Episode 8 The Big Questions

Thank you, good morning, welcome to The Big Questions from King Edward

VI School in Southampton. All that is necessary for the triumph of

evil is that good men or women do nothing. As Edmund Burke might have

remarked, had he witnessed the fall-out from the clutch of

scandals, Mid Staffordshire Hospital, Jimmy Savile, and perhaps

the Liberal Democrats. Should there be a duty to expose wrong to link?

This hospital whistle blower says creating a duty under law would

enable anybody who covered up wrongdoing to be prosecuted. This

care home whistleblower says it risks employees taking the blame

while their manager is escape responsibility.

Charitable status is worth a lot of money through tax exemptions, and

the ability to recover income tax on donations. It is seen as a badge

of authenticity by potential donors. But a Plymouth Brethren trust has

failed to find favour with the Charity Commission. To all churches

deserve charitable status? Peter Bone MP says the Charity Commission

should not have the power to decide which religion is good or bad. This

former but remember says this church should not be a charity

because it is run purely for its members' benefit.

A furnace of fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth, a place without

rest, day or night. This is how the Bible describes how, which awaits

those who reject Christ. Do not say you have not been warned. Does it

exist? This former soldier says there has to be held in order for

God to punish evil and be just. This psychologist says the idea is

damaging, a form of social control. To everybody knew that nobody did

anything, that is the cry went a scandal is brought to light. That

is why the government is considering ideas like a duty of

candour or the banning of gagging clauses. Should there be a duty to

expose wrongdoing? Frank Furedi, you have a problem with this. Do we

not have a right to know? We need to know when bad things happen, but

if you turn whistle blowing into a duty of care, you professionalise

it, he emptied of meaning that, and what happens under those

circumstances is that it breeds institutional dishonesty. People

begin to cover their tracks, they no longer feel free to openly

discuss problems. Experience shows that when you incite people to

undergo this ritual of complaining, the institutions use that do not be

totally accountable. In the NHS, we need major reforms and a major

change in culture, not Outsourcing the problem to individuals to

complain about. Although it sounds good, it deprives the moral content

of whistle-blowing. Historically, they did it because it was the

right thing to do, they felt a strong conviction. If you turn that

into a duty, it becomes a complainant charter. You will have

groups of solicitors parasitic queue-jumping on the bandwagon,

compensation claims. We will end up with a bad situation. Public

institutions will be no better off. But to whistleblowers... Do they

need further legal protection and back-up? In terms of my situation,

I was raising concerns. It turns out I was blowing the whistle. What

is not understood by yourself is the fact that when you have a duty

of care to patients, patients are at the centre of your work. When

you raise concerns, you expect them to be resolved. What happens is

that the heavens open and backers come at you. We need a robust

system to support the clinician to keep the patient at the centre of

care. Does that mean not only legal protection for those that do what

you did, but also essential for those who do not blow the whistle?

What you see as an individual, when you begin to try to correct what is

actually happening in terms of not being allowed to remedy the

situation, the further you look into the system, you realise that

on one hand it is saying you must raise concerns, on the other hand

it says you will be for ever damaged professionally, personally.

We need something a bit more robust. Whistle blower link can and does

work, I am involved with a mental health charity, we work with

clinicians, I can be a front of them, but also a protagonist, to

make sure those services are being achieved. If we do not, it costs

lives. We see it time and time again. It needs to be managed in a

strategic manner. We are encouraged to bring up those failings, but

which are not engaged when we do. What needs to happen? We need to

make some serious changes to legislation. There has been a

recent review of the public disclosure Act, which is supposed

to be there to protect whistleblowers. In the vast

majority of cases, it has let them down. The problem that you have is

that the legislation does not prevent employers from singling out

the individuals, because there is a set of rules, individuals do not

know that prior to making a disclosure. There is not the

protection, there is not enough comeback for the employers that to

victimise their employees, but also, the comic aspect. -- colleague

aspect. There is a lack of coherence, because one person has

blown the whistle, they might be arrested or they feel uncomfortable.

It gets real difficult. It makes the whole thing very complicated.

You have considered the possibility of a complainant's charter?

destroy organisations, because you what objecting to moral pressure.

That has got a bad aspect to it. You can isolate individuals. Is it

not acting professionally? Yes, but you need to have a bond, so they

can work at strategies. I went to work in a care home, and add to

that point, I thought I lived in a civilised, free country. I looked

after people with Alzheimer's, some of them had no family, they were

not able to bear witness to what was happening to them. They were

deliberately tortured. In ways that will haunt me until the day that I

die. I have seen people bending people's fingers back, to get

pleasure from it. I thought if I went to the management of the

company, something would be done. I did not realise that six other

carers were also going and had been told not to speak to each other,

and they needed to collect evidence. At that point, I thought that

things would be put right. But what happened, our lives were made a

living hell. I was bending down to attend to a lady and I was smashed

with a chair. Other whistleblowers were spat at, we were assaulted, we

went into work at 7:00am and were told to come back at midnight. No

food was brought down because they started to use the residents to get

to us. We had to walk with Fiat each day to go into work, and the

law was not with us. You did the right thing, I have read your

account, incredibly moving, the war veteran whose capita was full, the

way he was treated. He said he wished he had never swum out to the

boat that day when the boats came. He wished he had died at Dunkirk if

he had known what he was given to face. I felt so ashamed of my

country, that that is how we treat people. What you are describing it

is what is happening now, that is the reality of the situation. The

law is very unbalanced, so clinicians have a duty of care to

the patient, they also have a duty to speak when they see things are

not going correctly. When they speak, there are professional and

personal consequences. The Baby P doctor was raising serious concerns

about the system that she was working with as a clinician. And

the potential for great damage and death to happen to patients. There

is one word that we need in the law. A law is built on accountability at

the top of an organisation. The man that we went to at the top of the

company is now currently advising the CQC on how to inspect care

homes. I would ask David Cameron to give the same level of protection

to whistleblowers that is currently given to Sir David Nicholson.

People at the top, if you say it whistle plovers are out of their

job but the people at the top of promoted, what are you saying?

Surely this is an argument for statutory protection and perhaps

even legal duty, because perhaps we would not have had Zeebrugge or

Piper Alpha it or Clapham Junction. People might have wished they had

said something. We have a campaign. I would like to see the victims put

at the heart of the law, because we should remember that people's lives

are lost when a whistleblower is ignored. I did not know what a

whistleblower was when I spoke out. For the watchword is protection.

The question posed by the programme is whether people should be morally

compelled or legally compelled. In my view, the answer has been

provided. Many people are already feeling morally compelled to stand

up. What stops there is the were full protection afforded to them.

We see organisations and large employers attacking the whistle

blower rather than addressing the issues that there is. There is also

the issue, I was asked how much for silence, how much did I want? I

said, you have not got enough money. Is that what you said? It was put

more strongly than that! We are just talking about the whistle

blower. We have bad organisations, they are going in the wrong

direction. Instead of altering them, we say the solution lies in

individuals have been the duty to blow the whistle. If you

individualise the problem, you perpetuate the bad things. Is it

not a fundamental moral principle? If that was your mother, like this

woman described, or a relative, and they were in that situation, would

it not be your bike to raise the alarm bell? How can you say that we

should be allowed and this to continue? I am all for blowing the

whistle. If you feel strongly, it is your duty. That is the way to

change organisations. There is a difference between saying, this is

what I must do, standing up and fighting it, and saying it, I have

got this right given in law to complain. Whistle-blowing is not

complaining. I did not know what a whistle blower was. If I had to go

back and do it again, I would, because it would... Hello, Kevin.

We have to look away from the NHS, because whistle-blowing ought to be

there, we have to look at the contortions of the entertainment

industry about Jimmy Savile, how many people have said, for the last

30 or 40 years, I knew he. To it, but I did not think I could say

anything? You have to look at the consequences with Jimmy Savile to

say, we need more protection for whistleblowers. There is another

problem. When you go back to Staffordshire Hospital, you look at

what has happened to the woman who set up to cure the NHS charity, she

has been vilified locally, local citizens have taken against her,

people who ought to have a better moral sense, and the problem you

end up with the, you say, if I do not say anything, I therefore am

part of the behaviour. That is Good morning. Good morning. I am a

teacher. As a teacher, up we are trained a lot better now in child-

protection. We have had growth in the way that we approach, the way

we approach situations. I grew up in the 1970s. I watch Jim'll Fix It.

I remember seeing that those girls looked very squashed up next to him

and uncomfortable. As a child I did not consider, because I did not

even know what child abuse was back then. As a society, we have grown

up. We have come up with means by which we can deal with these

terrible things that go on. It has taken a long time and we're not

there yet in education, but there are procedures in place, not just

rules. No buddies you would consider that if I thought a child

was being abused, I should possibly not reported. APPLAUSE Somebody

could be there when that chav was being abused and somebody would

have to reported to you. Procedures and robust whistle-

blowing policies are pieces of paper that you can stuff down your

back if you are hit with a chair. But without accountability... You

have mentioned Julie Bailey. She has been vilified. Every time you

see the words, no single individual or organisation is going to be held

to account, you know. Mid- Staffordshire can happen again,

just like that. So can Jimmy Savile. If it is a legal duty, are there

any problems with that? Will people tend to report everything that they

see, everything they come across? was about to agree with a lot about

what that gentleman said. Up until the point that he said it would

lead to parasitic lawyers. I cannot help disagree with that bit. What

is your profession? I am a lawyer. Whistle-blowing is a colloquial

term. It means people that are willing to stand up in the face of

wrong doing. They have a role in every society. A legal duty takes

it from a moral duty that we would all encourage and creates a system

that is divisive. It means, do we have to look over our shoulder

before we do or say anything? It is taking the nanny state too far.

Clinicians already have a legal duty to raise concerns and to a

whistleblower. Managers in the NHS particularly do not have that legal

duty. Right up the management structure there is no legal

accountability. Why are we spending millions of pounds gagging people,

preventing them from raising concerns where there is a danger

and damage being caused to the population? If you do have that

legal compulsion, is there a danger that people will stop speaking

about things and start communicating with euphemisms?

my university, lecturers no longer e-mail each other about what they

think. We basically sound anodyne references when we send letters of

reference. The real issue is where were these people in the 1970s?

They had no voice. That is not true. There were a lot of people in the

BBC... THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE There were lots of powerful people in the

entertainment business who would now say that we knew about all this

stuff that was going on. You are IBJ, as he had a radio

programme, why did you not tell the world what was happening? The

problem was a lack of moral courage. Procedure is not a substitute for

moral courage. I would suggest that there has been grooming. We used

this word with the Jimmy Savile situation. The population has been

groomed into compliance. We cannot speak because of the sanctions. We

have watched what happened to other people that have tried to speak out

about things that are clearly wrong. Do you think there is a difference

now it between people working in the NHS and the same situation 20

years ago, in terms of their ability to speak out? Yes. In the

past, people were dad. -- people were stopped from speaking. There

had been a system designed that would stop people from speaking. We

need laws that go right to the top. We have said to David Cameron about

this, holding people accountable right to the top. APPLAUSE Thank

you for your contributions. If you have something to say about that

debate, log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions and

follow the link to where you can join in online. Or join in the

discussion on Twitter. We are also debating live this morning, do all

churches deserve charitable status? And does hell exist? Tell us what

you think about those topics or send any general comments you would

like to make about the programme. In a letter turning down an

application from Plymouth Brethren elders, the Charity Commission said,

there is no presumption that religion, generally or at any more

specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of

Christianity or the Church of England. So the Tory MP Peter Bone

has sponsored a Private Member's Bill to reintroduce the presumption

that all religious institutions are of public benefit and therefore

eligible for charitable status. Do all churches deserve charitable

status? Good morning. Good morning.

think we should reinstate this default position that if it is

religious it is good? Almost. The presumption. That is what it was

before 2006. Ed Miliband brought this Act through Parliament and he

stated that it would not affect any current religious institutions.

That legislation was aimed at creating independent schools, not

religion. But the Charity Commission has decided to

reinterpret the will of Parliament. They withheld charitable status

from the Church of Scientology in 1999. You would support that

position? There is a presumption, but if there are religions that are

just fronts, that would not apply. There will be the private member's

bill at the end of March. I'm going to see the Minister about this

tomorrow. We will put in three stipulations into the legislation.

There will be three Test. Test No. 1? If, for instance, you provide

prayer. If prayer is open, that would take the box. Education, that

would be one. If you provided money to charities, that would be another.

There is a whole series of Test we are putting in. The problem with

the current legislation is that public benefit is not defined,

which is why the Charity Commissioners have been able to

reinterpret the lot. This could all applied to a religion that might

believe that children are possessed by evil spirits, for example.

always told by left-wingers that they believe in freedom of religion,

but when the question comes, they do not believe it, they want

religion to be performed in a particular way. This is not about

freedom of religion. This is about religion saying, we want privilege,

we want special rides. Believe what you want, because belief is only

belief, 80 is not fact. I have no problem with people believing

something. In Liverpool, some people believe Everton are the

greatest football team in the world. But do not tell me that you want

tax breaks are a special position in society merely because you are

religious. That has to be wrong. Francis Davis, of what is your

problem with this? The allegedly exclusive Plymouth Brethren, they

have spent over �1 million on legal expenses and PR, it is said.

Clearly this is a valuable prize, charitable status. Are they not

spreading the word of Christ? thing about the law is that

religion is not just an idea, it takes an institutional form.

Religion can choose to be a private company and some will choose to be

a charity. What comes with that his financial benefits. The definition

has been negotiated with the Charity Commission and it is on

their website. All the mainstream churches live with that and our

passing through it successfully. In every community we have a series of

fringe groups where the leader of the Church's car has got messed up

in the accounts. You cannot tell the difference between the accounts

of the members and the accounts of the Church. In the case of the

exclusive brethren, not the normal Plymouth Brethren, they do not use

the internet, they do not let their children go to university. In

Australia and New Zealand they fund the Conservative Party. You do not

want charitable funds being applied for political purposes that are not

transparent because there is not the scrutiny of a regulator.

Richard, you were born into the Plymouth Brethren. Yes, the

exclusive brethren. Why should we be worried? On most issues I would

be on the same place as Peter Bone. He and I are both right wing Tories.

But in the case of the exclusive brethren, we are speaking about a

cult. It does more harm to society then good. I agree with Peter Bone

that there ought to be a presumption that religious

organisations clearly provide a public benefit. What does their

leaders say? Their current leader is an Australian furniture salesman.

His ministry, which she has published, says that you should hit

the world. There are people who have said similar things. People

like Abu Hamza. Was he to say that in a public place, we might

consider arresting him. For me, the exclusive brethren are one of those

special cases. How has this affected you? I have not seen my

family since 1980. I was excommunicated from my family, my

job, my home. I cannot even have a cup of tea with my mother, if you

can call that Christian. You are the lawyer of the exclusive

brethren. And so this charge of it being a cult? -- answer. It is not

a term that I recognise from my personal experience of my dealings

with them. We must be very careful not to personalise this. You had

the same issue in the debate last week about there being an important

differentiation between doctrine and practice. But let's move on

from that. There is a fundamental difficulties here in that things

are being sent very specific they and out of context. Certainly the

Ministry I have looked at, particularly that statement, it is

about the moral separation from evil in the world, it is nothing to

do with physical our personal abuse. I have seen it are lots -- I have

seen lots of ministries that speak clearly about compassion. We must

not take things out of context. I should also say that I have not

been a member of the Plymouth Brethren. I am not from within that

community, so I cannot speak about There are examples and cases where

the law has to step in and say that this does not provide public

benefit, and there is a lack of benefit to the wider public. I have

an experience of the Plymouth Brethren. I did not find them to

peak ferry inclusive. They take their children home at lunchtime

because they cannot eat with other children. My son at five years old

invited one of his Plymouth Brethren friends to his birthday

party. I tried to dissuade him from inviting him, because I knew he

would not come, but we send the invitation, and he did not come up.

I had to say to Michael, he cannot come because he cannot eat with you.

I helped in the class, any activities related to the

television, I had to sit with him and two other activities. I find

them to be not inclusive, very exclusive, and on Sportsday, they

cannot partake. From what we are hearing, why should these people

get taxpayers' money? A lot of the things I heard, I do not recognise

as being true. If you believe religion should be allowed to do

certain things,... You can say the same for Andrew Hunter. -- appear

Hansa. If you are a terraced, you should be arrested under terrorist

laws. If you are a paedophile, you should be arrested for paedophilia.

You should not have your charitable status taken away. The commission

will be one of the first to be able to identify that there is a risk to

security from a particular religious community. That is why it

used to have a specialist unit that attract those parts of communities

that were a risk. That was cut when the new government arrived. Where

would you draw the public benefit line? We need a historic

perspective. The presumption was that any religion is better than no

religion when the laws were set up originally. In 1600. That is fair

enough. 1601, sorry! In that context, religion was presumed to

be the Church of England. And it was presumed to be good. The issue

about public benefit is who will say what it is? Who will define it?

We have had the situation that, because of various procedures, the

Catholic adoption agencies have closed down because they have been

put in the position to say, we cannot do what we want to do

because of the way the law is now defined. That seemed to be the

problem. The situation we should have is that it is innocent until

proven guilty. The churches provide 27 million person hours of

voluntary work outside of churches a month. It is costed out to �3.5

billion to the UK economy. These are people volunteering. Feature

rich network got it in 2010. -- Druid network. There should be a

lot of tests. That sounds like a no. Innocent until proven guilty. You

can investigate, but the idea that people should have to prove they

risk things beforehand,... 1175 religious organisations got

charitable status, one of them was refused. That is the Preston down

case. If this is a conspiracy by the left-wing Commission, they are

doing a poor job of it! And that coming from a right-wing Tory!

People do a huge amount of good things in the world. They have a

lot of good feeling for their fellow man, they do not need

religion to achieve that. They took that because they are citizens. I

am a psychotherapist and psychologist, I am nice! I am so

pleasant to people, I do not ask for a tax break. The churches of

the largest voluntary organisation, by another. -- partner. The issue

it is that they should not be taxed for it. They give their time and

money voluntarily, why did you put a tax? It is hard enough. You do

not pay income tax, you get tax relief on donations... It is hard

enough to get leaders Ford youth organisations, why put an extra

hurdle? It is hard enough to get work as a counsellor, I get taxed

for giving out. Nobody says, you are doing good work, you are making

a difference, we will give you a bit back. They do not do that. I

have a fundamental problem, a church might do some good things

come up I have no doubt that some judges do terrifically good things,

but that is not the whole of the enterprise. They say they want

special rights and financial brakes. If you run a soup kitchen, I have

no problem with that soup kitchen being declared a charity. But do

not make the whole edifice tax free. What if we were to say that there

are particularly religious views that are bad for public? For

example, the Catholic Church saying that contraception is bad. That has

serious repercussions. People die because of that. I am not to say

they are bad organisations, but if they were a charity, these views

would not be supported. We are speaking about tax in a negative

way. But it is effectively a pot for everybody. That needs to be

taken into account. It is part of the payment of every individual

towards the Great Society. Should we have this presumption that all

religions are good for society, thereby they should get tax breaks?

We need to be sent to the debate on this issue. First, the Charities

Act recognises that advancement of religion is considered to be a

public benefit. It is at least a benefit for the members of that

religion. First of, if the Charity Commission have decided to move

away from that and introduce a new interpretation, contrary to what

the statute says, that is a grave concern, and that is an issue of

legislative responsibility and the Palace that we give our

parliamentarians. 1000 Christian related organisations achieved

charity status. There is a serious concern, people are beginning to

talk about good religion and bad religion. They are creating some

kind of benchmark. The threat is an ignoble litany of hucksters and con

men in religion. At the moment, we have an unofficial parliamentary

committee, which comes together. Perhaps our legal friend can give

us more advice. In relation to the Plymouth brethren, they have said

they will take anonymous evidence. What this committee has said is

that, we will call for evidence from former members of the Plymouth

brethren to ask if they have been mistreated. They have said, we will

take evidence from people, anecdotally, and we will ask people,

have you suffered harm? If so, this will be collected together and used

to attack religious organisations. That is dangerous. But it is to do

with specific organisations. That is not true at all. In this

situation, you have got rules about public benefit. That part is set

low. The suggestion that Peter Bone says is already enshrined in law.

You on wronged. You are absolutely wrong. Why print in a Bill to

change something that already exists? It would not be the first

time! It replicates the tests that the Charity Commission already

carries out to discover whether an organisation is for the public

benefit. The bite you are setting is higher than the public benefit

test. I am not going to support you, because the important thing is that

there is one law for everybody. Every religious organisation and

charity currently has to do the same thing, they have to prove

their public benefit in the same way. There are the same roles.

cannot be defined, that is the problem. Parliament had a look at

whether to define it, and it decided it was so complex, so

difficult,... That is not correct, because my bill had the biggest, or

the second biggest, parliamentary majority this century. I had

different people voting for that bill. Parliament thinks the

commission has re- interpreted what we want. We are going to have to

leave it there, but thank you for taking part in that particular

debate. You can continue that one online. Follow the link to the

online discussion, and send us your views, does Hell exist? If you want

to be in the audience for a future show, e-mail us. We are in St

Albans, Londonderry and York in the coming weeks.

Matthew chapter 25 reveals how the sump of man will come, surrounded

by the Holy Angels, and will provide the nations of the world.

As a shepherd divides the sheep from the Kurds. -- goads. Does Hell

exist? Pope Benedict, the soon-to- be former Pope, said that it is a

physical place of burning and suffering and torment and

punishment. You believe it exists? Definitely. Whether it is physical

is a matter we do not know. It is a moot point. But it definitely

exists. Why? There is definitely evil in this universe. I believe in

a guard who is loving and just, and for there not to be held where evil

can be punished, it is impossible - - not to be Hell. The only way to

avoid it is to accept Christ's death on the cross as your payment

for your personal sins. If you accept Jesus, you can avoid Hell?

God created everything, so he must have created Hell. He created the

means of torture. It is a punishment of evil. He would not be

loving and just if there was no punishment. We have been hearing

horrible things about torturing pensioners and people in care. We

all get the sense of moral outrage that such things can happen. God

would not be laughing and just if he allowed that to go unpunished. -

- loving and chest. The camp is specific about Hell -- Koran. There

are pretty gruesome punishments. It is all there. It is not fun! It is

reality, is it? One of the things that we have lost in recent times

in this post industrial world is the concept of what is not seen. We

have become very rational, and one of the things that religion

particularly this is it keeps the door open, to issues of the

spiritual realm, and different realms of existence. The Prophet

Mohammed likens the realm of the unseen as if somebody put their

finger into an ocean, and having taken your finger out, the water on

your finger is the experience of the realm of the sea. There is a

difference between the Islamic you and the Christian view. We do not

believe that Hell is a place of eternal damnation, of fire and

brimstone, I am not saying that there are not nice things, but from

the Islamic theological perspective, it is somewhere where people would

go, it is like a penitentiary, he would serve out a term, you would

become spiritually cleansed, and you move to a place of final abode.

The model that Islam has is far If you except bite cheeses into

your life, and you go to heaven, but people that you love very much

and want to be with are in hell, it is not being in heaven going to be

a torment? It will not. Because I will be with Jesus. The person ally

of the most is Jesus. What about these people in your life? I do not

love them as much as cheeses. you become uncaring about them?

would not. Can you not see that being in heaven would be a torment?

I cannot see that. Is there a chance they will get out of hell?

No. Sir you stop caring about those that you love? No. The people I

care about now, I tell about cheeses now, because I know that

when they die it is too late. It will not be awful thinking about

them because I will be so happy where I am. They will have chosen

their own pad. That is their choice. It seems to me that religion always

reflects what man wants. For example, if you think you have done

good, you will go to heaven. If you think someone has done band, they

will go to hell. Lots of people say that they believe in hell because

there is evil in the world. When you teach your children about a

place where they will burn for the rest of eternity, you are teaching

someone a principle that is quite damaging to them. APPLAUSE I am not

religious, so whether it there is a hell spiritually does not concern

me, but how can we say that there is not a hell on earth with the

Holocaust, and when it comes to HIV and things like that.

There are plenty of glimpses of hell. That is a good point. I think

it is important that not all religions have the same perspective.

In terms of that the perspective of my religion, life is not seen as a

linear process. Life is a cyclic process. There is an unlimited

number of lives that you may go through. Hell is considered to be

more of the state of mind, as state of being that you may experience

that you may experience when you're here on this earth, which is a

short amount of time. The suffering that you experience Kruger lives is

the process of spiritual regeneration. -- through your lives.

You believe that unless people embrace Jesus, they are for help. -

- hell. It seems to me that in the Bible as a whole, you have the way

that Abraham was received through faith. Paul, after Jesus, says that

that is the way, through faith in what God has done. Abraham believed

in God. It seems to me that those who live according to God's way,

they receive a gift. There are many people whose here about cheeses and

say that I always knew that, but I never knew his name. There will be

people who will represent the fate of Abraham and his receiving of

grace. It is not to do with anything we have done because we

are all under the same condemnation. So we can be as altruistic as we

like, we can do wonderful things, but if we do not accept cheeses, we

are destined for hell? I am horrified at hell. The great news I

have got for you is that there is no such place as hell. It does not

exist. APPLAUSE I think that hell is a human construct of social

control. It was invented by people to

terrorise the citizens. I did an exercise with a group of

professionals a few years ago. We started off by saying, Build Your

Paradise island. Five teams each produced their paradise island. One

team, in the middle of their island, there was a prison. That is really

important. We used hell for exclusion. The Roman Catholic

Church defines hell as exclusion from the presence of God. We have

heard about the Plymouth Brethren, they exclude people from their

community. What is that about, exclusion from the presence of God?

The true nature of God is awesome love and also Morsi. It is a

physical experience? It is a physical experience, but to

emphasise the external dimension is to run away from things that we

know about. You can be in church loving cheeses and let people go to

prison camps. That is not good enough. There are glimpses of hell

today. An abuse victim who sport has failed them systemically. He

will be replaced by a bunch of cardinals who have failed them on

child abuse. They are living through it hell systemic Lee.

things are indeed not meant to be part of this world. That is why you

are calling them a living hell. It is the consequence of saying that

we have things like that. In that sense, cheeses is a contract lower,

doing the deal in church. -- Jesus. I am disgusted by her

interpretation. You're projecting your views and beliefs and you are

saying that if you do not stick to that, you are going to hell. How

dare you put these profanities into this arena. She is not rejecting

anything on you. She is, she is using that language. The problem

that I have with hell is the condition for entering it. As you

said, it is about accepting Jesus Christ as you Lord and saviour.

There are plenty of people who do not accept Jesus as their Lord and

saviour, great people. It seems unfair that you can leave your

whole life doing bad things and still get into heaven, simply

because you accept Jesus Christ. understand his professional opinion,

but I would rather believe the words of Jesus about the future.

Jesus is the one who speaks the most about the kingdom of God that

is coming, the new kingdom of heaven and earth. So Gandhi is

getting tortured now? No. It is not up to us. You have got to look at

it the other way on this. You hear about many people who have been the

victims of terrible injustice, a terrible wrong doing. They say that

justice must be done, not only through the courts, but violence

and all sorts of things. The law says that vengeance is mine. If you

remove the possibility that there is any final sorting out, then you

leave it all down to the justice that people want in this life.

group is Anglican mainstream. There was an e-mail sent to the Bishop of

Buckingham who has been very supportive of gay marriage from a

member of your group. He said, he is beyond reach, gave him up to

Satan for sifting. That is not necessarily from a member of our

Group, but it is someone who has real concerns about those issues.

It is reported from your good? Maybe that has been misreported.

The scripture tells us that there is a new world coming and Jesus is

waiting for us there. I was brought up in it the Plymouth Brethren.

Frankly, I left. I would rather take the risk of going to hell than

a going back to that. It is difficult to determine if there is

a hell. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the

dead. If he did rise from the dead, as he is the only person in

humankind to experience the after life. Therefore I trust his

testimony. How can we have an all loving God, who in his powerful

nature creates a hell? I do not think enough attention is given two

more are Indians is backed its of life after death. We are defining

life that is current and only of this world. That is an assumption

that we have made based on more Christian perspectives. I am not

saying that one is better than the other, but there are other thoughts

out there. From the perspective of my religion, where spiritual beings.

Somebody mentioned Hitler. We still breathe the air of Hitler, and we

share that. I like the idea that if you do it wrong and you go there,

did is an appeal system? You are saying that that is it, they is no

way out. Yes, it is final, no second chances. No court of

justice? No. God does not want people to go there. He sent Jesus

so that we do not have to go there. There is no sin in heaven.

challenges people to live in a better way in the society that we

have, while we're in this life. You'd do not need Gardyne Jesus for

that, you need Jean-Paul Sartre. -- you do not need God and Jesus for

that. He said that Hell is other people. He said that people need to

be freed to make good choices. is hard to believe that hell is not

a religious device to control people, when in the Middle Ages

people could pay to have their since taken away from them. That

happen because people did not properly understand the work of

Jesus Christ, coming to us to bear are MACS in for us. You made the

point about deathbed conversions. The FIFA on the Cross said, Lord,

remember me when you come in your kingdom. Jesus said, it today, you

will be with me in paradise. That is the immense love of God, and the

grace and Morsi. Is it only Muslims in heaven? And not at all. One of

the things from Islamic tradition is that there have been a chain of

revelations from different profits. The Koran is the final part of that

jigsaw puzzle. Thank you for taking part. As ever, the debates will