:00:00. > :00:14.Today on The Big Questions, wiping the slate clean - Christianity
:00:15. > :00:35.versus UKIP. And, getting help to die.
:00:36. > :00:42.We are live from Shelfield Community Academy in Walsall. Welcome
:00:43. > :00:48.everybody to The Big Questions! Last week, the European Court of Justice
:00:49. > :00:52.ruled that Google must remove search links to an old local newspaper
:00:53. > :00:56.story about the bankruptcy of a certain Spanish gentleman. It is a
:00:57. > :01:00.judgment with far-reaching implications for all internet search
:01:01. > :01:06.engines, and for all of us. Everybody now has the right to apply
:01:07. > :01:12.to a search engine requesting that should anybody search for your name,
:01:13. > :01:18.no links will appear relating to anything which you have asked not to
:01:19. > :01:23.be made public. It is all about the right to be forgotten. Lembit Opik,
:01:24. > :01:27.nobody is ever going to forget you! What are you worried about, there is
:01:28. > :01:32.a lot of stuff there were about you that the you would like to have
:01:33. > :01:35.deleted, isn't there? Reality is that we do not really control our
:01:36. > :01:40.identity in the public eye any more. If you Google something, you get not
:01:41. > :01:45.what you want people to see about you, but what has been reported
:01:46. > :01:49.about you, rightly or wrongly. For me, personally, there is tonnes of
:01:50. > :01:54.libellous stuff which, if I had the money or time, I would have taken to
:01:55. > :01:58.court to get rid of, but I have not been able to do that, because it
:01:59. > :02:03.takes two or three years. So, most people form a judgment based on what
:02:04. > :02:08.they read about me, and I do not think that is fair. People in here
:02:09. > :02:12.are all subject to the same problem. I think this is a very good
:02:13. > :02:17.judgment, not easy to enforce, but a very good judgment, because
:02:18. > :02:23.ultimately, our identity is our property, and we must be able to
:02:24. > :02:28.define who we are. The problem is that it is pretty nebulous stuff,
:02:29. > :02:34.isn't it? Is their stuff about you which is true but which you would
:02:35. > :02:37.like to have deleted? Varies. There is the libellous stuff which
:02:38. > :02:42.obviously I would like not to be there. Then there is other stuff
:02:43. > :02:46.which I am not comfortable about but which may be true. The problem is,
:02:47. > :02:51.are we going to censor stuff according to what we judge about
:02:52. > :02:55.it? This is probably going to have to be decided in court. But the
:02:56. > :03:01.principle for me is simple, we have all got the right to privacy, and
:03:02. > :03:04.the rights to be free from libellous stuff, and some sensitive
:03:05. > :03:08.information which is not in the public interest. At the moment, it
:03:09. > :03:13.is carte blanche, anything can be on the internet, however embarrassing,
:03:14. > :03:16.however personal, and it is extremely hard to get rid of it.
:03:17. > :03:20.That is why I believe this is a really good piece of legislation.
:03:21. > :03:25.That is fair enough, isn't it, Mark Stephens? It is down to accuracy as
:03:26. > :03:34.well, and stuff which was unfairly reported? I see a politician who
:03:35. > :03:39.wants an image which is his own self-image, the way he would like to
:03:40. > :03:42.project it to the public, not the way in which the public is entitled
:03:43. > :03:47.to know about the politician, warts and all. I think that is part of the
:03:48. > :03:53.problem. It is not that the information is going to disappear,
:03:54. > :04:02.so, if you Google Lembit Opik on the BBC website, then, in those
:04:03. > :04:08.circumstances... It is the conduit of Google in these search engines
:04:09. > :04:11.this is a major problem, for example, it means that contemporary
:04:12. > :04:16.social historians, students, academics, will not be able to find
:04:17. > :04:22.out about the truthful information about individuals, if they are
:04:23. > :04:25.perhaps writing a biography about somebody, those sort of pieces of
:04:26. > :04:30.information will not be out there. It is not intended that it should be
:04:31. > :04:34.there to try to redress libel. We have got libel laws. If you have
:04:35. > :04:39.been libelled, go and sue somebody. This is about something completely
:04:40. > :04:45.different. This is about allowing people to rewrite their own personal
:04:46. > :04:48.history, and that is just an except double. That is completely a
:04:49. > :04:54.misinterpretation of what is going on here. No it is not. Do you have
:04:55. > :05:00.any much idea how much it costs to run a libel case in this country, it
:05:01. > :05:06.can bankrupt someone! I know precisely how much, and it will cost
:05:07. > :05:10.you nothing come Lembit Opik because lawyers will do it on a no-win, no
:05:11. > :05:17.fee basis, if you have got a half decent case. I am not talking about
:05:18. > :05:23.this as a politician, I am not an MP any more. The time and money and
:05:24. > :05:29.paying it takes is enormous. This is not a debate about libel, this is a
:05:30. > :05:35.debate about your right to be preened by yourself. That is not
:05:36. > :05:39.acceptable. This is a continental law, the right to be forgotten. We
:05:40. > :05:44.are not allowed to know about President Mitterrand's mistresses,
:05:45. > :05:48.we are not allowed to know about all of those things... Some examples,
:05:49. > :05:53.Max Mosley is very supportive of this judgment, and of course, he was
:05:54. > :05:59.involved, it is Sunday morning, but he was involved in aid two do, a few
:06:00. > :06:05.years back. But aspects of that were misreported, and inaccurately
:06:06. > :06:11.reported, and he was not apparently talking German when that party took
:06:12. > :06:14.place. And that was reported, and that is there for ever. Why
:06:15. > :06:19.shouldn't he have the right to expunge that from the records? He
:06:20. > :06:26.was vindicated, the public judgment of the court indicated Max Mosley,
:06:27. > :06:29.both in privacy, and he was given the largest award of damages that
:06:30. > :06:33.this country has ever given in a Prevacid case, and the German courts
:06:34. > :06:45.have similarly given him an award in libel. -- in a river see case. -- in
:06:46. > :06:50.a privacy case. This is something different. 50% of people, as of last
:06:51. > :06:55.Friday, who worked asking for this to be taken down, where paedophiles,
:06:56. > :07:00.politicians and people who did not like the information about them.
:07:01. > :07:04.People like tax scammers, people who have been scamming the British
:07:05. > :07:09.public. Those sorts of individuals have been abusing this new law.
:07:10. > :07:14.Richard Beaumont, you are on the edge of your seat! What would you
:07:15. > :07:21.like to say to the points that you have heard from Mark Stephens? I
:07:22. > :07:25.would like to say that there is a fundamental right here to privacy,
:07:26. > :07:30.and it has to be protected. The World Economic Forum published a
:07:31. > :07:34.survey recently... Sorry, but if something is a matter of public
:07:35. > :07:39.record, and also is a fact, do you want to erase that? I think it is
:07:40. > :07:48.right that it should become obscure. It is not getting erased from the
:07:49. > :07:54.record. Yes, it is. The signposts to enable us to obtain it are not
:07:55. > :07:58.there. Mark, let him talk. The newspaper was told they did not have
:07:59. > :08:04.to take the contents down. This is about the role of the search engine.
:08:05. > :08:11.The search engine is not an index which is without value. It is an
:08:12. > :08:18.economic reason, there are economic reasons why they promote certain
:08:19. > :08:26.links and so forth. Therefore they have a slightly different interest.
:08:27. > :08:30.This is a really important point - there is a technological solution
:08:31. > :08:36.here, which will be fermented by all major search engines, Google, Bing,
:08:37. > :08:42.Yahoo!, all of them, which is that, if you look up Nick Clegg, arson
:08:43. > :08:47.conviction, on your computer dialled up from within the EU, you will not
:08:48. > :08:53.find that search returned to you. If, however, that truthful
:08:54. > :08:59.information... The follies of youth. Sure, but if you turn up that
:09:00. > :09:03.information from South Africa, India, any of those countries,
:09:04. > :09:10.Switzerland even, you will find that information. We are going for a
:09:11. > :09:12.two-tier internet. The great thing about this is, at last we are
:09:13. > :09:18.beginning to respect privacy. There is a Big Question which you have not
:09:19. > :09:22.mentioned, public interest. Where is the public interest in knowing
:09:23. > :09:31.everything about everybody? Answer that question, Padraig Reidy. We
:09:32. > :09:34.have this focus on the details of a specific case, which is about a
:09:35. > :09:39.bankruptcy which is a matter of public record. It is this banished
:09:40. > :09:44.gentleman, who was bankrupt. I want to know, if I am going to go into
:09:45. > :09:48.business with this person, if there is something dodgy in his financial
:09:49. > :09:52.past. You might say it is not censorship, but essentially, you are
:09:53. > :09:58.making this information impossible to find. There is a public interest
:09:59. > :10:05.caveat, though. I would have thought bankruptcy was a pretty strong
:10:06. > :10:12.public interest. It is 16 years ago! The other issue we have is that
:10:13. > :10:17.there will be a flood of these request is coming in now. There has
:10:18. > :10:22.already been a flood. These companies are very, very big, but to
:10:23. > :10:28.cope with these impossible requests, and it will be impossible,
:10:29. > :10:35.to comply with this. It will be really problematic. They have got a
:10:36. > :10:41.few bob, Google. They have got a few bob. But Facebook, for example,
:10:42. > :10:45.people complain people do not take things down fast enough. They get
:10:46. > :10:49.about 100,000 complaints a month, at least. People are slightly scared of
:10:50. > :10:55.how big search engines are, but eagerly Google. Somebody in the
:10:56. > :10:59.Guardian newspaper wrote a piece saying this was great because it was
:11:00. > :11:03.taking on the power of Google, but it has nothing to do with taking on
:11:04. > :11:06.the power of Google. The fact is, people are scared of Google, but
:11:07. > :11:13.this is not how you cope with the power of a very large company, by
:11:14. > :11:19.essentially censoring the Web. It will affect anybody who tries to set
:11:20. > :11:25.up a new search engine... Is this an infringement on free speech?
:11:26. > :11:29.Essentially, I think it is an infringement on the right to
:11:30. > :11:35.information. So, it is censorship? The access to information is being
:11:36. > :11:39.severely damaged. Personally, I kind of agree with the right to have
:11:40. > :11:44.privacy, but at the same time, it is a redundant argument, because there
:11:45. > :11:47.is no way to completely get rid of any type of history about yourself.
:11:48. > :11:52.You said, a certain Spanish gentleman, I could name another
:11:53. > :11:58.story from a couple of years ago about a Welsh football, I will not
:11:59. > :12:05.say his name... But at the same time, it has come out. Was there a
:12:06. > :12:09.public interest? Because he is a public figure, it had to be out
:12:10. > :12:14.there, but even if it has been blocked, people still know who it
:12:15. > :12:20.is. Also there is the freedom of expression of the people who wanted
:12:21. > :12:26.to talk about it. Anyone else? In a sense, is it not the same as a
:12:27. > :12:29.criminal record? If somebody has done something incorrect and they
:12:30. > :12:32.have that history about them, a criminal record does the same thing.
:12:33. > :12:37.You cannot get rid of a criminal record. So why think of getting rid
:12:38. > :12:48.of your internet history if you have done something wrong? Let's bring in
:12:49. > :12:51.Milo Yiannopoulos, technology journalist. Now, here is a potential
:12:52. > :12:56.problem - in the last couple of weeks, you did and effect give and
:12:57. > :13:01.very, we hence if Expose of a self-styled so-called community
:13:02. > :13:07.spokesman, who had spent a lot of time deleting, or attempting to
:13:08. > :13:14.delete, his own internet history, covering his tracks. Will it not be
:13:15. > :13:22.a charter for people like that? Yes. Mentioning no names a lot of the
:13:23. > :13:25.objections boiled down to press reports from journalists. As one of
:13:26. > :13:31.those journalists, you might expect me to say, I want my stuff online
:13:32. > :13:38.for ever. But I also believe in redemption and compassion. I think
:13:39. > :13:42.if this individual were to turn his life around, in ten years' time,
:13:43. > :13:47.there is no reason why he should be prevented from getting jobs just
:13:48. > :13:50.because he made a few mistakes. But I think it is different when you are
:13:51. > :13:57.talking about politicians and properly public figures. To hear
:13:58. > :14:01.Lembit Opik, I am sorry to say, sketch out this Orwellian vision of
:14:02. > :14:03.an internet which is entirely created by politicians, to hear of a
:14:04. > :14:16.by politicians to protect politicians, I am sorry, but it
:14:17. > :14:22.makes my flesh crawl. Respond to that. I'm not a Member of Parliament
:14:23. > :14:26.but I am a citizen. As David Trimble once said, just because you've got a
:14:27. > :14:30.past doesn't mean you shouldn't able be to have a future. And what this
:14:31. > :14:34.does is you can find everything out about everybody, you are bit smudged
:14:35. > :14:41.for ever. That's not the world I want to live in. What is interesting
:14:42. > :14:43.about the internet is it has introduced permanence into
:14:44. > :14:47.reporting. Previously you would have the newspaper on your breakfast
:14:48. > :14:51.table, stuff would be on the telly. Three weeks later there wouldn't
:14:52. > :14:56.really be any way to get that back. Don't worry about what is in the
:14:57. > :15:03.news, it will be tomorrow's chip wrapping paper. The internet has
:15:04. > :15:07.changed that. I'm sorry, when you look up some of the absurd behaviour
:15:08. > :15:11.and the way some public figures make themselves into spectacles and joke
:15:12. > :15:23.figures... You just think... The idea that this person... You believe
:15:24. > :15:29.your own profession. I stand accused! I see people dismantle...
:15:30. > :15:34.Nigel Evans, very good friend of mine, spent a year defending himself
:15:35. > :15:38.in court against sex charges and he was found innocent. When you look at
:15:39. > :15:46.the reporting now, a massive amount about the accusations. He's got the
:15:47. > :15:50.right to not expect all of that... I'm putting this to the audience and
:15:51. > :15:55.the viewers as well. Does Nigel Evans have to spend the rest of his
:15:56. > :16:00.life knowing all that stuff comes up... He doesn't deserve that. I
:16:01. > :16:04.think it's a very specific case. In rape allegations there is a good
:16:05. > :16:10.case for keeping the identity of the accused secret. Rape and sexual
:16:11. > :16:14.charges, there are other problems in the mix there. But I've got to tell
:16:15. > :16:19.you, when Ikea politicians and former politicians... The reason you
:16:20. > :16:23.are here and that you have a career is you are using the prominence that
:16:24. > :16:27.you gained as being an MP, using the name recognition that you had then
:16:28. > :16:32.to do whatever you are doing now. When I hear people like that saying,
:16:33. > :16:38.as you did, I want to be able to craft my Google results, it
:16:39. > :16:48.terrifies me. It's exactly what you said. Winston is a former boxer. He
:16:49. > :16:54.is terrifyingly right now! I believe 100% what this guy has to say.
:16:55. > :17:00.Listen, you are just natural media creating the hype. People like you
:17:01. > :17:13.are the reason why I can't find a girlfriend, man! That's a stretch!
:17:14. > :17:20.I'm on Google... Listen, you've got to listen to me. I'm on Google as
:17:21. > :17:25.being 61 years old. Look good looking I am! People read that...
:17:26. > :17:35.Come on, now! The reader thinks this guy is 61 years old. How old are
:17:36. > :17:42.you? I'm going to keep that secret. You've got the right. My political
:17:43. > :17:46.career has been a terribly damaged. They said I joined every political
:17:47. > :17:52.party on the sketch -- in the spectrum. I never joined Labour. I
:17:53. > :18:03.have the greatest of sympathy for you, I'd want to sue, too. That this
:18:04. > :18:09.inaccuracy. Everybody is entitled to privacy. Wikipedia, everybody
:18:10. > :18:13.believes it. It's all on there. There was a very clear distinction
:18:14. > :18:18.made in the ruling by the court that says if you are a public figure and
:18:19. > :18:22.are in the public interest, then that can override the individual
:18:23. > :18:27.privacy right. What is much more concerning is for people who are not
:18:28. > :18:30.in the public realm and have damaging information for their
:18:31. > :18:35.reputations. For example, should kids be allowed to make mistakes and
:18:36. > :18:43.have those mistakes forgotten when they go to get a job? It's the same
:18:44. > :18:48.fundamental rule. Let's go back over here. Mark Stevens. It's quite clear
:18:49. > :18:54.that children are a different case. The UN covenant on the rights of the
:18:55. > :18:57.child makes it clear that the indiscretions of childhood, use, if
:18:58. > :19:03.you will, are the sorts of things that will be forgotten. That is Nick
:19:04. > :19:07.Clegg with his arson offence. He was a student, he was over age, he was
:19:08. > :19:10.living in Germany at the time. Everybody in this room has done
:19:11. > :19:18.something they are ashamed of or would prefer things to be forgotten.
:19:19. > :19:21.But we have to live with it, it's part of who we are. It's part of how
:19:22. > :19:24.we grow up. It's part of what matures us. Everybody recognises
:19:25. > :19:29.that and everybody we interact with recognises that. What about forgive
:19:30. > :19:33.and forget? We forgive and we understand, but we embrace the
:19:34. > :19:38.challenges we have of youth. That is not about rewriting and airbrushing
:19:39. > :19:46.history. I promised I would come back to Lembit Opik. I see an
:19:47. > :19:50.element of agreement developing here, in the sense that both of you
:19:51. > :19:54.have said there are certain circumstances where this property
:19:55. > :19:57.situation should be enforced. So we are not really arguing about the
:19:58. > :20:01.principle now because we are all agreeing that in some circumstances
:20:02. > :20:13.it is relevant, like innocent Nigel Evans... What we've also all agreed
:20:14. > :20:18.as you are not eligible. In your rise. There was an element of
:20:19. > :20:22.agreement on how far we go. There's a simple point. Every person in this
:20:23. > :20:26.room and in this country, everyone watching this, has the right to the
:20:27. > :20:32.public interest protection. Most of what is reported about public
:20:33. > :20:40.figures is spurious and does -- has no relevance whatsoever to the
:20:41. > :20:45.public... We are, I'm afraid, but you are welcome to contribute to any
:20:46. > :20:54.of the other debates, we're out of time. Thank for that. -- thank you
:20:55. > :20:57.for that. Now, if you have something to say about that debate, log onto
:20:58. > :21:01.bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions. Follow the links to where you can join in
:21:02. > :21:12.the discussion online. Or join in on Twitter as well. We are also
:21:13. > :21:23.debating, can you be a Christian and vote for UKIP?
:21:24. > :21:28.We won't know how UKIP has fared in the European elections until the
:21:29. > :21:31.polls close in Italy tonight. But they gained over 160 seats in the
:21:32. > :21:34.local elections in England's towns and boroughs, at the expense of all
:21:35. > :21:37.three major parliamentary parties. The success was despite a lot of
:21:38. > :21:40.slip-ups, mis-speaks, whatever you want to call them, which suggested
:21:41. > :21:43.that some UKIP candidates don't appear to abide by Christ's
:21:44. > :21:46.commandment to love thy neighbour as thyself, or seek to follow the
:21:47. > :21:49.example of the Good Samaritan by helping foreigners down on their
:21:50. > :21:54.luck. Flat rate taxes, for example, might be hard to combine with
:21:55. > :22:03.blessing the poor. Can you be a Christian and vote for UKIP? Rev
:22:04. > :22:11.Arlington Trotman. You wanted to come on the last one, but you can
:22:12. > :22:16.now. What aspects of UKIP do you believe and Christian? Let me start
:22:17. > :22:20.by a comment my son made to this question. He said, if Christians
:22:21. > :22:27.find themselves voting for UKIP, they are on very seriously shaky
:22:28. > :22:33.ground. What he meant was that the perception on the one hand of UKIP
:22:34. > :22:41.as a racist party has absolutely no place within Christians as it is
:22:42. > :22:46.expressed. But my point is this. Whose perception is that? The
:22:47. > :22:51.general public's perception. Lots of members of the public believe that
:22:52. > :22:57.UKIP is racist. There are reports that suggest that UKIP, 40% of its
:22:58. > :23:04.membership are people with racist abuse. Those who support UKIP
:23:05. > :23:07.financially are people who are on the far right. So there is a
:23:08. > :23:13.perception there but there is also the reality. Where did you get your
:23:14. > :23:19.40% figure from? This is a report which has recently been written that
:23:20. > :23:23.suggests there are at least 40% of its members. What is racist about
:23:24. > :23:27.wanting to have, whether you agree with it or not, but what is racist
:23:28. > :23:30.about wanting to have a points -based system for immigration so
:23:31. > :23:37.that this island doesn't become too crowded? For skilled workers from
:23:38. > :23:40.all corners of the world rather than just concentrating on Eastern
:23:41. > :23:45.Europe. In certain areas public services are under strain, so surely
:23:46. > :23:50.to lift the pressure on those public services is truly to love thy
:23:51. > :23:56.neighbour. But that started from the other end of the question. Migration
:23:57. > :24:01.is as old as the hills. People have moved and immigrated in order to
:24:02. > :24:04.make personal progress and progress generally as a society. The
:24:05. > :24:10.contribution of migrants to Britain, Britain has been built on migrant
:24:11. > :24:14.labour. Britain has continued to exploit and explore the realities of
:24:15. > :24:22.migration in very positive way. So the question about numbers is a
:24:23. > :24:26.non-question. Is there a Gospel imperative for mass immigration?
:24:27. > :24:31.No, not necessarily but the reality is whether the Gospel expresses it,
:24:32. > :24:38.it is a reality for us today. What UKIP is saying on the one hand, most
:24:39. > :24:43.people can agree with it. That if a country is open, if there is an open
:24:44. > :24:48.immigration policy, for example, and everybody and anybody comes, those
:24:49. > :24:53.who will no good to people within the country, there is a question
:24:54. > :25:00.there. But the reality is this. If you take UKIP's stands on this, and
:25:01. > :25:06.anti-immigrant stance, several things have fuelled that. One is the
:25:07. > :25:12.current Immigration Bill 2014. We need to get a response to some of
:25:13. > :25:16.the stuff you've said. Sure, but the final point on this is the
:25:17. > :25:19.anti-immigrant stance in our country doesn't stop with UKIP. It starts
:25:20. > :25:25.with the fact that the two main political parties have not addressed
:25:26. > :25:29.this question seriously enough, with sufficient commitment in allaying
:25:30. > :25:32.the fears that permeate the country. So groups alike UKIP and
:25:33. > :25:36.other far right groups can actually have their say on a question that we
:25:37. > :25:51.all should be working on. As a UKIP candidate... Commonwealth
:25:52. > :25:56.spokesman. Is UKIP founded an un-Christian principles? Nigel
:25:57. > :26:01.Farage, our leader, is a Christian. This man believes in the Church of
:26:02. > :26:07.England. At this present moment I am absolutely furious, we have this
:26:08. > :26:12.massive situation whereby the carnival went on and the whole thing
:26:13. > :26:15.was deemed as some sort of carnival procession to prove that UKIP isn't
:26:16. > :26:21.racist. This word racist, which has been dreamt up by the so called
:26:22. > :26:26.three political parties and pushed by the media, has been put out there
:26:27. > :26:32.and been used to freely. It has been used to separate and divide people
:26:33. > :26:36.in society. The pastor, he has his opinions. In my group we run 18
:26:37. > :26:45.candidates for this last election. Nine black, nine white, all
:26:46. > :26:51.different types of people. I have my two pastors here today to have it
:26:52. > :26:56.out with you. You have got your opinions and you think what you
:26:57. > :27:02.think, but most people are going on this media agenda. Many men, some
:27:03. > :27:06.big men tonight, let me finish, please, you had your time and I was
:27:07. > :27:11.polite and didn't jump in. Many men in top jobs tonight will lose their
:27:12. > :27:18.position in life, so the agenda is to bring UKIP down and bring it to
:27:19. > :27:21.the floor. When I look at the policies that have been created by
:27:22. > :27:26.some of these political parties, looked deeply into them and realise
:27:27. > :27:32.that it wasn't UKIP who pulled out the advent, it wasn't UKIP who took
:27:33. > :27:38.us to war, it wasn't UKIP who created Air Passenger Duty will stop
:27:39. > :27:44.looking to these political parties to see how demonic some of them are.
:27:45. > :27:51.Demonic? There are aspects of their parties that are demonic. One
:27:52. > :27:56.second. Nigel Farage has said some pretty controversial things. He said
:27:57. > :28:00.he was on a train and no one was speaking English. Could you imagine
:28:01. > :28:07.Jesus going to a marketplace and saying, there is no one speaking
:28:08. > :28:14.Aramaic here? Loads of people say that. The comments that Nigel Farage
:28:15. > :28:20.passes comments that... I have been campaigning in this last election
:28:21. > :28:27.for some six months now. I knocked on doors and some of the
:28:28. > :28:32.expressions, verbal, not abuse, but verbal taunts I got from some people
:28:33. > :28:39.was amazing. English people coming to the door and saying, you are
:28:40. > :28:43.UKIP? Black people, my people coming to the door. I want to vote for
:28:44. > :28:48.you, Winston. I want to vote for you for the simple fact that we, as
:28:49. > :28:52.black people, have come to this country and have been
:28:53. > :28:56.disenfranchised. You speak on behalf of of communities. Who have you been
:28:57. > :29:05.disenfranchised by? Successive governments. UKIP is the answer? We
:29:06. > :29:08.consider ourselves to be a predominantly Christian country.
:29:09. > :29:12.Lembit Opik is dying to come in here. -year-old I've got quite a
:29:13. > :29:16.strong faith, and however well or badly I live my life I can't deny
:29:17. > :29:24.that faith. -year-old Wace 's Church has a presence in the Midlands here
:29:25. > :29:27.too. I'm not a UKIP member. It is disingenuous to say a political
:29:28. > :29:31.party is not Christian. Nick Clegg claims to be an atheist, that
:29:32. > :29:41.doesn't make the Liberal Democrats and unchristian or demonic party.
:29:42. > :29:44.I'm a Christian. UKIP has been demonised to an extent. These sorts
:29:45. > :29:49.of things don't do credit to policies, because we should be
:29:50. > :29:53.arguing about the policies... Is it about the individuals or the
:29:54. > :29:56.policies? It should be about the policies. You can have different
:29:57. > :30:06.views about immigration but still have faith. Let me make my position
:30:07. > :30:10.clear with respect to Winston. I congratulate you for standing up for
:30:11. > :30:15.what you believe, and all the other black guys in UKIP. What I am saying
:30:16. > :30:18.is, there is a perception of racism. And if there is a perception,
:30:19. > :30:24.Christianity is based on the principles of justice, truth,
:30:25. > :30:28.looking after your neighbour, etc. It is therefore crucial that not
:30:29. > :30:37.only the perception but the reality of what UKIP stands for... Let me
:30:38. > :30:45.put something to you, hang on. Please. Racism in this country has
:30:46. > :30:50.killed people. Wait a minute. Let me steer it this way. This has been
:30:51. > :30:55.much in the press as well, the whole debate about equal marriage, he said
:30:56. > :30:58.he would not expel anyone from the party who had, as he put it,
:30:59. > :31:03.old-fashioned views on homosexuality. Then we have the
:31:04. > :31:06.councillor saying the floods were punishment for gay marriage. You
:31:07. > :31:11.have got leading evangelical Christians in America who have said
:31:12. > :31:16.9/11 was punishment for homosexuality, New Orleans was
:31:17. > :31:24.punishment for homosexuality and so forth. Are they not Christian? As
:31:25. > :31:28.Lembit Opik has said, Christianity is lived according to people's
:31:29. > :31:31.perception of it, according to how people understand who Jesus was for
:31:32. > :31:42.them, whether that is accepted or not. In this country, there are
:31:43. > :31:46.nominal Christians, people who are regarded as Christians simply by
:31:47. > :31:49.birth, or by marriage. There are others who live their lives every
:31:50. > :31:55.day according to very strong core principles of justice, truth, peace
:31:56. > :31:58.macro and so on. Therefore it becomes important to understand in
:31:59. > :32:02.this debate that when I speak about racism, I speak about the fact that
:32:03. > :32:12.people like Stephen Lawrence have been killed, and several others have
:32:13. > :32:16.been demolished... There are some who say to oppose gay marriage is
:32:17. > :32:22.unchristian, there are others who say that to support it is
:32:23. > :32:27.unchristian. So, perception is the keyword. If you look at parties
:32:28. > :32:30.which to identify as overtly Christian, they are overwhelmingly
:32:31. > :32:35.awful, from the Democratic unionist party in Northern Ireland - last
:32:36. > :32:44.week you had people they're trying to band plays, you had another
:32:45. > :32:48.candidate, not a DUP candidate, but saying she would outlaw
:32:49. > :32:54.homosexuality. You go across to the Tea Party in the United States, who
:32:55. > :32:58.identify very much as Christian, all the way to the Lord's Resistance
:32:59. > :33:09.Party, who murder thousands of people in the name of God. So I am
:33:10. > :33:29.wearing of -- I am wary of identifying Christian as meaning
:33:30. > :33:34.good. Did you vote UKIP? I did. The churches are groaning under the
:33:35. > :33:43.weight of catholic Polish people, use said be celebrating that. All of
:33:44. > :33:47.the institutions in this country are essentially very left wing, they are
:33:48. > :33:53.horrified by UKIP. There is this assumption that right-wing opinions
:33:54. > :33:55.and moral failing are linked, and people have normal, everyday
:33:56. > :33:59.concerns, shared by millions of people, and it is this attitude of
:34:00. > :34:06.saying, there is something wrong with that. I got called all sorts of
:34:07. > :34:13.things. But I thought about it for a long time, and eventually, I came
:34:14. > :34:22.round to giving you my vote. To say that UKIP is racist is absurd. The
:34:23. > :34:29.BNP WAS racist. I do not think you could be a Christian and vote for
:34:30. > :34:32.the BNP. But it is plainly obvious that Nigel Farage is not racist, the
:34:33. > :34:38.party is not racist and it is ridiculous. I am glad we can agree
:34:39. > :34:42.on something in the media as well, as the media has got this totally
:34:43. > :34:47.wrong. If they wanted to cause UKIP damage, the last thing they should
:34:48. > :34:51.have done is identifying normal, everyday worries and anxieties,
:34:52. > :34:56.shared by millions of people in this country, as racist. The media has
:34:57. > :35:03.got this wrong. It is the Christian principle about helping your fellow
:35:04. > :35:06.human beings? What I am saying is, to say that love thy neighbour means
:35:07. > :35:11.we should have an open-door immigration policy is incredibly
:35:12. > :35:20.naive. Gentleman over there. Good morning. Good morning. I believe
:35:21. > :35:24.that the message from UKIP is about people enjoying their rights
:35:25. > :35:27.responsibly. You do not walk into a country believing you can get so
:35:28. > :35:32.much from a country and putting less in. That is not fair and it is not
:35:33. > :35:38.right. Here is a party who is making this very clear to everybody. So,
:35:39. > :35:47.you applaud that message? I do, even though I did not vote UKIP. I
:35:48. > :35:54.believe that! I want to hear this gentleman out, and then I want more
:35:55. > :35:57.audience members, please. I believe that people coming to this country
:35:58. > :36:02.should come with the aim of putting something into the country, and then
:36:03. > :36:05.expect to take something out of the country. That is fair. And down
:36:06. > :36:11.there, the gentleman with the glasses? It is all about people
:36:12. > :36:16.contributing to the country, if that is the case, does that mean we can
:36:17. > :36:21.look at people who were born here and are not contributing to the
:36:22. > :36:28.country? It is not about that. Let's get this right... Wait, I want to
:36:29. > :36:36.get to the audience. You come back to me, we can do some sparring. If I
:36:37. > :36:39.have got time! On the basis of some of the arguments, would it not be
:36:40. > :36:45.different for a Christian to vote for some of the other parties as
:36:46. > :36:50.well, though? The fact is, at the end of the day, voting for any
:36:51. > :36:54.political party, as a Christian, is a major issue. If we look at what
:36:55. > :36:59.Nick Clegg has done, at what the Tories are doing, about putting
:37:00. > :37:03.people into deeper poverty, if we look at UKIP, they are exploiting
:37:04. > :37:08.quite cleverly in my view the things which divide society, which some
:37:09. > :37:12.people think but do not want to say. But there is one massive thing which
:37:13. > :37:17.UKIP has got. Over the past three months, when did you not see Nigel
:37:18. > :37:20.Farage in the newspapers and now their media machine must be
:37:21. > :37:24.revelling in this. They are being contribution, they are saying things
:37:25. > :37:28.which people are saying in their living rooms. At the end of the day,
:37:29. > :37:33.the danger is, by exploiting the divisions in society, are we going
:37:34. > :37:42.back, Winston, to the days, and you know this, no blacks, no Irish, no
:37:43. > :37:52.darks? That is the danger. I saw Kevin agreeing to that... I am
:37:53. > :37:54.Irish. The Reverend said earlier on that this country was built on
:37:55. > :38:03.immigration. So, the question now is, if you take a view on
:38:04. > :38:07.immigration, and what we do not want to do is to take a naive view of the
:38:08. > :38:16.immigration problem in the 21st century, or take a very simplistic,
:38:17. > :38:23.easy hit. I agree with Lembit that just demonising a party, calling it
:38:24. > :38:28.racist, is an helpful to the debate. -- an helpful. I take the point that
:38:29. > :38:32.the way the debate has gone this morning is that it makes it seem as
:38:33. > :38:36.though no Christian should ever vote for any party in this country. But
:38:37. > :38:41.the problem then is that what you might say is that if you are a
:38:42. > :38:44.Christian, you have to take seriously the possibility to use
:38:45. > :38:48.your franchise for a good end. What that then means is that it is
:38:49. > :38:51.actually using your vote in order to make sure the politicians who do get
:38:52. > :38:57.in are the ones who actually hold those values. Whether you are a
:38:58. > :39:00.Christian or not, I think those values are still important for a
:39:01. > :39:08.society. So the question then becomes, what kind of society do you
:39:09. > :39:18.want to be? Those of us who have faith, we all fall short... RU
:39:19. > :39:25.pro-equal marriage? I am. These are difficult issues to wrestle with. I
:39:26. > :39:29.have two very short and simple thoughts. One is that to prick food
:39:30. > :39:36.anyone from a particular faith from a party is offensive. -- to
:39:37. > :39:41.preclude. Secondly, if Jesus was here, and we said, who should we
:39:42. > :39:49.vote for? He would say, vote for love. But which political party
:39:50. > :39:55.right now is representing love in this country? None of them! One
:39:56. > :39:58.thing with UKIP, and I am not a UKIP supporter, Winston, but one thing
:39:59. > :40:03.with them, what you see is what you get, you know what they stand for.
:40:04. > :40:08.People say they wish more politicians were like that, so thank
:40:09. > :40:15.you all very much indeed for that. APPLAUSE
:40:16. > :40:24.You can join in all the debates this morning online.
:40:25. > :40:27.And you can tweet using the hashtag #bbctbq. Tell us what you think
:40:28. > :40:35.about our last Big Question - should assisted dying be legal? We are
:40:36. > :40:41.looking for audiences for the last show in this series, from Brighton,
:40:42. > :40:44.on 15th June. Next week we are back here at Shelfield Community Academy,
:40:45. > :40:51.with a special edition, asking one very Big Question - is there life
:40:52. > :40:59.after death? Join us then. Last week, Lord Falconer's bill to
:41:00. > :41:05.legalise assisted dying went through its first stage in the House of
:41:06. > :41:15.Lords. Its aim is to make it legal for doctors to give certain drugs to
:41:16. > :41:25.people who want to die. Should assisted dying be legal? Well, Peter
:41:26. > :41:28.Squires, good morning. You accompanied your mother to Dignitas.
:41:29. > :41:32.Tell us about that, it must have been so difficult? It was very
:41:33. > :41:37.difficult. Mum was suffering from Huntington's disease, which is an
:41:38. > :41:41.hereditary condition. She had seen her father and her elder sister die
:41:42. > :41:47.of it so she knew exactly what it was like in the end stages. Man was
:41:48. > :41:51.six to seven years of age, she was in the advanced stages of the
:41:52. > :41:57.disease. She was suffering things like loss of movement, stumbling,
:41:58. > :42:01.falling, difficult to speak, express herself. She regularly struggled to
:42:02. > :42:06.swallow and choked on food, for example. So, very advanced symptoms
:42:07. > :42:10.but not the end stage of the disease. She determined, based on
:42:11. > :42:13.her understanding of what the disease looked like in the end
:42:14. > :42:20.stages, that she did not want to go through that. Cuff had at least two
:42:21. > :42:25.to our knowledge failed suicide attempts, the most recent of which
:42:26. > :42:29.ended up in her being hospitalised for six months. And when she came
:42:30. > :42:34.out of hospital she was absolutely determined that she wanted to go to
:42:35. > :42:39.Dignitas. She discussed this with her close family, especially myself
:42:40. > :42:46.and my brother Andrew. Of course we offered alternatives to her. But
:42:47. > :42:50.over a period of months, it became clear that this was her rightful
:42:51. > :42:58.choice, in our mind. Her personal autonomy? Indeed. So, we came round
:42:59. > :43:05.to support her in her objective to go to Dignitas. Do you feel it was
:43:06. > :43:08.released when she did go? I strongly believe that a change in the law in
:43:09. > :43:12.this country would have a lot of benefits, including giving people
:43:13. > :43:15.the mental and emotional safety net that there was something there for
:43:16. > :43:24.them, that they would have control over their own death. She would have
:43:25. > :43:30.been able to do it at home but she felt forced to make the arduous
:43:31. > :43:36.journey to Switzerland whilst she was still fit to do so. She did not
:43:37. > :43:42.want so in my mother's specific case, she ended up travelling to
:43:43. > :43:47.Switzerland by our estimation several years before she would have
:43:48. > :43:53.needed to die. But when you start the application process, which takes
:43:54. > :43:57.several months, to go to Dignitas, mum did not know whether or not she
:43:58. > :44:00.would be accepted right Dignitas. I remember very clearly when she got
:44:01. > :44:04.the acceptance letter, the relief that came over her, that she knew
:44:05. > :44:09.that she had a way out and she was not going to have to go through the
:44:10. > :44:13.end stages of this disease, which is progressive, there was no way of
:44:14. > :44:23.getting out of the fact that she was going to have to suffer. We felt
:44:24. > :44:28.that sense of release with her, after we'd spent the last five days
:44:29. > :44:33.with her. It was a very surreal experience, to spend the last five
:44:34. > :44:37.days of her life, all three of us being strong for each other, trying
:44:38. > :44:42.to enjoy our last five days together, at the same time knowing
:44:43. > :44:49.that she was going to die on Friday. Hey, you had locked-in syndrome.
:44:50. > :44:54.Yours is an amazing story. You are writing a book about it. I've
:44:55. > :45:00.written a book. It's worth reading, it's amazing. You think this is
:45:01. > :45:05.about personal autonomy, it's nobody else's business. Absolutely. I have
:45:06. > :45:13.locked-in syndrome. That's where you literally can feel everything, think
:45:14. > :45:17.normally, like I think now, but move absolutely nothing. For a short
:45:18. > :45:22.period of time, and mine was in the acute phase in hospital, not in the
:45:23. > :45:28.community for years on end, but in the period of time I was locked in
:45:29. > :45:34.it was hell on earth. It was painful beyond belief. I had leg cramps that
:45:35. > :45:38.I had no way of communicating. I had no way of relieving them because I
:45:39. > :45:45.couldn't move a muscle. Did you think about taking this option? In
:45:46. > :45:49.hospital, I wanted my life to end for the first few weeks. I don't
:45:50. > :45:53.think that should be offered to anybody in hospital, so I'm not in
:45:54. > :45:58.favour of that. But ultimately you are in favour of people having that
:45:59. > :46:04.choice? Absolutely. We should have autonomy. It should be freedom of
:46:05. > :46:08.choice. Specifically for people who are fully cognitive and are able to
:46:09. > :46:13.communicate, one way or another, whether it is with a digit or an
:46:14. > :46:18.eyelid, but to show their cognition. And have had some sort of
:46:19. > :46:23.psychiatric evaluation, so that it's not just the patient and the doctor
:46:24. > :46:28.or the patient and beloved one. There is a witness. I think
:46:29. > :46:33.absolutely. You make it as safe as possible. Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick,
:46:34. > :46:38.director of the euthanasia prevention coalition, why is it any
:46:39. > :46:42.business of anyone else's? Isn't that exactly the point? Let's be
:46:43. > :46:47.clear, I want to be absolutely open about this. I am not making any
:46:48. > :46:53.judgment about these individual situations. My concern is what
:46:54. > :46:56.happens when you legalise what is called assisted dying. Let's be
:46:57. > :47:04.clear about our terms here. Assisted dying is described by the
:47:05. > :47:08.full-colour Commission report as a compendium word which includes
:47:09. > :47:13.assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in. Lord Falconer himself
:47:14. > :47:17.has been quoted as saying that this country is not ready for euthanasia.
:47:18. > :47:23.And that's quite right because when people actually understand that
:47:24. > :47:27.euthanasia is involved here, they do look at places like where I've just
:47:28. > :47:32.been, Belgium. What's happening there? The law has just been passed
:47:33. > :47:36.to allow children of any age, as though a child of seven who is just
:47:37. > :47:41.beginning to have a concept of death, could actually understand
:47:42. > :47:46.what it means to choose euthanasia. It's nine in Belgium? No, it's any
:47:47. > :47:53.age at all. The legal age in Holland is 12, but in Holland they also...
:47:54. > :48:00.What the circumstances that that might be enforced? For example, a
:48:01. > :48:05.child... Part of the difficulty in Belgium is that people don't have to
:48:06. > :48:12.be terminally ill, people are being used delays to a depressed.
:48:13. > :48:18.Euthanasia is an emotive term. -year-old I'm talking about Belgium
:48:19. > :48:23.now, it is a law. One of their proponents was for disabled people.
:48:24. > :48:27.People who are depressed, people who have had failed sex change
:48:28. > :48:31.operations, and anorexic woman who was being abused by the psychiatrist
:48:32. > :48:35.who was treating them. These people have no hope. There is the illusion
:48:36. > :48:41.of choice. When you have nowhere else to go. But they felt that they
:48:42. > :48:45.didn't want to go on, so isn't... The children point I will put to
:48:46. > :48:51.Stephen in a second, but isn't it, ultimately, as adults, their choice
:48:52. > :48:56.and none of your business? That's exactly the point. What is happening
:48:57. > :49:01.in individual situations... I agree, no one should have to pay Dignitas
:49:02. > :49:06.or go through the horror of travelling out of their home and out
:49:07. > :49:12.of the country to fulfil whatever decision. But the problem is that
:49:13. > :49:18.when you legalise, what you get behind the law is a society that I
:49:19. > :49:21.don't want to be part of. If Peter and his brother had helped their
:49:22. > :49:28.mother in this country, should they have been faced with a criminal
:49:29. > :49:31.prosecution? No. The issue is should they face an investigation. In order
:49:32. > :49:36.to make sure that people who are vulnerable, people who are co-wurst
:49:37. > :49:43.into killing themselves people can be, it's very subtle coercion,
:49:44. > :49:50.should actually have protection from that coercion. In that context, when
:49:51. > :49:54.the law is passed, that coercion... That protection order is therefore
:49:55. > :50:00.vulnerable people. I get so frustrated when I hear people like
:50:01. > :50:05.Kevin, who are trying to confuse the issue and compared this to the law
:50:06. > :50:08.in Belgium. The proposed law from Lord Falconer does not bear any
:50:09. > :50:13.similarity to the law in Belgium, it's based on a law in Oregon. It's
:50:14. > :50:16.not about euthanasia, it's about assisted dying. It's for people who
:50:17. > :50:26.are in the last six months of their life, suffering from a terminal
:50:27. > :50:33.illness. How does this proposed law change make you feel? It makes me
:50:34. > :50:39.feel cold inside and afraid. It makes me feel afraid for all of you
:50:40. > :50:45.because we've talked about perceptions today, the things we
:50:46. > :50:48.think, the things we do affect our perception of society. There is a
:50:49. > :50:54.perception in society that being disabled is bad and being
:50:55. > :51:00.perfect... We are all surrounded by these programmes about Botox. For
:51:01. > :51:08.me, it's almost like we can say we can Botox death out of life. I would
:51:09. > :51:11.like people to consider, if it becomes legal, and I'm sorry to tell
:51:12. > :51:17.you, Kevin, I think it will because people don't see the big picture.
:51:18. > :51:25.Just think, we won't be saying, when did he die, about somebody. When --
:51:26. > :51:28.will be saying, when will he die? We are a country that like to make
:51:29. > :51:36.formulas out of things. So what will happen, you have from care ward to
:51:37. > :51:40.crematorium? Will a doctor come round the village, will you trust
:51:41. > :51:48.your doctor? In Oregon there are people known as death doctors.
:51:49. > :51:49.your doctor? In Oregon there are doctor said to my son when he was
:51:50. > :51:52.very little, he was nervous about having injections, he said, you've
:51:53. > :52:00.got to have them or you will end up like her. I've heard Kate talk about
:52:01. > :52:03.the indignity you felt. I was locked in for many, many months and I know
:52:04. > :52:13.exactly where you are at to an in for many, many months and I know
:52:14. > :52:14.say. I'm interested as to why, from what I can gather of your
:52:15. > :52:23.interviews, that you didn't want to live? A sort of message to your
:52:24. > :52:24.children... I can only take from that there was a sort of message
:52:25. > :52:30.from your children that there was a sort of message
:52:31. > :52:36.doesn't want to come home and live. That is absolutely rubbish! It was
:52:37. > :52:43.Peter as well. My youngest was six and my eldest was ten at the time. I
:52:44. > :52:51.can't tell you the separation anxiety that I had. You don't need
:52:52. > :52:55.to because I had it. I can bend, it was absolutely intense. Plus the
:52:56. > :53:02.fact that where I was heading for was a care home, at the end of the
:53:03. > :53:07.day. Wide? Because I was making no progress. My progress turned around
:53:08. > :53:12.in May 2010 beyond all the expectations of the doctors. You are
:53:13. > :53:15.confusing lots of issues here. I work in the charity I founded that
:53:16. > :53:19.is about inspiring people to motivate them to develop, whether it
:53:20. > :53:26.is emotionally, physically or otherwise. However... If the law had
:53:27. > :53:32.existed and you had taken benefit from that law, you wouldn't be here.
:53:33. > :53:35.Did you not hear what I said at the top of the programme? It should
:53:36. > :53:42.never be offered to anybody in the acute phase in hospital. The minute
:53:43. > :53:45.it is open... One at a time. The minute it is on the table, then the
:53:46. > :53:56.problem is it is not just offered to you, it's offered to everyone in the
:53:57. > :53:59.situation. Oregon, there is no regulation once the person has
:54:00. > :54:05.passed the test. The death might happen two years later, they doesn't
:54:06. > :54:10.even haven't -- to be anyone in the rule. The doctor who knows his
:54:11. > :54:17.patient for ten years... Different legislation could be drafted here.
:54:18. > :54:22.That's a false food. No, Winston, we've got people we must come to. I
:54:23. > :54:26.want to listen to Dr Stephen Smith from Birmingham Law School, an
:54:27. > :54:31.expert in bioethics. What do you say about Kevin Vase and Nicky's
:54:32. > :54:40.objectives and what is happening in Belgium, how can that be right? I'm
:54:41. > :54:48.with Peter on this. Belgium's law, it is different from what the
:54:49. > :54:52.Faulkner bill is. People worry it will be the direction of travel.
:54:53. > :54:57.Greene I understand that will stop I think what we need to pay attention
:54:58. > :55:02.to is what the law is set up to do. If we are talking about what the
:55:03. > :55:06.procedural safeguards are and those kinds of things, we need to focus on
:55:07. > :55:13.what this law says as opposed to what other one say. The issue in
:55:14. > :55:17.Belgium, particularly the issue involving children, is not one we
:55:18. > :55:22.ought to pay attention to, it's not one that ought to control the
:55:23. > :55:24.discussion. Quite simply, Lord Falconer's law doesn't envisage
:55:25. > :55:30.anything close to what Belgium is doing with children. What about the
:55:31. > :55:34.pressure that Kevin referred to above people feeling a burden? It's
:55:35. > :55:39.interesting to look at the data on this. There is a reasonable amount
:55:40. > :55:44.of data from the Netherlands, Oregon, every year in Oregon they
:55:45. > :55:49.publish an annual report. It isn't, in fact, vulnerable groups which are
:55:50. > :55:51.being pushed into this. The average person who undertakes assisted
:55:52. > :55:56.being pushed into this. The average suicide in Oregon... It is... The
:55:57. > :56:00.average person who takes assisted suicide in Oregon is white,
:56:01. > :56:08.middle-class, college educated and younger than they otherwise, so they
:56:09. > :56:12.tend to go younger. It doesn't pay for their treatment but it says you
:56:13. > :56:19.can have euthanasia instead, it is much cheaper. You wanted to say
:56:20. > :56:29.something. I'm vehicle water mater of disabled activists for dignity in
:56:30. > :56:34.dying. -- in water mater. In terms of disabled people that have been
:56:35. > :56:40.surveyed, recently 79% have said they support assisted dying for
:56:41. > :56:48.terminally ill people only. In terms of people's value in society, you
:56:49. > :56:52.support the bill with the strict... Which disabled Persons organisation
:56:53. > :56:59.has come out in favour of this bill? You are paid by the lobby group.
:57:00. > :57:10.There is no disabled lobby behind you. This is a nonsense. What is
:57:11. > :57:15.your name? Greg. You believe you should have the right. You, me,
:57:16. > :57:21.anyone, one should have the right? In terms of the bill, it is
:57:22. > :57:26.terminally ill and dying people. And disabled people. Disabled people are
:57:27. > :57:33.always mentioned. You pick any paper up. They are not in the bill. Lord
:57:34. > :57:39.Falconer wants them to be in the bill. They are not in the bill. You
:57:40. > :57:45.pick any paper up that is a pro-assisted suicide argument and
:57:46. > :57:51.you will see, and disabled people. Every day in this country you can
:57:52. > :57:56.hear a negative attitude. Is this not scaremongering? Will it happen?
:57:57. > :57:59.As the doctor said from Birmingham, the bill you start with is the bill
:58:00. > :58:04.you get. You have to look at the detail. That's what happened in
:58:05. > :58:10.Holland, they started out with a bill for terminally ill people and
:58:11. > :58:14.they ended up killing... Sorry, we haven't got time. They started out
:58:15. > :58:16.with a bill for terminally ill people with cancer with less than
:58:17. > :58:21.six months to live. They've ended up where they are. As always, the
:58:22. > :58:25.debates will continue online and on Twitter. Next week we're back here
:58:26. > :58:28.in Walsall for that special - is there life after death? But for now
:58:29. > :59:10.it's goodbye and have a great Sunday.
:59:11. > :59:14.When the first travellers crossed America, they were faced with this -