RE: BNP definately they ought ot go on question time
just to point out though, i recon the government are gong to have people purposely placed in the crowd who are going to disrupt and cause trouble so the program either does not get shown or stops very early and the BNP are made to look bad - it won't be free speech
The government is corrupt like that
btw, convenient they are allowing them to go on tv. Seems a good detraction from the expenses claims debarcle
@sweetypie000 Just so you know - on that BNP QT episode ONLY 10 BNP members were allowed in the audience...the whole thing was rigged mate so the leftist BBC could depict it how they wanted.
Personally I think Daniel was very good. It's enlightening to listen to a young person who runs their own company, runs a website trying to encourage people to get interested in planning etc.
He has first hand experience and a good head on his shoulders - even though I don't agree with all he says (re Prince Charles) I think he was the best candidate.
He articulated clearly, and didn't back down on his opinions like some others did.
Liam was clearly the best. He wasn't given a large proportion of the speaking and therefore probably didn't leave as big an impression on you as "I eat babies suzanne"
however when he did get a chance to speak it was his true beliefs and he did not hold back. in other words.
I absolutely agree with your e-mail Max that all panelists were dreadful. Let me also mention that I think those who picked them must be awful at making the right decisions. For instance, that girl should not have been there. Firstly, she had the lowest rating and secondly we all know she was picked since the panel needed a girl. Max, to me there were all socialist lame youths of society that create a burden to human nature and the success of the British economy. Disgusting.
If you go into the Question Time website, click on "School's Question Time" in the sidebar and then click on the big picture on the front page, you should be able to watch the video.
I find the 5 young people chosen disappointing; most of them have very opinionated views about issues that they seem to have little real understanding about. They also have a problem with answering questions properly and seem to have difficulty communicating. At points it was embarrassing to watch. However, I would say that Suzanne seems to be better than the others. She spoke clearly and her arguments were well thought out and mature.
Liam did not do himself justice, especially when you look at his application. Jonny was good but lacked depth, the winner needs to be able to answer questions with conviction. Suzanne was very good but did not sound as clever she probably is, she did not go to trenches with her points and seemed overawed, what would happen with a panel of season political veterans?
Daniel Thomas clearly had depth of knowledge and would be a reliable candidate, Tom Wyatt was also very impressive, kept his head o
I have given my verdict, so it seems unchangable. For those still sending messages calling me an "evil Simon Cowell", just like to tell you someone had to give a reality check. We or at least I don't want politically confused individuals representing me as a young person.
Absolutely disappointing. All five candidates have shown the worst performance in the history of the media. Nearly all did not give eye contact to the audiences (their parents). Moreover, they argued with the audiences and not with the opponents. Sadly, I am ashamed with whoever picked these pathetic people, since there were better ones, even Mr Dimblebly looked confused. The whole project needs to end before the rating of BBC will come down.
What difference would it make? he would have just as much influence even if he officially renounced his princeship. Joanna Lumley was not a princess but she used her position as a public figure to influence the government's policy on gurkhas, perhaps you could say that is wrong? As long as he is not using blackmail or anything like that he is perfectly allowed to show his opinion and campaign.
I've just had a look at one of the winning entries for this. Why are question time after people who are carbon copies of thier own stereotypical guests? Students aren't interested in the Royal Mail scandals etc, we are after better education, free education, employment, liberalism and hope for the future.
QT makes me sick to think they pick people who want to talk about "thier issues", they are scared about how students respond to how badly politics are run for the future.
Have you a pet that's desperate to get into the media? Let them get their fifteen minutes of Youtube fame on this channel. Simply repond with your pet in a homemade music video to my video entitled "Joey"
In other words i shouldnt be hear. Hitler called himself the social democrat party. The BNP are a mirage. To gain the white working class vote there simply saying they want a NHS. Its all rhetoric. Griffin just another one the far right Tories, racist and isolationist
The facebook group for us to continue debating and getting to know each other better is up. I have posted it as a video comment as I can't post a link in these comments for some reason, check out the posted video description bar for the link.
Thing is the recorded debate is tomorrow according to the QT website, so the candidates must have known by now and to be fair with that sort notice they maybe too busy/excited to post anything here until afterwards. We will see the video of the debate on friday anywhow :-)
we should create some forum for debate anyway cos i am sure all those who submitted aplications surly must be intrested in shareing there opinions and not just geting on telly.
Is everyone on facebook? Im perfectly happy to set up a facebook group for everyone. If it is a success, those of us at unis could share notes and maybe organise our own 'Question time' style weekend meet up. It is a long shot I know, but at Aberystwyth Uni we often hold our own student Question Time style debates which are a good laugh and very informative :-)
I stress, please be patient. The judges need time to look at every excellent video sent (complements to all you lot). Anyway, besides they cannot miss school as you all should know school is compulsory. Keep the debates flourishing boys and girls. Remember who ever goes through, make sure what ever comes out from your mouth is for young people and no one but young people.
oh and thank you for the many constructive comments - I'm really really grateful and I've found this very useful.
(I would also like to express my intense frustration at some youtubers out there who have been so unnecessarily abusive/racist/sexist or just troll-like. - a few other contestants have emailed with this problem as well, and I've certainly had some odd emails/comments. Find better things to do with your time!)
Has anyone heard from them at all yet? I've read the BBC website, but I agree that two days is not long enough to watch the videos, deliberate and then inform the chosen people. Good luck to those that have been chosen, but most of all I've watched a majority of these videos and would like to say that the student population have really represented themselves well. :)
Hey Cradle2grave, Ive just looked at the updated webpage and you are right about the debate being held on Thursday. In which case to be honest id have expected if we had been successful to have heard today, giving us Wednesday to reply and arrange travel to get to studio.
Oh well, I hope they've chosen the right candidates, whoever they are - would be great if they could post a comment here or on they're own video comment board to let us all know?
Im no expert, but isnt holding the debate only four days after the deadline a wee bit short to choose,contact confirm,and organise the five candidates?
What part of the website are you looking at? Ive copied a link to the webpage im using which gives no mention of a date as far as i can see, athough it maybe out of date or someting....?
Given the 119ish applications, which as MartynGecob said is over 2 hours of viewing, I suspect the short listing could take several days. Couple this with the overall winner being announced on the 9th July, and two weeks before that the 'demo'debate being uploaded here(~25th June), I think its safe to presume the 'winners' will find out at the earliest of this Thursday(18th) and the latest of Friday(19th); leaving the weekend/ first half of next week to sort/record the demo debate.
well that is a good point but they would have to contact all 115 of us and tell us that we didnt get in and that sound like a little to much effort lol
I agree, but it is there choise and they probs have at least 2 hours worth of vidios to look over here so it is reosnable for them not to choose in the first day. i just hope they take me into consideration lol
Heya, i managed to send my aplication to the bbc and not posting it as a vido responce cos i stupidly read the aplication thing wrong. i hope there is still a chance i could be considerd
hii i'm one of the student producers on the sqt production team. Well done for all the great videos.
It would be great it you could join a facebook group our student production team set up for young people to discuss politics called "virgin voters" which you can find by searching for it on facebook. I appreciate that many of you are no longer virgin voters but the group is just made for young people to chat about current affairs and politics. Thanks :)
Right, I will join. I may not be a virgin voter but I feel those especially 16+ are rationally able to decide between who to vote in elections. In fact sometimes it appears young people are more politically able than adults. At least young people will not vote for the BNP over concerns that have no relevance to their policies such as MPs expenses. Thought I just raise that lol and stand as a voice for all those "silent".
A tough question I would ask is how can Liberal Dems and Labour consider having an elected HOL. The HOL has the finest minds in the country these people are experts and quite frankly don't want to fight elections. So why should they there are so many negatives to having an elected HOL. For instace winners would use it as a stepping stone to HOC instead of viewing it as a worthwhile institution. There are so many tough question which need to be asked. Another one is Pernament representation!
Experts like the convict and convicted perjurer Jeffrey Archer, Lord Watson who was charged with arson and the one who was on his mobile phone and almost killed someone while driving?
There are a few bad apples but those bad apples aren't representative of the lords I know and respect. Lord Norton or Lord Davies. A few bad apples are no reason to rewrite the constitution and change centuries of tradition
If Norton and Davies were that good, they would be able to be elected would you not think? It's worth mentioning though, that I do not favour an elected second house. It would be pointless and a waste of time. I favour a jury-system personally. Centuries of tradition are no reason to stand in the way of progress. It was tradition here that we denied women the vote, that's not around anymore is it? And incidentally, we don't HAVE a constitution. Never mind rewriting one, let's write one!
I'm sorry but your simply wrong. We do have a constitution yes it is an unwritten one but that allows flexibility within the system. You seem to want to make progress for the sake of progress. Caversmill seems to have the right idea. Lord Norton and Lord Davies are too valueable to lose yes if they wanted too they could win an election however the lords is like a large business to get the best people you have to head hunt. That is to say you find them they don't find you.
If it isn't written down then we don't have it, do we? I don't want to make progress for progress' sake, I want to remove a large group of unelected men and women from a position of power. Really now, this isn't the 14th century. They're unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative. Keeping them just so you can feel good about how things were done many years ago is not a justified reason for keeping an outdated system.
We have an uncodified constituion this constitution is developed over many years. It is developed by statutes examples include the scotland act, European communties act and yes observations from history. Why would you want a written constitution we already have the human rights act. This issue is definately contentious and I don't think either of us would change our stance. Outdated maybe, there needs to be some reform but you have to remember we
Except it IS broken, it's not working for us anymore. We don't have proper democratic representation. And I'm afraid an "uncodified" constitution is no constitution at all. The Human Rights Act could of course be worked INTO a UK Constitution, which would finally outline our political system and guarantee fair representation. S'what it's all about.
If we make it to the final we will have to battle it out in person. The system isn't broken yes it has lost a lot of credibility but there are other forms of reform which would be more suitable to deal with this situation. Such as a massive reduction in the number of MP's. I would love to continue but my break is up so I wish you the best of luck.
Plus it is not simply our heritage encouraging us to keep the current House of Lords.
It is far more representative of the composition of society than the commons.
The Lords has expertise, something you would lose if it was elected.
It isn't party political to the same extent because they can't be politically bullied.
If you elected it at the same time as Parliament then you would have exactly the same chamber and if it was mid term it would be full of protest Lords...
I too believe in the power of permanence. The House of Lords and the Monarchy are two very important elements to the political system in Britain.
It is true that an unelected House of Lords is more representative of the composition of society and if it was elected it would mimick the Commons, and as it was elected would call for greater powers too, meaning eventually if granted they would just block what the commons tried to do.
I see you missed the point i was making, i does not matter that the votes are counted perfectly, because the choices you have to select from are controled by the elite, here is one example, This country did not want to go to war with Iraq, but we still did, how is the goverment serving the people? it's serving the elite's who have their own agenda! Can you at least understand that?
I know the candidates who stand, as a member of the party i get a vote too on who stands as my local councillor or MP for the party of which i am a member.
And the Iraq war was an example of how Tony Blair, who knew the country had complete faith in him thought he could do what he liked and he wanted to stay friends with George Bush
George Bush like the rest of the presidents were nothing but a bunch of puppets for the Elite, and look at the new president Obama, how do you think he raised all that money to end up winning?? you need a crash course on how the world operates, here is a link to get your mind working again.
No I think you need a crash course in basic poltiics.
The US political system is such that politicians need financial backers to win campaigns. When states the size of california for example have 2 senators each, the cost of their campaign to get statewide popularity is massive.
America is therefore undoubtably plagued with corruption and that is unavoidable. But when the words "new world order" are cut off as a sound bite and taken out of context you jump to conclusions.
The Iraq war wasn't an issue before the general election. No one has ever voted based on the stance a politician might have if a war starts between Britain and a particular country somewhere on the other side of the world
Asking them to account for any rampant hypocrisy of the past, asking them to clarify their views on certain subjects, making sure that any ducking of questions is severely reprimanded and yes, I too would like to hold more than one Labour politician to account...
hi guys. Im actually one of the student producers responsible for schools question time. Im hearing "i'll ask th tough questions" a lot, anyone care to be more specific?
I think many of the applicants mean that they will not be distracted by the party line and politicians' typical avoidance techniques. I'd quite like to ask why all of a sudden many support extensive constitutional reform, when they did not previously, whether they feel their salaries are insufficient and whether the talk of constitutional reform is merely a distraction from their expenses deviance. I would also like to get a Labour politician to be realistic about the situation of their party!
Hate to agree with you, but I have to endorse your sensible view point ... drugs WTF that debate and battle was lost in the eighties when Raves and that whole fracking scene started ... Wonder which Tim 'Nice but Dim' Peer, MP, men in grey suits, got the 'bung' for that 'error of judgement' ... I want MP's and their flunkies to fight to KEEP their fancy big houses, undemocratic corrupt system and ROTTEN constituencies ... means when the money runs out we can find them and ROCK their world
Do you want intellectual people running the country? Well you have to PAY. Yes their salary £62,000 a year is nice and cushy to most of us, but they can be on a far greater wage doing something else!
You don't think MP's are philanthropists do you? Even Tony Benn the committed old Labour socialist has some nice estates!
Can I offer those people disgusted with the MP's expenses scandle the truth
MP's in Britain are the lowest paid in Europe. They don't get a poor wage but for their intellect they could certainly be employed in a position that pays higher
As the taxpayer a public announcement of a wage increase would cause an anti political tidal wave so politicians increased their wage through the back door
It is the people in the BBC, who's wages you should worry about! Thats taxpayers money too
All of you sound brainwashed and stuck in a self assembled box.
While your skys are being sprayed with chemicals and monsanto is GM your food, you will find yourselfs in 4 months facing another planned (swine flu) outbreak, while your dropping like flys because you immune system has been weakend (population control) the banking system collapses, and then it's to late. Welcome to the NWO!
We'll already have a vaccine in production in 4 months. If you "NWO" exists then it has taken a bloody long time to take over the world and has been extremely inefficient in its handling of world domination.
Are you still stuck in your box! look up, and step out of it! Vaccines are created by the same people who created the swine flu the same people who sponsor Monsanto, the same people who spray your skys with chemicals, the same people who sit on health regulation boards, the same people who create our policys, the same people who control the banking system/media, the same people who build weapons for the army, Can you see now your just a pawn on a chess board, and you call that FREEDOM!
Vaccines are created by taking a virus and then weakening it. The weakened version is injected into patients or released into the population. For example; chickenpox was created and released into the population to give people an immunity to smallpox
And no one can control a virus once it is released into a population
And the so called "chemtrails" would be an extremely inefficient method of spreading toxins
Chemtrails destroy bee colonies worldwide, and do you want to know what they found in samples where they sprayed chemtrails, Arsenic,Barium,Cadmium,Chromium and Lead etc Morgellons Disease has increased by 6000% let me think, thats just a coincidence?
Actually mobile phones are more likely to be responsible for harming bee colonies
And do you have any sources for your claim besides a Youtube video? If a government wanted to disperse toxins they could do it much more efficiently than with chemtrails
My dear lord surely as a nation were smarter than this arent we. The BNP are dangerous, nazi, fascists who believe Britain should be for white Anglo saxons and nobody else. They are absolutley nuts. The immigration situation in this nation is a shambles i agree but please don't let the BNP fool you with a bit of sickening sweet talk. They are racist thugs nothing more who give our wonderfull nation a bad name. If you support them then shame on you. you obviously need a better education. Wake up
lmao nothing wrong with BNP they are just offering an alternative to the shambles and theives the current government and shadow party are. So please before you say shame on you perhaps look at yourself and see how blind you are... let me guess vote for the same people who make a mockery out of tax payers?
Been reading our daily rag have we Blakefish? Which one is it then, because you clearly haven't visited the BNPs website have you?
What's a racist in your book then? Someone who objects to their country being completely flooded with unwanted and unaffordable immigrants?
Great Britain has been targeted by the left for marxist ethnic cleansing and used as the worlds racial toilet and dumping ground for all sorts of overseas criminals gangs and asylum seekers. We are being bankrupted!
We are being bankrupted by economic mismanagement; not by immigration. The government is telling us to spend when we should invest or save and aggravating the situation by trying increasing inflation.
Britain could handle the immigrants if we reduced the costs of running a business in poor areas by eliminating the minimum wage laws and reduced crime by legalising drugs
The government will be setting a moral tone by allowing people to do whatever they want without having to buy dodgy substances from shady characters who are not under legal scrutiny
If the government legalised and taxed drugs it could result in a GDP increase of £50Billion while also reducing the cost it takes to enforce anti-drug laws
Quite right, whilst simultaneously increasing the amount of the population addicted to hard drugs. Is that a good thing?
It would be naive to suggest there wouldn't be a huge increase in drug abusers if it was legalised because it's telling us that it is ok to take these substances.
So although I believe money to be the driving force of any human being or country and should be considered, you have to draw the line.
Well look what happened in America in the 1920s. Did banning alcohol reduce its popularity? No; all that the ban did was give power to gangsters who sold it; they became celebrities. And the alcohol they sold wasn't regulated by a government agency and as a result often contained poisonous methanol which could blind or kill the people who drank it.
Again I don't dispute your point but banning a previously legal product is a little different from permitting the sale of a previously banned substance.
People feel their rights being taken away when they're suddenly told by the state they can no longer partake in an activity they previously could.
Whereas people understand why drugs are illegal, the level of addiction being much higher and the potential side effects are deadly.
But drugs were previously legal; the only difference was that there were fewer people who used them than used alcohol. The effects of the ban were the same and ultimately enforcing the ban has cost us more than a slight increase in the addiction rate ever would
The government needs to be more open about drugs and alcohol if it wants to handle the problem in an efficient and ethical manner
But you can't genuinely think that if they legalised it would not give rise to a huge influx of new drug addicts
Cannabis is taken by a large enough proportion of the population as it is to make legalisation safe but with the harder drugs it would be detrimental to society.
Also consider those who choose not to take the drugs, children and the elderly, would they feel safe going out when on top of the ASBO proud youth we also have a new class of drugged up zombies patrolling the streets
Legalising drugs doesn't mean allowing people to walk the street high on LSD. If they were legalised then hard drugs would have to be taken in controlled environments (probably some kind of club or casino)
And the same argument you are using now could be used against alcohol. Alcohol shouldn't be illegal but drunk driving should; and similar laws should apply to drugs
And people have still got to make it home from their legal drug den casino afterwards haven't they.
Drug addicts are dangerous people, and if you got people addicted in controlled environments their addiction would fuel them to buy drugs from illegal dealers to take cheaper in the comfort of their own home.
The prime difference between drugs and alcohol is that some drugs cause hallucinations which is why "drugged walking" is more dangerous than "drunk walking"
People don't need to travel home on their own. They could be allowed to spend the night or be transported home by some other means
Drug addicts are only dangerous because they can't admit their problem because it is illegal. They want to end their addiction but they are afraid to seek help in case of legal repercussions
And many drug addicts are just happy to keep taking drugs, not all want to end their addictions, espcially if they can afford it.
Once you start adding these constraints, like saying you have to stay the night etc then you give rise to the illegal characters who sold it initially who offer the same product, cheaper without these regulations.
From everyone I've talked to drug addiction sounds like a horrible thing to go through. The people who would want to stay addicted are in the minority and usually have even greater problems in their life than addiction
And people would rather accept constraints than buy the product off of shady characters (who always sell at an inflated price). There just wouldn't be enough demand to fuel drug smuggling for such people
I don't think the majority of people addicted to drugs want to quit, i think the majority of people who see that as a problem want to quit.
If you could afford to fund your habits which you clearly enjoy otherwise you wouldn't have gotten into the mess in the first place then you certainly don't want to quit.
And people will always buy off dealers, so legalising all drugs wouldn't solve the biggest problem it would just generate revenue and addict generation after generation
Drugs aren't enjoyable when you are addicted. Eventually the positive effects wear off but the people who become addicted can't stop taking them without severe negative side-effects
And the people who want to buy off illegal dealers will be in the minority if drugs are legal.
That is only an opinion though, drug taking is a sleezy activity and i think very few would openly visit these venues and the majority would continue to take it in secret.
It's like teenagers and safe sex, the government has made condoms easily accessable and free to young people and yet because of the stigma attached to buying them the majority refrain.
Hard drugs are just too dangerous, whats stopping people in these venues having "bad trips" and attacking other customers
But people usually get into drugs through their friends. And buying drugs at these venues would be no more humiliating than buying it off a dealer
And to stop customers from becoming aggressive there would be security and medical staff on hand to help if necessary. Hence the term "secure environment"
It's just too controlled. Name another activity restricted by the state in that kind of way and how popular it is?
You won't find one, because people don't like the state telling them what to do. Whilst the novelty factor of taking drugs may attract people to these venues, the prices will be ridiculously high which makes competition for drug dealers easy.
"the prices will be ridiculously high which makes competition for drug dealers easy"
The prices will not be any higher than the current prices. In fact they will probably be lower and the value of regulated white market products will always exceed deregulated black market versions of the same product
The government shouldn't continue to raise taxes on cigarettes; it doesn't help
The thing which would make the drugs cheaper is the fact that they would be legal and they could imported in much larger amounts legally than illegally
And modern farming means that significant amounds of drugs could be grown by very few individuals if they have the right facilities
Racism is a construct, it's meaning has been watered down and is used all too often where it needn't be. People see it every day and yet when asked to describe what 'it' is, they have difficulty. Racism is the modern day witch hunt. And those that use the term freely are behaving like sheep. And if you aren't a sheep, you must be a racist. Sad thing is though, that if you try and stand up for this once great nation and heritage people will argue why you mustn't and that we are all immigrants.
Which is a loose argument, if you must go down that road we can trace human migration though the millenia back to the horn of africa. However, we accept that many peoples of this world have a homeland at least a couple of thousand years old. I call my homeland England, does that make me racist?
One thing I like to point out is that there is an SNP as well as Welsh and Irish nationalists. Just sucks to be British I guess.
Problem is people in the media seem to be confused as to the difference between the British National Party and the British National Front.... which is like confusing Shin Fain with the IRA.
granted there is a large amount of racism directed at whites, however, i can assure you that there are definitely more stereotypes of people from ethnic minorities. The wall between stereotypes and prejudice has grown so thin that there is hardly a division between them. I am only 14, and no i don't face direct racism but I definitely face stereotypes, prejudice and indirect discrimination. The reason it is indirect is that everyone knows how much trouble they'll face it wasn't.
cant agree more. Its like only having 1 side of the coin all the time afteral ethnic people can be racist too. But no government wants to address that issue afteral its like a boiling pot its no wonder more and more people over the years are voting BNP.
It is hard to say which Dimbleby (David bbctv , Jonathan radio 4) is worse since they both seem to share the same bias and prejudices as the rest of the BBC..
RE: BNP definately they ought ot go on question time
just to point out though, i recon the government are gong to have people purposely placed in the crowd who are going to disrupt and cause trouble so the program either does not get shown or stops very early and the BNP are made to look bad - it won't be free speech
The government is corrupt like that
btw, convenient they are allowing them to go on tv. Seems a good detraction from the expenses claims debarcle
sly government
sweetypie000 2 years ago
@sweetypie000 Just so you know - on that BNP QT episode ONLY 10 BNP members were allowed in the audience...the whole thing was rigged mate so the leftist BBC could depict it how they wanted.
pacmandem 8 months ago
Ian Hislop for PM!!!!
Ohyewildthong 2 years ago
pick rhymingwithoranges JAZZA
iCancelledSchool 2 years ago
Personally I think Daniel was very good. It's enlightening to listen to a young person who runs their own company, runs a website trying to encourage people to get interested in planning etc.
He has first hand experience and a good head on his shoulders - even though I don't agree with all he says (re Prince Charles) I think he was the best candidate.
He articulated clearly, and didn't back down on his opinions like some others did.
mrpmorris 2 years ago
oh wow, they're are terrible. the audience was showing far more sense than the panellists.
sirinferno 2 years ago
Disappointing! The wrong people were chosen. BBC, you got it wrong AGAIN!!!!!
SyamSoni 2 years ago 5
Suzanne was the best... the most pragmatic I think. It was a disappointment though. Sorry, but I am being honest.
jennyqj1 2 years ago
Liam was clearly the best. He wasn't given a large proportion of the speaking and therefore probably didn't leave as big an impression on you as "I eat babies suzanne"
however when he did get a chance to speak it was his true beliefs and he did not hold back. in other words.
He kicked your arses.
RedLycra 2 years ago
I absolutely agree with your e-mail Max that all panelists were dreadful. Let me also mention that I think those who picked them must be awful at making the right decisions. For instance, that girl should not have been there. Firstly, she had the lowest rating and secondly we all know she was picked since the panel needed a girl. Max, to me there were all socialist lame youths of society that create a burden to human nature and the success of the British economy. Disgusting.
sadaqut 2 years ago
Comment removed
mskillershark 2 years ago
If you go into the Question Time website, click on "School's Question Time" in the sidebar and then click on the big picture on the front page, you should be able to watch the video.
ohmygaloshes 2 years ago
Comment removed
sadaqut 2 years ago
yeah the five did all agree pretty much. Made for quite boring viewing sometimes. Give them a break though. They mustve been nervous.
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
oh i suppose their being on national tv will be far less nerve wracking, so i suppose it'll be alright on the night.
wtf
sirinferno 2 years ago
WHERE ARE YOU ALL SEEING THE AUDITION VIDEO???? all i can see is the original video...which by the way is brilliant.
mskillershark 2 years ago
Completely disgusted my Suzannes argument on the Iraq inquiry. However I wont hold it against her. She was the best and good on her.
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
where can i see the video of the 5 finalists??? PLEASE tell me!!
mskillershark 2 years ago
I find the 5 young people chosen disappointing; most of them have very opinionated views about issues that they seem to have little real understanding about. They also have a problem with answering questions properly and seem to have difficulty communicating. At points it was embarrassing to watch. However, I would say that Suzanne seems to be better than the others. She spoke clearly and her arguments were well thought out and mature.
IamHannahamI 2 years ago
So either Danny or Tom for me.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
n all issues only criticism is he should be careful of going over the top on some issues, steady wins the race.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
Liam did not do himself justice, especially when you look at his application. Jonny was good but lacked depth, the winner needs to be able to answer questions with conviction. Suzanne was very good but did not sound as clever she probably is, she did not go to trenches with her points and seemed overawed, what would happen with a panel of season political veterans?
Daniel Thomas clearly had depth of knowledge and would be a reliable candidate, Tom Wyatt was also very impressive, kept his head o
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
I have given my verdict, so it seems unchangable. For those still sending messages calling me an "evil Simon Cowell", just like to tell you someone had to give a reality check. We or at least I don't want politically confused individuals representing me as a young person.
sadaqut 2 years ago
i would to vote for Liam please
mattmaloneypresents 2 years ago
Just watched the video and this is what I think.
Absolutely disappointing. All five candidates have shown the worst performance in the history of the media. Nearly all did not give eye contact to the audiences (their parents). Moreover, they argued with the audiences and not with the opponents. Sadly, I am ashamed with whoever picked these pathetic people, since there were better ones, even Mr Dimblebly looked confused. The whole project needs to end before the rating of BBC will come down.
sadaqut 2 years ago
parents? they were producers.
and did you not see Liam clearly making eye contact with everyone he was addressing?
if you don't like this maybe you should focus your anger on something else instead of shouting at a screen.
mattmaloneypresents 2 years ago
Just watched the 5 panelists having their chat. Opinions:
Suzanne and Tom both came across as patronising and arrogant.
Johnny didn't really seem to have anything interesting or original to say.
Daniel came across well but was a bit too quiet.
Liam was quiet also, but whenever he spoke he made a genuine impression. Liam ftw.
CTerry1985 2 years ago
Comment removed
CarolRivettCarnac 2 years ago
Comment removed
johnnylvg 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he shouldn't have a political opinion as prince charles.
as charles windsor, go for it...
johnnylvg 2 years ago
What difference would it make? he would have just as much influence even if he officially renounced his princeship. Joanna Lumley was not a princess but she used her position as a public figure to influence the government's policy on gurkhas, perhaps you could say that is wrong? As long as he is not using blackmail or anything like that he is perfectly allowed to show his opinion and campaign.
CarolRivettCarnac 2 years ago
Comment removed
CarolRivettCarnac 2 years ago
His socialist rhetoric beats your "do nothing" individualism that you promote
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
Comment removed
sadaqut 2 years ago
who?
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
where did you find out this information surrounding the winning entries mate?
bendaman38 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
sadaqut 2 years ago
I've just had a look at one of the winning entries for this. Why are question time after people who are carbon copies of thier own stereotypical guests? Students aren't interested in the Royal Mail scandals etc, we are after better education, free education, employment, liberalism and hope for the future.
QT makes me sick to think they pick people who want to talk about "thier issues", they are scared about how students respond to how badly politics are run for the future.
Marxistjon88 2 years ago 2
Good luck whoever got into the "off air" one today
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
Have you a pet that's desperate to get into the media? Let them get their fifteen minutes of Youtube fame on this channel. Simply repond with your pet in a homemade music video to my video entitled "Joey"
musicvideoanimal 2 years ago
That was my pet fly
sadaqut 2 years ago
I would have been on the panel, but I've got an exam tomorrow and thus cannot make it. Talk about a kick in the arse.
SamMannion 2 years ago
You got accepted? Well done
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
Anyone no if the audition is on the18th or the 25th? Ive heard both? Has anyone been choosen? Well done if you have
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
In other words i shouldnt be hear. Hitler called himself the social democrat party. The BNP are a mirage. To gain the white working class vote there simply saying they want a NHS. Its all rhetoric. Griffin just another one the far right Tories, racist and isolationist
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
Hey guys,
The facebook group for us to continue debating and getting to know each other better is up. I have posted it as a video comment as I can't post a link in these comments for some reason, check out the posted video description bar for the link.
Cheers all,
JK
megatron1984 2 years ago
Yeah anyone who finds out should post it.
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
I don't think there has been anyone picked yet. At least one of the winners would have posted it on a blog/wrote it on here etc.
Marxistjon88 2 years ago
Thing is the recorded debate is tomorrow according to the QT website, so the candidates must have known by now and to be fair with that sort notice they maybe too busy/excited to post anything here until afterwards. We will see the video of the debate on friday anywhow :-)
megatron1984 2 years ago
kl well i will set up the group, whats hould we call it thow, SQT failures lol
MartynGecob 2 years ago
it hink it is fair to assume those who have not been contacted have missed out :(
good luck to those who have won
MartynGecob 2 years ago
So has anyone been picked? And is the audition tomorrow? or the 25th? Slightly confused
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
we should create some forum for debate anyway cos i am sure all those who submitted aplications surly must be intrested in shareing there opinions and not just geting on telly.
MartynGecob 2 years ago
Hey,
Is everyone on facebook? Im perfectly happy to set up a facebook group for everyone. If it is a success, those of us at unis could share notes and maybe organise our own 'Question time' style weekend meet up. It is a long shot I know, but at Aberystwyth Uni we often hold our own student Question Time style debates which are a good laugh and very informative :-)
megatron1984 2 years ago
definately
imogenlambert 2 years ago
I stress, please be patient. The judges need time to look at every excellent video sent (complements to all you lot). Anyway, besides they cannot miss school as you all should know school is compulsory. Keep the debates flourishing boys and girls. Remember who ever goes through, make sure what ever comes out from your mouth is for young people and no one but young people.
sadaqut 2 years ago
"The judges need time to look at every excellent video sent"
lol, that won't take long
sirinferno 2 years ago
oh and thank you for the many constructive comments - I'm really really grateful and I've found this very useful.
(I would also like to express my intense frustration at some youtubers out there who have been so unnecessarily abusive/racist/sexist or just troll-like. - a few other contestants have emailed with this problem as well, and I've certainly had some odd emails/comments. Find better things to do with your time!)
imogenlambert 2 years ago
Has anyone heard from them at all yet? I've read the BBC website, but I agree that two days is not long enough to watch the videos, deliberate and then inform the chosen people. Good luck to those that have been chosen, but most of all I've watched a majority of these videos and would like to say that the student population have really represented themselves well. :)
bendaman38 2 years ago
congrats to whoever got it!
imogenlambert 2 years ago
A video of this preliminary debate, to be filmed on Thursday 18 June, will be posted on our YouTube page by 2pm on Friday 19 June. Thats what it says
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
Hey Cradle2grave, Ive just looked at the updated webpage and you are right about the debate being held on Thursday. In which case to be honest id have expected if we had been successful to have heard today, giving us Wednesday to reply and arrange travel to get to studio.
Darn...ah well same time next year everyone? :D
megatron1984 2 years ago
Hmm - that does seem fairly conclusive.
Oh well, I hope they've chosen the right candidates, whoever they are - would be great if they could post a comment here or on they're own video comment board to let us all know?
Thanks
Rp1J 2 years ago
Im no expert, but isnt holding the debate only four days after the deadline a wee bit short to choose,contact confirm,and organise the five candidates?
What part of the website are you looking at? Ive copied a link to the webpage im using which gives no mention of a date as far as i can see, athough it maybe out of date or someting....?
megatron1984 2 years ago
Unless on the website theyve got the wrong date
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
My thoughts:
Given the 119ish applications, which as MartynGecob said is over 2 hours of viewing, I suspect the short listing could take several days. Couple this with the overall winner being announced on the 9th July, and two weeks before that the 'demo'debate being uploaded here(~25th June), I think its safe to presume the 'winners' will find out at the earliest of this Thursday(18th) and the latest of Friday(19th); leaving the weekend/ first half of next week to sort/record the demo debate.
megatron1984 2 years ago
that makes no sense. The demo is this thursday i thought? On the 18? Am i right?
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
No i mean like post the five winners.
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
well that is a good point but they would have to contact all 115 of us and tell us that we didnt get in and that sound like a little to much effort lol
MartynGecob 2 years ago
They should tell everyone. I wanna say well done to the person that gets it.
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
I agree, but it is there choise and they probs have at least 2 hours worth of vidios to look over here so it is reosnable for them not to choose in the first day. i just hope they take me into consideration lol
MartynGecob 2 years ago
well they said they wont be emailing you if you lost which suck a bit!
MartynGecob 2 years ago
They should at least announce it on here or on the site Mart.
Marxistjon88 2 years ago
It wasn't made terribly clear Mr Cradle2grave.
Marxistjon88 2 years ago
How do you find out do they message you on you tube or?
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
Anyone picked?
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
Heya, i managed to send my aplication to the bbc and not posting it as a vido responce cos i stupidly read the aplication thing wrong. i hope there is still a chance i could be considerd
MartynGecob 2 years ago
I don't know yet
Marxistjon88 2 years ago
Anyone been picked?
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
Anyone been picked yet?
TheCradle2grave 2 years ago
I too have now joined 'Virgin Voters'
I just like to reiterate how thankful i've been of the comments for my video response.
They have been much appreciated and keep them coming :)
Stu :)
Weestu67 2 years ago
hii i'm one of the student producers on the sqt production team. Well done for all the great videos.
It would be great it you could join a facebook group our student production team set up for young people to discuss politics called "virgin voters" which you can find by searching for it on facebook. I appreciate that many of you are no longer virgin voters but the group is just made for young people to chat about current affairs and politics. Thanks :)
lucyeve0 2 years ago
Right, I will join. I may not be a virgin voter but I feel those especially 16+ are rationally able to decide between who to vote in elections. In fact sometimes it appears young people are more politically able than adults. At least young people will not vote for the BNP over concerns that have no relevance to their policies such as MPs expenses. Thought I just raise that lol and stand as a voice for all those "silent".
sadaqut 2 years ago
check out Johnny luk's video response :)
cgerardcgerard 2 years ago
A tough question I would ask is how can Liberal Dems and Labour consider having an elected HOL. The HOL has the finest minds in the country these people are experts and quite frankly don't want to fight elections. So why should they there are so many negatives to having an elected HOL. For instace winners would use it as a stepping stone to HOC instead of viewing it as a worthwhile institution. There are so many tough question which need to be asked. Another one is Pernament representation!
davedixon1989 2 years ago
Experts like the convict and convicted perjurer Jeffrey Archer, Lord Watson who was charged with arson and the one who was on his mobile phone and almost killed someone while driving?
SamMannion 2 years ago
There are a few bad apples but those bad apples aren't representative of the lords I know and respect. Lord Norton or Lord Davies. A few bad apples are no reason to rewrite the constitution and change centuries of tradition
davedixon1989 2 years ago
If Norton and Davies were that good, they would be able to be elected would you not think? It's worth mentioning though, that I do not favour an elected second house. It would be pointless and a waste of time. I favour a jury-system personally. Centuries of tradition are no reason to stand in the way of progress. It was tradition here that we denied women the vote, that's not around anymore is it? And incidentally, we don't HAVE a constitution. Never mind rewriting one, let's write one!
SamMannion 2 years ago
I'm sorry but your simply wrong. We do have a constitution yes it is an unwritten one but that allows flexibility within the system. You seem to want to make progress for the sake of progress. Caversmill seems to have the right idea. Lord Norton and Lord Davies are too valueable to lose yes if they wanted too they could win an election however the lords is like a large business to get the best people you have to head hunt. That is to say you find them they don't find you.
davedixon1989 2 years ago
If it isn't written down then we don't have it, do we? I don't want to make progress for progress' sake, I want to remove a large group of unelected men and women from a position of power. Really now, this isn't the 14th century. They're unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative. Keeping them just so you can feel good about how things were done many years ago is not a justified reason for keeping an outdated system.
SamMannion 2 years ago
We have an uncodified constituion this constitution is developed over many years. It is developed by statutes examples include the scotland act, European communties act and yes observations from history. Why would you want a written constitution we already have the human rights act. This issue is definately contentious and I don't think either of us would change our stance. Outdated maybe, there needs to be some reform but you have to remember we
davedixon1989 2 years ago
have the oldest living constitution in the world if it's not broke don't fix it
davedixon1989 2 years ago
Except it IS broken, it's not working for us anymore. We don't have proper democratic representation. And I'm afraid an "uncodified" constitution is no constitution at all. The Human Rights Act could of course be worked INTO a UK Constitution, which would finally outline our political system and guarantee fair representation. S'what it's all about.
SamMannion 2 years ago
If we make it to the final we will have to battle it out in person. The system isn't broken yes it has lost a lot of credibility but there are other forms of reform which would be more suitable to deal with this situation. Such as a massive reduction in the number of MP's. I would love to continue but my break is up so I wish you the best of luck.
davedixon1989 2 years ago
Well, I agree with a massive reduction in the number of MPs! Best of luck to you also sir.
SamMannion 2 years ago
Plus it is not simply our heritage encouraging us to keep the current House of Lords.
It is far more representative of the composition of society than the commons.
The Lords has expertise, something you would lose if it was elected.
It isn't party political to the same extent because they can't be politically bullied.
If you elected it at the same time as Parliament then you would have exactly the same chamber and if it was mid term it would be full of protest Lords...
Keep the H.O.L :D
caversmill 2 years ago
I too believe in the power of permanence. The House of Lords and the Monarchy are two very important elements to the political system in Britain.
It is true that an unelected House of Lords is more representative of the composition of society and if it was elected it would mimick the Commons, and as it was elected would call for greater powers too, meaning eventually if granted they would just block what the commons tried to do.
Our powerful system of government would be ruined
caversmill 2 years ago
Population control underway watch?v=Psdg3OAw_a8&feature=related
connecttoyourenergy 2 years ago
Conspiracy theorists! Eurgh.
Do you think if the government somehow persuaded the privately owned airline companies to spray chemicles on us, we wouldn't know about it?
caversmill 2 years ago
The Goverment??? All goverments are a system for the elites to control all the sheep within it. .
"If you kill one person, it is murder. If you kill a hundred thousand, it is foreign policy."
"Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it."
"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
connecttoyourenergy 2 years ago
"governments are a system for the elites to control all the sheep within it"
Explain.
Being a tory activist I have been to the ballot box then the next day to the counts as a count officer ensuring there is no cheating.
And from these counts the results are declared.
Where is the room for the elite to groom their political masks?
There just isn't conspiracy theory is idiotic
caversmill 2 years ago
I see you missed the point i was making, i does not matter that the votes are counted perfectly, because the choices you have to select from are controled by the elite, here is one example, This country did not want to go to war with Iraq, but we still did, how is the goverment serving the people? it's serving the elite's who have their own agenda! Can you at least understand that?
connecttoyourenergy 2 years ago
Nope im glad you said that though,
I know the candidates who stand, as a member of the party i get a vote too on who stands as my local councillor or MP for the party of which i am a member.
And the Iraq war was an example of how Tony Blair, who knew the country had complete faith in him thought he could do what he liked and he wanted to stay friends with George Bush
And George favoured the war.
No elite agenda im afraid
LOL
caversmill 2 years ago
George Bush like the rest of the presidents were nothing but a bunch of puppets for the Elite, and look at the new president Obama, how do you think he raised all that money to end up winning?? you need a crash course on how the world operates, here is a link to get your mind working again.
watch?v=XRLPG_HplrA&feature=qu icklist
Enjoy
connecttoyourenergy 2 years ago
No I think you need a crash course in basic poltiics.
The US political system is such that politicians need financial backers to win campaigns. When states the size of california for example have 2 senators each, the cost of their campaign to get statewide popularity is massive.
America is therefore undoubtably plagued with corruption and that is unavoidable. But when the words "new world order" are cut off as a sound bite and taken out of context you jump to conclusions.
There is no NWO!
caversmill 2 years ago
I give you the link to watch it all being played out in front of your eyes, and you could not even be bothered to watch it.
I am just going to let you be.
I wish you all the success you desire.
connecttoyourenergy 2 years ago
The Iraq war wasn't an issue before the general election. No one has ever voted based on the stance a politician might have if a war starts between Britain and a particular country somewhere on the other side of the world
bluecode320 2 years ago
Asking them to account for any rampant hypocrisy of the past, asking them to clarify their views on certain subjects, making sure that any ducking of questions is severely reprimanded and yes, I too would like to hold more than one Labour politician to account...
SamMannion 2 years ago
hi guys. Im actually one of the student producers responsible for schools question time. Im hearing "i'll ask th tough questions" a lot, anyone care to be more specific?
seankelly140192 2 years ago
I think many of the applicants mean that they will not be distracted by the party line and politicians' typical avoidance techniques. I'd quite like to ask why all of a sudden many support extensive constitutional reform, when they did not previously, whether they feel their salaries are insufficient and whether the talk of constitutional reform is merely a distraction from their expenses deviance. I would also like to get a Labour politician to be realistic about the situation of their party!
jennyqj1 2 years ago
Here here to the Labour Politicians truth.
hfiudosnfckdsnkl 2 years ago
You may have a long wait. They usually prefer to bury their heads in the sand about difficult issues...
misteruk2008 2 years ago
In relation to the BNP we need to determin how they secured seats and how to entice voters back to the more acceptable parties
davedixon1989 2 years ago
JAZZA
1200james1200 2 years ago
how do i apply if i want to apply up my ass?
laughorcrytv 2 years ago
I think marijuana should be legal if alcohol is. Where is the sense of parity?
danielderbyshire 2 years ago
I think they should all be legal because then we can properly regulate them
bluecode320 2 years ago
u guys are all geeks who cares about politics?
just go out and hav fun and fuck politics who's with me ?
MrRandomjoe94 2 years ago
You can't have fun when all your money is lost to taxes
bluecode320 2 years ago
well then dont use taxes use buses
MrRandomjoe94 2 years ago
your an idiot, straight up
ApachiMaru 2 years ago
YaY, Roll on the Great British Civil War of 2011, Who needs Nostradamus to see where we are heading......
NAMZR160 2 years ago
Hate to agree with you, but I have to endorse your sensible view point ... drugs WTF that debate and battle was lost in the eighties when Raves and that whole fracking scene started ... Wonder which Tim 'Nice but Dim' Peer, MP, men in grey suits, got the 'bung' for that 'error of judgement' ... I want MP's and their flunkies to fight to KEEP their fancy big houses, undemocratic corrupt system and ROTTEN constituencies ... means when the money runs out we can find them and ROCK their world
SniffTheHedgehog 2 years ago
Comment removed
GBsleekie 2 years ago
And if they should be happy with their wage, remember, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
caversmill 2 years ago
They make over £1000 a week. That should be enough encouragement to make them think a little bit more about their policies.
bluecode320 2 years ago
Do you want intellectual people running the country? Well you have to PAY. Yes their salary £62,000 a year is nice and cushy to most of us, but they can be on a far greater wage doing something else!
You don't think MP's are philanthropists do you? Even Tony Benn the committed old Labour socialist has some nice estates!
caversmill 2 years ago
Can I offer those people disgusted with the MP's expenses scandle the truth
MP's in Britain are the lowest paid in Europe. They don't get a poor wage but for their intellect they could certainly be employed in a position that pays higher
As the taxpayer a public announcement of a wage increase would cause an anti political tidal wave so politicians increased their wage through the back door
It is the people in the BBC, who's wages you should worry about! Thats taxpayers money too
caversmill 2 years ago
I did watch quiestion time then i realised it was just rich people or politicians lying to the public its all shit
jackthevillain 2 years ago
All of you sound brainwashed and stuck in a self assembled box.
While your skys are being sprayed with chemicals and monsanto is GM your food, you will find yourselfs in 4 months facing another planned (swine flu) outbreak, while your dropping like flys because you immune system has been weakend (population control) the banking system collapses, and then it's to late. Welcome to the NWO!
connecttoyourenergy 2 years ago 2
We'll already have a vaccine in production in 4 months. If you "NWO" exists then it has taken a bloody long time to take over the world and has been extremely inefficient in its handling of world domination.
bluecode320 2 years ago
Are you still stuck in your box! look up, and step out of it! Vaccines are created by the same people who created the swine flu the same people who sponsor Monsanto, the same people who spray your skys with chemicals, the same people who sit on health regulation boards, the same people who create our policys, the same people who control the banking system/media, the same people who build weapons for the army, Can you see now your just a pawn on a chess board, and you call that FREEDOM!
connecttoyourenergy 2 years ago
dude... you neeed to just... smile :o)
Snazzantor26 2 years ago
Vaccines are created by taking a virus and then weakening it. The weakened version is injected into patients or released into the population. For example; chickenpox was created and released into the population to give people an immunity to smallpox
And no one can control a virus once it is released into a population
And the so called "chemtrails" would be an extremely inefficient method of spreading toxins
bluecode320 2 years ago
Chemtrails destroy bee colonies worldwide, and do you want to know what they found in samples where they sprayed chemtrails, Arsenic,Barium,Cadmium,Chromium and Lead etc Morgellons Disease has increased by 6000% let me think, thats just a coincidence?
The video clip you need to all watch,
watch?v=XhvMWMvwUTg
Enjoy
connecttoyourenergy 2 years ago
Actually mobile phones are more likely to be responsible for harming bee colonies
And do you have any sources for your claim besides a Youtube video? If a government wanted to disperse toxins they could do it much more efficiently than with chemtrails
bluecode320 2 years ago
My dear lord surely as a nation were smarter than this arent we. The BNP are dangerous, nazi, fascists who believe Britain should be for white Anglo saxons and nobody else. They are absolutley nuts. The immigration situation in this nation is a shambles i agree but please don't let the BNP fool you with a bit of sickening sweet talk. They are racist thugs nothing more who give our wonderfull nation a bad name. If you support them then shame on you. you obviously need a better education. Wake up
blakefish80 2 years ago
lmao nothing wrong with BNP they are just offering an alternative to the shambles and theives the current government and shadow party are. So please before you say shame on you perhaps look at yourself and see how blind you are... let me guess vote for the same people who make a mockery out of tax payers?
GhostHades 2 years ago
Been reading our daily rag have we Blakefish? Which one is it then, because you clearly haven't visited the BNPs website have you?
What's a racist in your book then? Someone who objects to their country being completely flooded with unwanted and unaffordable immigrants?
Great Britain has been targeted by the left for marxist ethnic cleansing and used as the worlds racial toilet and dumping ground for all sorts of overseas criminals gangs and asylum seekers. We are being bankrupted!
Maxshard 2 years ago
We are being bankrupted by economic mismanagement; not by immigration. The government is telling us to spend when we should invest or save and aggravating the situation by trying increasing inflation.
Britain could handle the immigrants if we reduced the costs of running a business in poor areas by eliminating the minimum wage laws and reduced crime by legalising drugs
bluecode320 2 years ago
I myself am against the national minimum wage, which prevents the success of small business or atleast does its damn hardest to.
No wonder companies constantly go abroad where it is so much cheaper to run.
Legalising drugs is a difficult one, originally I supported legalisation but at the same time a government has to set a moral tone
caversmill 2 years ago
The government will be setting a moral tone by allowing people to do whatever they want without having to buy dodgy substances from shady characters who are not under legal scrutiny
If the government legalised and taxed drugs it could result in a GDP increase of £50Billion while also reducing the cost it takes to enforce anti-drug laws
bluecode320 2 years ago
Quite right, whilst simultaneously increasing the amount of the population addicted to hard drugs. Is that a good thing?
It would be naive to suggest there wouldn't be a huge increase in drug abusers if it was legalised because it's telling us that it is ok to take these substances.
So although I believe money to be the driving force of any human being or country and should be considered, you have to draw the line.
Cannabis legalised I could suppport
caversmill 2 years ago
Well look what happened in America in the 1920s. Did banning alcohol reduce its popularity? No; all that the ban did was give power to gangsters who sold it; they became celebrities. And the alcohol they sold wasn't regulated by a government agency and as a result often contained poisonous methanol which could blind or kill the people who drank it.
bluecode320 2 years ago
Again I don't dispute your point but banning a previously legal product is a little different from permitting the sale of a previously banned substance.
People feel their rights being taken away when they're suddenly told by the state they can no longer partake in an activity they previously could.
Whereas people understand why drugs are illegal, the level of addiction being much higher and the potential side effects are deadly.
caversmill 2 years ago
But drugs were previously legal; the only difference was that there were fewer people who used them than used alcohol. The effects of the ban were the same and ultimately enforcing the ban has cost us more than a slight increase in the addiction rate ever would
The government needs to be more open about drugs and alcohol if it wants to handle the problem in an efficient and ethical manner
bluecode320 2 years ago
But you can't genuinely think that if they legalised it would not give rise to a huge influx of new drug addicts
Cannabis is taken by a large enough proportion of the population as it is to make legalisation safe but with the harder drugs it would be detrimental to society.
Also consider those who choose not to take the drugs, children and the elderly, would they feel safe going out when on top of the ASBO proud youth we also have a new class of drugged up zombies patrolling the streets
caversmill 2 years ago
Legalising drugs doesn't mean allowing people to walk the street high on LSD. If they were legalised then hard drugs would have to be taken in controlled environments (probably some kind of club or casino)
And the same argument you are using now could be used against alcohol. Alcohol shouldn't be illegal but drunk driving should; and similar laws should apply to drugs
bluecode320 2 years ago
Yeah drink driving is illegal not drink walking..
And people have still got to make it home from their legal drug den casino afterwards haven't they.
Drug addicts are dangerous people, and if you got people addicted in controlled environments their addiction would fuel them to buy drugs from illegal dealers to take cheaper in the comfort of their own home.
caversmill 2 years ago
The prime difference between drugs and alcohol is that some drugs cause hallucinations which is why "drugged walking" is more dangerous than "drunk walking"
People don't need to travel home on their own. They could be allowed to spend the night or be transported home by some other means
Drug addicts are only dangerous because they can't admit their problem because it is illegal. They want to end their addiction but they are afraid to seek help in case of legal repercussions
bluecode320 2 years ago
And many drug addicts are just happy to keep taking drugs, not all want to end their addictions, espcially if they can afford it.
Once you start adding these constraints, like saying you have to stay the night etc then you give rise to the illegal characters who sold it initially who offer the same product, cheaper without these regulations.
caversmill 2 years ago
From everyone I've talked to drug addiction sounds like a horrible thing to go through. The people who would want to stay addicted are in the minority and usually have even greater problems in their life than addiction
And people would rather accept constraints than buy the product off of shady characters (who always sell at an inflated price). There just wouldn't be enough demand to fuel drug smuggling for such people
bluecode320 2 years ago
And the people who would be willing to buy from "shady characters" will always be part of the problem regardless of whether drugs are legal or not
bluecode320 2 years ago
I don't think the majority of people addicted to drugs want to quit, i think the majority of people who see that as a problem want to quit.
If you could afford to fund your habits which you clearly enjoy otherwise you wouldn't have gotten into the mess in the first place then you certainly don't want to quit.
And people will always buy off dealers, so legalising all drugs wouldn't solve the biggest problem it would just generate revenue and addict generation after generation
caversmill 2 years ago
Drugs aren't enjoyable when you are addicted. Eventually the positive effects wear off but the people who become addicted can't stop taking them without severe negative side-effects
And the people who want to buy off illegal dealers will be in the minority if drugs are legal.
bluecode320 2 years ago
That is only an opinion though, drug taking is a sleezy activity and i think very few would openly visit these venues and the majority would continue to take it in secret.
It's like teenagers and safe sex, the government has made condoms easily accessable and free to young people and yet because of the stigma attached to buying them the majority refrain.
Hard drugs are just too dangerous, whats stopping people in these venues having "bad trips" and attacking other customers
caversmill 2 years ago
But people usually get into drugs through their friends. And buying drugs at these venues would be no more humiliating than buying it off a dealer
And to stop customers from becoming aggressive there would be security and medical staff on hand to help if necessary. Hence the term "secure environment"
bluecode320 2 years ago
It's just too controlled. Name another activity restricted by the state in that kind of way and how popular it is?
You won't find one, because people don't like the state telling them what to do. Whilst the novelty factor of taking drugs may attract people to these venues, the prices will be ridiculously high which makes competition for drug dealers easy.
caversmill 2 years ago
"the prices will be ridiculously high which makes competition for drug dealers easy"
The prices will not be any higher than the current prices. In fact they will probably be lower and the value of regulated white market products will always exceed deregulated black market versions of the same product
bluecode320 2 years ago
You realise the reason cigarettes are at the price they are is because of the tax on them?
And that is why there are on almost every street a house you can knock on at that sells imported cigarettes for no where near the same price.
But I see governments taxing previously untaxed products makes them cheaper.....
caversmill 2 years ago
The government shouldn't continue to raise taxes on cigarettes; it doesn't help
The thing which would make the drugs cheaper is the fact that they would be legal and they could imported in much larger amounts legally than illegally
And modern farming means that significant amounds of drugs could be grown by very few individuals if they have the right facilities
bluecode320 2 years ago
Plus, if they're manufactured in this country, with workers being paid at least the minimum wage, that will drive the price up too.
caversmill 2 years ago
Racism is a construct, it's meaning has been watered down and is used all too often where it needn't be. People see it every day and yet when asked to describe what 'it' is, they have difficulty. Racism is the modern day witch hunt. And those that use the term freely are behaving like sheep. And if you aren't a sheep, you must be a racist. Sad thing is though, that if you try and stand up for this once great nation and heritage people will argue why you mustn't and that we are all immigrants.
nickthesafe 2 years ago
..cont...
Which is a loose argument, if you must go down that road we can trace human migration though the millenia back to the horn of africa. However, we accept that many peoples of this world have a homeland at least a couple of thousand years old. I call my homeland England, does that make me racist?
nickthesafe 2 years ago
what you have just said is 100% true and I totally agree with your comments.
GhostHades 2 years ago
Go to my channel theres a free and legal way to get games and consoles!! click the link and sign up its free!!! and u can be any age!
prizes4us 2 years ago
hello
XxBarnzy09xX 2 years ago
Comment removed
mrgbennet 2 years ago
One thing I like to point out is that there is an SNP as well as Welsh and Irish nationalists. Just sucks to be British I guess.
Problem is people in the media seem to be confused as to the difference between the British National Party and the British National Front.... which is like confusing Shin Fain with the IRA.
TheExodite 2 years ago
granted there is a large amount of racism directed at whites, however, i can assure you that there are definitely more stereotypes of people from ethnic minorities. The wall between stereotypes and prejudice has grown so thin that there is hardly a division between them. I am only 14, and no i don't face direct racism but I definitely face stereotypes, prejudice and indirect discrimination. The reason it is indirect is that everyone knows how much trouble they'll face it wasn't.
nama1995 2 years ago 2
cant agree more. Its like only having 1 side of the coin all the time afteral ethnic people can be racist too. But no government wants to address that issue afteral its like a boiling pot its no wonder more and more people over the years are voting BNP.
GhostHades 2 years ago
Comment removed
mrgbennet 2 years ago
BNP rule why should it be banned if the communist party is allowed its just sticks up for white peoples rights.
robJaeren 2 years ago
It is hard to say which Dimbleby (David bbctv , Jonathan radio 4) is worse since they both seem to share the same bias and prejudices as the rest of the BBC..
mrgbennet 2 years ago
An acronym for
Brainwashing Backed Conspiracy.
BBC
mrgbennet 2 years ago