I don't entirely agree. I think that the concept of the show is very good, and that it's generally more civil(well...not /always/), intelligent and entertaining than anything comparable on American or Canadian television.
That said, all of your criticisms are valid. I just don't feel as strongly on those points as you do. I think that the questions as well as the speakers are hit-or-miss, but it can be quite good at times.
Bush not talking to Iran? Excuse me but it is Iran that has refused the negotiations with the Six Party Talks (including the US) on three separate occasions!
You Brits don't only stick to simple cliques do you?
you forgot that when bush came to power he incuded iran in his axis of evil would you talk to america if you were branded that no i dont think so you americans got a short memory
bit of a difference between name calling then illegally invading a country kiling innocents big difference my friend if iran gets neuclear you can not moan how many have you got remind me?
I ain't your friend kid... And I know how to spell "nuclear."
"illegally invading a country kiling innocents"
Right.. 22 UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein and we're the illegal ones? Look at Resolution 1441 - material breach of Resolution 687 which allows use of force against Saddam under Resolution 678 for, as you say, "illegally invading a country" (Iran in case you don't follow)...
Now, if Iran gets "NEUCLEAR" as you put it - you'll be supporting them in destroying Israel? Or words?
yes the UN resolutions did not support invading the country thats the point it wanted weapons inspectors to keep going and only if saddam stopped it then they could go in he didnt he allowed them in and when they couldnt find anything, they still invaded it would not have made a difference they had the intention to do it, Iran should not have these weapons either however pakistan and india have also got these weapons and they do not like each other so its not just one issue
sorry it took so long to reply when your answering a stupid person you got to take time lol theresolution states that weapons inspectors are to enter the country and look for the weapons if they do find and saddam refuses to either step down or give them up an invasion wi happen one fact your not stateing when america and the UK invaded the weapons inspectors were still there look it up before you comment you fail!!!!!
the history might not tie in with your deluded version but try actually reading a book or googe it either way when you have some idea about what your saying then you can comment fail!!!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Question Time is the most superficial show on current affairs in Britain. Cancerpart comments below confirms that superficiality and how people's way of thinking is being shaped.
Ruth Kelly has the most annoying voice. Martin Amis is indeed a great intellectual, but he is evidently not a historian, as he fails to take account of the even greater cassus belli Iran has with the U.S.
When did Iran ever arrange a coup to overthrow a U.S. leader?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
martin ames is a fool.
iran has only suffered from the overthrow of their democratic government in 1953, and the shah and his us trained secret police through 1978, and need it be mentioned that al qaeda is iran's enemy??? oops....and saudi arabia fiances al qaeda....oops
Hold on hold on, so because Iran doesn't like Al Qaeda, that means we should tolerate the subjugation of women, and annihilation of gay rights. I'm with Christopher Hitchens on this one: 'not on my watch'. It's not racist, it's reasonable. And standing up to totalitarianism isn't cowardly. Hiding behind apparent 'liberalism' and its shoddy modern facade is cowardly. Where did the Left's principles get sold to?
@cancerparty This is very simple: What happens in Iran is none of your business. Also, what the Asian lad in the baseball cap said @ 5.30 was the most pertinent comment of all and in an ideal world would have ended the yap from the pointless talking heads on this panel.
@cancerparty This is very simple: What happens in Iran is none of your business. Also what the Asian lad in the baseball cap said (@5.30) was the most pertinent comment of all and, in an ideal world, would have ended the yap from the pointless talking heads on this panel.
@cancerparty This is very simple: What happens in Iran is none of your business. Also, what the Asian lad in the baseball cap said (@5.30) was most pertinent of all and, in an ideal world, would have ended the yap from the pointless talking heads on this panel.
@joejjohnston With respect I don't think Iran is the threat that Nazi Germany was. I've noticed a lot of people making this comparison between Islam and nazism; I have to say the comparison seems like a weak one to me.
@cancerparty This is very simple: What happens in Iran is none of your business. Also, what the Asian lad in the baseball cap said (@5.30) was most pertinent of all and, in an ideal world, would have ended the yap from the pointless talking heads on this panel.
Why is Ruth Kelly doing an impression of Victoria Wood doing an impression of a Blair Babe? And why does Martin Amis look like he left a drink unfinished in the Green Room, and desperately wants to return to it? I haven't seen a man so visibly bored since I last took a picture of myself listening to a Hazel Blears speech!
''America has legitimate Causus Beli with Iran, that goes back a long way''
This is the first time I've watched Martin Amis.. is it normal that he would utter such an ignorant remark about the Middle-East?
BelfastAtheist 2 months ago
state of ruth kelly
ybot1983 3 months ago
It's fairly telling how in awe of Martin Amis the whole panel are, Davis repeating his Latin and Randall quoting his book.
kkwillsaveus 4 months ago
I get the impression that questions are being asked not for want of an answer, but for want of being seen as an intellectual.
gilbertgodlyddd 2 years ago
Every QT is guilty of the same flaws, making it hardly worth watching:
1. The questioners are usually ignorant (and occasionally stupid) and as such ask terrible questions.
2. The speakers are usually a mixed bag; never are all of them good.
3. Dimbleby is a weak moderator (although it's not his fault he makes the best of a bad lot).
4. Too many questions are crammed in, making the answers short and unsatisfying.
richardcadbury 2 years ago 5
I don't entirely agree. I think that the concept of the show is very good, and that it's generally more civil(well...not /always/), intelligent and entertaining than anything comparable on American or Canadian television.
That said, all of your criticisms are valid. I just don't feel as strongly on those points as you do. I think that the questions as well as the speakers are hit-or-miss, but it can be quite good at times.
SecondsToLast 2 years ago
Bush not talking to Iran? Excuse me but it is Iran that has refused the negotiations with the Six Party Talks (including the US) on three separate occasions!
You Brits don't only stick to simple cliques do you?
MattyJames25 2 years ago
you forgot that when bush came to power he incuded iran in his axis of evil would you talk to america if you were branded that no i dont think so you americans got a short memory
loudman12 2 years ago
Oh I think so. They've called us the "Great Satan" for decades. Talk about a short memory pal.
MattyJames25 2 years ago
bit of a difference between name calling then illegally invading a country kiling innocents big difference my friend if iran gets neuclear you can not moan how many have you got remind me?
loudman12 2 years ago
I ain't your friend kid... And I know how to spell "nuclear."
"illegally invading a country kiling innocents"
Right.. 22 UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein and we're the illegal ones? Look at Resolution 1441 - material breach of Resolution 687 which allows use of force against Saddam under Resolution 678 for, as you say, "illegally invading a country" (Iran in case you don't follow)...
Now, if Iran gets "NEUCLEAR" as you put it - you'll be supporting them in destroying Israel? Or words?
MattyJames25 2 years ago
yes the UN resolutions did not support invading the country thats the point it wanted weapons inspectors to keep going and only if saddam stopped it then they could go in he didnt he allowed them in and when they couldnt find anything, they still invaded it would not have made a difference they had the intention to do it, Iran should not have these weapons either however pakistan and india have also got these weapons and they do not like each other so its not just one issue
loudman12 2 years ago
You are wrong - the UN resolutions DID support invading the country - read them instead of just saying what your friends and media say...
And so you think Iran shouldn't have the weapons - good... It doesn't matter what names they were called by Bush then does it? We're done.
MattyJames25 2 years ago
sorry it took so long to reply when your answering a stupid person you got to take time lol theresolution states that weapons inspectors are to enter the country and look for the weapons if they do find and saddam refuses to either step down or give them up an invasion wi happen one fact your not stateing when america and the UK invaded the weapons inspectors were still there look it up before you comment you fail!!!!!
loudman12 2 years ago
You writing, and your incorrect history, as well as your stupid ass logic, wouldn't get you a pass in a class full of 14 year old kids.
Fail... You would literally, fail.
Now go learn what material breach means.
MattyJames25 2 years ago
the history might not tie in with your deluded version but try actually reading a book or googe it either way when you have some idea about what your saying then you can comment fail!!!!!
loudman12 2 years ago
Brilliant response.
MattyJames25 2 years ago
why thakyou your welcome
loudman12 2 years ago
@loudman12 You should capitalize all your words.
xXFlockofGriffinsXx 1 year ago
@loudman12 but at least they know how to punctuate.
dirtycelinefrenchman 2 years ago
very weak comeback if you ask me if thats all you got to rebuke me then thats quite funny
loudman12 2 years ago
Thanks for adding this:)
I remember watching it at the time & remember thinking the relativism & stupidity of the audience was frightening.
njohn81 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Question Time is the most superficial show on current affairs in Britain. Cancerpart comments below confirms that superficiality and how people's way of thinking is being shaped.
nidhal00 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i'm the smackhead that answers every question.
blatspanner 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who is the smackhead that answers the first question?
lordinovau 3 years ago
Hmmm..... I've always had a bit of a thing about Mariella Frostrup.
Chaffinch4 4 years ago 20
she's gorgeous....
I like her hairdo
trr12 3 years ago 3
She's the thinking man's crumpet...sigh
MrKipps1 3 years ago
SHUT UP
yington 3 years ago
@Chaffinch4 yep..
Elcristoph 4 months ago
cutting edge debate??
........and sleep
shutyourjibbajabba 4 years ago
Ruth Kelly has the most annoying voice. Martin Amis is indeed a great intellectual, but he is evidently not a historian, as he fails to take account of the even greater cassus belli Iran has with the U.S.
When did Iran ever arrange a coup to overthrow a U.S. leader?
NathanZackery 4 years ago 2
Iraq war discussion
popred1 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
martin ames is a fool.
iran has only suffered from the overthrow of their democratic government in 1953, and the shah and his us trained secret police through 1978, and need it be mentioned that al qaeda is iran's enemy??? oops....and saudi arabia fiances al qaeda....oops
newsfrombelow 4 years ago
Amis is a million miles from a fool. He's ludicrously intelligent. Spectacularly intelligent.
danielinho1942 4 years ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
well he sounds like a fool here.
maybe coward and liar is better said.
newsfrombelow 4 years ago
you're the fool, boy. you're digging yourself a hole...
sidviscous 4 years ago
Hold on hold on, so because Iran doesn't like Al Qaeda, that means we should tolerate the subjugation of women, and annihilation of gay rights. I'm with Christopher Hitchens on this one: 'not on my watch'. It's not racist, it's reasonable. And standing up to totalitarianism isn't cowardly. Hiding behind apparent 'liberalism' and its shoddy modern facade is cowardly. Where did the Left's principles get sold to?
cancerparty 3 years ago 61
well said...the modern left does itself no favours
Elcristoph 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
indeed Hitchens liberated many people from their lives in Iraq.
dargay 2 years ago
Comment removed
1thousandways 1 year ago
Comment removed
1thousandways 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cancerparty This is very simple: What happens in Iran is none of your business. Also, what the Asian lad in the baseball cap said @ 5.30 was the most pertinent comment of all and in an ideal world would have ended the yap from the pointless talking heads on this panel.
1thousandways 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cancerparty This is very simple: What happens in Iran is none of your business. Also what the Asian lad in the baseball cap said (@5.30) was the most pertinent comment of all and, in an ideal world, would have ended the yap from the pointless talking heads on this panel.
1thousandways 1 year ago
@cancerparty This is very simple: What happens in Iran is none of your business. Also, what the Asian lad in the baseball cap said (@5.30) was most pertinent of all and, in an ideal world, would have ended the yap from the pointless talking heads on this panel.
1thousandways 1 year ago
I don't necessarily disagree with you but, with your reasoning, the same could be said about Germany between 1933 and 1945.
joejjohnston 1 year ago
@joejjohnston With respect I don't think Iran is the threat that Nazi Germany was. I've noticed a lot of people making this comparison between Islam and nazism; I have to say the comparison seems like a weak one to me.
1thousandways 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cancerparty This is very simple: What happens in Iran is none of your business. Also, what the Asian lad in the baseball cap said (@5.30) was most pertinent of all and, in an ideal world, would have ended the yap from the pointless talking heads on this panel.
1thousandways 1 year ago
@cancerparty Ok lets bomb those women and gays to freeeedom!
hairyhoff 1 year ago
Thanks for posting.
macawreufsal 4 years ago
*yawn
RJE02 4 years ago
Why is Ruth Kelly doing an impression of Victoria Wood doing an impression of a Blair Babe? And why does Martin Amis look like he left a drink unfinished in the Green Room, and desperately wants to return to it? I haven't seen a man so visibly bored since I last took a picture of myself listening to a Hazel Blears speech!
campbellonia 5 years ago 3