about your

faith. You were acquired by, a bell ringer in the church. The church,

still an important part of your life? It is a strong part of my

life. I was a choir boy, church twice on Sunday and Sunday school.

And then I left and went to college. And then you realise, actually, for

me it has been the bedrock of my life in a very quiet way. I am not

remotely evangelical or a tub thumper but I try and live by

example in a way. But not in a holier than thou way. My faith gives

me an enormous solace. I pray every day. Every night. Because it is part

of who I am. But I don't feel the need to ram it down folks throats. I

think that is off-putting. Like what I do, gardening, I want to show

people how lovely it is without telling them that they really need

to do it. I seldom talk about it. That is the same way I feel about my

face. I believe strongly, and it has got me through some things. But that

is enough. It sounds like you use your garden and gardening to remind

yourself of where you belong and how you fit into everything. Entirely.

Does it keep you in check? It gives me a sense of balance and

proportion. It reminds you that you are just a tiny little cog. You

might be on the telly and all that, but I don't feel like that. Not

shortly. I do go out every morning and open the curtains and look out

and I look at one and a look at my topiary, and I walk around the back

into the wild flower meadow. Everyday, several times a day.

Without it, I would shrivel. That is life for me. That is it and that is

what makes me happy. And fulfilled. And content. The titillating Alan

Titchmarsh. -- titillating. Taking cannabis for medical reasons

should be made legal, The All Party Parliamentary Group

for Drug Policy Reform wants the Home Office to reclassify herbal

cannabis under existing drug laws, putting it in the same category

as steroids and sedatives. This would mean doctors could

prescribe cannabis to patients, Patients might even be allowed

to grow limited amounts of cannabis At the moment, anyone

using the drug, even for medical reasons,

could be charged for possession. The NHS warns that cannabis use

carries a number of risks, including harm to mental health,

fertility or unborn babies. The Government has also

stated there are no plans But is it time to change how

we think about drugs and move towards a more

relaxed attitude like some Do the benefits of medical

cannabis outweigh the risks? Our final discussion -

should cannabis be legalised? We're joined now by

Baroness Molly Meacher, co-chair of the All Party

Parliamentary Group And we are re-joined

by Andrew Copson of the British We're also joined down the line

from our Glasgow studio by Professor Neil McKeganey,

founder of the Centre for Drug Misuse at the

University of Glasgow. Molly, you co-chaired this group.

What prompted the report? I think an increasing awareness that across the

world, the Western world, cannabis for medical use has been legalised

because the evidence base is now very, very strong indeed. So we

commissioned Professor Mike Barnes to do a review of all the research

undertaken across the world on the benefits of medicinal cannabis and

also the side-effects, and his report came out on Tuesday along

with our enquiry report, showing again, very clearly, that for

chronic pain, things like arthritis in particular, there is now a good

evidence base across the world that medicinal cannabis works. Also for

nausea, for the horrible side-effects one can get from

chemotherapy, if you have cancer for example. Patients at the moment risk

going to the illegal drug dealers and getting the wrong kind of

cannabis, which is bad for them. When talking to people in chronic

pain this is off an last resort after having exhausted other medical

areas. Cristina, should it be legalised to alleviate this pain?

Medical cannabis. I can't bear the thought of Andrew being in pain. He

is going to discuss how his arthritis could be alleviated by

smoking weed. However... Not smoking weed, if I may put it correctly.

Using marijuana. Using medicinal cannabis. I'm sorry, we have to get

it right. Medicines made from... The problem is cannabis is there's a lot

of evidence that's been surfacing saying it leads to depression and

anxiety, it alters the mind so much that young people doing weed can do

all sorts of stuff they wouldn't do... We are not talking about young

people smoking weed. No, what we are saying is let's legalise a used for

cannabis. The problem with that is we are saying that at some level

cannabis is no longer considered as dangerous or as toxic as it is now.

Let's talk to Professor Neil McKeganey in Glasgow. You work at

the centre for substance use research and you've seen this

report. We've been talking about the effect of substance use. What are

your conclusions and reaction to this report? Well, I think the

report should have a health warning, as is the case for many reports they

tend to be written with an agenda in mind. This is a report which is

chaired by individuals who favour drugs decriminalisation and it

underplays some of the harms. It acknowledges for example that one in

10 people may become dependent on cannabis but skates over and doesn't

mention at all that figure goes up to 17% if you start to use cannabis

in your teenage years, and one in two if you are using cannabis every

day. So there are serious harms associated with cannabis. I'm wary

actually of any policy which might result in much wider use of the

drug. The report is good in calling for more research but it is rather

incautious in advocating that home-grown cannabis should be

allowed. You can't have it both ways really. You can't say we need more

research to find the evidence and then leap to a policy recommendation

which favours wide-spread use of the drug, or the drug being grown

legally in people's homes. It is incautious but it is value in its

acknowledgement that we need more research. Andrew? My view is more

general. I wasn't going to talk about, thank for Cristina for outing

me as an arthritis sufferer. I'm sorry. Not at all, although I'm

interested in the report's suggestions. I think that for the

medical use, the case is pretty clear cut. I think if cannabis

weren't used as a recreational drug but had been developed in a lab or

in some other way for its therapeutic use it would be

prescribed right now. Its use as a recreational drug is what people

think is the problem. More generally, obviously I take a

humanist view of public ethical issues, I want to look at the

science and the Ed. But in relation to the drugs we should think about

what the law is for. I think the only justifiable reason to take

someone's freedom away by law is to prevent them doing harm to others. I

think that in relation to our drugs law we have to ask, are we using the

law in a responsible way or are we taking people's freedom away because

we don't like what they might do with it, these things are taboo? I

have smoked marijuana many times in my youth and taken our drugs as

well. I think all drugs are ridiculous. But who am I to stop

somebody if they are in pain and they think it helps them? But I

think the law is probably OK where it is. I don't think, if I wanted to

go and get marijuana now, I don't know about you, madam, I can go and

get it like this. I know my daughter could get it like that. I don't

think we need to change the law or decriminalise it. I think the chap

in Edinburgh is right, we need to look at more research into it. When

you think about some of the drugs the big pharms give us, we have to

be careful about slagging off cannabis which is a naturally

occurring substance. We need a level playing field here. It is one of

these arguments where people go on about drugs, let's change the

policy, and we are going to criminalise somebody suffering with

arthritis. When was the last time somebody with arthritis was wheeled

into a court and prosecuted for smoking dope or making a dope cake?

Answer? Never. It is not going to happen, mate. You don't need to

worry about it. The point being if you need access or want access to

cannabis, it is accessible. It is accessible from illegal drug

dealerses who will sell you cannabis with high levels of THC, the active

ingredient. And that particular cannabis will be extremely bad for

you if you have certain conditions. It may be reasonably good for you if

you have certain other conditions, but anyway you are risking arrest.

There are people in prison today for possession and use of cannabis.

Actually it does happen if you are repeatedly caught. What about the

defence of using it for medical reasons and they've gone to prison?

Yes. You can point to cases can you? Look... Forgive me. I've done this

debate for 30 years. I don't think there is anybody. Can you point to

somebody who is in prison who was taking it for medicinal reasons.

Surely you must know someone. You know a number of patients who are

taking cannabis for medicinal cannabis. Lara, who was on the

Victoria Derbyshire show, she is going to the Netherlands, because

that's the only way she can get the cannabis legally. I don't know all

these people. So you don't know anyone. Of course I don't know

everyone. It is much more important. Let Molly finish her point. It is

very important that very, very sick people like Lara, who uses, what do

you call them... Sorry. Crutches. She uses crutches. She has to use to

the Netherlands four times a year with letters from the Border Agency

and MRHA to get a prescription here, go to the Netherlands, get a

prescription there and travel back in order to control some of her

pain. She's in such appalling pain that it is impossible to control her

pain. She was prescribed 34 different medications before she

ever tried cannabis. Neil, you are listening and you want to respond.

Neil? I do think we should be very careful before advocating medical

cannabis to be made available. In the United States those states that

have legalised medical cannabis have more medical cannabis outlets than

Starbucks, McDonald's and seven 11s combined. They've seen an explosion

in medical cannabis retail outlets. That's the anxiety here, that once

you attach the label that it is a medical treatment that can be much

more widely available, it leaks out much more widely than you ever

control into recreational use. That's why we do need the barriers

to be in place. We shouldn't relax them, even though I absolutely

accept we need more research. I'm intrigued as to what our viewers are

thinking. Tommy? A lot of people are agreeing, saying it should be time

to legalise cannabis for medical reasons. Some have expressed

concerns over the health impact and how it is legislated.

Andrew? All I was going to say when Molly was speaking, the point that

George Osborne was making illustrates the hop oxy of the

situation, rather It's the same where I live. There are people

smoking cannabis on the street. I sometimes get stoned on my way to

the bus! The law is widely flouted. If we allow that to happen, they are

not good laws. If we are not willing to police a law that we have,

perhaps we should think about a case for change. We have Chief

Constables... Sorry, I did let you finish. We have police Chief

Constables who've unilaterally decided to legalise cannabis. But

you were arguing that that's a good thing. It is no a Chief Constable's

role to do that. I'm going to end this conversation, because time is

always against us. That's just about all

from us for today. Many thanks to all our guests

and to you for taking part. Wednesday 21st September

is UN World Peace Day - a global day of ceasefire

and reconciliation which was championed by the non-profit

organisation Peace One Day. Here, singing us out

with their anthem for 2016 - "I Wish" - is X Factor

star Jahmene Douglas. You are really going to enjoy it.

Have a good day. # I wish that this

world was one world # I wish that love

ruled on this earth # That everyone would try to take

some time to show some kindness # That every life would be a life

that knows no loneliness # And I wish that all of us

could live in a world # I know it's just a dream,

but I wish this could be # But only faith can help us

through these troubled times # I wish that this

world was one world # I wish that love

ruled on this earth # And I wish that there

would be no wars # And I wish that no-one

had to hurt no more # And I wish that everyone can see

only love is worth fighting for # And I wish that all of us

could live in a world # And I know it's just a dream,

but I wish this could be