BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Your views on Question Time 20th May 2010

15:45 UK time, Thursday, 20 May 2010

Question Time, the BBC's premier political debate programme comes from Richmond, Surrey on Thursday 20 May.

The panel includes the new Home Secretary Theresa May, Labour's Caroline Flint and Ming Campbell for the Liberal Democrats.

David Dimbleby is also joined by the Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti and the journalist and writer Douglas Murray.

What are your thoughts about the programme and the panel? Let us know here on the Question Time debate page.

This debate has now closed. Thank you for your comments.


Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 2.

    I hope it is much better than last week as I have never seen such a bad Question Time. Intelligent people should give this coalition a chance to work and criticise before anything has been done. I have always been a very loyal viewer of Question Time and I studied politics but tonight could change that habit if the guests are so childish. It was like a fight in a kindergarten.

  • Comment number 3.

    David Dimbleby is also joined by the Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti.

    I saw her name and now i will not watch it.

  • Comment number 4.

    I would love to watch David Dimbleby and Question Time, but unfortionately, I can't receive the real BBC. Please, can you broadcast it on BBC world news?

  • Comment number 5.

    3. At 6:59pm on 20 May 2010, panchopablo wrote:
    David Dimbleby is also joined by the Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti.
    I saw her name and now i will not watch it.

    I'm sure she'll be crushed.

  • Comment number 6.

    debate does not come from three centre political clones and an pro immigration biggot.

    Proper debate comes from extremes so lets see a far right and far left protaganist every week. Then perhaps someone like Griffin (who sadly has reduced the possibility of party acceptability) would be listened to not just shouted down by loons. It would also allow people to see how crazy the 'Labour left' is and how far further left the hard core liberals are.

  • Comment number 7.

    Same as last time, and the time before, and the time before, and the time......

  • Comment number 8.

    I hope the Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, can answer more convincingly as to why we have to allow acknowledged terrorists to stay in the UK than she did on Newsnight last night. As ever, she will argue for the individual's rights against the the rights of the vast majority of decent citizens to go about their lives without the fear of being blown up.

  • Comment number 9.

    So 2 government spokespeople are on the panel - Teresa May and Menzies Campbell - the BBC need to get with the new politics and you can't represent 3 parties if two the views are identical.

    Steve

  • Comment number 10.

    These two people have been condemned based on evidence they haven't seen. Therefore they are not in a position to challenge that evidence. If they are guilty of terrorist related offences then charge them. Otherwise they are innocent men and should be treated as such. The decision is absolutely right.

  • Comment number 11.

    Great, we defend civil liberties of terrorists but happy to allow an auspergers victim to be sent off to US for a prob 60 years jail

  • Comment number 12.

    If they want to remain in power this government has got to acknowledge that the people of this country do not want to keep paying for people who are not of this country, break our laws and then bleat about their 'human rights'. If they cannot abide by the laws of this land or plot against the population of this land then they must forfeit the right to remain here,

  • Comment number 13.

    If people are unfit to be allowed to stay in the UK yet cannot be sent to their home country, we should expel them to some uninhabited territory, such as South Georgia, with the freedom to leave it and go anywhere they want other than back to the UK.

    Give them sufficient tools and shelter to survive and leave them to it.

  • Comment number 14.

    Before the legislation on children of British Mothers came into force (Section 4C 1981 act) in Jan 2010, my oldest two siblings who were born in the UK have always had Full British nationality but the other 4 of us were born in the USA and did not have British Nationality until Jan 2010... all my siblings and myself could have entered the UK on one of those passports as there are no checks and even if they did do a check, well in families we tend to look alike so to say.
    So theoretically, If we had not had principle and integrity, we could have had 50 people in my immediate and 1st cousins enter the UK on my eldest brother and sister's passport. Just have a person use it to enter under their name and then post it to the next person and then the next and the next and because we identify people by name and address...
    So I hope you can see how it is extremely easy for a person to enter and become established in the UK (if they so choose to do it that way).

    And if we dont have the NIR, how are we going to ever locate the mother who is an international child abductor as she fled the UK during court proceedings and was not stopped because we did not count people out so the closing of ports was useless and she could easily have a fake identity and be travelling back and forth to visit her family and friends unbeknownst to anyone.


    The National Identity Register (connecting a single person to a passport or nat id card) is the only way to prevent this sort of thing happening. Also I am rather annoyed because for £30 I can have (as I was one of the very first in the queue to get one) a nat ID card that I can travel anywhere in the EU. But without the nat ID cards, that means a full passport at near £100.... nice little earner for the home office!

    Also if there is NO biometric National Identity Registry - that links a person to a passport, that would then mean that we in the UK loose our visa free travel to Canada and the USA! The USA will happily charge every person the standard typical fee of about £100 to enter every time a person wanted to travel there for pleasure or to simply visit relatives. USA law mandidates that ALL passports have to have biometric information and if the passport does not, then there is NO visa free travel!

  • Comment number 15.

    Nice to see David Dimbleby is being given a fairly regular slot on "Shami Chakrabarti's Question Time"

  • Comment number 16.

    Like others, I'm watching Dimbleby like a hawk in view of his record of unchairmanly behaviour: too often not so much chairing the debate as stirring it. No-one is indispensable and there are plenty of people capable of chairing Question Time. Let's see how it goes tonight. Ah, he's allowed Ming Campbell have his say at last..

  • Comment number 17.

    Why should we have to pay to keep them in prison or under surveillance? I would rather my taxes went to a more deserving cause.

  • Comment number 18.

    Why is Ming Campbell on the panel tonight?

    He is a Lib Dem, and therefore a supporter of the Government, but there is a Government Cabinet minister on the panel, too. Surely, in a fair democracy we cannot have two members of the Government opposing one member of the official Opposition!?

    Please, ensure that, for the sake of justice and democracy, either a Lib Dem OR a Conservative appears from the Government benches in future - and not, like tonight, a member from both parties.

    This is an anti-democratic disgrace!

    PS - why is the woman from Liberty always on, too?

  • Comment number 19.

    Shami Chakrabarti supports the terrorists being here, now there is a surprise!

  • Comment number 20.

    Yet another question tme with Chakrabati, she seems to be on every other week, get some different people on please - do the BBC feel that she needs to be on to cover themselves in case seen as not being balanced? Every time there is the slightest hint of a so called "human right" being abused she crops up!

    I find her offensive and what she stands for is one of the reasons this country is in such a mess, do gooder who interferes and meddles, if I had a pound for every time she was on I could retire!

    come on get some new guests who are interesting

  • Comment number 21.

    We need to have a British Human Rights Act which protects this country and it's citizens - not one that encompasses and builds on the European model.

  • Comment number 22.

    3. At 6:59pm on 20 May 2010, panchopablo wrote:
    David Dimbleby is also joined by the Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti.

    I saw her name and now i will not watch it.

    .........................

    Crikey, she cannot be on AGAIN.

    She was on only 3 weeks ago with Nigel Farage (and there wasn't even a show the next week) - she's had ONE week off.

    Liberty used be an organisation that fought for some wonderful causes and terrible ills, quietly and with great distinction, not grabbing any opportunity to jump in front of the cameras.

    Why not another BNP candidate (not Griffin for similar reasons) for an alternate perspective?

    If they are to be on every week, Liberty must have some able members able to offer a slightly different perspective?

  • Comment number 23.

    Moderation slow

  • Comment number 24.

    Is the producer of Question Time suffering from a severe lack of imagination? How many times in recent months have Theresa May, Ming Campbell and Shami Chakrabati been on the programme? Here we are with a totally new style of governmentm bright new future etc and how does Question Time respond? Digs up the same tired, old panellists. QT desperately needs an injection of new blood.
    Peter Lilley
    Hove, Sussex

  • Comment number 25.

    The civil liberty crowd are in tonight. Can't be bothered with this - will come back for This Week - pity they cannot swap the scheduling around.

  • Comment number 26.

    Why is the moderating taking so long. No posts have appeared since 10.30 and irt is now 10.56?

  • Comment number 27.

    To everyone so keen on getting rid of teh Human Rights Act:

    Just stop and ask yourself, exactly what is it that you feel this act has done to cause you hardship? Do you even know what rights it gives you in your day to day lives? Let lets not forget they were caught - with the act in place. Reactionary nonsensical statements that many like to make over issues like this are exactly what this act allows you to do. Careful what you wish for.

  • Comment number 28.

    It amuses me that Mingie Campbell witters on about the national interest. If he was honest he would admit that the carrot was having seats in cabinet, nothing to do with national interest.

  • Comment number 29.

    who was crying out for stable government?.......we just wanted a government that didn't cheat! I don't remember this outcry for a stable government, anyone else?

  • Comment number 30.

    Why is Liberty represented on this program so often? For such a minor organisation to be represented every few weeks is totally biased by the BBC. I think the BBC should strive for the panel to reflect society - this does not seem to be the case.

    Sort it out.

  • Comment number 31.

    For a writer Douglas Murray shows an extraordinary ignorance of the English language. Perhaps he should look up the word "coalition" in a dictionary. By definition, that means parties have to compromise. Whatever is wrong with that?

  • Comment number 32.

    21. At 10:53pm on 20 May 2010, JeanR wrote:
    We need to have a British Human Rights Act which protects this country and it's citizens - not one that encompasses and builds on the European model.

    That would be the European model that was largely written by British lawyers.

  • Comment number 33.

    There is nothing in the coalition document worth reading, doomed to fail

  • Comment number 34.

    you all lost the election......there should have been another election allowing those who were not able to vote, due to the out dated system where a couple of volunteers sit behind a desk and there is only two booths, could actually have their democratic right. (they were there before 10pm and should have been allowed to vote) How can anyone believe in these people who shouted their principles at the top of their voices just a day before the election and then sold them for power. Wouldn't you love to have faith in just one of them?

  • Comment number 35.

    Human Rights:

    This Act should be written out of Britain's future, all it does in respect of Islamic Terrorists is assure them no matter what they will be kept in Britain safe from their own countries of origin.

    This is not correct, the two involved in the current situation should be sent back to Pakistan forthwith no matter what risks they face there. What the likes of these had in mind for the British population should be what decides, not what they may face elsewhere.

    If as it appears Politicians of all colours do not have what it takes to protect us, they should step aside and allow others to do what is right.

    They should also accept that in the event another attack such as seen on the 7th July 2005 occurs, they are responsible and should be held responsible.

    The likes of Chakrabarti should step aside as it's obvious her interest is to those who threaten and not those threatened.
    It seems that no matter what, the Politicians and Chakrabarti expect nay, demand that this country picks up the cost associated to these type of people, be-it by imprisonment or out on the lose - sorry but if they must stay here then they must be in a custom built internment camp where they will stay until death or volunteer to be deported.

    PS: Is the BBC taking the micky?

    Last week we had a Mr Hasan who has very dubious views which threaten this countries culture and values and now the motor mouth Chakrabarti who does most peoples heads in!

  • Comment number 36.

    Everyone (well, nearly everyone) had the chance to cast their vote. Those who wanted to did so, and now the politicians have decided what they think about all that, and in five years time you can tell them if you agree or not. Don't like it? Well boo hoo, either do something about it or just get back on facebook.

  • Comment number 37.

    Still can'tsee how the British public chose this coilition. If we were getting what the people wanted then the two parties with the most votes were the Tories and Labour. Therefore more people wanted some of Labour policies included than the Lib Dems policies.

  • Comment number 38.

    Yet another Question Time / Any Questions from London. The BBC need to realise there is life beyond London and the SE of England. Perhaps they feel more comfortable choosing an area of the country that consistently backs their Labour/Socialist bias.

  • Comment number 39.

    Perhaps it's a good time to have a coalition government. Single party government hasn't served us very well up to now. Surely now the best minds from all parties should be pulling together to solve our problems.

  • Comment number 40.

    If Bin Laden sufaced in England and claimed protection of his human rigts, and as an example America applied for his extradition on grounds of his acts of terrorism, but could not guarantee he would not receive the death penalty, would this country uphold his huamn rights and allow him to stay? No matter what the cost to the relationship between our countries!

  • Comment number 41.

    In future could we just have an audience and get rid of the panel.

  • Comment number 42.

    Why don't politicians understand that the people did not vote for a coalition government. Those of us that voted did so for a particular party who advocated specific policies. I did not see a box for coalition. The honeymoon period will not last long before the bride and groom are off in their separate directions and the policiticans do what they do best and look after number one.

  • Comment number 43.

    I do wish David Dimbleby would be more civil to audience members. One audience member happened to say hello and Mr Dimbleby told him
    "Don't say hello, get on with it."
    He is there to Chair the debate and I sometimes feel that he likes the sound of his own voice to much. Apologise Mr Dimbleby!!

  • Comment number 44.

    Why is it every damn time I turn on my Television for some debate Shami Chakrabarti appears on it......!!!

    Can we NOT have someone else with opposing views for a change, I am sick to death of listening to her harp on about someones RIGHTS not to be deported for one reason or another and we are becoming the dumping ground of the world for all their human waste...

  • Comment number 45.

    My best friend had a call from the UKPS today to say that his appointment for his Nat ID Card in 2 weeks time is now cancelled. He was told that they are scrapped and the National Identity Register and Biometric Passports.
    Exactly how is our country going to be sure and certain that a person who has a passport for the defacto form of ID is the actual person they claim to be. Personally I feel that this turns back the clock and we can now have up to 100 Identities as all it is is a Name, Birth Certificate, Photo, and someone to say they know you for 2 years. No finger prints, no face recognition photo, no iris recognition image taken. So welcome to the UK, anyone can now enter, all you need is a UK passport, a now worthless document!

  • Comment number 46.

    Can we please have a panelist for once who isn't afraid to not just follow the party mantra?? Politicians need to learn to answer the damn question instead of twisting things...

  • Comment number 47.

    AGAIN, the most BIASED audience ever.

    Where do you get these people from? All left-wing activists BITTER about a coalition being formed.

    And frankly what a joke most of their opinions are.

    Sick of the sight of Shami Chakrabarti - whoever elected her!?! Get her off.

    Full of student politician wantabees and activists.

    It's that biased I'm sick of it. Waste of my licence fee.

  • Comment number 48.

    I’m a little confused, either some people are hugely hypocritical or I don’t understand how PR is meant to work.

    I’ve seen two or three people comment on the coalition being a sign of nothing new and “Grubby” old politics. Then in the next breath supporting PR, which would infact see this happen every time?

  • Comment number 49.

    I am fed up of the politicians saying that a coalition is what the British public voted for. No they didn't. People who voted wanted their party to gain power - nobody before the election campaigned to vote for their party to form a coalition. The Tories seem to think that they are doing what the country asked for - not true.

  • Comment number 50.

    Shami Chakrabati ticks all the boxes to demonstrate the BBC's commitment to diversity: female, Asian, young(ish), intensely irritating.....

  • Comment number 51.

    I can't understand the number of people who moan that this coalition is not what they voted for, and that what they want is proportional representation. P.R leads to coalitions - so the outcome would be the same.

    Its the same people who say its the same old Tories. I disagree - I could not imagine Margaret Thatcher sharing the podium with David Steel, or John Major sharing power with Charles Kennedy. Its a totally different ball game, but the "liberal left" and "progressives" seem to be nothing more than poor losers and won't even give this new government a chance.

  • Comment number 52.

    Do you think that people voted for Burcow to be Speaker again, or for MPs who 'flipped' their properties to be reelected from safe seats?



  • Comment number 53.

    Should we not start looking at Government as a whole with regard to spending cuts, do we really need this amount of politicians, quangos, local council officers and their autonomous right to spend millions on projects plucked from the air.
    Whatt about reducing some of the BBC channels and wasted expense on showing repeats for up to 70% of airtime?

  • Comment number 54.

    Everyone seems to suggest that the parties of the coalition were only interested in getting into power and that this is somehow a bad thing.

    Of course they wanted to get into power. That seems to be the whole point of being a political party. Only by getting into power can they seek to create their vision for the UK. Having obtained that power it is now a question of waiting to see what they do with it.

    On a related note. People also say the Libs sold out in not pushing for PR and going for the alternative vote system instead. Had the Conservatives or Labour formed a majority then there would be no PR and no alternative vote. Now we may see AV, and in time that might see a Lib Dem Govt, and that would see PR. So it's a step in the right direction.

  • Comment number 55.

    Don't this government want to make efficency saving's? Aren't they cutting back cost to implement in to all their new commissions?

  • Comment number 56.

    Why is Shami allowed to rudely interrupt every other speaker

  • Comment number 57.

    I am still amazed at the number of people that object to the concept of a coalition government. Given the election result, what would they rather do? Have no government, and have no-one making decisions?

  • Comment number 58.

    I find it very difficult to find out how to particapate in the program would like to leave a message that can be disscused on the program. Is it possible to converse on the program as it's shown?
    Regards
    localguy

  • Comment number 59.

    Will the pound rise against the dollar and canadian dollar any time soon?

  • Comment number 60.

    Why are Labour people such sore losers? And why do they seem to turn to bitching so quickly?

    Thank goodness there isn't a scrappage scheme for trading in old ministers, or the taxpayer really would be stumping up for a load of old rubbish.



  • Comment number 61.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 62.

    If the object of the coalition is to provide 'a stable government', 'in the national interest', why isn't there a Conservative/New Labour coalition in place instead. I suspect it is because both David Cameron and Nick Clegg are on a power trip, as are most senior politicians.

  • Comment number 63.

    Every MP has been legitimately elected under our current system of first past the post.

    They have all been elected to govern and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have stepped up to take the responsibility of forming a government at a time when they will have to make difficult and unpopular decisions.

    If we move to a more representative electoral system there will likely be coalitions of this sort and should we not be optimistic that they can look to work together and make good decisions.

  • Comment number 64.

    Its the banks that broke Britain, not Labour, we will be paying for their failure for years

  • Comment number 65.

    How can the Tories and Lib Dems complain about the defecit, and quote the housing boom and personal debt is a huge contributing factor to the problems this country find itself in? The Tories sold off all the council housing starting the housing boom themselves to start off with, and speaking from experience living in a Conservative run council, they wont build any new houses to help with the supply issue thus exacerbating the problem, pushing up debt for everyone!

  • Comment number 66.

    As a 19 year old, this was my first time to vote. I didn't really know who to vote for as I liked aspects of the conservative party and aspects of the liberal party. Both had policies that I fully agreed with and reading through the manifesto, I can see that both sides have put together what I think will form a strong government.

    When I heard of the coalition, I was quite happy with the result. Now hopefully we can get a decent Britain with a government that appears to be working together to not only achieve their own goals, but to bring the country back and off of it's knees.

    Of course they have to give up certain aspects of their policies, it's called a coalition for a reason. Did we really want another election and for the next few months floating in Limbo whilst the country spirals into ever more problems? No, we need something now, and this coalition is what we need.

    I look forward to a Conservative/Liberal Democrat government for the next 5 years.

  • Comment number 67.

    I am another voter who is not happy with a coalition,not that any of us were asked, surely another election would have been better.

  • Comment number 68.

    Question Time definitely needs both LibDem and Conservative panellists. While joined in the coalition, they remain two separate political parties, and each has had to give ground on some of their policies. That's the essence of reasonableness: a bit of give and take.

    By the way, re the people who query the coalition, what on earth did they imagine would happen? There's nothing wrong with political leaders working together, and an awful lot of people have been asking for this for years! What's happening now is forward-looking and refreshing. This coalition could well be paving the way to both a fairer voting system and a new reasonable politics where people work together.

  • Comment number 69.

    I really do not understand people in this country. For months leading up to the election and during the election campaign itself, many, many people said that they were sick of the old politics and that they wanted some thing different. We now have some thing different. And yet they are still not satisfied saying I didn't vote for this. Will they ever be satisfied?

    I am also sick of hearing this is not what I voted for. As a population this is exactly what we voted for. If as a population we hadn't voted for this, then the result would have been very different.!

    A coalition may not be perfect. But then I doubt if a majority Labour or Conservative would be either. The coalition is a welcome break from the old two horse race - it's new, radically different and (currently at least) very enthusiastic, committed and seemingly in agreement. So why not let us give them a chance?

  • Comment number 70.

    I would like to ask , how many voters actually vote for every detail in a party's manifesto. I am sure most would like to have this item from one party and that from another. A bit of a mix and match. from this point the coalition probably suits more people than any one party.

  • Comment number 71.

    Comment made:- we have to get the banks lending again for morgages. How can this occur when we have already given the banks the money when they were in trouble. Where has our money gone?

  • Comment number 72.

    just a point as me and my wife both lost raf jobs through reorganisation as they call it, id also like to know what happenend to th millionn pounds glaxo gave to re education of the speke area when maria eagle went quiet about saving the company?

  • Comment number 73.

    I feel that in the thirteen years I have voted I have almost been part of change as I voted for Conservtive. I do think now that we have to give them a chance rather than complaining before they have really done anything. What Blair/Brown have done is left us with this financial situation that needs to be addressed first and formost. I would like to hear the new government state they are bringing our troops back as it is a war that Blair took us to illegally and he should be punished for now.

  • Comment number 74.

    The chap in the audience who pointed out that parliament does not represent the electorate is right - except that he still thinks the answer is to introduce PR. I can see that this will happen as a result of the Con/LibDem coalition, but the "Holy Grail" of PR will turn into a poisoned chalice as we will continue to have hung parliaments and coalitions.

    If the current system is horses, PR is steam - let's move as quickly as possible to electricity - the Internet. We need to engage the public in decision making as this coalition will duck the issues for personal interests.

    So, as we move from an archaic system through the "steam age" to the Internet age, what we need to aspire to is a genuinely new era of government directly by the people.

    The Who wrote the classic song Won't Get Fooled Again in 1971. Unfortunately the public did get fooled again!

    This coalition is not likely to last and we're likely to be back at the polls in May 2011 so let's make sure that next time we DON'T get fooled again.

    What will happen between now and then is that the outraged public and the progressive democrats will provide a credible alternative to vote for next time round. Look out for Vote For Yourself.

  • Comment number 75.

    can the BBC and QT stop pushing the gay agenda every week.

  • Comment number 76.

    I wish someone would ask why this government which has been assembled 'in the best interests of the country' has not made Ming Campbell (as we have been led to believe the No. 1 economist in Parliament) the Chancellor of the Exchequer and instead installed 'Georgie Boy' someone of incomparable experience and a relative novice to guide the economy through this troubled time. The final insult is that he has been given the position of Business Secretary.

    Sad thing is that I already feel I know the answer and it's certainly not 'new politics'.

  • Comment number 77.

    Hi, question directed to Shami



    If I walked into a bomb detonated by another person, whose Human Rights would be protected?



    Mark Savage



    adershot

  • Comment number 78.

    Equality? Lets not kid ourselves! We lean towards minorities and give them unfair advantage as its a politically correct move! But when you can have black movements asian movements gay movements or lesbian movements but mention any sort of white movement/association, whites are immediately branded racist!! Equality is good, so lets have equality across the board!!!!

  • Comment number 79.


    I think its sometimes the most profound kind of thoughts which arise from a challenge to (previous) beliefs which can allow for a modulated and moderated response to challenging issues.

    This is maybe alittle liberal slant to conservative views, but really we have serious issues that will being to develop however we tackle human rights, civil liberties and the methodologies chosen to tackle population growth in the UK in the future.

    This is really going to need a significant siesmic fault shift to rebuild a national community.

  • Comment number 80.

    The Human Rights Act has much wider affect than many people realise. A neighbour who suffered from dementia developed pneumonia was asked by Paramedics if she would go to hospital,although she was not competent to make that decision, she said no and because of the human rights act she was left in her own home until later that day when she was so much worse she was taken to hospital because she was too ill to say yes or no.
    The Human Rights Act has been given too much power and has gone away from its original basis of protecting people from tyranny, it now denies people what should be their rights.

  • Comment number 81.

    We need to start thinking about individual politics as a personal issue as opposed to tribal political party foci to any form of evolution to the politics system.

    a hung parliment and a coalition government is the real start to a real issue.

  • Comment number 82.

    So the govt are prepared to protect proven terrorists and not deport them in case they come to harm but at the same time they send our young men and women to afghanistan and iraq to fight terrorists where there is a high probability of them coming to harm as we see every week with the body bags and limbless soldiers coming back! Imagine how you would feel as a soldier in afghanistan reading this story in the paper about your govt protecting terrorists whilst you risk your life daily .

  • Comment number 83.

    What is the lovely Caroline Flint saying?She does not seem to be actually saying anything that is positive ,but still seems to be fighting the election that has just finished.An example of women stating how superior they think they are!

  • Comment number 84.

    I am again dismayed by miss chackrabati and her futile comments. It appears she fails to take account of the country's feelings toward's having to foot the bill for non-residential person's court costs, for people who are suspected terrorists and non-residents of the UK. In doing so denies UK residents of much needed revenue for more worthwhile home needs

    Jxxx

  • Comment number 85.

    I have started to notice the same people in the Audience week after week.... is this a new idea?

  • Comment number 86.

    Most fiddled and setup audience programme on tv to a narrow political correctness.

    Not going to bother in future.

  • Comment number 87.

    I remember QT audiences saying how they hoped that there will be a hund parliament! Classic case of capricious British public!

    As for HRA, we will still be bound by ECHR. The ECHR is also British! It was mainly drafted by Brits!

    There is also a fundamental difference between rights and responsibilites. They are not two sides of the same coin. Rights give a person freedom from intervention in to a protected area of their lives. Responsiobilites impose a positive duty or obligation on a citizen. This is a very different thing. The idea of state enforced obligations and duties is a very left wing ideology. It is surprising that the Cons want to create this!

    The problems with the direction that HRA and equality bills have begun to take is towards New Labour statism. British rights of the Diceian mould were traditionally an area of our life where we were left free from State intervention. The reason for unease is that New Labour increasingly deployed a Continental conception of rights - a post-revolutionary French model. In the chaos after the French Revolution rights were created to bind the new Republic. They were therefore a top down ideal which scoiety was to aspire to. This authoritarian approach to rights was increasingly used by NL (e.g. new equality legislation). It is this, and not the British ECHR, that really gets up peoples noses!

  • Comment number 88.

    I feel Caroline Flint and Douglas Murray haven't really got it yet. They appear to be unable to understand the nature of coalition and compromise. Only in politics in this country, do we think its right that compromise shouldn't be reached and that one party should have the absolute right to govern the rest of us. In most peoples everyday lives we compromise in our businesses, homes, schools, etc. Why can't these politicians understand that compromise is actually in our best interests, and will be most universally appealing. Yes, Conservative party supporters don't get everything they wanted, as neither do Liberal Democrats. However, as a Liberal Democrat I am happy to get some of my party's manifesto into law and change peoples lives. Even within poltical party's we have to compromise before creating a manifesto in the first place. I think politicians need to grow up very fast (particularly those of the Labour party) as cheap party points should not keep being scored off the idea that compromise is bad. The public seem, as usual, to be miles ahead of the politicians in understanding this new compromise politics. Maybe Caroline Flint and Douglas Murray should catch up fast.

  • Comment number 89.

    I do wish Mr Dimbleby would chair the program with a firmer hand and stop the over-excited, self-important Ms Chakrabati from persistently interrupting other speakers who have given her the courtesy of listening to her in silence. I agree with others who would like to see and hear less of her.

  • Comment number 90.

    64. At 11:29pm on 20 May 2010, ITSFISKO wrote:
    Its the banks that broke Britain, not Labour, we will be paying for their failure for years

    _________________________________________________________________________

    Brilliantly ill informed. NL was borrowing eye watering sums even before Northern Rock. It was, to borrow a phrase, "naked" short termism. A populist gamble on the futures of young people like myself. Once I have repaid my student debts, I'll make a start on Brown's!!

  • Comment number 91.

    I would like to know why the phots I saw on u tube last week regarding
    the rally/demonstration which was carried out by a muslim group was not shown on tv or reported in the papers? The banners they held reported all sort of threats to this country, and they live here!!!
    Where are MY human rights regarding MY safety when I have to see this kind of thing in MY own country?

  • Comment number 92.

    How can BBC News website post at Page last updated at 21:47 GMT, Thursday, 20 May 2010 22:47 UK the news that Theresa May has changed her position on Gay adoption etc, when that wasn't broadcast for nearly 30 minutes after? Why are we encouraged to follow on twitter and text etc when the programme is clearly pre-recorded and our texts will make no difference?

  • Comment number 93.

    I find it hilarious when the subject of Homosexuality is raised very few are able to deal with the truth/reality.

    Gay adoption is as ridiculous as Gay Marriage!

    As for what was referred to as 'Teaching Homosexuality in schools' is concerned, let's get it right, teaching is not the word 'Promotion' is.

    Section 28 simply prevented the 'promotion' of it.

    Ref:
    Section 28
    Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material (1) The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the [1986 c. 10.] Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition of political publicity)—
    “2A Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material (1) A local authority shall not—
    (a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
    (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.
    (3) In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.
    (4) In subsection (1)(b) above “maintained school” means,—
    (a) in England and Wales, a county school, voluntary school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944; and
    (b) in Scotland, a public school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.”
    (2) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
    -

    So by definition, removing the above legalised it's PROMOTION.

  • Comment number 94.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 95.

    No mention of the Islamist terrorist who won his case under the monstrous 'human rights act' to remain in Britain simply on the basis that his family lived here and that by returning him to whatever country he came from would breach his rights to see his family.

    No mention of that by agent Chakrabarti.

  • Comment number 96.

    I don't class myself as being homphobic or at least I would like to think I'm not, however we do live in a very litigious society now, and I think we are storing up a mountain of litigation when children, of adopted gay parents, later becoming adults and decide to seek compensation for gay adoption legislation being forced on them and this being in conflict with the adoptive persons human rights.

    The Lawyers are going to have a field day, just now it is "have you been in an accident not your fault", "have you been missold an endowment policy", "have you been missold PPI". In future it will be "were you forcibly adopted by gay parents which has significantly led to mental and physical abuse in society". Whether the facts are true or not, it will be a money making reality.

  • Comment number 97.

    I cannot believe how politically unaware the electorate of this country really are. Proportional representation is not the panacea people think it will be. It only benefits the very small policital parties. For example, in the 2010 election, if we had had PR and the result was the same, then the BNP (with 1.9% of the vote) would have had 12 parliamentary seats and would hold the balance of power. The "Nick" sitting next to David Cameron would be Nick Griffin and not Nick Clegg!!
    Think of the consequences before voting for change. Be careful what you wish for!!

  • Comment number 98.

    Douglaus Murray spot on again in regards to the terrorist suspects while the rest of the panel shackled by the usual limits of left wing ideals and political correctness. I dont care if Pakistan is comparable to Dantes inferno, they must be sent back, besides when we hear of all the Pakistani immigrants we have in the uk we are told how their culture is wonderful and vibrant but then it's the total opposite when it comes to sending people back there. How many nations are there in the world where we can simply not deport people back to now? Quite a lot i would guess and this is information i'm sure many potential terrorists would familiarise themselves with. Human rights have again gone too far. I do however counter murrays point regarding how Britain has changed in his response to theresa mays past opinions, has Britain changed or has Britain 'been' changed? During the 13 years labour forcing multiculturalism and diversity on the public. Theresea may is now in the unfortunate position of having to carry on with the all-accepting far left mindset labour has sucessfully introduced to this nation.

  • Comment number 99.

    with all due respects.....I wonder if you will say the same (nhs student) after you have had many governments and worked for the nhs for many years as I have? In my experiences I don't think you will!

  • Comment number 100.

    Wow, quite an anti Shami Chakrabarti forum. I do have some sympathy with the coments about the level of exposure, relating to the size of her organisation. However, my comments relate to the wingeing about the coalition on this programme. So far, they haven't put a foot wrong (much to the regret of the left and right wing press). For me, this is exactly what I voted for - above all, Brown consigned to the scrapheap of political losers, what a dangerous man he was - oh, and yes I am a bigot. Also, there were some lib-dem policies I admired - the £10k level for tax to start. So far, I am in seventh heaven - third runway cancelled, hips cancelled, dna database retricted, identity cards cancelled, progress to the £10k tax free level, pensions linked to earnings. The old politics treated us as idiots - decisions were made (third runway is one example), then the enquiry would start, so things were "going through the motions", when the result was already decided. The building of houses in back gardens, in the S.E., is another example, when the planning system was instructed to allow it, but went through "evaluation" by planning inspectors, who then approved the vast majority of applicatios. The political elite saw us as children, I can't see the coalition doing that.

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.