BBC Television programmes  permalink

Question Time

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 40 of 40
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by counterblast (U14258320) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Who's on? Can't be any worse than the Five Live 'debate' this morning with VD. Garbage. Audience and panel full of loonies.

    Ps - someone on Twitter just said Owen Jones looks like the 'kid from Kes'...ROFL...smiley - laugh

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by counterblast (U14258320) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Just because I let you express your opinion doesn't mean that it matters to me.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Johnbee (U542312) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Dreadful programme wasn't it. VD reading out anti-Labour supposed emails every few minutes The candidates did try a little to have a sensible discussion, but VD obviously feared that would not be good for the Conservative candidate so just ensured the show was a wreck.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Venereal disease is working for Five Live? I'm not sure who that is a step down for.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by st3ph3n (U13643748) on Thursday, 21st February 2013


    Tonight .... Peter Hitchens will be peeling the false skin from Diane Abbott.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Sounds more like an ep of Walking Dead than QT.......smiley - erm.....Oh, I don't know though, there are resemblences......

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Jeff (U13971268) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Ah Diane Abbott. She who would be permanently looking up in the air if she didn't have her eyes closed and a smug half-grin on her face.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Hearty applause for the Beeb! They've got the text for QT sorted out. No repetitive strain injury tonight! (Well, not from toggling the text, anyway) smiley - applause

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by The Mummy ReTurnerS (U14992668) on Thursday, 21st February 2013

    Looking promising just for the Heseltine v Hitchens boxing match smiley - laugh

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Hearty applause for the Beeb! They've got the text for QT sorted out. No repetitive strain injury tonight! (Well, not from toggling the text, anyway) smiley - applause 


    Not on mine they didn't. QT page was blank.

    I was appalled at last nights edition. A vicar from the Guardian, Michael Heseltine who didn't seem to be on the same planet at times, Diane (could she look any smugger) Abbot, Vince Cable and Peter Hitchen. I despaired.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by average40 (U14458923) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Tarzan's phone going off was funny.

    It was revealed on 5Live last night that they have a drinks reception before the show. That explains a lot!

    Nice touch from the Beeb in the credits.....

    Set Design - Sir Christopher Wren

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Heseltine's commanding performance remnded me of the good old days of "Question Time" when they had important politicians on the panel. smiley - smiley

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Grandadpop (U3054464) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Diane always seems to be wearing an expression of astonishment when anyone else is talking, as though she is about to explode with indignation. I do wish she would stop doing that.

    I thought the vicar-chap made one or two good points.

    Michael..? .Well, he is getting on you know...Bless

    Vince was...Hmm, Vince....but where is his halo these days...?

    Peter was his usual controversial self. I'm sure if you locked him in a lavatory alone he would end up arguing with himself! Though he did hit the target a couple of times.

    And the septuagenarian in the middle managed to restrain himself for a change, instead of continually interrupting just when proceedings liven up...not that there was much to liven up last night. but never mind, there's always next week. The audience took awhile to liven up. Unfortunately by the time they did the show was almost over!

    Even the texts were bland.
    I wonder if 'Tarzan' WILL look through the programme again...if only to check what Peter actually said...? For the briefest of moments I almost fell out of my armchair in anticipation of a punch up!

    'G-G' smiley - smiley
    .

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

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

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by average40 (U14458923) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Heseltine's commanding performance remnded me of the good old days of "Question Time" when they had important politicians on the panel. smiley - smiley  His appearnce on the programme just before the 1992 General Election was astonsihing. Without doubt the best performance I have ever seen by any politician anywhere.
    He won that election for John Major, it wasn't the "soapbox" hustings, it wasn't Kinnock's Sheffield Rally disaster and it certainly wasn't the Sun's front page.
    I voted Tory that election due to Tarzan, for the first and only time in my 8 General Elections.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by MrConnorRobinson (U15427271) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Who's on? Can't be any worse than the Five Live 'debate' this morning with VD. Garbage. Audience and panel full of loonies.

    Ps - someone on Twitter just said Owen Jones looks like the 'kid from Kes'...ROFL...smiley - laugh 
    I just looked and I agree smiley - smiley LOL

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Tom Adustus (U9467814) on Friday, 22nd February 2013


    Peter Hitchens is always good value for straight forward common sense.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Jol (U1706161) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Since when did Diane Abbott change her name to Dee-Ann Abbott ?
    I initially thought it was a slip of the tongue by Vince Cable but he kept calling her Dee-Ann !
    Is she joining the new Pans People dance troop ?

    Otherwise a pretty poor episode. But then anything with Dee-Ann Abbott tends to be fairly poor...........

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Friday, 22nd February 2013


    Peter Hitchens is always good value for straight forward common sense.

     
    I'll have to take your word for it. I gave it a miss having decided that nothing I've done this week was so bad as to justify me having to sit through an hour of his swivel-eyed paranoid ramblings.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 17.

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

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Sir Ad E Noid (U1525146) on Friday, 22nd February 2013


    Peter Hitchens is always good value for straight forward common sense.

     
    He obviously ripped off the viewer last night then.

    He's the typical 'rent a mouth' pundit who has plenty to shout about, but never offers anything constructive to the debate.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Reservoir Hamster (U14288323) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    The contrast between Hitchens and Heseltine was quite striking. Hitchens, a journalist, can afford to give to give his true, unvarnished and unpopular opinion whereas Heseltine, the politician, must pile on the synthetic outrage and spout crowd-pleasing humbug about our wonderful troops. Hitchens was closer to the mark than Heseltine about the typical 18-year-old soldier. Indeed, the army prefers unthinking thugs to wise, thoughtful people who have philosophical reservations about the morality of war. There was nothing disgraceful about Hitchens's remarks. Everyone knows that's the way it is. Their training methods are designed to weed out wimps. Okay, it sometimes results in a few suicides, but we do have an effective force of trained killers at the end of it.

    I have no idea why the BBC wants to solicit the opinions of Giles Fraser. He is not a thinker. His contributions are sentimental, not logical, in nature. He specialises in deep-sounding banalities about victimhood and has mastered the jargon of oppression. He uses the word "vulnerable" too much. The poor are good and the rich are bad. He has no power of analysis beyond that.

    One point about the person in the audience who said that many foreign visitors during the Olympics said that London was their second favourite city. Yes, that is because an outsider gets to London and feels immediately at home because most other people there are also outsiders. The outsider doesn't have the awkward feeling of being separate or the tiresome obligation of adapting to the host culture. Of course these people love London. What no-one likes to address is that an increasing number of indigenous white British do not like the new London are are leaving.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Otherwise a pretty poor episode. But then anything with Dee-Ann Abbott tends to be fairly poor...........  

    Why can't she stop that annoying habit of drawing imaginary circles in the air along with every word she utters?

    Plus, her immediate dismissal of the audience question of "should all jury members be required to speak english?" was plain daft.The obvious answer was a simple "yes," but she said it didn't apply to the case (as the question poser already knew), but also went on about "inclusiveness" of jurys which also wasn't part of the case. She seemed to be trying to defend ethnic minorities at exactly the wrong moment. Perhaps she saw the question as an attack on the minorities.

    I've done jury service so have seen what goes on, and it's true that if I was ever up as a defendant, I'd be terrified of some of the people chosen. As an instance, a bloke on one of my juries, when asked to do the oath, he had so much trouble reading it, the court usher had to read it out and he repeated the words (quite badly as I remember). I really thought somethiing would be done about that, but nothing happened, and he was useless in the jury room.
    After the experiences, I thought about writing to the authorities, and probably should have in hindsight, but thought nothing would happen.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by seaDoctor (U4509975) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Three are plenty of 18 year olds who are very wise and very mature. The Daily Mail and Peter Hitchens don't like the idea of it and reject that this is now the 21st Century and not the 1980s when they could say anything homophobic, sexist and racist without censure.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Sam (U15466226) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Three are plenty of 18 year olds who are very wise and very mature. The Daily Mail and Peter Hitchens don't like the idea of it and reject that this is now the 21st Century and not the 1980s when they could say anything homophobic, sexist and racist without censure.  Exactly, I'm 16 and consider myself mature. I have a fair knowledge of politics.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by pie-thagoras (U1306117) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    My viewing of QT lasted up to where Hitchens insulted members of the armed forces. Yelling at the telly followed.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by aquarius (U8185439) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    I didn't hear him insult the armed forces. And my hearing is perfect, thanks.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by counterblast (U14258320) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    It's about time they put someone interesting on QT. Like Ian Bell.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Maybe they should "embed" Hitchens with the boys out in Helmand, and send him outside camp walls to lecture to the Taliban. He'd have them in headlong retreat within minutes.

    Sound like a plan...?

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by zencat (U14877400) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Three are plenty of 18 year olds who are very wise and very mature. The Daily Mail and Peter Hitchens don't like the idea of it and reject that this is now the 21st Century and not the 1980s when they could say anything homophobic, sexist and racist without censure.  Exactly, I'm 16 and consider myself mature. I have a fair knowledge of politics. 
    To quote Bob Dylan - I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by average40 (U14458923) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    Good God! What is wrong with you people? Peter Hitchen went "dry" in January for CHARITY for goodness sake! He did a couple of interviews on the BBC about it saying how hard he would find it as he liked a glass of wine n the evening. He added that if he made it through Jan he may continue. I just wondered if he mentioned it last night?
    No need to "Mod" that . smiley - steam

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by BryanLuc (U12989423) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    One point about the person in the audience who said that many foreign visitors during the Olympics said that London was their second favourite city. Yes, that is because an outsider gets to London and feels immediately at home because most other people there are also outsiders. The outsider doesn't have the awkward feeling of being separate or the tiresome obligation of adapting to the host culture. Of course these people love London. What no-one likes to address is that an increasing number of indigenous white British do not like the new London are are leaving. 

    I am "indigenous white British" and was born in London
    I love visiting, the multicultural population make any visit more exciting and had I not left because of evacuation during the war I would love to live there

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    How does the multicultural population make visiting anymore exciting? Please explain.

    Is the cart wheels that the 'foreigners'do in the streets? the proliferation of cheap chicken shops? The colourful clothing?

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by pie-thagoras (U1306117) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    I didn't hear him insult the armed forces. And my hearing is perfect, thanks. 

    Soldiers are in the armed forces. It was them whose intelligence was insulted by Hitchens.

    Also, I did not suggest or imply anything about your hearing. Your post seems to suggest that I did.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    Here's the transcript from the exchange between Peter Hitchens and Michael Heseltine regarding the UK armed forces:-

    Peter Hitchens: "The very reason why we send young men out as soldiers, often wrongly, is because they are young and unwise and prepared to kill and risk terrible danger in a way that wise people wouldn’t. And will that still apply ... and will that ... that is true ... that is true..."

    Michael Heseltine: "I think that’s a scandalous reflection on Britain’s armed forces."

    Peter Hitchens: "... if you don’t believe it ... the truth is not ... the truth is not ... the truth is not popular but is the case. Why do we send young men out to kill except because of that? And secondly you might be aware of the fact that there are strong moves now to lower the voting age to 16. How many of you want to have your futures decided by 16-year-olds?"

    Michael Heseltine: "Well I have to say ... that as a ... that as a former Secretary of State for Defence to describe the British armed forces in the language you did is disgraceful."

    Peter Hitchens: "Well you always were a very effective demagogue Lord Heseltine but I think ... I haven’t described ... I haven’t described the British armed forces in any ... in any ... in any sense at all. I’ve simply ... I’ve simply told the truth."

    Michael Heseltine: "You described the soldiers ... you described the soldiers in language which was viciously unfair to them."

    Peter Hitchens: "Young men ... young men are unwise. Young men are unwise. You were unwise when you were young and so was I and don’t try to deny it or silence me with silly rhetoric of the kind that you are using."

    Michael Heseltine: "You .. you ... you certainly were unwise because you used to work for the Socialist Worker Party."

    Peter Hitchens: "It’s ridiculous. I’ve said ... I’ve said nothing ... I’ve ... I’ve said nothing uncomplimentary about the armed forces and you know it perfectly well."

    Michael Heseltine: "You ... you wait till you see the transcripts."

    Peter Hitchens: "How dare you suggest that I have."

    Michael Heseltine: "You wait till you see the transcripts."

    Vince Cable: "A long way from jury trial."

    David Dimbleby: "Just to clarify ... perhaps you’ll say what you said about 18-year-olds once more ..."

    Peter Hitchens: "That they are ... that we ..."

    David Dimbleby: "... the audience can judge what you said ..."

    Peter Hitchens: "... that we cynical politicians send young men out to kill and be killed. That’s what I said."

    Michael Heseltine: "No. No. It’s not what you said."

    Peter Hitchens: "It is what I said."

    Michael Heseltine: "You said they were stupid."

    Peter Hitchens: "I said no such thing."

    Michael Heseltine: "We’ll see the record."

    Peter Hitchens: "Check the recording."

    Michael Heseltine: "We’ll see the record."

    David Dimbleby: "Well we can’t check ... yes you sir ... then we must go on."

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    The most striking thing about that transcript is Dimbleby's rotten chairing. Vince Cable intervenes to state that this has gone way off the point and all that does is prompt Dimbleby to wake up and fan the flames of the childish squabble. Any viewer interested in what Hitchens said could easily rewind the programme or check on iplayer. Dimbleby should have intervened to stop this playground dispute much earlier.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    To be fair to David Dimbleby he did press both Vince Cable and Michael Heseltine on the question relating to the person with 11 children being housed at public expense.

    Dimbleby said “your government has floated the idea of capping child benefit to 2 children... after 2 children it’s up to you”. When Heseltine tried to plead ignorance of the issue Dimbleby stated that the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions had “said it to the ‘Today’ program which is the Bible as you know of modern politics. He suggested a cap on child-related benefits of 2 children.”

    Heseltine then said that for someone to have 11 children “is way out of what normal expectation is.” Intriguingly, however, he didn’t state exactly what he thought ‘normal expectation’ was with regard to the number of children someone has. For example Heseltine has 3 children as does Vince Cable and Giles Fraser, while UK prime ministers Blair and Cameron (both younger than Heseltine and Cable) have each have had 4 children. It would have been good had Dimbleby pinned Heseltine down on that point.

    Peter Hitchens shot himself in the foot by saying that “I’m all in favour of big families” but then qualified this by saying that only the right sort of people (the right sort of people according to Hitchens that is) should be allowed to have big families.

    Diane Abbott who has only had one child was, therefore, the only politician on the panel who could speak on the issue with authority and credibility and indeed did so.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    Intriguingly, however, he didn’t state exactly what he thought ‘normal expectation’ was with regard to the number of children someone has.  

    This is a red herring because, whatever the answer might be, 11 children would be way outside of it! So Heseltine's comment was perfectly reasonable.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by fourthelephant (U15487252) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    It's pointless arguing with politicians. Their views are based on a very partial view of how society works, they ignore evidence when it doesn't fit their model. Didn't watch the programme but from the transcript it seems Heseltine deliberately twisted Hitchen's simple point because he didn't have a good counter argument. ...and it's much easier to ridicule than to justify your views with reason.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    To be fair to David Dimbleby he did press both Vince Cable and Michael Heseltine on the question relating to the person with 11 children being housed at public expense.

    Dimbleby said “your government has floated the idea of capping child benefit to 2 children... after 2 children it’s up to you”.  
    I think that's yet another example of his rotten chairing. The clue is in the question where he refers to floating the idea. It was easy for Heseltine to just dismiss it and when Dimbleby had another go, he just said it wasn't Government policy. Not illuminating.

    There were noticeably fewer than normal contributions from the audience in this programme and even then, Dimbleby let the panel talk over some audience contributors. He's terrible.

    Report message40

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.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


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

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.