Episode 18 Sunday Morning Live

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

As their aircraft bomb Yemen, we ask should the UK stop selling

We discuss the cake the bakers didn't want to bake because it

There's six million CCTV cameras in Britain -

are they all for our security or to snoop on us?

And, Richard Coles, the popstar who became a vicar,

tells Hardeep Singh Kohli how his fame didn't impress everyone.

I went into a primary school to say hello to the children. A little boy

came up to me and said, you are the new vicar, I said, yes, he said he

was in that band, and I said, yes, and he said, that was my Nan's

favourite band. -- you was. Our panel is here -

and so is Tommy Sandhu who'll be You can contact us by

Facebook and Twitter - don't forget to use

the hashtag #bbcsml. Standard geographic

charges from landlines Texts will be charged

at your standard message rate. Email us at

[email protected]. Nick Ferrari is a journalist

and broadcaster. Peter Tatchell is a human

rights campaigner. Michael Stephens is a research

fellow for Middle East Studies at the Royal United Services Institute

and Angela Epstein is Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition

which is carrying out bombing raids on Yemen,

one of the Arab world's The Campaign Against

Arms Trade claims that, since bombing began in spring last

year, the UK has sold more than ?3 billion worth

of arms to Saudi Arabia. The UN says some ten thousand people

have been killed in the civil war there and that half

of the 28 million population Here, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

said this week that we should stop supplying the Saudis,

pending further investigations. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson

responded that if Britain were to call a halt,

other countries would "happily supply arms' without the close

monitoring the UK applies". So - should the UK sell

arms to Saudi Arabia? 18 months of civil war in Yemen,

thousands of deaths, countless casualties and half

a nation short of food - should the UK be selling

arms to Saudi Arabia? The first thing to note is that

actually the aircraft the Saudis are using at the moment a bomb Yemen all

American supplied. The typhoons we have sold them over the last 15

years have been seen as unfit for the types of missions that need to

fly. The amount of impact we have had in terms of targeting civilian

infrastructure, air strikes that the Saudis have been rightly criticised

for, is not mostly with our equipment. ?3 billion worth of

equipment. They have been firing missiles into their territory. You

can say it is ridiculous, but I talk to the Saudis, they are not using

typhoons, it is the American-made equipment. Does the war need to come

to an end? Yes, it does. Saudis are being criticised for it. We don't

want to be part of that but we need to have a conversation with the

Saudis about how to bring this to an end and how to do this in a way that

reassures them because they feel very insecure. What would it mean if

we suspended this? Apart from the immediate fallout from a civil war

there, we have to look at how Saudi Arabia, in the land of the blind one

eyed man is king, it is unstable there, in broad and general terms,

but Saudi Arabia seems to be the only nation state which has made

some sort of stand about taking initiative about terrorism and

having a counterterrorism project. In terms of Britain, we need to have

some sort of allegiance there. Any kind of war situation there are

casualties. It is more than regrettable, it is heartbreaking.

But we have to believe, I'm not an expert, but I have to believe that

as a British citizen, when our PM and Foreign Secretary secretary say

that we are applying rigorous criteria to make sure it is

compliant with human rights, and they make sure countries we sell

arms to do not violate any humanitarian criteria, we have to

believe that. Putting aside your political views. The government says

Saudi Arabia's internal enquiries into their bombing campaign are

slow. I went to see a therapist last week because I found myself with

Jeremy Corbyn against Boris Johnson. I have a piece of paper saying I'm

not mad. Essentially, there are two magazines. First, the incredible

bravery of the editor of The Times this week who put a picture on the

front page of that young women. I wonder if she is still alive. She is

18. Other media have not run it. Credit to the BBC for running it. As

a former deputy editor, it is your shop window. You don't normally put

things on front pages that will shock people. It shocked me. I did

it on the radio show. Lots of people got involved. This is a woman who

was emaciated in hospital bed. 18 years old. Clinging to life.

Effectively, an image from a holocaust, but she has a dark skin.

That is your view is a sense of what it is. It is brutal. Inside the

paper, there were more hideous pictures. Your argument, Michael, is

effectively saying, we sell than the guns but we don't sell them the

bullets. It does not work. You are too young, but some of your viewers

will remember Biafra. Most of your viewers will remember live aid. I

cannot, for the life of me, work out why there was not the same ground

swell of this sort of suffering. Your response? Since the 1920s when

the Saudis first invaded Yemen there has not been a decade in which it

has not seen some type of war. Since 1994 when the country was brought

back together it has been a war every single year. The Saudis have

made a disastrous calculation in terms of alienating the former

president. He is in control of what is happening now. They have printed

this out as this kind of war against Iran. But they need to be dealing

with a failed political process from 2011. You are right. There was a

humanitarian catastrophe. There has been one for the last 20 years. It

is something the Saudis need to do more. We can help in that

conversation. Our continued pressure, and we need to do that

with an ally and say, come on, you need to be thinking about these

issues and not just talking about the Iranians. Many people have

mentioned Britain's apparent hypocrisy where Britain is vocal

about what is happening with Russia with its relationship with Syria,

that Yemen is almost a forgotten crisis. Absolutely. The war crimes

that have been committed are comparable. We must remember that

Philip Hammond, when he was Foreign Secretary, admitted that Britain is

actively aiding the Saudis in Yemen. We are actively helping them pursue

their industry minute bombing of schools, hospitals, markets, and so

on. That is abetting a war crime which is illegal under international

human rights law, so we must stop supplying those arms. --

indiscriminate bombing. I hope more people will sign the petition to

stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia. The vast British public don't want

our country to be associated with criminal acts by the Saudis or

anybody else. Do you think there is amoral interest here? -- a moral

interest you? You are wise. You will know Boris Johnson is right, if we

stop selling them, somebody else will pick up the flak. That's the

problem. Some people watching this show right now, their jobs depend on

it. We can say, we will take the pain. We are not going to take any

part in watching any more of those images. I think you said half the

nation is starving, or on the verge of hunger, and we are doing nothing.

We are aiding and abetting in a way. But you are right, somebody else

will sell the stuff if we don't. But you are saying, we are committing a

crime because somebody else would. Yeah. These are crimes under

international law. I agree. We should have no part of it, even if

others do, because it destroys our credibility. How, condemn aside and

Russia if we are doing a similar scale attack on civilians in Yemen?

-- how can we condemn Assad and Russia. It is the counter. -- a

national newspaper can put a highly inflammatory, setting aside the

emotional response to that, and inflammatory photograph. It is like

a terrible photograph of the baby who died being pulled out of the

sea. One of the Syrian refugees. Is it inflammatory, or is it true? We

never no context, do we? We see the picture, we don't see the mosaic. I

am not suggesting there was not devastation, starvation, and an

abyss of human suffering happening in Yemen. People should be inflamed.

Absolutely. I understand. These children are dying in their beds. I

understand when you talk about the Holocaust imagery. As a Jewish girl,

you know, they made the German troops parade after these camps were

liberated for people to see what a government had proactively initiated

in order to annihilate a whole people. This is warfare. There is no

such thing as competitive suffering. One drop of blood is not any less

painful than somebody else's. To bring it back to the politics. We

have to have phrase-macro and belief in our political leaders. People may

sneer at that. -- we have to have faith. After Iraq? I made a cheap

jibe at Jeremy Corbyn. But if our government holds itself up as a

government that deploys rigorous criteria to ensure there is

compliance with what is defined as a war crime, what is defined as going

against a humanitarian situation. It is easy to have a knee jerk response

and say we take moral high ground. As soon as we see one of these but

lynching photographs. I'm just a layperson, I'm not an expert in

Middle Eastern studies. -- got wrenching photographs. I have to

believe that the government will do what they say. How much influence is

the government exerting, is it enough to push this water a proper

finish, rather than the suffering we are seeing now? -- push this war to

a proper finish. There have been a lot of frank discussions with the

Saudis. The initial discussion from those in the analytical community

came when Isis exploded onto the scene in 2014. The Saudis were so

distracted with Iran we were saying to them, come on, this is the major

problem, can you move your aircraft into Syria to help us? And they said

their biggest problem was Yemen. A big fault line open. We had to have

serious conversations... I am talking about influence. But his

influence. You have to get them into the room to talk to them... Do they

listen? That is it, do they listen? One thing I want to stress is that

war is coming in Yemen. Everybody following Yemen could see it was

happening. The war was going to come to pass the cost of fracture risk,

domestic politics. When the Saudis got involved there was an

expectation from their side that their Western allies would be with

them. -- because of the fracture -- fracture

it has always been difficult for us to influence them. The bottom line

is, Saudi Arabia is an autocratic regime. It has suppressed peace

processes. We have to decide which side we are on. I'm not on the side

of the Saudis. Cutting all military aid to the collusion with war crime.

There is more than one argument and more than one opinion. I want to

know what our viewers think. You've been sending us your texts

and tweets on this. Let's hear some of your

reactions from Tommy. Lots of people saying they are

against us selling arms to Saudi Arabia, saying it is fuelling a

humanitarian crisis and accusing the government of putting greed before

morality. This, it echoes Peter -- this comment echoes Peter's.

Peter is agreeing with what Nick is saying.

Poignant messages. What is your reaction to that, Angela? It comes

back to my earlier point. I have the greatest respect for everybody's

opinion on this. But the moral high ground and the response to, as I

say, inflammatory or terrible images, sometimes smoke screen is

what is happening there. Add in terms of how a situation can be

resolved. Will we have blood on our hands? There are a rebel forces

fighting. If we withdraw somebody else will fill the pockets of the

Saudis and provide the arms needed. That war will continue anyway. If

there is some chance the British government can provide weaponry in a

way that can somehow be regimented, and can somehow be assessed in a

sense that will offer some kind of break... I mean it is easy to shake

your head and say no. But what else is one supposed to do? You have to

have some belief in the government in terms of doing what it says. You

have a wonderful, naive faith in government when you note that recent

governments on so many issues ranging from the Iraq war. I take

that You are naive, given the fact that

on Iraq and Heathrow in recent years, we have seen politicians tell

us one thing and do something different, I do not see where you

have such incredible faith in government. We know what is

happening in Yemen. Conversations are happening and I have sat in some

of them and there is a lot of frustration with the war in Yemen

and relationship with Saudi Arabia. The point is when we first signed

these big arms deals in the 1980s and 1990s, Saudi Arabia was not

feeling insecure because Iran was so powerful and going into Bahrain,

which I believed in and Yemen, we had six wars. We have to think about

how to manage that relationship. Everybody's talking and children are

starving to death, a nation, half of them, on famine. Is this blue -- is

this too profitable and governments have to accept having blood on their

hands because that is the nature of international relations? David said

we have to stop selling weapons, that is ridiculous, it earns this

country a lot of money in tax and pays a lot of salaries and they are

legitimate, we cannot stop them all. We cannot pretend to be a high

priest of moral authority if we continue to be seen with our hands

involved in this. So in other words there has to be

some kind of criteria or barometer by which you measure who you sell to

and who you do not. Hang on a second stop ' you license who you sell your

knives too. Of course you do, you are arguing against the point. May

I? You are saying, with the greatest of respect, we cannot unilaterally

dissolve the arms industry. You can sell to some people. All animals are

equal but some more equal than others. So you are saying there has

to be a criteria in order to decide who you sell arms to. I am saying

these criteria allegedly exist although Peter says I am naive for

believing that. Final response, time is pushing gone. Final response, I

go back to, I see what Peter says about the politicians. I would refer

everyone to be images carried on the BBC and in the Times last week that

I should be driving the discussion. As they talk, more children will

have died. The point we go away with is this is an emotive discussion and

people had been affected, thank you very much. And keep your comments

coming in, keep involved. Still to come on

Sunday Morning Live: Celebrating Diwali,

the Hindu Festival Not many country vicars can boast

of being a chart topping popstar. In fact, only one can -

the Reverend Richard Coles. He was part of the group

the Communards with Jimmy They split up, and Richard's life

subsequently took a very different direction and he became a man

of the cloth. He was the inspiration for the BBC

television series 'Rev' and co-presents Radio

4's 'Saturday Live'. For Sunday Morning Live,

Hardeep Singh Kohli # Baby! My heart is full of love and

desire for you... # So come down and do what you've

got to do... You are the only figure in the written to have a number one

pop hit, what makes you happier, being in the pulpit or Top of the

Pops? When I came here five or six years ago, I went into a primary

school my first day to say hello to the children and a little boy went,

you are the new vicar! I said, yes. He said, you was in that band. I

said, yes. He said, that was my grandma's favourite band! It was so

long ago that I forget it was me somehow. I remember hearing your

younger brother referring to you as being uncomfortable in your skin

early in life. What were your identity crises and issues? I think

realising he was gay is always a big deal, especially then because it was

such a less tolerant and inclusive world -- I was gay. Just being a

teenager and adolescent. A surge of hormones and the horrors of puberty

were tough. How did the success of the

Communards change you? You know that thing where people win the Lottery

and they go on the news and they say, will it change you? They say,

no, and they get a helicopter! It was a huge life changer. It took me

immediately away from the circumstances I was in and it

contributed to that great cultural change that happens in the 1980s.

Especially around things like sexuality and gender. That was very

exciting to be part of that. # Never can say goodbye... Talk me

through the Communards ceasing to be and your road to Damascus. When it

got to be under my 20s, I crashed and burned in the way you expect pop

stars to do. And I sensed there were questions I wished to ask or the

form. And the resources I had to hand were insufficient for that. I

would happily live in this materialist world until then. I grew

up in a Church as a chorister, but I never believed in it at all, I was a

confirmed atheist from eight, nine. But I liked the feel of it, I liked

being in churches and chapels and cathedrals, I sensed they were

places of rich reflection. Was it a moment or was it gradual? There was

a moment I went to Church for the first time and I was sitting in a

pew and at the altar, these mysterious guys dressed in this

stuff were doing things with bits of bread and wine and there was incense

and music. And they rang a bell and something was stirred... It was not

a stir, it was a break. And I just lost it, actually. I recognise what

was happening. It was the answer to my question and the fulfilment of my

hope. It was there, I was just hungry, I was famished. And he was

food. In your book, you talk a lot about the order and the shape of the

Church calendar, what is it about the order that you like and you

value? We are no longer orient it the place and time as we once were

and one thing I love about the Church as it has a keen sense of

that. Christmas and Easter, most people are aware of in some way or

another and that does punctuate the year. But for the Church, we have

other things. Corpus Christi, Michaelmas. These things people do

not remember or recognise. Harvest festival in the village where we

used to live, the first farmer would break the harvest loaf and we would

have a harvest supper in that traditional way. In this Church, our

harvest festival is a collection of nonperishable is for the food bank.

But I like that sense of being rooted in the passing of the

seasons. You were one of the consultants on

that hit BBC sitcom Rev. Do you think it was important to show as

the programme did the warts and all side of being a priest? Yes, if

clergy appear on television, it is a sitcom caricature. That is fine and

very funny but it does not begin to approach the reality of our

existence, which is one of grain and texture and light and shade and

success and failure. Tom Hollander who played the main character Adam

took time to watch me doing stuff, the sort of pick-up the kind of

authentic stuff that we do. What was interesting about that for me was

that it wasn't just the stuff I showed him, it was the stuff I

didn't realise I showed him that was interesting. Particularly scrounging

cigarettes from the homeless round the back of Church which is a habit

of mine. I hadn't noticed that until Tom reflected on it.

You have never seen God but you believe in him. I see God every day,

everywhere, I see God in these butterflies, I see God in that crisp

packet. You see God in that )? OK, maybe not ). You are a former pop

star, we are in a Church. In the words of Tiffany, I think we are all

over now. I would like to finish this interview singing with you a

song by the Communards. That is fine by me. If you read, I will follow.

# Don't really this way. # I can't survive.

# I can't stay alive. He has still got it, Reverend Richard Coles.

The Rev Richard Coles talking to Hardeep.

Now, there was a big fuss about baking a cake this

week, and it had nothing to do with the final

On Monday, the Christian owners of a bakery in Northern Ireland lost

an appeal against a ruling that their refusal to make

a cake bearing the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage'

I am relieved and very grateful to the Court of Appeal for the

judgment. Gay marriage is illegal

in Northern Ireland, but the bakers, the McArthurs -

at Ashers in Belfast - refused to provide the cake

because they believed the slogan contradicted their

religious beliefs. We have served Mr Lee before and we

would be happy to serve him again. The judges accepted that we did not

know Mr Lee was gay and he was not the reason we declined the order.

So are the McArthurs stirring things up, or do they have a point that

businesses shouldn't be forced to propagate messages

Do religious beliefs have a place in business?

Joining us for this discussion is the academic and author

Playwright and novelist Bonnie Greer.

Legal commentator and journalist Joshua Rozenberg.

And down the line from Belfast is John O'Doherty, Director

To go back to the start of this case in May 2014,

was it the 'Christian thing to do' for the McArthurs to refuse

to bake the cake saying Support Gay Marriage?

Thing is that the McArthurs believe it was, it was. I would say that

whatever you do, do it on the Lord. The Bible talks about if you are a

slave, you'd be a slave to Christ, you serve your master as though you

are serving Christ. So their bread-making outfit, cake making

outfit is worshipping God to them, it is a part of their walking in

faith and truth and light. So living their faith in the world and in

accordance with their conscience, they did not want to make a cake

that had the slogan on it. That was a sin against their conscience, they

believed, and they did not feel it was right to do that. Joshua, at

your opinion on the court's break to uphold the initial ruling? I think

the court was right, we all support religious freedom and freedom to

practise our religion. We all support equal treatment for

minorities. In this particular case, the two writes clashed and you have

to say, how far do you go? The human rights convention Article nine is

very clear. Everybody has the right to freedom of thought, conscience

and religion, but freedom to manifesto religion has to be subject

to the rights of others. In this case Gareth Lee, he wanted that

cake. Ashers said they would make a bespoke and custom-made cake for

anybody, give us a slogan and we print it. The problem was on this

occasion, they were not prepared to serve their customer and they were

found to be discriminating against Gareth Lee on the grounds of his

sexual orientation. I know you followed this case carefully, Peter,

and your opinion has changed. Take me through that. I initially

supported the judgment against Ashers for the reasons Joshua

outlined. They advertise that they would make a cake with any image or

message that the customer chose. And when macro came along and he asked

for the message Support Gay Marriage, they refused. That was a

breach of contract. But on balance, I think quite clearly, it would have

been wrong for Ashers to refuse to serve Gareth Lee because he was gay.

But they didn't do that. They refused to provide the message he

wanted. Support Gay Marriage. They were discriminating an idea, not a

person, that is a very important distinction. The invocation of this

judgment is that a gay baker could be forced under legal sanctions to

decorate a cake with the message, oppose gay marriage. Or stop gay

rights. And you could imagine a Muslim extremist might go to a

Christian baker and say, I want this cake decorated with the message

Christians are infidels. Or, there is no god but Allah. And Christians

must repent and turn to Islam. In those scenarios, it would not be

right to force the baker to print those messages. It is interesting

how much religious belief should influence business.

I respect them. I was raised Roman Catholic. Very much raised in a

Christian tradition. But I value most secular society. Secularisation

actually protect our freedom. Protects us from fighting one

another. As far as the slogan is concerned, what was put on that cake

was a slogan. And I think it was normal for the court to say this is

a slogan and if you oppose it you go into discrimination. An ordinary

person will see the slogan and see it as a slogan. These people decided

it violated their beliefs. Then you have to question how far do we go in

terms of a belief? If we are in a society with people with different

beliefs, and they can range from anything, if they turn our civil

society, in which we have a relationship and code with one

another, then we have strayed into different waters. People forget that

this country fought two civil wars about religion. We don't ever want

to go back into territories again. The law protects us. It protects us

from hate speech and protects us from people standing up and saying,

I believe this and you can't do that. I think it is very important.

I want to bring in John O'Doherty at this point,

You have been listening to the opinions being expressed this

morning. Gay marriage currently is not legal in Northern Ireland. Take

the religious beliefs aside, isn't there a conflict, expecting a bakery

to support something which is not legal? Two reported things. -- two

the important things. The Bakers are now not required to make this cake.

No business. They provided a service which was a free service in terms of

their requirements, and no messages, no policies, had to follow a line in

order to be printed. The decision to go ahead was discrimination. Four

judges have agreed with that position. In terms of stating that

printers are somehow promoting a message by printing it is a very

difficult and dangerous position to take within the law. Most printers

across the UK would disagree with that position. When it comes to the

issue of equal marriage, there has been coverage in terms of the

Ashers' judgment. Very little across the UK about the fact that our First

Minister in Northern Ireland has stated that for the next five years

she is going to veto equal marriage despite the majority of people in

Northern Ireland supporting its introduction. Unfortunately I don't

think the Ashers is the right judgment.

What is your response? This is about the conscience of a particular

family owning a particular business. It isn't about printers of the

majority of them. This is concerning people for whom this caused them,

would have caused them to sin against their conscience. You

mentioned Civil War. The civil War was to do away with totalitarian

notions of government. There is good quality, social justice and

equality, there is bad equality. -- there is good equality. This moves

towards quality tyranny. I have to thank god for a group like the

Christian Institute who have defended the MacArthur family to the

tune of ?200,000. Now they are going to be charged for about ?88,000 in

costs. This is a massive David and Goliath thing going on. We lose this

liberty at our peril. Peter understands that. His sitting here

symbolically is far more important than any words I can after. We won't

get into an argument about Civil War because that would be conjugated. If

the Ashers had said I am a Christian bakery, then I don't think anybody

would have gone in to disrupt them. People target specific people. I am

talking about the law. If they had said this is a Christian bakery, or

kosher bakery, halal bakery, I personally would not go in and by

late their beliefs. The average person wouldn't. But if you go in,

you say this is what I want to put on my cake, if you are giving a

slogan that does not offend people, the average person would look at

this and see this as the slogan. If you don't like the slogan, you have

a problem with it, and the problem is discriminatory. One of the

phrases Adrian used was equality tyranny. Are we now as a society

going beyond religious beliefs in terms of equality? --

no. The Ashers can get around this by not making custom-made cakes. It

did appear that they would take any wording a customer wanted on their

website. That isn't the issue. John in Belfast is right. Peter is over

exaggerating the effect of this case. It does not mean you are

forced to say something. It does not mean that you are required to put

out any slogan. If the cake had been made it would not say Ashers on it,

nobody would know they were doing it, there is no obligation for the

Ashers to support gay rights. A baker, a printer, a publisher cannot

be forced to publish anything that the customer would like. Freedom of

expression cuts both ways. It is the freedom to express an idea and the

freedom to not express an idea. John Docherty in Northern Ireland is

absolutely right. There is no compulsion directly, but there is

the threat of legal action, has taken against the Ashes against

service providers who don't promote messages which they have been asked

to promote and which they have a conscious objection against. -- John

O'Doherty. I also want to pick up John O'Doherty's point, in Northern

Ireland we have a serious issue with rights for the LGBTQ unity. This is

a minor fight compared to what is actually going on in Northern

Ireland. -- LGBTQ community. I choose on the side of freedom of

expression and conscience. John, is this a minor fight? This is a fight

of individuals. I have to challenge one of your previous contributors

who stated that the Ashers were targeted. That was not the case.

This man was a regular customer to this business and was giving them

repeat custom. We need to be careful about the language we use in terms

of this... To be clear, you are picking up on Bonnie's point, that

is not quite what you said. You were talking about somebody going in and

potentially being inflammatory. I did not say they were targeted. It

is important to remember that the responsibility in terms of what a

winning is and is not willing to do it lies within the business. The

responsibility is on them to consider what they are and are not

willing to do on the basis of their conscience. To find their business

in terms of that, they did not present themselves as a Christian

business, they did not present themselves as being unwilling to

carry out particular orders, so on that basis it was deemed

indiscriminate tree -- it was deemed discriminatory.

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

Some people saying that religion has no place in business and any sort of

discrimination should not be tolerated. On the other hand, people

are saying business owners should be able to decide who they do business

with. They refused to write a message, they didn't discriminate

against anyone, Grace says. I hope you have impersonated Mark

correctly. I was really getting into character.

CHUCKLES This is different from the Christian

bed and breakfast owners who refused to serve a gay couple. The Ashers

didn't do that. To me, discrimination against people is

always wrong, but discrimination against ideas is part of what it

means to be in an open society. We are also in the arena of minorities.

That is what the law's job is, to protect minorities, or minority

opinion. Because the slogans within -- because the slogan is within that

framework of law is correct by saying they chose this. This looked,

to the average person, as if it was discovered a Tory. -- as if it was

discriminatory. That is my point. It is not about the Ashers, it is about

protecting minorities and protecting minorities to be able to have the

same scope and experience as everybody else. John, I would like

to hear your reaction to the comments from our viewers. This

customer received less favourable treatment. The only example we can

use in this case is if a customer went in and asked for a cake that

said support traditional marriage. The Ashers would have baked that.

Peter was saying that the objection was to the message. We have to

understand that the impact was on the individual. That impact was

experienced by the individual because of their political opinion

and sexual orientation which led to direct discrimination against that

individual. Thank you very much. If you are venturing out today, smile,

you're on camera. Or at least, there's a fair chance

you will be. There are at least six millions CCTV

cameras in Britain - nearly one for every ten people -

and more than 20,000 of London Police are being

equipped with body cams. So are those lenses being used

for your safety and security, or are they spies in the sky

and part of a Big Brother society? The Surveillance Camera Commissioner

- yes, there is one and we'll be talking to him shortly -

is planning a new strategy He wants to ensure that CCTV cameras

are being used responsibly. CCTV cameras are everywhere. Who

needs James Bond to spy on us when we have loads? I have come to

Cardiff, the home of Shirley Bassey, to find out if people around here

agree with the UK's surveillance Commissioner, that we need to

refocus our attitudes towards surveillance. Do we need so many of

those, are they there for our safety, or are they just spying on

us? Do we have too many cameras watching us right now? Absolutely. I

really don't like it. Why are they there? I find it intrusive and

unnecessary. Everybody goes on about this Big Brother culture. But

basically, if you've not done anything wrong, you have nothing to

worry about. I notice there for a reason, I just don't want people to

be able to track me. 6 million cameras in the UK. At the end of the

day they are used for security reasons. I think CCTV was initially

put there for the right reason. You get a bit of trouble in Cardiff, as

well. But I think it has gone over the top. If we can protect people

through the use of cameras, then all the better. Would you like to see

fewer? It controls people. It suppresses people. It is the same

speed cameras. If there was nothing there it would create anarchy and

chaos. If you feel somebody is watching you, be careful with

everything you are going to do. There are many cameras here to help

us. It is for our safety more than anything and people should not pay

that much attention to it. These things are everywhere. Why not trust

and encourage people to behave in a more moral way and I think our

children are far too coerced into believing that this makes them safe.

Because I don't think it does. Re-joining us on the sofa

are journalists and broadcasters Tony Porter is the UK's Surveillance

Camera Commissioner. THERE are 6 million CCTV cameras in Britain.

Many would suggest that is perhaps 6 million too many.

That is typical of the messages I receive. Surveillance in this

country is a big industry, about ?2 million. One of the issues I have

come across in my post is that despite the conflicting views on

surveillance, the problem with surveillance is there too many

cameras that are either useless or have been put in position and they

are now no longer viable, or they are in fact the decrepit. And the

argument the greatest decrepit cameras and those in the wrong

position, it creates a society that people do not want to live in or the

walking. The reason we have launched the strategy is to recognise the

value of good surveillance, but also, to allow bad surveillance to

wither on the vine. That is pretty much what this approach is doing.

There is a large consultation approach I have just released on my

website and I would love people listening to write in and to access

that and give me their views. A ?2 billion industry. Bonnie, some

people feel they are being watched. I saw you look up to our camera

right now! I live in Central London, just near Oxford Circus. That is my

neighbourhood. I figure I am photographed about 500 times a day.

That is supposedly what it is, you go in and out of stores. I am sorry,

but the ship has sailed. We have generations of people now who do not

even know what the word privacy means, they do not even know how to

spell it. They are OK with it. They even use it to their advantage. It

is over. It is done. So I agree with people who say we have too many

cameras, but it's too late. Do you think we have too many or do we need

to be worried about it? Sadly, to get a debate going, I have to agree

with anything -- everything Bonnie says! It is a necessary evil. You

look at crimes being committed and people who have been detained as

regards Tarik events or anything like that, you look at any crime and

the first thing police say is, is there any CCTV? -- terror. It does

help crime. Put yourself in this position, suppose your mother or

your father or one of your children was assaulted, you would want that

CCTV made available in a heartbeat and that is the reality. I was

interested by your contributor, bad surveillance, I do not know what

constitutes that. We all want good surveillance, what is bad

surveillance? I am not clear. Tony, what is bad surveillance? It is

surveillance where there is no legitimate aim for its presence and

no need for its presence, it is the clap it, it shouldn't be there, it

is run by people who do not know what they are doing. There privacy

impact is not considered by those managing and operating it. Bad

surveillance does exist. In relation to the ship has sailed, that is

interesting and I would like to go back on that. People imagine video

surveillance is simply the camera recording them. The reason I am

launching this strategy is things are shifting quickly, we have video

cameras linked to analytics that predict movement and identify facial

features. It is important there is a public debate around this because we

should not idly accept this. There needs to be a challenge and people

who use that need to evidence that it needs to be there, it is valuable

and it is therefore the good of the public and not just an organisation

that can use or at worst abuse it. Angela, your reaction? Setting aside

the things I agree with, what Nick says about protecting the innocent

and convicting the guilty. My son suffered anti-Semitic abuse on the

Tube and the first things suggested was, what is the CCTV pottage?

Within the Jewish community, we have cameras in public places because of

the contribution. We live in a surveillance state anyway and we

survey ourselves and we submit and surrender so much information on

social media, we use loyalty cards at supermarkets that tell whoever

wants to know what I am buying, they can have it. As far as I am

concerned, the information is neutral and it is what happens with

the information that matters. If somebody wants to survey me walking

up and down Oxford Circus or going into the supermarket or coming out

of the swimming baths, great if they have nothing better to do, have a

look, I have nothing to hide. The civil libertarians get so excitable

about what is going to happen with this information. Most of it is so

incredibly dull. And it can also really protectors. It is not

Orwellian, it is necessary. Nick refer to certain cases many of us

remember, Jamie border for example, it is sought his two killers taking

him away captured on CCTV. -- Jamie Bulger. Reports from the College of

policing says it can reduce instrumental crime but has no levels

of violent crime, do you feel safe with CCTV watching you? No, I think

it is being used in many areas as a cheap substitute for police on the

beat. Instead of good, effective, intelligence driven community

policing, people increasingly rely upon CCTV as a substitute. You are

right, the Home Office report and a report to the London Assembly some

years ago found that it has a very small effect as a deterrent. For

more effective as a deterrent is better street lighting. Better

street lighting can help, should some report show, reduce crime by

20%. A far better and more successful rate than CCTV. And we

also need to remember that when it comes to CCTV, we have got the 6

million plus cameras all over the place, it may make people think that

they are safer, but in terms of deterring crime, it doesn't. It

gives people a false sense of security. I see where Peter is

coming from, but the likelihood of having a police officer outside a

district Post Office as somebody comes racing out and has beaten up

some old boy collecting his pension, the chances of an officer being at

the right place at the right time, they are very remote, far better to

have a camera. How much better to have a camera focused on everything

because then you will get them as they come out. Can I say something

about the ship has sailed? I 100% agree with the contributor, we do

need to have a discussion, a debate about how this is being used. But we

also have to understand that the area we are entering in terms of the

millennial is, the Next Generation, is a pretty free zone. So what we

have to teach them is what surveillance means rather than

having a debate about whether we have it or not, because we are going

to have it. The debate continues. I say this every week, I bought myself

every time! Please! -- or myself. People saying it is a necessary

evil. Sarah says, there should be more as there is so much violence on

our streets today. Peters says... Bring it back to the

people. Paul says, as Angela did... Jason, on our Facebook page, posted

this... And now Ciman the... -- Samantha Crawford. Angela has just

given out the biggest site! In all seriousness, it is so easy, with the

greatest respect, to lapse into the Big Brother cliche that we are

somehow being watched. Another contributor said, doing what? Buying

a packet of crisps? CCTV also condemns as the good behaviour. When

you drive down the stretch of road and you have an alert to a speed

camera, you look at your speedometer and you cut your speed, that can

only reduce the number of accidents on the road. I do not know what the

data says, you can spin the statistics. But if you know you are

being watched, it is human nature to behave better. I agree. The argument

is that we need this cameras that are more productive rather than the

wasted ones, Tony, that do not help at all, just like drug in the

streets. You need standards. At one of the key issues, you mentioned the

Metropolitan Police with body cameras, they have undergone two

years of rigorous training to teach officers how to use it. What

concerns me is the proliferation of body cams in areas where people are

vulnerable, the NHS, hospitals, where people have not had the same

training. This is why we should not be complacent. It is OK to say we

are being watched, so what? But you need to make sure that the data that

is captured to does not go on YouTube, that the privacy is

protected. It is not a case that the horse has bolted, you need to make

sure that our standards. My strategy will press down across these sectors

so people get held to account. We will keep an eye on that. Peter.

CCTV right now is being used benignly. But it has established the

infrastructure of a police state and it could be open to abuse in the

future. Once you have the systems in place, there is no telling how they

could be misused in the future. Necessary evil, as your contributors

have said, but we must police their installation. It is all over! Thank

you! Thank you! Sorry! That is it. People...

That's just about all from us for this week.

Today, Hindus across the UK will be celebrating Diwali,

To help us mark it, we're joined by dancers from The Bhavan Centre,

in London - the largest Indian cultural hub outside of India.

Have a wonderful day, thank you very much, my panellists.

Why do you want to go to Great Britain?

Because it is Great Britain, you see? Great.