This morning's Sunday Morning Live began with the legacy of the atomic bombs dropped over Japan in 1945. Its first question was, "Do nuclear weapons keep us safe?"
Sometimes you do have to laugh (really you do), because the opening report took us to Westminster Cathedral to, in Sian Williams's words, "hear" some "views" - all of which opposed the UK's retention of nuclear weapons.
Among those giving their "views" was CND vice-president Mgr Bruce Kent, who I've not seen for years.
For some strange reason I felt a bit nostalgic at that point, and he looks in good health, but I sniggered when he said "We should insist that the Soviet Union, China and America start serious negotiations aimed at abolition".
Ah, he still thinks the Soviet Union exists! - especially funny as we now know, from the post-Soviet Russian archive, that CND was absolutely riddled with Soviet infiltrators; and, funny too, in that SML chose to end his contribution to the sound of guitars playing hopeful-sounding music.
That said, the following discussion featured an interesting and unusual spread of views - on the pro-retention side, a Daily Mail journalist and the Big Issue founder; on the pro-abolition side, a Hindu organisation leader and a feminist/Guardian columnist...
...Fancy the Hindu spokeslady opposing the bomb, despite India having the bomb (which says good things about Hinduism and India)!...
...and fancy John Bird of the Big Issue strongly advancing a pro-retention argument for the UK from the unusual standpoint that the British Empire was evil and that nuclear-armed China wants to be the new British Empire and we need to defend ourselves against that new British Empire!
A former UK diplomat then appeared...tilting the balance firmly back toward BBC bias...saying that only about 150 nuclear weapons are needed to keep the peace, that "all the intelligence tells us that Iran doesn't have the intention to acquire nuclear weapons", and that the UK should give up its nuclear weapons (i.e. scrap Trident).
Sunday Morning Live really is 'quintessentially BBC' (i.e. biased), isn't it?