:00:00. > :00:00.Today on The Big Questions - the impact of grammar schools,
:00:00. > :00:21.the ethics of drones, and pruning the Church of England.
:00:22. > :00:28.Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to The Big Questions.
:00:29. > :00:30.Today we're live from the University of Kent in Canterbury.
:00:31. > :00:33.Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.
:00:34. > :00:41.On Friday, the Education Secretary, Justine Greening, was heckled
:00:42. > :00:45.by angry head teachers when she claimed that grammar
:00:46. > :00:50.schools help close the attainment gap for disadvantaged children.
:00:51. > :00:54.The Prime Minister has called it her "personal mission" to end
:00:55. > :00:56.what she calls the "brutal and unacceptable" facts
:00:57. > :01:00.of school selection based on income - specifically,
:01:01. > :01:03.who can afford to buy property in the catchment areas of the best
:01:04. > :01:10.?320 million was set aside in this week's Budget to fund
:01:11. > :01:13.140 new free schools, many of which could become grammars.
:01:14. > :01:15.Here in Kent, the county council never abandoned
:01:16. > :01:24.So, it is a particularly good place to ask our first Big Question -
:01:25. > :01:27.do the brightest do better at grammar schools?
:01:28. > :01:33.A good moral and ethical debate, the greatest good and the greatest
:01:34. > :01:39.number against giving some children the opportunity to achieve
:01:40. > :01:42.something. Sian Griffiths, you had a daughter there, what did it give
:01:43. > :01:47.your daughter being at grammar school, what was the essential
:01:48. > :01:51.difference? Yes, my daughter did go, she went to the girl's Grammar
:01:52. > :01:55.school, I was quite mixed because I went to a comprehensive which was
:01:56. > :01:58.coeducational. She was very lucky, she went to one of the best grammar
:01:59. > :02:03.schools in the country, Henrietta Barnett in north London. What it
:02:04. > :02:20.gave her, not only did it give her an amazing
:02:21. > :02:24.exam results, she went to a very good university and is now a lawyer,
:02:25. > :02:27.but what it really gave her, this is the thing I thought was amazing
:02:28. > :02:29.which I had not anticipated, it gave her peer group, a group of
:02:30. > :02:33.girlfriends who are also in their 20s now who she is still very close
:02:34. > :02:35.to and who she grew up with in her school, and we think about grammar
:02:36. > :02:38.schools and often think, yes, they have fantastic academic results with
:02:39. > :02:40.A and A* grades, many of them go on to Oxford and Cambridge, but
:02:41. > :02:43.grubbing up as a teenager it is important that your peer group is a
:02:44. > :02:46.group that you can fit into and grow upward. What was it about that peer
:02:47. > :02:52.group that enabled her to fit in? She is obviously quite academic, she
:02:53. > :02:59.was a very booky girl, not keen on sport. They were similar, academic,
:03:00. > :03:03.aspirational, not particularly keen on sport either, so she never felt
:03:04. > :03:08.out of place, and I know other children who are equally bright who
:03:09. > :03:12.went to comprehensive schools, and I'm thinking of one in particular,
:03:13. > :03:16.he went to a comprehensive School, he was very bright and his peer
:03:17. > :03:21.group was a group which valued football, football was the thing, if
:03:22. > :03:25.you were good at football venue fitted in, you were the star, if you
:03:26. > :03:30.were good at maths you didn't fit in, so he downplayed his maths
:03:31. > :03:34.ability, played up his football ability. Embarrassed to be good at
:03:35. > :03:40.maths? Embarrassed, and as a result he does not have the confidence and
:03:41. > :03:46.the sense that it is great to be academically good. A different
:03:47. > :03:49.ethos? Wanda, what about that, a different ethos, giving
:03:50. > :03:53.working-class and middle-class kids a chance to achieve in that
:03:54. > :03:56.environment? I think that is a great experience and I'm pleased your
:03:57. > :04:00.daughter was able to have that, but surely we want that for all of our
:04:01. > :04:04.children? By giving these resources to grammar schools and encouraging a
:04:05. > :04:09.small amount of poor but bright children to go to these schools,
:04:10. > :04:15.when we know very few of them do so, we know if your socioeconomic
:04:16. > :04:24.background, if you come from a more deprived background, you have around
:04:25. > :04:26.6% chance of going to a background -- going to a grammar school if
:04:27. > :04:30.there are grammar schools in that area but it is great when children
:04:31. > :04:34.find a school that can nurture them, feel at home, have a good group of
:04:35. > :04:45.friends, but don't we want that for all children? You are applauding?! I
:04:46. > :04:48.agree, there are lots of bright kids in this country, many from
:04:49. > :04:54.working-class backgrounds, who do not get the chance to fulfil their
:04:55. > :05:00.potential, and that... Would this be our way? It could be, we have a
:05:01. > :05:05.small number of grammar schools, 163, and thousands of state
:05:06. > :05:08.secondary schools, so it is a tiny percentage, so most kids in this
:05:09. > :05:11.country don't even get the chance to apply to a grammar school, there are
:05:12. > :05:19.just no grammar schools in their counties. At a time when grammar
:05:20. > :05:24.schools were at their apex, there were more working-class kids
:05:25. > :05:29.succeeding in those professions than ever before or since, shouldn't we
:05:30. > :05:32.think about that? This experiment, selective children alone, was tried
:05:33. > :05:37.for 20 years, I was an education generalist, it was a disaster, it
:05:38. > :05:41.just didn't work. The idea of going backwards to a time when two thirds
:05:42. > :05:45.of children at age 11 were told, no, you will not enjoy the benefits of
:05:46. > :05:50.grammar school, we cannot go back to those days. The nonsense of it at
:05:51. > :05:54.the moment, some bit to do with parental choice. Parents don't use
:05:55. > :05:59.grammar schools, grammar schools choose parents. The reality is
:06:00. > :06:05.selection by the school. At the moment it is often on income, houses
:06:06. > :06:09.are 60% more in catchment areas where there are good schools. That
:06:10. > :06:12.is a real problem with comprehensives, no doubt about it,
:06:13. > :06:17.but the idea you will solve it by selecting children at age 11, a
:06:18. > :06:20.cruel age to select children for their future, putting them in an
:06:21. > :06:23.establishment which inevitably leaves out working-class kids, very
:06:24. > :06:28.few working-class kids go to grammar schools, this is a way of
:06:29. > :06:32.privileging some children, they are very good schools, I can't argue
:06:33. > :06:37.with that, but to say we can only afford to educate a third of the
:06:38. > :06:42.population, under reforms only 1% under these particular schools, is a
:06:43. > :06:47.nonsense. Chris McGovern, do you want to come in, the campaign for
:06:48. > :06:51.real education? I'm a secretary modern schoolboy, Simon is a posh
:06:52. > :06:56.public school boy. This is important because people Newsbeat on this,
:06:57. > :06:59.let's have some experience. David Cameron reminded his party
:07:00. > :07:04.conference 18 months ago that this country has the worst rate of social
:07:05. > :07:09.mobility in the world, that is... He also said a selective system will
:07:10. > :07:13.not raise standards. Let's look at that, the crowning achievement of
:07:14. > :07:30.the comprehensive school system is a more divided society.
:07:31. > :07:34.Children who are able to buy into, parents who can buy into a good
:07:35. > :07:37.catchment area go to a good school or the independent sector. We need
:07:38. > :07:38.to educate children in line with aptitude, some children are
:07:39. > :07:41.academic, they need an academic education such as is provided by
:07:42. > :07:42.grammar schools. Children of the more vocational orientation, more
:07:43. > :07:45.technically oriented, need good technical schools. We have to get
:07:46. > :07:46.away from the snobbery that a grammar education is superior to a
:07:47. > :07:52.technical education. Educating children in line with how much their
:07:53. > :07:56.parents can afford... And the reason for that, and major reason, never
:07:57. > :08:01.mentioned, as to why so few poor children go to grammar school is
:08:02. > :08:04.because the primary schools are not putting these children forward for
:08:05. > :08:08.grammar school, not tutoring them for the 11 plus, so the only way to
:08:09. > :08:12.get to a grammar school is to employ a private tutor. We need lots more
:08:13. > :08:16.grammar schools, we need them in deprived areas, we need to give
:08:17. > :08:38.children the capacity to achieve to their maximum and get
:08:39. > :08:42.away from the idea for heaven 's sake that somehow Charles Dickens is
:08:43. > :08:44.superior to Isambard Kingdom Brunel. We need both, the rest of the world
:08:45. > :08:47.have academic pathway and the occasional pathway, they argue when
:08:48. > :08:49.it is done, 11 in Switzerland, 15 in China. Maximise the attitude of
:08:50. > :08:51.children, some need grammar school, some need vocation, and
:08:52. > :08:54.comprehensives can be very poor at that. Let's go to the audience, I
:08:55. > :08:56.know there were lots of views. A persuasive argument? No, I grew up
:08:57. > :08:59.on a council estate, my father was a hard-working manual worker, on the
:09:00. > :09:01.dole, then disabled in my youth. I went to a comprehensive and then,
:09:02. > :09:10.somehow, found myself studying in Oxford. The amount of snobbery that
:09:11. > :09:15.came and the amount of ignorance that came from people who had been
:09:16. > :09:21.to private school but sometimes also grammar schools because of people
:09:22. > :09:26.being separated out into social groups or even the supposedly
:09:27. > :09:31.educational preferences. Education as well as the academic and
:09:32. > :09:33.technical side has to involve meeting different people,
:09:34. > :09:38.experiencing different cultures, and this is one of the problems with
:09:39. > :09:41.private schools, single sex schools, they don't allow people to
:09:42. > :09:47.experience diversity of life, to learn from each other. We need to
:09:48. > :09:51.segregate people less, not more. If we had more grammar schools there
:09:52. > :09:54.would be fewer private schools. And don't forget Wendy grammar school
:09:55. > :09:58.system was pushed to one side and the comprehensive system came in,
:09:59. > :10:01.they had to abolish the O-level exam, the grammar school exam,
:10:02. > :10:06.because it was too hard but we still send that to Singapore and they are
:10:07. > :10:13.top of the world. We have a dumbed down exam system introduced for the
:10:14. > :10:21.comprehensive intake. Let's hear from the audience. I will be with
:10:22. > :10:29.you in a second, some dis- behaviour in the classroom! You are your last
:10:30. > :10:33.warning! Good morning. I would just like to say I don't think that all
:10:34. > :10:39.children that go to comprehensive schools don't achieve. All by
:10:40. > :10:45.children, I must admit the 11 plus and didn't quite get their... Was
:10:46. > :10:50.that a disappointing day? It was, because I paid for a tutor so I was
:10:51. > :10:56.disappointed. However, now I have one at university, which is here,
:10:57. > :10:59.two are A* students, so they are in a comprehensive school, so even
:11:00. > :11:02.though we are putting down the comprehensive system, I went to
:11:03. > :11:07.comprehensive, my sister went to grammar, she is in the same
:11:08. > :11:11.position. Parents are very important, the situation at home.
:11:12. > :11:14.Yes, but they are happy, I don't think it should be put down as much
:11:15. > :11:18.as we are putting them down, the teachers do really good jobs.
:11:19. > :11:26.Gentleman there in the leather jacket, hello. I ended up going to a
:11:27. > :11:30.secondary school in a year that they decided to experiment with going on
:11:31. > :11:33.teacher's recommendation and it failed me completely. I would have
:11:34. > :11:42.done much better in a school that pushed me much harder to take
:11:43. > :11:47.advantage of my natural inclination, head and shoulders above my peers
:11:48. > :11:56.academically. But even back in 1999, the independent reported a study
:11:57. > :12:01.that showed that less academically inclined students did better in a
:12:02. > :12:05.comprehensive rather than a secondary, but students that would
:12:06. > :12:11.have been selected for a grammar school did as well or better in a
:12:12. > :12:20.comprehensive as well. So I don't really see, all these years on, the
:12:21. > :12:25.debate is even open the question. I think it is a lot down to the
:12:26. > :12:30.attitude of the child, and not the school that you go into. On that
:12:31. > :12:32.point, Simon Jenkins, what do we do about the children who are
:12:33. > :12:36.exceptionally bright and might achieve great things in their life
:12:37. > :12:40.but are in homes where there are no books, no aspiration? The question
:12:41. > :12:47.is at what stage do you make these decisions? 11 is ludicrously soon,
:12:48. > :12:54.far too early, and it is cruel. I failed the 11 plus. The fact is, it
:12:55. > :12:57.is far too soon to make any of these decisions. What is aptitude?
:12:58. > :13:06.Children are assessed all the time these days. Perpetual motion. 13,
:13:07. > :13:10.15, 16... You have to make a decision in childhood. The comments
:13:11. > :13:13.made about aptitude what is important here, and this is an
:13:14. > :13:17.education which is bright for the right children in that case. I think
:13:18. > :13:24.that having selection for other kinds of aptitudes would be... Who
:13:25. > :13:28.are the wrong children? They are not wrong, that is one of the things,
:13:29. > :13:31.saying the children at age 11, you have failed, you're not saying that,
:13:32. > :13:37.it is not the right education for them, the aptitude those children
:13:38. > :13:40.have is not yours. When the Labour Government introduce specialist
:13:41. > :13:45.schools, I thought that could be a breakthrough, they said they would
:13:46. > :13:49.have money the specialist schools and thought, great, you could have
:13:50. > :13:52.sports specialism or maybe computers or science, whatever, but they
:13:53. > :13:57.wouldn't allow selection on the basis of ability for those things so
:13:58. > :14:02.you had not the sports specialist school with the best football teams
:14:03. > :14:08.around, it just had the best goalposts around. If we worked to
:14:09. > :14:10.make aptitude, the children's aptitude, fit the education system
:14:11. > :14:17.and the education system fit their aptitude, to look at the vocational
:14:18. > :14:21.and technical education, and great emphasis is laid on that here in
:14:22. > :14:24.Kent, I have to say, by the county council, I am a county councillor
:14:25. > :14:30.and have four children at the grammar school, that would be taking
:14:31. > :14:39.their education in the right direction for them. And can I just
:14:40. > :14:44.say, whether the brightest do best, the attainment gap in grammar
:14:45. > :14:47.schools between deprived children and the higher achieving colleagues
:14:48. > :14:51.in the school is very, very much smaller in grammar schools, so they
:14:52. > :14:54.are good, and what we are working on in this county is to try to get
:14:55. > :15:01.better access for the deprived children and there are numbers of
:15:02. > :15:04.measures... Dominic Grieve, David Cameron was opposed to grammar
:15:05. > :15:07.schools, Mrs Thatcher got rid of swathes of grammar schools. The
:15:08. > :15:16.legal profession, prior to your career as a politician, is so
:15:17. > :15:20.dominated by private schools, the figures are extraordinary, 74% of
:15:21. > :15:22.high profile judges in the appeals court went to independent schools.
:15:23. > :15:33.How do you get through that, By bringing on Jordan from
:15:34. > :15:38.relatively poor backgrounds and nurturing them. There are different
:15:39. > :15:45.ways. The grammar school system was quite effective in doing it.
:15:46. > :15:48.Simon Jenkins, I agree, the 11-plus is a blunt instrument.
:15:49. > :15:55.You can have a selection system is not wholly reliant on the 11-plus
:15:56. > :16:00.which relies on greater flexibility. Is there an advantage in bringing
:16:01. > :16:04.talented children, particularly with academic talents, together in one
:16:05. > :16:09.place, does it create a critical mass which is beneficial?
:16:10. > :16:13.The evidence is overwhelming. I have grammars in my own constituency
:16:14. > :16:18.which is a middle-class area and one reason why they survive is because
:16:19. > :16:21.the middle-class agitated actively to protect the grammars.
:16:22. > :16:29.Where you need schools which will do that nurturing our in deeply
:16:30. > :16:33.deprived areas, from which they have totally disappeared.
:16:34. > :16:38.I am not against academies, I have seen magnificent academies and
:16:39. > :16:41.visited them. There are downsides to a selective system. Unless you get
:16:42. > :16:48.it right, your secondary schools will suffer. That is inescapable. I
:16:49. > :16:55.have one which is outstanding... Is it worth it? A difficult
:16:56. > :16:58.question. Looking at the overall performance, it is significantly
:16:59. > :17:03.better than the competitive system. Not to say you don't get downsides.
:17:04. > :17:08.It is possible to address that. How would you address it?
:17:09. > :17:15.Research shows in areas with grammar schools, the state schools do worse.
:17:16. > :17:18.This is a small number of poor but bright if you want to use that
:17:19. > :17:21.phrase pupils... Why'd you not want to use that
:17:22. > :17:26.phrase? It is the port issue as well. And
:17:27. > :17:33.taking a few of them out, the disadvantage for the other pupils.
:17:34. > :17:38.The OECD says selective schooling increases inequality and has a
:17:39. > :17:44.negative effect on our children. I come back to the point, this is a
:17:45. > :17:48.small number of people you want to scoop out, to the detriment of the
:17:49. > :17:53.rest of our children. You are talking about...
:17:54. > :17:57.Northern Ireland has a grammar school system with consistently the
:17:58. > :18:03.best public school examination results in the UK. Hours of running
:18:04. > :18:10.three years behind South Korea. We have to improve. We are so far
:18:11. > :18:17.behind, bottom of the lead for literacy according to the OECD.
:18:18. > :18:23.Because politicians tinker with education every time there is new
:18:24. > :18:28.Government. They put new assessments in. We have a teacher retention
:18:29. > :18:31.problem, they are leaving the education system in droves because
:18:32. > :18:40.they are so stressed, they are stressing our children come our
:18:41. > :18:46.six-year-olds are being tested. There are unprecedented levels...
:18:47. > :18:53.If we are testing so much, we don't need the 11-plus!
:18:54. > :19:00.I am from Northern Ireland, we are brilliant shall be debate that?
:19:01. > :19:05.My problem is, grammars are failing the working class is completely. How
:19:06. > :19:09.you get selected when you live in a household with lots of books... I
:19:10. > :19:14.was sent to a technical college because of the grammar school
:19:15. > :19:19.system, I wasn't ready for it, I was a naughty kid. I only had three
:19:20. > :19:24.years of secondary education. I am now a professor with three pH D is.
:19:25. > :19:30.In those days I didn't get through because I wasn't considered to be
:19:31. > :19:35.academic and likely am an academic. A late developer. It is the
:19:36. > :19:42.selection process. At 11, I was not ready. That is a real problem. The
:19:43. > :19:47.other problem is the ins and the outs, if you are in grammar school,
:19:48. > :19:52.it is one thing. It is the others you need to worry about. We need to
:19:53. > :19:55.get the selection process right. Better if we took this notion of
:19:56. > :20:03.grammar school and made all schools the same.
:20:04. > :20:09.Simon Jenkins, we select for music and performing arts ability, even
:20:10. > :20:14.maths and languages, we select for sport, why not for academic ability?
:20:15. > :20:21.All schools stream. Selection takes place throughout life.
:20:22. > :20:27.We don't stream for all subjects. The problem is whether you select at
:20:28. > :20:32.11, that is a decent time to make this decision. This was tested the
:20:33. > :20:40.20 years, it is hugely researched. It was not a success politically.
:20:41. > :20:44.People were screaming to get rid of the 11-plus. The idea of bringing it
:20:45. > :20:49.back, there are 11 cases with grammar schools, almost everyone
:20:50. > :20:54.goes to competitive schools and it works on the whole. We can dig up
:20:55. > :20:59.figures somewhere in Singapore... We don't have a bad education in
:21:00. > :21:02.Britain. Public schools dominate the
:21:03. > :21:08.professions. If we didn't have this system, if we did have this system,
:21:09. > :21:12.go with me on this, if it were to be be imposed, what would be the best
:21:13. > :21:20.way to select for grammars? What about at 14?
:21:21. > :21:24.15 it right. You start selecting at that stage. But you split up
:21:25. > :21:32.communities at 11 and do everything wrong.
:21:33. > :21:36.It is not a good idea. And offering transfers at a number
:21:37. > :21:42.of different points, it is wrong it should be done at 11 and I there
:21:43. > :21:49.after. No, no... Please.
:21:50. > :21:55.We will be back with you later. I know you have other contributions.
:21:56. > :21:59.I agree it shouldn't just be at 11, the Government is looking at the
:22:00. > :22:04.paucity of 13. I like that model where if you have a chain of academy
:22:05. > :22:08.schools, one would be a grammar school. If you have bright kids in
:22:09. > :22:12.particular subjects in the other schools they could move into the
:22:13. > :22:17.grammar school for particular subjects at 13 or 14, whenever you
:22:18. > :22:22.were showing attitude. I want to pick up something from Simon that we
:22:23. > :22:31.have a good competitive system. We absolutely do not. I feel
:22:32. > :22:34.passionately about this. Sir Michael will show the last chief inspector
:22:35. > :22:38.did two reports, one in 2013, he looked at children's performance at
:22:39. > :22:44.11 in primary schools on national tests in maths and English and found
:22:45. > :22:48.there were thousands of children performing above-average com hitting
:22:49. > :22:53.level five. A lot were white working-class boys. He tracked those
:22:54. > :22:58.kids and by 16 they should have been getting a grades in nonselective
:22:59. > :23:03.schools where they went to, competences. They did not. One in
:23:04. > :23:11.the Boufal didn't even get a B grade. They weren't going on to
:23:12. > :23:21.universities or become lawyers or journalists or the nice jobs -- one
:23:22. > :23:24.in four. This system isn't working for working-class kids, not even the
:23:25. > :23:29.most middle-class kids. It has to change. Thank you very
:23:30. > :23:31.much indeed for all your thoughts. If you have something
:23:32. > :23:34.to say about that debate, log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions,
:23:35. > :23:37.and follow the link to where you can We're also debating live this
:23:38. > :23:43.morning from the University of Kent in Canterbury,
:23:44. > :23:47.is using drones ethical? And, should the Church of England
:23:48. > :23:50.be cut down to size? So, get tweeting or emailing
:23:51. > :23:52.on those topics now, or send us any other ideas
:23:53. > :23:55.or thoughts you may This week a report into a near-miss
:23:56. > :24:05.between a ?60 million RAF Chinook helicopter coming into land at RAF
:24:06. > :24:08.Odiham and a domestic drone revealed the helicopter was just
:24:09. > :24:14.130 feet from disaster. The unknown drone pilot
:24:15. > :24:16.had completely failed to monitor its flight path to avoid
:24:17. > :24:22.collisions with other aircraft. And last week, a Royal United
:24:23. > :24:25.Services Institute conference into remote warfare said drones
:24:26. > :24:27.raised tensions in countries like Pakistan, where
:24:28. > :24:32.they are used for surveillance. And there's growing evidence
:24:33. > :24:34.that the terrorist groups being watched are now using drones
:24:35. > :24:40.themselves as weapon carriers. Drones may keep our pilots
:24:41. > :24:43.and troops safer, but do they raise bigger questions of just war
:24:44. > :25:02.principles and human rights? Well, air Marshal Black Robertson,
:25:03. > :25:08.good to have you here. Lots of people very suspicious of drones. A
:25:09. > :25:14.UN special rapporteur for the encouraged a video game mentality in
:25:15. > :25:22.operators and said they are open to abuse, and also the intimidate and
:25:23. > :25:26.alienate local populations. What you say to those people?
:25:27. > :25:33.I couldn't disagree more they encourage what was described as a
:25:34. > :25:35.video game mentality. In my experience, the RAF people who
:25:36. > :25:40.operate these and I presume that is the error you want to debate, are
:25:41. > :25:44.about the most professional individuals you could come across,
:25:45. > :25:49.their training is huge, the way they are monitored, the control that
:25:50. > :25:54.exists is about as tight as it has ever been in any form of conflict. I
:25:55. > :25:58.would like to dispel that rumour. As to whether they are ethical, it
:25:59. > :26:05.depends what you mean. If ethical means doing the right thing, then
:26:06. > :26:09.surveillance certainly saves lives. If you of to save soldiers's lives,
:26:10. > :26:13.there was a soldier out there who doesn't want to know what is over
:26:14. > :26:21.the next hill, doesn't want to be safe out there. The way of providing
:26:22. > :26:25.that safe environment is by having a drone monitoring what is going on.
:26:26. > :26:30.Let us be clear. Drones spent most of their time in the RAF sense
:26:31. > :26:36.providing surveillance which saves lives.
:26:37. > :26:41.Emily, you are back from Afghanistan?
:26:42. > :26:44.What did you see? I think it is an interesting question, I am
:26:45. > :26:49.sympathetic to a lot of those points. What was really interesting
:26:50. > :26:54.to see was the comments following a 2010 investigation into civilians
:26:55. > :27:00.who wrongfully killed in Afghanistan by a drone strike. The people in
:27:01. > :27:05.charge of writing the report from the air force pointed at this
:27:06. > :27:09.tendency to have technology and to feel almost like you are more
:27:10. > :27:13.secure, it is possible to know everything, to cut down on civilian
:27:14. > :27:17.casualties because you have more detergents.
:27:18. > :27:21.The Senate mean position? In many ways, the more precision you have,
:27:22. > :27:27.the greater your ability to cut down on civilian casualties, the better.
:27:28. > :27:30.But where drones walk you into this scenario will you get a false sense
:27:31. > :27:35.of security about how much it is possible to know.
:27:36. > :27:40.You are watching a very small subset of circumstances from the screen,
:27:41. > :27:43.putting a huge amount of response batik on people gathering that
:27:44. > :27:47.intelligence to understand what is happening on the ground.
:27:48. > :27:51.What about the perception from the ground, what did people on a grand
:27:52. > :27:57.thing about what is out there? I was going through my photos from
:27:58. > :28:03.Kabul. In almost all you have these big surveillance balloons hovering.
:28:04. > :28:09.You can see them over all the major airfields. I asked my drive about
:28:10. > :28:14.this, saying, what are they watching? He said, they are
:28:15. > :28:20.everywhere, we don't know. They were a novelty, now we are used to it.
:28:21. > :28:27.They are a good navigational tool! What is interesting is the Jones
:28:28. > :28:32.debate in the UK and how much it represents a shift on a strategic
:28:33. > :28:38.level towards more secretive warfare. In many cases in area...
:28:39. > :28:44.What transparency do you want? There are other countries using drones,
:28:45. > :28:49.look at the US, campaign has been controversial. One thing you can say
:28:50. > :28:55.is we know a lot more about the policies surrounding the US use of
:28:56. > :28:59.drones for the thumb strikes. They've released a presidential
:29:00. > :29:02.policy guidance setting out the criteria you need to have in place
:29:03. > :29:10.before a drone strike becomes permissible, a framework report in
:29:11. > :29:14.2016 which set out which groups were permissible targets. We don't have
:29:15. > :29:18.any of this for the UK. And the impact on the people, you
:29:19. > :29:24.say they have got used to it. Is there a consequence in terms of
:29:25. > :29:28.psychology on the ground? That is the strange thing. The drone
:29:29. > :29:32.programme is so relatively new, it will be hard to know the
:29:33. > :29:39.psychological impact the people on the ground and on the drone flies.
:29:40. > :29:42.And transparency, what do we need to do?
:29:43. > :29:48.We could do with being a lot more transparent. My position would be,
:29:49. > :29:52.the RAF are a lot more well-controlled in the US -- than
:29:53. > :29:58.the US. I have spoken to pilots on both sides. It is one thing, we have
:29:59. > :30:04.to make a distinction. It is one thing between the use of force in an
:30:05. > :30:08.official conflict zones. The drone allows too much flexibility. In
:30:09. > :30:15.non-conflicts owns, Pakistan isn't an official conflict zone, and the
:30:16. > :30:23.Yemen, then you have slippage. The laws of war, humanitarian laws, that
:30:24. > :30:30.is not... Let me finish... Human rights law applies and now we have a
:30:31. > :30:34.different idea about the use of force and what is proportionality,
:30:35. > :30:40.the right to surrender, the right to due process. We are killing people
:30:41. > :30:42.in these sounds, extra judicial targeting during which is not
:30:43. > :30:52.acceptable to me. There is no option to surrender, is
:30:53. > :30:55.there? The point about suggesting the UK is involved in Pakistan or
:30:56. > :31:01.Yemen is totally wrong. I was talking generally. That is the point
:31:02. > :31:07.of the debate, it is so easy to say something and that gets carried out.
:31:08. > :31:11.No, it is not true. Everything the RAF does, everything the UK does, is
:31:12. > :31:17.incredibly tightly controlled, and that would go back to appoint... So
:31:18. > :31:23.no extrajudicial killings in non-conflict zones is what you are
:31:24. > :31:27.saying? I did not say there were no extrajudicial killings... In
:31:28. > :31:36.non-conflict zones? Hang on, let me pick up on that. I can see you
:31:37. > :31:41.shifting in your seat, Symon. If al-Baghdadi, the powerful, absolute,
:31:42. > :31:45.undeniably very charismatic leader of the so-called Islamic State were
:31:46. > :31:49.to be killed by a strike from a drone, would you have a problem with
:31:50. > :31:53.that? I'd have a problem with the fact the drone would almost
:31:54. > :31:58.certainly kill other people nearby. The idea of drone is some sort of
:31:59. > :32:03.magic weapon that can target somebody, I think throughout history
:32:04. > :32:07.weapons have been invented that are supposed to be more precise, more
:32:08. > :32:11.ethical, more reliable. When the machine gun was invented, people
:32:12. > :32:15.said it was so horrific it would put people off the wall and there would
:32:16. > :32:19.be no more war as a result. We get this every time there is some sort
:32:20. > :32:24.of new weapon and we're asked to believe, naively, in this magical
:32:25. > :32:29.targeting whereby a weapon can just kill one person, whereas even by
:32:30. > :32:33.conservative estimates it is suggested around 2000 civilians have
:32:34. > :32:38.been killed in Iraq and over the last couple of years by western
:32:39. > :32:42.drones. What do you say on that point? How was that more ethical
:32:43. > :32:47.than being killed by other reside bomber? I don't see drones, they are
:32:48. > :32:50.targeted, much more targeted than most other weapons available, but
:32:51. > :32:56.exactly the same criteria is applied to the use of drones and lethal
:32:57. > :32:59.strikes as any other form of weaponry. The idea that just because
:33:00. > :33:05.you have drones you are moving into a new legal area is mistaken. The
:33:06. > :33:10.UK's use of drones for legal strikes has to be informed by domestic law,
:33:11. > :33:16.international law and human rights law. In everything done, including
:33:17. > :33:20.necessity and proportionality. In relation to any action taking place.
:33:21. > :33:24.It is important to understand that. That is not to say everything will
:33:25. > :33:28.always be got right all you can never have collateral damage, but
:33:29. > :33:32.all those things have two be factored in in exactly the same way
:33:33. > :33:36.as if you were putting troops in on the ground to do exactly the same
:33:37. > :33:40.task, from that point of view it is not some secret weapon. If 2000
:33:41. > :33:45.people were killed by a suicide bomber we would call that a
:33:46. > :33:52.horrendous atrocities. 2000 civilians haven't been killed...
:33:53. > :33:55.Even if it was only 200. If those people have been killed by Western
:33:56. > :34:03.drones, they are not collateral damage, they are real people with
:34:04. > :34:10.real lives. I agree about that, any death of an innocent civilian is
:34:11. > :34:14.regrettable. I'm afraid Wall produces massive collateral damage
:34:15. > :34:18.and, in the past, we have seen examples of it both in wars we have
:34:19. > :34:22.fought like the Second World War or indeed the Russians' behaviour in
:34:23. > :34:26.supporting the Syrian regime in taking back Aleppo, which shows a
:34:27. > :34:32.willingness to use indiscriminate force. In comparison, the point I
:34:33. > :34:36.would make is that actually the use of drones for lethal force by the
:34:37. > :34:41.United Kingdom is much more targeted and much less likely to cause
:34:42. > :34:47.collateral damage... Do you have that trust? We are always told that
:34:48. > :34:51.of course the Russians have committed horrendous atrocities in
:34:52. > :34:54.Syria, I don't deny that for a moment, but war is always justified
:34:55. > :34:58.on the grounds that the other side have committed atrocities and we are
:34:59. > :35:02.just behaving defensively, that is how all wars throughout history have
:35:03. > :35:05.been justified. It is never believable, it always turns out
:35:06. > :35:10.there are atrocities on both sides and shortly after hundreds of years
:35:11. > :35:19.of this lie that violence can solve things it is about time we stopped
:35:20. > :35:26.believing it. I'm slightly perplexed at why we're having this debate is
:35:27. > :35:29.now regarding the usage of drones against civilian and military
:35:30. > :35:39.targets. Did we have this debate when Yugoslavia was bombed by bomber
:35:40. > :35:43.planes? When Dresden was bombed? Was there a debate in medieval times
:35:44. > :35:47.when Trevor Shays and catapults were used against fortresses with
:35:48. > :35:53.civilians inside? These kinds of tactics have been going on the
:35:54. > :35:58.centuries, as long as human warfare has been around, so I personally
:35:59. > :36:02.believe that the usage of drones in modern wars is just an inevitable
:36:03. > :36:07.consequence of humanity entering a new stage of warfare, entering a
:36:08. > :36:12.stage of unmanned vehicles, Robotics. In the long term I support
:36:13. > :36:19.the use of drones because it is safer for our troops and, yes, the
:36:20. > :36:24.enemy will also start using drones to counter us, that is the nature of
:36:25. > :36:28.warfare, one side becomes more advanced... And it keeps boots,
:36:29. > :36:35.Simon Jenkins, off the ground, as that gentleman said, good for our
:36:36. > :36:39.troops? It is a drastic extension of the sniper principle, we can take
:36:40. > :36:43.somebody out, but the question is because it is such distance, a
:36:44. > :36:47.wholly different strategic theatre enters the argument. Why are you
:36:48. > :36:51.killing that particular person? In the case of a British citizen in
:36:52. > :36:56.Syria killed because it was thought he would support terrorism, that is
:36:57. > :37:01.a tenuous way of killing someone and innocent people around him. The
:37:02. > :37:04.trouble with drones is it induces armies to behave much more
:37:05. > :37:08.irrationally than they would otherwise behave, we are operating
:37:09. > :37:14.in countries we are not at war with. Also the killing of a particular
:37:15. > :37:20.person, you will probably have to negotiate eventually and every time
:37:21. > :37:29.we assassinate these people we make it more difficult eventually... I
:37:30. > :37:32.think the drone attacks in Afghanistan have made a huge
:37:33. > :37:36.difference and disrupted Al-Qaeda as a formation and made it very
:37:37. > :37:42.difficult for them to operate. The numbers of civilians are an
:37:43. > :37:45.exaggeration. The bureau of investigative journalism, which has
:37:46. > :37:49.awards from Amnesty International so it is not pro-government, has put
:37:50. > :37:56.the numbers of civilians killed by drone strikes as about 100 last year
:37:57. > :38:01.in America compared to... There is an important legal issue here. That
:38:02. > :38:05.is a problem with warfare. I couldn't agree more with that. They
:38:06. > :38:09.league at issue here is where the flip between the laws of war and
:38:10. > :38:12.international humanitarian law and human rights law, that is when we
:38:13. > :38:18.are attacking countries we are not in official conflict with. The
:38:19. > :38:22.tipping point, the UK along with others is dire looting the notion of
:38:23. > :38:27.what is an imminent threat, what do we need in terms of our defence and
:38:28. > :38:32.quite often it is foot soldiers of Al-Qaeda loading a few rifles into a
:38:33. > :38:35.truck and they get bombed, but they are not an immediate imminent
:38:36. > :38:39.threat. An imminent threat used to be when you had a big armed force
:38:40. > :38:43.against us on our borders but now it is a few foot soldiers and that is
:38:44. > :38:47.the key issue here. But you have to bear in mind one of the problems of
:38:48. > :38:52.globalisation and the Internet is a person can sit thousands of miles
:38:53. > :38:56.from the United Kingdom actively participating in a potential
:38:57. > :39:01.conspiracy to kill people directly in the United Kingdom itself. I
:39:02. > :39:06.agree with you that this is creating grey areas and we need to think very
:39:07. > :39:12.carefully about what we do, but, as I say, the framework, actually, is
:39:13. > :39:17.there. Ultimately if the Government justified the drone strike in Iraq
:39:18. > :39:23.it was a chapter of Article 51 of the United Nations the right to self
:39:24. > :39:28.defence. International humanitarian law, yes. You are entitled under
:39:29. > :39:32.international humanitarian law to take military action in self defence
:39:33. > :39:36.against people is located in another country. Of course it is a very,
:39:37. > :39:45.very brave step to take and you are likely to have it crawled over when
:39:46. > :39:51.you have done it, which is what is happening... It is some new
:39:52. > :39:55.illegality. If Isis operatives are loading Kalashnikovs into the back
:39:56. > :40:01.of a band, getting rid of them, taking them out which is the phrase
:40:02. > :40:05.people use, is that justified? If you take the view that the entire
:40:06. > :40:09.operation of Isis constitute a threat justifying the use of force
:40:10. > :40:14.under article 51 of the UN Charter or legitimate aid of the Iraqi
:40:15. > :40:17.government in dealing with a conflict, you have a legal base for
:40:18. > :40:24.taking action against all their operatives. The fact is, these
:40:25. > :40:29.countries do not threaten Britain. One or two people in these countries
:40:30. > :40:32.might threaten to explode a bomb in Britain, yes. It is not an
:40:33. > :40:37.existential threat to Britain, this is an extension of the concept of
:40:38. > :40:40.defence into what is effectively a tax, the Ministry of Defence should
:40:41. > :40:44.pick up the Ministry of attack. It is aggression against people a long
:40:45. > :40:47.way from here who do not threaten others at all and one of the
:40:48. > :40:52.consequences of the development of these new sophisticated weapons, we
:40:53. > :40:58.cannot resist using them. We are out of time on it, but I will give you
:40:59. > :41:04.the last word, it will be on this... I want to ask you about domestic
:41:05. > :41:07.use, that was one of the things, sorry to curtail your thought, hold
:41:08. > :41:13.it for another time! More regulation? We need more regulation
:41:14. > :41:17.for the flying of these things, we have just been running a conference
:41:18. > :41:22.on the use of drones taking supplies into conflict zones and disaster
:41:23. > :41:26.areas, delivering medicines, nothing about the technology itself, but I'm
:41:27. > :41:31.very concerned about two things, one is the increasing autonomy of the
:41:32. > :41:36.systems and I'm on a campaign to stop the autonomous use of weapons
:41:37. > :41:40.because that is a no no but also the expanding use by police, not in the
:41:41. > :41:43.UK so much for surveillance, but in South Africa they are using it
:41:44. > :41:50.against striking miners to fire pepper spray, paintball is... And
:41:51. > :41:55.using it there as well to stop poachers. That is true, but this
:41:56. > :41:59.company, Desert Storm, is only selling in units of 50 and has built
:42:00. > :42:04.a new factory in Omagh and Brazil, said this is a concern about
:42:05. > :42:08.peaceful protest, what is evil protest under human rights law, it
:42:09. > :42:13.is a bit vague. We have to finish but what I have to say, when you
:42:14. > :42:16.were talking about regulations for domestic use, everybody on the front
:42:17. > :42:18.row was nodding and I have never seen that before in my life!
:42:19. > :42:21.You can join in all this morning's debates by logging
:42:22. > :42:23.on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions and following the link
:42:24. > :42:27.Or you can tweet using the hashtag #bbctbq.
:42:28. > :42:30.Tell us what you think about our last Big Question too -
:42:31. > :42:32.should the Church of England be cut down to size?
:42:33. > :42:35.And if you'd like to apply to be in the audience
:42:36. > :42:37.at a future show, you can email audiencetbq@mentorn.tv.
:42:38. > :42:39.We're in Cardiff next week, Oxford on March 26th,
:42:40. > :42:51.Since the murder in the cathedral of Thomas Becket, Archbishop
:42:52. > :42:54.of Canterbury to Henry II, this has been a place of pilgrimage
:42:55. > :42:57.A million visitors come here every year to wonder
:42:58. > :43:07.And most are happy to pay ?12 each for the privilege.
:43:08. > :43:11.But in neighbouring Surrey, the less-visited
:43:12. > :43:13.Guildford Cathedral, opened in 1961, asked for planning
:43:14. > :43:15.permission to build flats on its land in order
:43:16. > :43:20.Guildford Borough Council turned it down, so the cathedral is now
:43:21. > :43:26.The Church of England has an enormous property portfolio
:43:27. > :43:28.of 16,000 buildings to maintain, half of them Grade I
:43:29. > :43:33.But less than a million worshippers attend a Church
:43:34. > :43:41.Should the Church of England be cut down to size?
:43:42. > :43:48.Simon Jenkins, trustee of the churches conservation trust, lots of
:43:49. > :43:51.situations up and down the country like Guildford Cathedral, what would
:43:52. > :43:55.you do about it? Very few like chilled food. Cathedrals in this
:43:56. > :43:59.country are in good shape, more people going to cathedrals,
:44:00. > :44:02.worshipping in them, they are well looked after, they can raise money,
:44:03. > :44:07.cathedrals are not a major problem although gold but does have one. The
:44:08. > :44:13.problem is churches, as you said in the introduction there are probably
:44:14. > :44:16.5000 churches that are essentially empty, people may go occasionally,
:44:17. > :44:20.but they are essentially empty, in the middle of every community is a
:44:21. > :44:25.church, beautiful community buildings, built with the taxes of
:44:26. > :44:28.the public. They have got to be somehow return to the public, we
:44:29. > :44:36.have to get them back into use. They cannot be demolished, it is wrong,
:44:37. > :44:40.they are ours. These building should not be sitting largely empty in the
:44:41. > :44:46.middle of these communities without the community using them to the
:44:47. > :44:50.fore. You are not looking happy. Can I tell you what we do in our church?
:44:51. > :45:00.These churches were built on the back of serfdom, we want them back!
:45:01. > :45:03.I think you have them back, let me explain! One of the joys of the
:45:04. > :45:09.Church of England for me and the thing that attracted me to the
:45:10. > :45:12.Church of England, 16,000 church buildings, in every community, gives
:45:13. > :45:17.the Church of England are present in a brick community and you are saying
:45:18. > :45:21.should it be cut back to size? Obviously I will say no and let me
:45:22. > :45:27.explain why I am going to say no. Each building in each community
:45:28. > :45:31.represents a group of people who worship in that building and who are
:45:32. > :45:37.led by people like me with a collar on and lots of lay people. But some
:45:38. > :45:41.of the congregations could fit into a telephone box! They may be small
:45:42. > :45:46.but what they can do, one of our churches the congregation is not
:45:47. > :45:51.huge, between 20 to 30 people will gather and worship on a Sunday
:45:52. > :45:55.morning, but let me tell you, the fact that we worship and we are
:45:56. > :45:59.people of faith is only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin
:46:00. > :46:04.is, how are we going to live our lives and how will that affect the
:46:05. > :46:09.people around us? We opened a community hub about three years ago,
:46:10. > :46:13.people if they are feeling isolated or lonely can come in. We opened a
:46:14. > :46:18.credit union so that people who don't have access to a bank account
:46:19. > :46:22.could have access to savings... Simon, what about the homeless
:46:23. > :46:25.situation, a quarter of a million people in England are homeless and
:46:26. > :46:28.their Iraqis empty buildings, who would agree with what Leslie says,
:46:29. > :46:41.the broader Some churches do great things to
:46:42. > :46:47.open their buildings to the community. The reality is, though,
:46:48. > :46:52.churches have got bogged down with buildings. As a Christian, I am
:46:53. > :46:56.aware people who have been on church committees Woolnough you get your
:46:57. > :47:03.energy sapped into thinking about heating, plumbing, it goes into
:47:04. > :47:07.building is often not used. A study found 75% of Islington church
:47:08. > :47:15.meeting rooms were not used in the week. And when I open the new
:47:16. > :47:19.Testament as a Christian, I do not find Jesus telling his followers to
:47:20. > :47:28.set up a branch of the National Trust to maintain buildings.
:47:29. > :47:31.Here is the question, bricks and mortar, churches, what would Jesus
:47:32. > :47:36.do about them? I would not like to be arrogant to
:47:37. > :47:40.speak the very words of Jesus. When I looked at Jesus in the new
:47:41. > :47:45.Testament, he says that all about religious buildings. His comments
:47:46. > :47:50.were pretty negative. The gospel is about getting stuck into the
:47:51. > :47:55.community as churches are, I am not saying don't have buildings, but not
:47:56. > :48:01.for the sake of it. Use them while get rid of them. Meet someone else.
:48:02. > :48:06.Put the energy into engaging in the world, giving an example of
:48:07. > :48:11.promotion of equality and peace. They are essentially places of
:48:12. > :48:18.worship. In Canterbury diocese, over 90% of the parish churches are
:48:19. > :48:23.listed buildings. You can't just threw away a listed building. I go
:48:24. > :48:31.back to the point that we are communities of worship and prayer.
:48:32. > :48:34.That drives... Are they sacred places? There are
:48:35. > :48:43.people who would see them as sacred. I am a volunteer chaplain.
:48:44. > :48:47.They are sacred places. We are in danger of idolising buildings.
:48:48. > :48:51.We are not worshipping buildings here.
:48:52. > :48:57.I am not suggesting you are. There is a slope towards that. Some of the
:48:58. > :49:02.most powerful worship has been in great buildings, others have been
:49:03. > :49:08.outdoors, for example, in acts of protest, blocking and entrance to
:49:09. > :49:19.the London arms prayer by praying. That was a sacred space.
:49:20. > :49:22.So many of you are not being paid but you are concentrating on
:49:23. > :49:26.antennae these buildings. Timothy? There is a lesson to be
:49:27. > :49:32.learned from the National Trust, I will come to that. You were asking
:49:33. > :49:36.about downsizing. I do not think as a conservationist there need be a
:49:37. > :49:42.problem with money. One of the main problems we have is too much money.
:49:43. > :49:47.I can think of a case of a central London church where the vehicle was
:49:48. > :49:53.in the middle of raising ?3 million in order to change the interior, a
:49:54. > :49:58.fine early 1950s interior, and the no particular reason. If you look at
:49:59. > :50:03.the church is associated with holy Trinity Brompton, you will find an
:50:04. > :50:08.enormous waste of resources put into what I would call essentially
:50:09. > :50:16.vandalising Victorian buildings. That is a popular church.
:50:17. > :50:20.Throbbing. That is right. The parish church in
:50:21. > :50:26.the area where I grew up in Hammersmith has been competitively
:50:27. > :50:32.shafted by the changes put into it. Let me pick up something Simon said
:50:33. > :50:36.he clearly which is about buildings. The evangelical wing of the Church
:50:37. > :50:41.of England has an obsession about buildings and destroying them. Go
:50:42. > :50:45.back to the English Civil War, they were pushing their pack stuff
:50:46. > :50:48.through stained glass windows so we could not enjoy them.
:50:49. > :50:53.In a way they are still at it. They are absolutely still at it. You
:50:54. > :50:58.may laugh. Let me give you an example. There is
:50:59. > :51:04.a manual, a best selling authoritative manual for the
:51:05. > :51:09.evangelical wing of the Church of England calls re-pitching a tent,
:51:10. > :51:14.from 20 years ago. It includes in it an illustration of a happy
:51:15. > :51:19.combination smashing up a Gothic church and moving into a plain ugly
:51:20. > :51:24.building on the outskirts precisely for the benefit of the community.
:51:25. > :51:28.Because it's not about bricks and mortar.
:51:29. > :51:32.Simon Jenkins? There is no problem with popular churches or the
:51:33. > :51:37.wonderful work that people like you do, some of the most dedicated
:51:38. > :51:43.people I have come across. Best practice is not the issue. Most of
:51:44. > :51:47.Church of England churches are severely underused. It is no good
:51:48. > :51:52.saying they are open to all. Most people say why do you use the
:51:53. > :51:59.church? It is not for me. It is for a small section of practising
:52:00. > :52:04.Anglicans. The biggest buildings in most of these committees is a
:52:05. > :52:08.church. It caters for a tiny group in that community. It is in the
:52:09. > :52:12.interest of the church for the community to recapture these places
:52:13. > :52:20.and use them more widely. Audience, does anyone want to say
:52:21. > :52:28.something? The gentleman here. I am not a Christian. This small
:52:29. > :52:31.church, there were booked a few hundred years ago. In those days, a
:52:32. > :52:38.lot of people didn't have cars to travel. Now, a lot of people have
:52:39. > :52:45.cars, it is easier to travel. Would it not be better to have a church,
:52:46. > :52:51.instead of every church having 20 parishioners, have a bigger church
:52:52. > :52:55.somewhere where they can all go? An American evangelical mega-
:52:56. > :53:00.church? Cathedrals.
:53:01. > :53:09.Good morning, a colourful top. Good morning. It is not about the
:53:10. > :53:13.buildings but the communities. I come from rural Devon originally and
:53:14. > :53:18.there are a lot of places where churches are pretty much the only
:53:19. > :53:32.community building left, the post of this goes, the postbox can even go.
:53:33. > :53:37.Community cohesion. Sometimes people will say, look at
:53:38. > :53:42.Kent, you have lots of churches, rural churches in hamlets or small
:53:43. > :53:47.villages. If you were to think they have already lost the pub, the
:53:48. > :53:53.shops, public transport isn't great. It is still the church that is
:53:54. > :53:55.there. It holds a place, not the building...
:53:56. > :54:02.But if you flog the churches you could do more for charity.
:54:03. > :54:05.A few years ago there was a lot of flooding on the Somerset levels, the
:54:06. > :54:09.church buildings and the congregations and their volunteers,
:54:10. > :54:14.that was a brilliant example of church communities coming into their
:54:15. > :54:18.own. Let us not get hung up on the building which is a place to worship
:54:19. > :54:23.coming you can get married, have a funeral, your baptism.
:54:24. > :54:27.Can you get married in there if you are gay.
:54:28. > :54:33.Well... Not at the moment. I am glad I would be welcome at
:54:34. > :54:38.church but it is simply not true there is a church that welcomes
:54:39. > :54:42.everybody in every community. Because of that point?
:54:43. > :54:46.Some churches would welcome me because of my sexuality. If you are
:54:47. > :54:49.a wheelchair user, in defiance of the law of the country, you cannot
:54:50. > :54:54.get in. Churches should be pioneering
:54:55. > :55:00.equality but in many places they are actually less equal than the society
:55:01. > :55:04.around them. Let me ask a question.
:55:05. > :55:09.Who owns these churches? The people own the churches. Our
:55:10. > :55:14.ancestors built them with their extorted taxes and hardship.
:55:15. > :55:20.These churches, especially the great cathedrals, not just religious
:55:21. > :55:27.statements but about power, control. Keeping the peasantry down.
:55:28. > :55:35.Beckett died because he was trying to ensure his version of Sharia law,
:55:36. > :55:39.the church courts. Yet he was made a saint. They are community buildings
:55:40. > :55:44.that belonged to the descendants of the people who paid for them. They
:55:45. > :55:51.could be made more use of, you can get married there, and they have the
:55:52. > :55:55.huge weight of community history in them not just for revision but the
:55:56. > :55:59.getting married and buried. We should open them up. The Church of
:56:00. > :56:06.England has shown itself not fit to look after these great treasures.
:56:07. > :56:11.In areas where there is less of a church of England engagement but
:56:12. > :56:15.more of a Muslim or Hindu engagement, Bradford for example,
:56:16. > :56:20.turn them into mosques? I say let people use them including
:56:21. > :56:24.the Church of England. Other religions as well. Community
:56:25. > :56:31.centres, as well as religion. Dominic Grieve, they were
:56:32. > :56:35.architectural jurors looking on the peasantry, it was about shock and
:56:36. > :56:40.awe. It is ethical and political power.
:56:41. > :56:45.There was an element of that, and religious devotion. A large number
:56:46. > :56:50.were built through ridges devotion and money voluntarily given. There
:56:51. > :56:55.is a mixture. Toovey characterised the entirety of the piety of the
:56:56. > :57:00.middle ages as being state imposed on the peasantry is a little far
:57:01. > :57:04.from reality. There was a great mixture but it was a time when the
:57:05. > :57:09.leadership of the churches had sold out to wealth and power.
:57:10. > :57:17.Had gone against Jesus's article message. Through historical anomaly
:57:18. > :57:21.we have these cathedrals largely tourist attractions, things like
:57:22. > :57:24.church has conference Centre hosting every year a military conference
:57:25. > :57:29.sponsored by arms companies to fund the church. With these buildings
:57:30. > :57:35.now, we are stuck with them and it is making it harder...
:57:36. > :57:42.As an early modern historian I take issue with the fact religion wasn't
:57:43. > :57:46.necessarily not connected to the state. The state had a great deal of
:57:47. > :57:52.laws imposing on people to force them to be religious. The penalties
:57:53. > :57:57.in the medieval period if you want part of that church community and
:57:58. > :58:05.weren't conforming, it was political control. I point again is, if you
:58:06. > :58:08.look at the churches built, can I say the word, before the
:58:09. > :58:13.Reformation, you have a different ownership. They belonged to the
:58:14. > :58:17.Roman Catholic Church. This may be a get out clause. Churches bought
:58:18. > :58:23.before the Reformation could be handed back.
:58:24. > :58:28.15 seconds. It is what we do in the future not the past. In the future,
:58:29. > :58:32.you sound welcoming, the fact is churches are not welcoming places.
:58:33. > :58:35.But more and more. On that point of contention we had
:58:36. > :58:36.to leave it. As always, the debates will continue
:58:37. > :58:39.online and on Twitter. Next week we're in Cardiff,
:58:40. > :58:41.so do join us then. But for now, it's goodbye from
:58:42. > :58:46.Canterbury, and have a great Sunday. It was the most beautiful view
:58:47. > :59:09.I've ever been through. For one second, I was swimming on my
:59:10. > :59:15.back, and I was looking to the sky. I was swimming across
:59:16. > :59:21.the Aegean Sea. I was a refugee,
:59:22. > :59:25.going from Syria to Germany.