Episode 12 The Big Questions

Raising the minimum wage, combatting radicalisation

Today we're live from Manor Church of England Academy in York.

Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.

On Friday the minimum wage went up by 50 pence to ?7.20 an hour,

but only for workers aged 25 or over.

Dubbed the National Living Wage by Chancellor George Osborne,

it hasn't convinced the former chairman of the Living Wage

Commission, John Sentamu ? the Archbishop of York.

One leading DIY chain is reported to be adjusting employment contracts

And a confidential study suggests that half the residential homes

and care services for the elderly will become financially unviable

Yet it's just 50p an hour more, ?20 extra for a 40 hour week,

and it will reduce the benefits bill.

Is the minimum wage a mixed blessing?

Paul Baxter from The National Federation Of Newsagents, some

people at the Office for Budget Responsibility have calculated that

this could mean 60,000 job losses between now and 2020, one academic

at Brunel University says it is up to 300,000 job losses. What will it

do as regards your members? I would like to say that, of course, staff

are one of the most important assets of any retailer, and the ability to

pay wages is critical in any business. But when wages rise so

quickly it is difficult for a small business to establish those costs.

The minimum wage has already risen by 13% over the last three years,

this 10% increase for workers over the age of 25, forecast to grow by

35% over the next few years, is a massive cost. Businesses have

nowhere to go. Suppliers put cost is up, distributors put up costs,

retailers' margins squeezed and they can do anything except for looking

at saving costs. It means reducing working hours, reducing employment

opportunities and, ultimately, closure of businesses. It is usually

counter-productive? In many ways. There has been a decrease in

full-time workers and part-time work ratios. 8 million people are working

part-time, 800,000 people are on zero-hours contracts, which is

forecast to increase. The OBR expect 4 million working is to be taken out

of the supply chain, that is the effect that they see, that entry

70,000 small shops closing, up to 900,000 jobs in retail lost. The

boys Professor Kate Pickett, you cope roads The Spirit Level, a

seminal work on poverty. What do you make of this? We could think about

increasing productivity, but if we are paying low paid workers more

they have more cash with which they can consume, and consumers keep

small businesses like as going. Increasing productivity often means

losing jobs? If you work harder, you need fewer colleagues? We do not

know yet the impact on jobs. There are predictions that we will see job

losses, the same thing happened when the national minimum wage was

introduced initially, and it turned out not to be true. The national

minimum wage has gone up 13% over last few years, a 10% increase in

one go, over 30% in the next two years, if you are open for 120 hours

a week, which is all a small shop can open, you cannot open any

further. You can only make so much money, someone has to pay for it.

Efficiency means losing jobs, part-time, ultimately, the customer

pays. Are you willing to pay more money? Absolutely, I am. Let me take

you back to greater productivity, it can mean fewer jobs because we need

fewer colleagues, more unemployment, more people on benefits, higher

taxes? It might, but we don't know. I don't have the huge amount of

confidence in the predictions of economists. They didn't predict the

global financial crisis, they predicted an absolute disaster with

the introduction of the national minimum wage, which we did not see.

I think we need to wait and see. But as well as an evidence case that

paying people at the bottom higher wages increases productivity, we

also know that if we could reduce costs at the top then companies with

smaller pay ratio Stolze if the company Pallois four people, there

is no top or bottom. -- if the company employs four people. Do we

have an economist yet? Men, you have been maligned entertained! -- Len,

you have been. We know roughly what happens when the minimum wage

increase comes in. Firms try to get rendered in various ways, -- try to

get round to it in various ways, chains are looking at increasing

other aspects of the pay package. Automation is another way. There is

a difference, when it was first introduced the low pay commission

said they had to watch for jobs and make sure that businesses can afford

it. I think they did a reasonable job. But this new thing was sprung

on the Low Pay Commission at short notice, it was a George Osborne

headline. When you think it through, there will be real problems. By 2020

when it is working through to over ?9 an hour, the Government will be

setting pay for about a quarter of the workforce, this is taking us

back to the 1970s, the income policy etc, it will end badly. What about

the principle. Graham, I will be with you in a moment. The principle,

the message it sends out about society? We will pay a little bit

more for our cappuccino so that the person who serves this gets a little

bit more? And the person who wants to get a job serving cappuccino will

not be able to do it, because jobs will disappear. Graham, is that

right? There is an issue about showing people respect and weaving

them dignity, I would not begrudge anyone ?7.20 an hour for a decent

hour 's work. Oxfam and the Living Wage Foundation have been working

with employers to get up to the voluntary living wage of ?8.25

another, the aspiration. Lots of small players have signed up. Lots

of small employers do not make the minimum wage themselves, so should

they pay out of their own pockets? It does not happen in all parts of

the business lobby, but we had to get away from this instinct of

response, as soon as the business lobby say they will have another

cost, they say they cannot afford it. Kate's point is key. A happier

workforce who work for -- work harder? If you are happier, you are

likely to stay in that role for many years, rather than companies having

to re-recruit every six months for the same position, which is costly

and takes up time. Paul Baxter? Working locally is the biggest

community that any -- biggest benefit that any local community can

have. It does not benefit the community if everybody in that area

is low paid. Do you want more less people working? The vast majority of

small businesses, small high street stores, do not earn enough

themselves to pay their own families that. Without them working extra

hours and their families being drafted in, it would not happen

anyway. Professor Anthony Glees, I am delighted to many people want to

come in. The important thing is not just what you are paid but watch

your money will buy. One reason that I do not trust economists is that

many of them repeatedly argued to devalue our currency, they say it is

an advantage of leaving the EU, the reason they hate the euro. Give

people a currency worth having. It does not matter how much it is, the

important thing is that people will want to work, and we should respect

people who work. Too much low pay is idiotic, none of us would work for

low pay if we could choose to do so. You have an interest, Philip?

Absolutely. What do you do and why are you particularly engaged by

this? IM Chief Executive for Autism Plus, a regional wide social care

provider for Yorkshire. In social care we cannot put up our prices,

unlike some businesses, we are governed by contractual binding

arrangements. We cannot off-load stuff, because we are obliged to

provide a staffing ratio for people with complex needs. Our business is

working with autistic people and people with related conditions with

very, very complex needs. I applaud the increase in the living wage, all

of our workers have been paid too little for far too long. We have

gone through a period of austerity, the last six years have been

difficult, with diminishing fee levels, no inflationary uplift in

prices. An increased cost of regulation. And we are hamstrung by

insufficient funds within the pot to pay for social care. Will operators

see ways of getting around it, not paying for travel and so

see ways of getting around it, not there other ways of circumventing

this new charge? Of course. This is tinkering around the edges. The

fundamental cost is in the people. 92% of our costs are in people. On

the front line, delivering excellent services. I pay tribute to them

today. We have excellent workers who have stayed with us through thick

and thin on very poor levels of wages. I agree with my colleague

from Oxfam, the Living Wage Foundation conducted recent research

with Loughborough University and they reckon that the minimum wage

for people to subsist on is ?8.25 outside of London, and over ?9. That

is today, not 1920. If he takes a MIDI working in a care home and take

the trouble out of it, they are getting ?3 50 an hour. Dick? The

real problem is that every employer wants to see their workers treated

properly and respectfully, but like Tata Steel, we have a huge problem

in that there are no restrictions on cheap goods coming into the country

from places where the minimum wage is 50p an hour, that has destroyed

Tata Steel. It is not that players do not want to pay, every decent

person wants to pay. But the reality is that globalisation has hugged it

up. Sorry. Yellow card. Or should it be the sin-bin? More appropriate for

this programme. I'm a local entrepreneur and I run a

number of businesses. How does this affect you? It will have a major

impact. We love our employees and have a great workforce, but to have

that additional payment, plus the pensions and all the other things,

as a small business I think it is going to have a major impact. The

big boys get away with taxes, lots of things which we just cannot do.

If you look at, we can't offset this. I think it will mean reducing

the number of staff we have and or reducing the number of hours they

work. Graham, you wanted to come in. The point is to go back to

globalisation. Address that gentleman's point. Businesses face

costs beyond pay. There are other things governments can do to support

businesses. We have a higher proportion of people in low-paid

work in the UK than almost all other developed economies. Why can

Germany, US and Spain afford to pay their employees more. We can aspire

to do more and pay better, increase productivity and staff satisfaction

in the long run. What's your name? (Inaudible). The Government on the

one hand givers and then takes it away with the other. How much are

they going to save with the tax credit savings. The problems we have

as small business is tenfold. The large organisations can get away

with almost blue murder through tax evasion, all sorts of other things.

Small businesses cannot do that. APPLAUSE. The gentleman there. Part

of the problem is it is not nearly localised enough. We've talked about

localism but York is one of the most expensive places to live in the

north of England. When you compare Yorkshire and the north of England,

the cost of living, I think what we need is regional Living Wages. Not

just London. There are huge differences. Sorry I called York New

York earlier on. York has been a leader in the payment of the Living

Wage. The City Council pays the Living Wage. It requires companies

to pay the Living Wage. The Joseph Rowntree Trust pays carers the

Living Wage. One of the local universities does. I think they are

helping lead the way in the region by saying low pay is not acceptable.

It is not enough to say that employers all want to pay their

employees well. Look at Sports Direct, where they have done all

kinds of neverarious things to avoid paying even the minimum wage. --

nefarious things to avoid paying even the minimum wage. What about

cab drivers. They can work all night and take home 40 quid. One of the

reasons why zero hours contracts have increased is that they have to

pay minimum wages. I think you will find even more of them when the

higher rates come in. The can I turn this around slightly? We've all been

talking as if this was a good way of reducing poverty. I think the

evidence is that it isn't. If you are not in work you don't get any

benefit from this at all. Something like 60% of all those who are

eligible for this Living Wage are actually working part time. It is

not a Living Wage at all. It's a payment which would ekwif lies to a

Living Wage if you worked 40-45 hours a week. A lot of these people

are students... I agree it is not a living wage and at the moment you

can be on minimum wage, get this lift to the new national minimum

wage, but if you are in receipt of in-work benefits because of the cuts

to universal credit, you could end up with a loss. This is a mixed

blessing, as the Government are giving with one hand and taking

away... A last word from you, as you've been nodding and shaking your

head and grimacing and smiling all the way through. Baroness Afshar,

professor of politics at the University of York, is there a is

there a danger that some jobs - child minding, cleaning and

gardening work and care homes, we could be moving to a cash this hand

situation? It absolutely is the case, because if you are not having

a proper job, and most of the people who earn that kind of wages don't

have proper jobs. They fit it in as and when. Once this kind of

legislation comes in, the as and when becomes cash in hand. That's

very destructive for people whose money is not pocket money. A lot of

the women who work now for cash in hand do so because had we have to.

They don't choose to go and do very heavy cleaning, cooking. They have

to do it. And at the same time they can't pay for childcare, so they can

only do it at certain times. This will make their wages go even

further down because it is cash in hand, with no benefit whatsoever.

APPLAUSE. We'll be hearing from you again. Thank you all very much

indeed for that. If you have something to say

about that debate log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions,

where you'll find links to join We're also debating live

this morning from York. Is the Prevent strategy stifling

discussion in schools? So get tweeting or emailing on those

topics now or send us any other ideas or thoughts you may

have about the show. On Monday, the National Union

of Teachers conference called for the Government to withdraw

its Prevent strategy in schools. Teachers say they have been asked

to report even minor concerns about pupils who they fear may be

at risk of radicalisation. Teachers say the unintended result

has been to silence Muslim pupils in class discussions

for fear their families might be So, is the Prevent strategy stifling

discussion in schools? Mohammed Khalil, sorry I didn't come

to you in the last one. I want to make a quick point... We've moved

into that debate, Mohammed. We don't want to eat into our time here.

Let's not stifle discussion on this. What kind of things are pupils

afraid to discuss? This is encroaching into freedom of thought

and speech. We want to develop children at school that can speak

freely, think freely and develop themselves. This is stifling them.

Now they think, I would rather keep that private. On foreign policy, a

student might say that Palestine is an issue for me. The teacher might

report them. Seriously? Most odd things. A three-year-old programme

being referred for decalisation. How can you deradicalise a

three-year-old baby? That story about the three-year-old being

referred is not true. I think a four or five-year-old drew pictures and

say things which caused the teacher to worry about what was said at

home. A cucumber. LAUGHTER. This is a sort of

anti-Prevent lobby group. Prevent is really important, it is important

that it should be understood. It is not a way of stifling debate. It is

ensuring that views are challenged. That's what this is about. I'm not

anti-... Can I just say... A it is the duty of teachers to challenge

extreme views. What if a pupil came to school with a swastika drawn on

his or her hands and started talking about white racial supreme cism?

Safeguarding, you would do something about it. Why is this different? I

am a school Prevent Governor, I deal with case work. The last referral we

made did not involve a Muslim. Obviously we are not able to talk

about the details. I work with the police as an adviser. I'm not

anti-Prevent in any way. What I'm anti-is doing an initiative that you

pour hundreds of millions of pounds into which isn't delivering. At the

end of the day it is demonising a whole community. Is it demonising? I

don't believe it is. If people feel they are being picked on, spied on,

it is going to further alienate them, so it is hugely

counterproductive. Those are feelings that exist within our

Muslim communities and there are reasons for that. But it is unfair

to say that it is all because of the Prevent strategy. The Prevent

strategy is very clear. We can't say it is the Prevent strategy that is

stifling debate, because we have freedom of speech laws in this

country that protect people. It allows people to express their views

and opinions, no matter how distasteful we might find them, as

long as they are not breaking the allow. Ight find them, as long as

they are not breaking the allow. -- breaking the law. The Prevent

strategy says schools need to be places where young people can

express their views... Let me just focus something, we are hearing

about children worried about coming to school and talking about tensions

and problems and geopolitical issues in the Middle East which everybody

should be talking about. Absolutely. What's gone wrong? What's gone wrong

is the way this is being portrayed within our wider communities.

Prevent is there to protect us. Absolutely. If you look at what's

happening across the world. Look at the three girls from Bethnal Green

who went out there. We want people to have these conversations, to be

able to express these views, but when you have strong voices within

the Muslim communities themselves which are saying, don't talk about

this. Prevent is anti-Muslim, the West... It puts it into it that same

narrative that people are allowed to take on board. Prevent is about

safeguarding. Schools and teachers have been safe guarding for years.

You mentioned the three schoolgirls from Bethnal Green who went to Syria

to be raped. If that had been happening in your school, what would

you have been looking out for and what would you have done about it

and what might have been suspicious as an NUT representative. Address

that point? As I understand it, the girls from Bethnal Green were model

students. They were clever enough to fly under the radar. There were no

signs, even looking back at what they were doing, that people could

have picked up in the school. There's a limit to what schools can

do. Can I be clear about the position we've taken as the National

Union of Teachers? We believe 100% schools and teachers have a duty to

protect pupils from all dangers that they face in a mixed up world. But

we are saying that Prevent is a blunt instrument that's stopping

teachers, hindering that work. 4,000 referrals in the last 18 months to

the Prevent processes is not a sign of increased radicalisation. It is

not a sign that the process is working. It should be a cause for

concern and press the Stop button on it. We hear of young people being

sent to school by families saying, don't discuss these things in

school. What things? Don't discuss what's happening in Syria. Don't

discuss Charlie Hebdo or these other issues. The message is that families

are sending schools to children not to discuss these issues. If they are

doing that, we are abandoning children to it. The NUT has behaved

disgracefully. It is not just the NUT that's saying it. You can see

what they think of free speech by the way he shouted me down. That's

disgraceful. This is not about not having discussions in schools. It is

about teachers ensuring that extreme views are challenged. We owe a duty,

an ethical and professional thing for teachers to listen to what

students say and challenge. And those people who don't want Prevent,

and those teachers who don't want Prevent, have allowed certain

schools certain faith schools to develop a culture of segregation and

many things that are totally hostile to British values. Prevent is a way

of making our country safer, and goodness knows we need to do that.

And it is a way of making our children's life safer. To have the

NUT say they are not going to do something that can make children's

lives safer is outrageous. I will be with you in a second, Baroness. I

will allow you to fully respond to that, I promise. I want to pick you

up, professor, professor, on a phrase - extreme views. In the same

sentence I think you spoke about freedom of speech. If we have

freedom of speech we should be able to allow people to have, what's that

phrase, non-violent extremism? There are extreme views in many different

credos and faiths and schools of thought which are not consonant,

some believe, in a liberal pluralistic society. What for

example if somebody came to a school and said, I believe that homosexuals

should burn in hell? Is that an extreme view? It certainly is an

extreme view and it should be challenged by a professional

teacher. That's what teaching is about. What we should not do though

is let schools, universities and colleges become safe spaces which

are safe for extremism and radicalisation. When we talk about,

I'm sorry I don't know why the Baroness finds this funny, as it is

a deadly serious topic. It is free speech under the law in this

country. It is not untrammelled free speech.

If it is your face, as toxic and disgusting that many people would

find that, what would you do with somebody came to school and said, I

think homosexuals should be burned in hell, it is my religion? We talk

to them about it. I have had students who have wrote swastikas on

their books. Teachers are well placed to discuss views with

children, to show them the consequence of their views and to

lead them away. He said that is what Prevent is. Preventer is not

working. It is not just the NUT, the Government's independent adviser,

David Anderson, senior figures in the Metropolitan Police and

university lecturers have said that it is counter-productive, it creates

a sense of us and them. One of the issues raised with Prevent is there

is no accreditation or regulation of the training. Would it be OK if the

training was done well? It is done by a multiplicity of dividers and

varies in content. Some trainers have said that if a child learns

Arabic or a girl wears a headscarf, that is cause for concern. In the

context where Michael Wilshaw pretends there is a problem of the

veil being worn in schools, David Cameron talks to Muslim parents

about learning English, in that context you can see that, in the

words of a senior Metropolitan Police officer, Prevent has become a

toxic brands. We are not saying we are not cooperating, we are not

saying these things are not important but we are saying about

the whole strategy is counter-productive and we want to

work with the Government on developing a better alternative to

free people up to do these kinds of things. Mary? If we don't have, in

schools, where the students can come in and talk about it, it will not

be... We are abandoning them to the Internet. At abandoning them to the

Internet? But Prevent does not stop people talking about things. It

simply puts on schoolteachers AGT... But teachers on over the country say

it is. Please stop interrupting me, for goodness... See afterwords! I

promise the baroness. -- see me afterwards! Prevent was formulated

to dealing with Muslims, it was introduced as such. Also, it

completely fails to understand... Nobody actually asks why is it that

bright, it is always the brightest and the best, Muslims, who choose to

abandon their home, abandon their family, abandon the system to go and

fight in Syria. What do you mean? What a generalisation. Very often

the people who have been labelled... Disproportionately,

the people who have been labelled... students. And nobody says, what are

the opportunities? Because they are not challenged, you should challenge

them. Instead of knocking the Government, go with it. Can I just

finished? The reality is that if you have a name like her saying, Afshar,

a Muslim name, you may be the best candidate, you do not get it -- if

you have a name like Hossain, Afshar. This was raised in the House

of Lords, and the Lord's agreed that there is a problem of Islamophobia

and Muslims do not get the opportunities. Is there? We walking

on a tightrope, -- we walking on a tight rope, we are raising

legitimate concerns, but some might say that we are playing into a toxic

narrative. We put upon, we are victims, stigmatising, playing up

the paranoia. How do we negotiate that? There is Islamophobia, Muslims

are demonised in the media for all sorts. But we must not use Prevent

as a reason for that happening. One other point points that you make,

you mention Prevent being about Muslims. When it first came out in

2007/8, it was targeting Muslims than saying that you need to keep an

eye on these people. We need to accept that when the strategy

changed in 2011, it became clear that it is about all forms of

extremism. Is statistically, they are still the largest... Who is

going out to fight for Islamic State? The fact that you are a

baroness in this country, you are living proof that that is nonsense.

Animal-rights activists are not heading out to Syria, that is the

point he is making. These are British people going to Syria.

Audience? A couple of points before we move on. I find the Professor's

views almost dangerous and patronising to young people.

APPLAUSE Young people have been radicalised,

they are not just an intelligent people, they are smart people,

charismatic people of various faiths, Muslims, Christians,

whoever, charismatic leaders have converted them. Telling a teacher to

confront their views will not change that. But teachers need to be aware.

Behind the entrepreneur? Not only is it patronising to the students, it

is patronising to be teachers. They go into a job to protect, educate

and care for these students, the Prevent strategy being brought in to

safeguard is like the idea that they are not doing that already.

APPLAUSE If they were doing it already, you

would not need the Prevent strategy. Excuse me. There is a problem of

extremism and radicalisation in our schools and colleges and

universities. Some 60% of people who turn to terrorism are well-educated

people. They hold those views because they have not been

challenged at university and not being challenged...

ALL TALK AT ONCE There are important points on both sides here.

We have a problem with radicalisation, with young people

going to Syria, with terrorism. Some people in our country want to kill

that fellow citizens. How do we instil proper critical thinking in

young people so they do not fall for one particular toxic narrative?

Because life is complicated. I am a community advocate who is critical

of Prevent but I am working with the police to train and support people

on Prevent. We want to achieve the best results. We all agree that we

do not want these kids going out there. David Cameron said the

alternative, and he hinted at it, we cannot solve this alone, we need

communities on side. Everybody agrees with this. But when your

policy alienates the same people that you want on side, it becomes

counter-productive. The other thing is the one-on-one intervention

between a possibly radicalised person and those intervening has

been beneficial. Look at other countries with effective mechanisms

in place. We have poured hundreds of millions of pounds into this policy.

The word toxic, and I was involved in the initial Prevent under Tony

Blair and Gordon Brown, this policy is not effective enough, there are

no key performance indicators. This is a very complicated, multifaceted

problem, we will not solve it? We can try. I don't want to see any

more young Muslims going out, putting their life on the line to

fight for Daesh. The gentleman at the back made a very valid point,

schools and teachers have been doing safeguarding for years. They have

been safeguarding young people. That is making it harder... I am sorry, I

do training in Prevent, we are making it clear that we're not

asking you to do anything differently. You protect young

people from grooming, sexual exploitation, child mental health.

We are protecting radicalisation. I don't know how many schools or

teachers Anthony has spoken to to have developed the position he has,

we are speaking from experience. We want to work with you. Ladies and

gentlemen, we have... ALL TALK AT ONCE British values need

to be a for. We had to move on. We are going to

talk about British witches in just a moment. That is enough. You do not

talk to more teachers than we do. You can join in all this

morning's debates by logging on to bbc.co.uk/the big questions

then following the link Or you can tweet using

the hashtag bbctbq. Tell us what you think

about our last Big Question too ? Do Next Sunday we're back from York

with our special debate commemorating the 400th anniversary

of Shakespeare's death, asking, Is there more truth

in Shakespeare than the Bible? We have the distinguished

Shakespearean scholar, Professor Stanley Wells is on that,

as well as the rapper, A fascinating question. A big

question. And if you'd like to be

in the audience at a future show, We're in Bath on 17th April

and then, after a break for the London Marathon,

we're in Salford on 1st May for our usual live morning programme

and in the afternoon a special asking, should we be proud

of the British Empire? This weekend, on the other side

of Yorkshire in Sheffield, there's a Pagan Conference

going on with stalls selling charms, Witchcraft has staged something

of a revival in Britain. You can have a Wicca

wedding or funeral. And you can even order

a witch's services online. Is it just a bit of harmless fun,

or are we toying with something Mary could not be a nicer person.

You are a witch as well. So much part of our fall call, the White

witch, black witch, wicked witch of the West. Which are you?

LAUGHTER I would consider myself a grey

which, not because I have grey hair. -- a grey witch. In all of us there

is black and white, I would say that I am in the middle. But each day we

are a bit more black or white, depending on how we are that day,

hour or minute. We go up and down that grayscale. Wait a minute... I

am pale grey this morning. A lot of people fade to black when they watch

this programme, throwing things at the screen! You have an alter at

home, and you have a Celtic to haunt cod of the forest that you worship.

And who else? Gaya, the earth goddess. I also have Danube, another

Celtic god is more to do with water and motherhood -- I also have Danu.

There are about eight different gods and goddesses. You have a holy

Trinity? As a pagan and a witch, I strongly believe that religion and

spirituality should be about... It is balanced, and to have balance you

need both a male and female. What is Trinity? It consists of the major,

mother and chrome. -- the maid, mother and is crone. Could you wish

misfortune on somebody or make mischief with a spell? I could, I

would not do that. There are spells out there, but spells are about

intent, putting energy into the spell to send it out into the ether.

Jackson, you put a spell on me, that is why I called you New York

earlier! Jackson Moonga from the York seventh-day Adventist Church.

We have the Trinity there, you have your Trinity, let's all get on with

each other. Is it Exodus or due to run me? Exodus says suffer not a

witch to live? What is that mean? Let me answer the question put

forward to us. What does it mean, suffer not a witch to live? Well, it

means they should not live. They need to be, you know, killed. It is

an abomination anyway. It is part of the saying that is existing. Is it

an abomination? It is, yes. You think she's an abomination? No.

Before the eyes of the Lord, yes. According to Deuteronomy 18: 10-12

it says sorcerers, wizards and all witches, they are an abomination

before the eyes of the Lord. Should he head be turned by Satan? They are

being possessed by the devil, yes. LAUGHTER Do you think atheists have

been affected by Satan as well if Well, they have... You told me that

earlier on actually. LAUGHTER So don't hold back about

want you think. You said yes. Take you back to the beginning. When God

created the Earth, Heaven and Earth, he created everything in perfection

yes? But the devil... You know... They came down among us... What

yes? But the devil... You know... do you think, to be a witch? No. I

know you think no. I'm asking what we

know you think no. I'm asking what serious implications here. What

should happen about witchcraft, what would you like? In other societies,

apart from here in the UK, witches don't come out in the open to say

they are witches, because they do things which are very harmful to

society, right? Talk about Africa, the Caribbean and Asia, witches are

known to be vampires, right? LAUGHTER. Excuse me, going back to

your point about witches from beginning, if I said to you that

Christ worked in the old ways, he used the old laws, he taught suffer

little children to come unto me. He taught, treat your neighbours as

yourself. All of these were the old laws. That's what Mary is saying as

well. Yes. Are there any other witches here? It was only when

Christ died that Christianity became something completely different. It

became man made. Man made laws. Let me take it back, forget the 4th

century stuff. Vampires. Somebody was likened to the vampiric, if

somebody says on a programme they are a vampire and an abol nation, we

have to have like of reply. LAUGHTER. Mary? I'm certainly not a

vampire. I'm certainly not a vampire and I don't personally know any

vampires. The pagan religions have been around since time began.

Christianity is a new religion. It's only 2,000 years old. The old ways

go much, much older. In fact, if you then look at the main three

religions, Abrahamic, they've all come from the same line. Our

religion, my religion, is much, much older than that. Jackson, come back

on that. The devil is using different tools. In order to

(Inaudible) one of the tools he has is actually witches, right? To

control people's minds. Witches, what is their main purpose anyway?

To control somebody else's mind. Debra, editor of The Sceptic, how

dangerous is Jackson's attitude, because there are children being

exorcised in Africa, and murdered. There was the body in the Thames a

few years ago. The little boy, Hope, who was rescued. How dangerous is

this? There is the allegation that you can do substantive harm with

witchcraft. That means that you are entitled to take redress against

them because it can affect you too. It is nonsense but it gives you

licence to go and take an action against them. And this happens in

Africa. APPLAUSE. And it happens here with

our friends and neighbours too. Christie Bamu was murdered in 2010

by his family memberses in the belief that he was possessed by

demons. It matters and it has real consequences. Marian, you've studied

this. This is like stepping back into the 17th century isn't it, we

don't know how many, maybe 300,000 women and men were put to death,

tortured. They called it gender cide and gynae cide. They were

scapegoated weren't they? Yes, and we are still seeing it. It is part

of the same pattern. Jackson is talking about the idea of witches

who are evil people, as people would have done in the 16th and 17th sex

ries in Britain. Whereas Mary is talking about modern paying annism

as a religion of rituals and celebrations, which is something

really rather different. We have to be careful when we use the word

witchcraft to define what we mean by it. So there are a new paying

annism. Why is it 95% women, why were they scapegoated? Where they

ach sense trick? I think having pets was seen as very odd. That can be

part of it. It is to do with domestic things, so therefore women

are naturals is. For example if you can't churn your butter or if your

cow dies or your milk goes off, in the 16th century you might think a

witch had done it And they were midwives. They cared for them at the

beginning of their lives and at the end of their lives. You could have

it conflated with a top down inflicted label, as did you with

very educated clergy, where they would scapegoat a member of the

society, a scapegoat who would probably be fairly helplings and

economically unproductive. And that is conflating them with cunning

people who had a bit of medical knowledge, but they were

self-consciously Christian. And in Salem in Massachusetts, famous as

the. This crucible, the play by Arthur Miller, with the land

disputes. We had big witch-hunts in Europe during the time of the

Reformation. It was real politics and real economics. Jackson, now you

are in a studio are there other witches in the audience? You are a

witch? OK. Can I say one more thing? I will come back to you Debra.

Jackson, now you are in a studio with a couple of witches, nice human

beings, does it not moderate your thought that they are vampires? No,

I read what was this the Bible. Remember I gave you quotation.

What's your belief? My belief is Christ died for sinners. Everyone

who sins has an opportunity, we are guaranteed salvation. Being a witch

and embrace Christ as your personal saviour, then you will change. But

it is evil, Satan is involved here. Any other thoughts on this? Paul

Baxter from the National Association...

LAUGHTER. Satanism has got nothing to do with Wicca. Satanism is of the

Christian church. Wicca has been around much longer, and I'm a

Catholic when I say that. The I've read the Bible, and the Koran. I

totally disagree with what he is saying. Of course you would! The

gentleman at the back. Witchcraft is a religion. It was said by the

gentleman that it is a mind game, taking over their minds. All

religions take over people's minds. APPLAUSE. Anyone else in the

audience who has real worries about witchcraft and thinks... Well,

there's a surprise! LAUGHTER. Whether we are talking

about brainwashing or witchcraft or extremism, this is brainwashing

people. What is? To talk about Satan. To talk about witches. Excuse

me, madam, I don't mind you having a bit of fun. Maybe you even do a bit

of flying Maybe you even do a bit of flying on a broom strict - I don't

know. But we shouldn't forget that many, many people are killed because

of these crazy irrational ideas. Absolutely.

APPLAUSE. That is not a laughing matter. Mary? It is down to

education. That's one of the reasons reasons why we are here - education.

How many people actually know that paying annism and witchcraft is a

spirituality. It is my path. It is what I choose to do?

APPLAUSE. It doesn't make me mad. Give me an example of a spell. A

good spell, you might have a friend that's been having a really bad day.

She's got problems at work. You want her to feel better about yourself,

so what you can simply her to feel better about yourself,

candle. We her to feel better about yourself,

and you send her good wishes. Just give her a gin and tonic.

LAUGHTER. That might work. But people don't realise in our everyday

speech we are sending good intentions out to people. It is

about sending energy out, sending a thread of energy out to your

neighbours, your friends across the world, to Gaia herself. That's the

way of psychology, the way CBT works, the thoughts you have in your

minds. I want to bring the Baroness in. It was the witches who first

dealt with problems that women had, who dealt with abortion, who dealt

with the care of women. They have been the mainstay of what followed

later on and was made legal. They were the first doctors and they were

focused on women. I think all women, who are the majority of the

population, should be grateful to them. Thank you. Mohammed, I know in

Islam sorcery, as it is called, with the arrows and stuff, that's haram.

That's right. Is this evil? Before Islam came to Mecca paying annism

was practised there. If you had a daughter you buried the daughter

alive and that was the belief. What we are doing now, it allows you

freedom of choice. There's a lot of similarity between the Bible, in

terms of you had the freedom of choice, the freedom to practise

whatever religion you want. However, had you will be accountable for it

after your death. That's the point. But he thinks you're going to be

accountable and you think he's going to be accountable.

LAUGHTER. Don't you two start ganging up with each other. As a

witch I don't have a problem with anybody else's religion. I'm quite

happy. You celebrate yours... Why is she going to be accountable for

lighting a candle and hoping her friend has a nice day? We

conflate paganifm with witchcraft. There were all sorts of that. Nobody

said they were witchcraft. In fact people practised that within them.

We are talking about the practise people practised that within them.

magic specifically, and we should probably be careful about that.

That's the thing that Jackson objects to and the thing that you

are saying is fine. Just like you said in the Bible, and in you want

to practise magic, go to Koran and it tells you how to do it but it

tells you you have gone outside of it tells you how to do it but it

the Koran. Does magic work? Yes, because it is specific, we say in

the Koran, there's specific guidance. So magic is real? Believe

in spirits. Ee Are guidance. So magic is real? Believe

fire? And to realise that in reality a lot of people queues, and we don't

want to do that, mental illness with trying to blame everything on that

sort of thing. Jackson. As long as we are still living on this earth,

Satan will still be existing. To get rid of the sin, we need the

intervention of the Holy Spirit. All these things we are talking about,

we are talking about Prevent, issues of (Inaudible) and so forth, it is

all to do with mind control, right? It is all to do with mind control.

There's a great contrast that is existing... Debra, I'm sorry we

didn't get to you earlier. Are you with the evangelicals or the

witches? We mentioned brainwashing and mind control. It is easy to look

at the silliness of other people without looking at the silliness of

yourself. Really, most religious ideas are as preposterous as

believing in fairies, but we notice other people's silliness. Thank you,

a fascinating discussion held in good spirits, so give yourselves a

round of applause. APPLAUSE.

As always, the debates will continue online and on Twitter.

We're back from York next Sunday for that special on Shakespeare

versus the Bible, so do join us then.

Wish all your friends a marvellous Sunday. Light some candles. In fact

I think you should like four candles.

LAUGHTER. Have a great day.