BBC Television programmes  permalink

Question Time - 01/11/2012

Messages: 1 - 42 of 42
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Jol (U1706161) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    A bit dull last night........
    Not sure if Joe Public has enough knowledge of American politics to really contribute to the 1st question.
    Milliband seemed to get way too much air-time.
    Jerry Springer didn't look very interested.
    Shami Chakrabati answered every question with a human rights slant (just for a change).
    The other 2 were non-entities.
    Pretty poor..........

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by kangatika (U15295664) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    I can't believe that none of the panel are aware of Scotland's record on renewable energy production. They were arguing how England,essentially could reach the pathetic 15% target, Scotland, under Alec Salmond's leadership and expertise in the field, has just superceded its 2015 target of 35%
    YES 35% and has set a new target for 2015 of 50% and have in place the plans for not only wind but hydro + carbon-capture to achieve this.
    Why did Dimps ignore this? He must have been briefed. Is it true that he is anti Salmond and SNP?

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    The natural resource base for renewable energy in Scotland is extraordinary by European, and even global standards, with the most important potential sources being wind, wave, and tide.

    So Scotland does have *much* more potential to produce renewable energy than other places.

    So not so much politics as natural potential.

    --------------------------------


    Please note that the discussion of politics is off topic for this board, so please don't attempt use this topic for political debate and/or campaigning.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Nick Brighton (U4274084) on Friday, 2nd November 2012


    I thought Dimble Davidby let Jerry and the American woman talk for too long, the nwhen it was Shami's turn he hurried her up

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Sir Ad E Noid (U1525146) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    It always surprises me when Shami Chakrabati is criticised for answering questions with a 'human rights slant'.

    It's clealry her job (& vocation) and frankly a few more people ought to be a bit more considered in their public statements than just seeking to grab cheap headlines.

    All too often the public lumps the EU and The Human Rights Convention into the same pot. We were one of the main drivers in establishing the HRC after WW2 and now we've got Tory MP's trying to opt out. How ironic and frankly, false as they've no real intentions of doing so.

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 3.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Jol (U1706161) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    "It always surprises me when Shami Chakrabati is criticised for answering questions with a 'human rights slant'. "

    Why shouldn't she be criticised ?

    Did Jerry Springer encourage the panel to fight while answering every question ?
    Do the numerous comedians who appear break into a stand-up routine after every comment ?
    Does Jeremy Clarkson rabbit on about cars when he's on QT ?

    No ?

    I rest my case..............

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 2nd November 2012


    Please note that the discussion of politics is off topic for this board, so please don't attempt use this topic for political debate and/or campaigning.
     


    Let me clarify this again.

    This board is not here in order to enable discussion about the political issues covered within this programme.

    You can talk about the presenters and the guests but political debate is off topic for this board.



    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by kangatika (U15295664) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Thanks Peta. I see you like a good debate???

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by kangatika (U15295664) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Thanks Peta. I see you like a good debate???  I was mainly talking about the presenter NOT injecting the obvious salient points viz, Scotland's record. Scotland is in the UK and delivers 35%.
    If this is NOT mentioned in such a debate in a UK-wide program, to mention this is not a political comment but an editorial criticism of the programme.

    Watch this cojent argument dissappear, folks.

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Sir Ad E Noid (U1525146) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    "It always surprises me when Shami Chakrabati is criticised for answering questions with a 'human rights slant'. "

    Why shouldn't she be criticised ?

    Did Jerry Springer encourage the panel to fight while answering every question ?
    Do the numerous comedians who appear break into a stand-up routine after every comment ?
    Does Jeremy Clarkson rabbit on about cars when he's on QT ?

    No ?

    I rest my case..............

     
    Why rest a case that you haven't made?

    Why would you expect her not to answer questions in line with her political & social viewpoints? It's a political discussion programme.

    Your comparisons are ludicrous, QT is not trying to be a car show, comedy show or voyeuristic explotation show. If she appeared on Top Gear, I'd expect her to be asked about motoring issues. smiley - doh

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by not-shakespeare (U12804375) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    The natural resource base for renewable energy in Scotland is extraordinary by European, and even global standards 

    they just stand that Salmond chap in front of a turbine

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Diane (U14099839) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    It's all very well having what I shall call the "novelty" presenter for want of a better word only if they are prepared to voice some sort of coherent opinion. Jerry Springer I'm sure is not stupid and has some very valid opinions but he just came across as wishing he wasn't there and looking pained and struggling to get anything out.

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Reservoir Hamster (U14288323) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Shami is obviously pretty smart and clearly a decent enough human being but it surprises me that she is thought to be effective and influential. Although she is always raising legitimate human rights concerns, there is something in her manner that turns me right off. To be perfectly frank, I hate the sight of her. And I don't think I am alone in that. A typical lawyer, she is adroit at twisting the positions of those she sees as adversaries. For example, last night she said something to the effect that the government sees people either as foreigners or human beings. This is, at the least, monstrous hyperbole, and this kind of barrister's scorn just gets right up my nose.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Jol (U1706161) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Careful Hamster - don't you be upsetting Sir Hemaroid !

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by kangatika (U15295664) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    The natural resource base for renewable energy in Scotland is extraordinary by European, and even global standards 

    they just stand that Salmond chap in front of a turbine  
    Peta, what's this got to do with the programme? This is about a man who didn't even appear on it.
    Am I getting the hang of it now, Peta? Peta?

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by tumteatum (U15488526) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    I agree its difficult when there is a "special" and the audience don't have sufficient depth of knowledge. Whilst I am irritated by the media frenzy over events that happen in the US, I thought the coverage of Hurricane Sandy was too much, the elections do have an impact on the UK. We have communities of all sorts of expats from many countries around the globe, perhaps QT should also have specials on elections or just other countries, eg China, India, Australia, Russia, Eire, germany ... the list is endless. Invite an audience and panel that have a level of knowledge and include a UK perspective to keep it relevant. Not only has QT become dumbed down but it can be too parochial. I think it would raise QTs game. Btw I appreciate that QT has only a limited run each season, but maybe it should be a constant presence in the schedules ... I have never understood why poltical programmes go off on holiday in the summer ... the world and the rest of us carry on.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Sir Ad E Noid (U1525146) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Shami is obviously pretty smart and clearly a decent enough human being but it surprises me that she is thought to be effective and influential. Although she is always raising legitimate human rights concerns, there is something in her manner that turns me right off. To be perfectly frank, I hate the sight of her. And I don't think I am alone in that. A typical lawyer, she is adroit at twisting the positions of those she sees as adversaries. For example, last night she said something to the effect that the government sees people either as foreigners or human beings. This is, at the least, monstrous hyperbole, and this kind of barrister's scorn just gets right up my nose.  I agree that she can be annoying, but really you've confirmed the point I was making. It's pointless to moan about her expressing her opinions from a human rights perspective, when that's her professional role and she's invited onto a political discussion programme.

    It's no different than asking Richard Dawkins onto a religious discussion programme and then moaning that he always answers from an atheists perspective.

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by counterblast (U14258320) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    David 'hang all smokers' Miliband looks like Tim Henman when he was 19. Who was the awful Tory? Jeez - hope we never see him again.smiley - yikes

    Jerry Springer is rather nice.

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Jol (U1706161) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    "It's no different than asking Richard Dawkins onto a religious discussion programme and then moaning that he always answers from an atheists perspective."

    Substitute Richard Dawkins for Shami Chakrabati and substitute religious discussion for human rights and then you can go bandage the foot you've shot yourself with Sir Hemaroids.

    QT is not - i repeat, is not - a human rights discussion programme. Therefore it is not beyond the realms of possibility for Shami to answer a question without banging her repetitive drum.......

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    The natural resource base for renewable energy in Scotland is extraordinary by European, and even global standards 

    they just stand that Salmond chap in front of a turbine  


    Peta, what's this got to do with the programme? This is about a man who didn't even appear on it.
    Am I getting the hang of it now, Peta? Peta?


     

    Hi kangatika

    I don't work on this board full time - I'm here for approximately 3 hours a day.

    This board is reactively moderated,

    www.bbc.co.uk/messag...

    so if you see something that you think is off topic you need to alert it yourself.

    Thanks

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Surabaya Johnny (U1163609) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    In reply to Jol: QT is not - i repeat, is not - a human rights discussion programme.  
    Of course it's not JUST a human rights discussion programme, but it's perfectly in order for human rights issues to be discussed if they're relevant to the particular debate.

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by stirling (U13732738) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Shami Chakrabati answered every question with a human rights slant 

    Just like Milliband answered every question with a Labour slant and Kwarteng answered every question with a Tory slant smiley - doh

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) ** on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    It's all very well having what I shall call the "novelty" presenter for want of a better word only if they are prepared to voice some sort of coherent opinion. Jerry Springer I'm sure is not stupid and has some very valid opinions but he just came across as wishing he wasn't there and looking pained and struggling to get anything out.  The "novelty presenter" has been a politician. He was Mayor of Cincinatti, Ohio!

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Johnbee (U542312) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Shami is always excellent on QT and always talks a lot of sense. I always enjoy QT much more when she is on partly because she is usually the only panellist who speaks from a human viewpoint and not a party political one. This week there were 4 blatant right wingers on, that should be quite enough for you old nasty people. Normal decent people want to have some decent panellists.

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    It's no different than asking Richard Dawkins onto a religious discussion programme and then moaning that he always answers from an atheists perspective. 
    I've yet to see Dawkins turn up somewhere that wasn't related to religion and start banging on about the evils of religion. Why is your dear Shami as versatile as a heptagonal alan key?

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 21.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Surabaya Johnny (U1163609) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    In reply to Prophet Tenebrae:
    It's no different than asking Richard Dawkins onto a religious discussion programme and then moaning that he always answers from an atheists perspective. 
    I've yet to see Dawkins turn up somewhere that wasn't related to religion and start banging on about the evils of religion.  

    Perhaps you should rephrase that - it doesn't quite make sense!

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Sir Ad E Noid (U1525146) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    It's no different than asking Richard Dawkins onto a religious discussion programme and then moaning that he always answers from an atheists perspective. 
    I've yet to see Dawkins turn up somewhere that wasn't related to religion and start banging on about the evils of religion. Why is your dear Shami as versatile as a heptagonal alan key? 
    Yes, what are you on about? Also, at what point did she become my 'dear Shami'? I was commenting on the OP's rather ridiculous comment that she always comments from a human rights perspective. Of course she does, that's her job!

    By the way, in this world politics and human rights are inextricably linked.

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Sir Ad E Noid (U1525146) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    "It's no different than asking Richard Dawkins onto a religious discussion programme and then moaning that he always answers from an atheists perspective."

    Substitute Richard Dawkins for Shami Chakrabati and substitute religious discussion for human rights and then you can go bandage the foot you've shot yourself with Sir Hemaroids.

    QT is not - i repeat, is not - a human rights discussion programme. Therefore it is not beyond the realms of possibility for Shami to answer a question without banging her repetitive drum....... 
    Don't be ridiculous, politics and human rights are inextricably linked. The limits of our human rights throughout the world are set by...............................politicians!

    Your resorting to insults just proves you've lost the argument.

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    I think that there are two issues here. The first was that your initial response had nothing to do with the question, which was specifically about what the minister responsible for such matters in England and Wales had said about onshore wind farms, and secondly, as Peta has said, these boards are reactively moderated www.bbc.co.uk/messag... /checking_messages.shtml#B . You will also notice that, rather than taking down your message 2, the Host, Peta, responded to it.

    Personally, I felt that the discussion - especially the contributions from the two Americans - was interesting and to the point. Without trying to score political points, they tried to bring perspective to the debate, admittedly from what at times seemed like diametrically opposed sides.

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Reservoir Hamster (U14288323) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    This week there were 4 blatant right wingers on, that should be quite enough for you old nasty people. 
    Under the current politically correct dispensation, we old people are not deemed worthy of the same protection from insult and abuse that homosexuals and ethnic minorities enjoy, so I suppose you are going to get away with that ageist remark and not have it moderated. I defend your right to say what you think, though, because I believe in free speech. I do not think that I (or anybody else) should have the right NOT to be offended.

    To describe the other panellists as "4 blatant right wingers" is simply wrong and utterly stupid. Perhaps you are a young person who doesn't know what they are talking about but likes to join in adult conversations. I would advise that you study hard, read a lot, and don't venture another political opinion until you have turned thirty.

    Sorry to sound patronising but it's one of the few pleasures left to us "old nasty people".

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by fuzzysquirrel (U15305803) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    I think Shami Chakrabati is a guest on Question Time far too often.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Johnbee (U542312) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    < Sorry to sound patronising but it's one of the few pleasures left to us "old nasty people >:

    Looks as though I wote the truth then. I was most certainly not being agist, as I am not anything ist. It is an accepted fact that many older people vote for the political right, and are rather unpleasant. It is the open stated aim for example of the Daily Mail to give their older readers something to hate every day.

    Queston Time goes for the same demographic audience. I do not think it should. I was making a request that it has fewer unpleasant right wing people, and more decent middle of the road people as well as the occasional left winger.

    As for there not being 4 right wingers, well I counted two members of the current right wing government of the UK, a US Republican woman and Dimbleby who makes no secret of his dislike of the UK left wing party. That makes 4. Are any of them pleasant people?

    A visitor from Mars would be fairly amazed to watch that programme and then find out that in fact the most popular political stance, and party, was represented by only one person on the panel, out of the six. Of course that Martian would also, after hearing them talk, conclude that also that one was the one talking the most sense, but I had better not go on with that because it is politics, not TV.

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by counterblast (U14258320) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    the only genuine representative of the intellectual left i've seen on QT in recent years is the excellent owen jones. let's have more owen please.

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    This was yet another of the all too frequent editions that show how badly QT has lost its way. Jerry Springer and Colleen Graffy were interesting, even illuminating about american politics, but once the question about the Presidential Election was over, they were both ultra dull. Few people like foreigners telling them how to run their country, as Mitt Romney discovered in the Summer. So foreign panellists end up pleading ignorance, spouting platitudes or making cheap, populist points. The programme is far too cosy and set in its ways to do something like swapping out panellists, though we would get a greater diversity of views and expertise. Like its host, QT is well past its sell by date.

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Roberttrebor (U2337319) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Shami Chakrabti; as we all know what she is going to answer on every question, it rather a waste to have her on the program again and again and again.....

    Jerry Springer didn't look very interested. 

    and can you blame him....

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Yes, even politicians spouting the usual bland rhetoric have more of a range than Shami. In fairness, pretty much everything she says could be very easily (and far more cheaply, I'm sure) be replicated by playing the clip from The Simpsons where Reverend Lovejoy's wife says "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

    It would be pretty much exactly the same content, take a fraction of the time and money and we'd all live happier, healthier lives.

    Now, time to work on curing cancer by replacing the Daily Mail with clips from Troll 2...

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    There was an article a while ago asking - Is Shami Chakrabati the dullest woman alive? ..... concluding - Maybe. She is just so glum and worthy all the time.

    Colleen Graffy is the best advocate Mitt Romney has; she was actually very persuasive on his behalf.Jerry didn't have much of a chance to be himself.

    DD has adopted a mischievous talking-over trick lately, presumably to be a bit provocative.

    ...... but it was alll pretty desultory, audience included. No wonder Boris is popular.

    Harry andPaul have QT nailed.

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    It is an accepted fact that many older people vote for the political right, and are rather unpleasant. 
    I've rarely seen so much bigotry condensed into a single sentence.
    Many older people, both pleasant and unpleasant, also vote for the political left.
    Only a bigot would conflate a person's character with their place on the political spectrum.
    I was making a request that it has fewer unpleasant right wing people, and more decent middle of the road people as well as the occasional left winger 
    Yet more extreme bigotry, conflating decency with political stance. I find your views far more unpleasant than those of the people you attack.

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Grandadpop (U3054464) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    It is an accepted fact that many older people vote for the political right, and are rather unpleasant.</quote>

    What a silly thing to say!
    I have always voted for the right.
    Is the right to vote now only to be offered to the young, impressionable and naive in our midst?

    My goodness me, whatever next...votes for schoolchildren?

    'G-G' smiley - erm



    Reply to this message 41

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Percy Pillock (U15368740) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    There's not enough humour on QT these days.

    Can anyone remember when Sir Robin Day opened an edition of QT with the words 'I have a very mixed bag sitting alongside me tonight', just as the cameraman happened to zoom-in on poor Margo Macdonald?.

    Cue audience hysterics.

    Priceless! . smiley - ok

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. 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.