David Dimbleby hosts this weeks top-secret session from somewhere in deepest, darkest Birmingham. On the panel: who knows? No information is available on the BBC website The venue? not to be revealed until 2 minutes before recording starts. Maybe they are all secret agents under cover. The suspense is killing me. Anyway, I’m sure it will be thrilling as ever.
Kick off tomorrow (Thursday) at 22.35
Chat here
Register here if necessary.
As we speak, Al-Beeb will probably be frantically scratching around their phone books, attempting to find anyone that is prepared to face an entire “Stop the War” audience, that is, as we speak, being bused up from London at the licence payers expense..
Nah, they want to pack the audience with Corbynuttas and are keeping it all secret so that no one to the right of Their Beloved Leader can get in to spoil their Leftfest.
Here is a list of participants for those who haven’t seen this up to now
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Nice and balanced I think all would agree! My only comment is that I hope that Nicky Morgan has her dancing shoes on as she will need to be light in her loafers.
Of course, whilst we all know that no-one knows what the questions will be in advance, we all know that the first question will be something along the lines of “Does the panel think that it is right that we should go to war in Syria” (completely forgetting that war has already come to us).
There will of course be no further questions.
I saw some interviews with some Muslim chap (probably on Sky) who said predictably that we shouldn’t bomb Syria. I can’t remember what analogy he used but it was on the lines of if you try to punch someone they’ll punch you back. I thought that’s exactly the reason why we’re going there: they have already tried to punch us repeately (and succeeded occasionally). He had the same thinking that makes out it’s Israel to blame for all ME violence when they are retaliating against unprovoked violence and aggression.
Demon: “they have already tried to punch us repeately (and succeeded occasionally).”.
Yes, that’s right but where from? Syria?
No. Leeds. Yesterday’s arrests? Luton.
Paris attacks? One Syrian, possibly two. May have lived in Europe for some time. The rest? Belgians & French. Operation planned, where? Probably Belgium. Carried out from where? Belgium.
Adding our handful of aircraft to bomb in Syria makes no sense whatsoever. If there is a successful ISIS attack on Britain – pray not & God forbid – Cameron’s position and that of his Government will be untenable.
If we are fighting ISIS (and I contend that we are not, we are merely tickling them) then on which planet does it make sense to refuse to attack them at their headquarters? We are not entering a new war here. We are merely extending the on-going conflict very slightly, with a piddling 7 or 8 sorties per day, most of which will not drop any weaponry at all, into areas held by people who we have been bombing already for over a year. There is nothing new about it.
I am interested in outcomes and how to achieve them. What outcome do we actually want? And how do the current actions help us achieve that? Apparently, we want to destroy ISIS. I agree fully with that goal. I have great doubts about the strategy being used though. I would prefer an overkill strategy and just to be sure I would inihilate the entire territory run by ISIS. I would do that in one day. We have nukes, we should use them and turn all ISIS territory into glowing green glass. ISIS would be entirely destroyed. The rest of the Islamic world would obviously be greatly relieved and happy about this, because ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, remember? So the rest of the Islamic world would then have a choice. Prove ISIS were not Islamic by engaging in peaceful reform and be peaceful partners in the global community, or prove ISIS was Islamic, and become extinct.
Currently it looks like we are merely trying to piss off moslems over there, to encourage them to come over here and attack us, so that the state can introduce ever more draconian controls on all of us. It is a recipe for failure.
Geyza, I agree with some of what you say but I believe nukes are only for retaliation to a nuclear attack. I totally agree that we (that is us and the rest of the world) should hit ISIS hard and repeatedly until they are all dead or incapacitated. They are taking our limited response as a sign of weakness and it encourages them to hit us harder.
I don’t know why up2snuff calls most of the ISIS terrorists French and Belgian. They may have been born there and have those passports but they clearly hold loyalties to the hell-holes of the world, not Europe. Our response to these attacks on our European allies and even in the UK should be to hit them bloody and bloodily hard and as they are ISIS that’s where we should hit them.
Geyza & Demon,
You have both put your fingers firmly on two nubs of the problem: outcome & origin. As far as I can see, neither are being tackled by Cameron, Hammond & Fallon. As you say piddling little attacks, thus far with one mission completed, absolutely nothing achieved that could not have been done by the Russians or the French. The Americans, to be fair, if they are flying from their Turkey bases are, like us, operating at or beyond the tactical range of their fighter bombers.
1. Origin.
The origin of this problem is now worldwide and based in & around Islam. As contributor after contributor on BBC Radio 4 has said in the last few days, the UK fighting ISIS/Daish(Da’esh) in Syria is pointless. Islam is worldwide. Those who may do us harm are probably within our borders already and could be UK nationals.
2. Outcomes.
2a) We spend a lot of money, possibly lose aircraft & personnel, and increase the number of holes already bombed into Syria. Because of 1. above, Da’esh can (i) mingle with Syrian natives in Raqqa or anywhere in Syria or Iraq and use collateral damage to non-combatants to further inflame some or many who follow Islam into joining the fight, or (ii) like Osama bin Laden, they can melt away into a variety of hidey holes mostly across the northern half of Africa (perhaps going to fight in conflicts there), elsewhere in the Middle East or into Iran (less likely at present – but certainly travelling through) and into India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, other ‘stans and Indonesia, perhaps fundraising & re-arming as they go. They then re-emerge at some point in the future to continue the struggle somewhere else or return to Syria. OUTCOME FOR UK:FAILURE
2b) Future wars between nations are likely to be less about military hardware and theatre conflict and casualties and increasingly about computing, cybernetics, economics, diplomacy, finance, robotics & third party (drone) strikes. I realise this is not a war between nations but neither is it a pure civil war. It is a global war, again see 1. above. It appears we (UK) have been dragging our feet in tackling Da’esh {apparently now the accepted name for ISIS/ISIL/Daish} on computing, diplomacy and finance. We are now operating in Syria with some sort of allied arrangement (I assume) with the USA & France, possibly Australia & to a limited extent Germany & Turkey. Any others? Canada are out. Russia are a major player – we appear to have no arrangements at all with them. And we have done nothing to bring Syria (Assad) onside, thus creating I would have thought all sorts of doubts in the minds of the commanders of all the rebel groups (remember Da’esh may have their people in the midst of them, too) about what is going on & whether any Western nation & its leaders can be trusted, want to form a working relationship and are not interested in only furthering our own aims. If we have any aims! Or maintaining first world hegemony at any cost. Thus, the likelihood of any current success against Da’esh or bringing peace & stable governance to Syria in the short-term seems to me to be absolutely nil. In fact, we are more likely to fan the flames and assist the likes of Da’esh, Al-Q, Al-N, Boko-Haram, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Mujahideen also in Afghanistan but in south and south-east Asia and perhaps eastern Europe. OUTCOME FOR UK (and the globe):FAILURE
2c) Instead of bombing in Syria with our puny little force, duplicating what could be achieved by Russia, France & the USA we could be:
(i) re-building our relationship with Assad (which we used to have & have only succeeded in offending further today!)
(ii) Presenting a united Security Council at the UN to press for the upholding of legitimate governance of any nation but specifically Syria, a combatant peace-keeping force made up of countries who are less or completely untainted by previous West v. Islam conflict (Latin American, South African, etc?)
(iii) It may be necessary to talk Assad and Al-Abadi into partitioning their countries and possibly (as I have outlined before) even allocating territory to Da’esh.
(iv) While all this is ongoing and it will take a lot of time – two, three years – we could be doing what we should have been doing two years ago: cutting off funds to Syrian combatants, especially Da’esh, countering the on-line Da’esh internet campaigning & getting actively involved in diplomacy, especially in Africa and India & Pakistan and maybe in south & south-east Asia. I don’t know what happened to William Hague from 2010 onwards but as Foreign Secretary he seemed to be completely neutered. Cameron has been no better on the world stage apart from being a travelling salesman, with or without Osborne, for UK PLC. Something funny seems to have been going on. Perhaps the opposite? Absolutely nothing going on, especially between the ears of Cameron & Hague. {I have always considered Hague to be a very shrewd operator & way ahead of Cameron, so I cannot work that one out.}
(v) If Russia, France & the USA are, while this is going on, successful militarily in degrading Da’esh within Syria & Iraq, including stopping Da’esh people leaking away over borders, then there might be a chance of creating a peace within what remains of Syria, persuading Assad that it would be a good time to retire to Switzerland with a pension, and letting the Syrians establish a government of their choice. If Da’esh are given a territory, then a UN Force could create an iron ring around it to enforce good behaviour. I suspect they would soon get tired of having to run their own country and keep people happy within their borders but then we, our allies, the UN would at least have a clear established target, with no non-combatants who did not want to be there, to hit – not with nuclear weapons – but a very strong conventional attack that would terminate Da’esh. OUTCOME FOR UK (and globe):GOOD CHANCE OF SUCCESS
Now for the bad news. As things stand, I think we are in now for a very, very long war. Certainly beyond 2020, assuming nothing disastrous happens like the 7/7 Attack on London anywhere within our borders. If that happens, I think Cameron will be finished. Even if he clings on to power, he has the EU Referendum and his 2020 retirement (at the latest) so he will be not just a lame duck PM as he is now but progressively plucked & stuffed and ready for the oven. Any Conservative successor, will be tarred with the same brush unless miraculously he voted against bombing Syria AND is not a EUrophile AND can hold the Conservative Party together in order to win the 2020 Election. Haven’t checked yet to see which way David Davis or BoJo voted. I gather the Cabinet all voted in favour of bombing in Syria so if things go badly, they have probably now kissed their leadership careers goodbye . . . . .
Other disasters may occur, similar to the US bombing of the MSF Hospital, aircraft losses, friendly fire incidents or collisions or not so friendly fire incidents. Lebanon & Jordan are very fragile & vulnerable respectively and need to be looked after. Israel may well extend help to them but there are two more problems. We know Da’esh have infiltrated Lebanon. Could they have done the same in Jordan? And what about Hamas & Hezbollah & the Palestinian Authority? It is not impossible that Da’esh have the means to create conflict with or within those groups. We have seen recently what happens when there is a power struggle between Gazan Palestinians and the PA in West Bank. Then there is Egypt. Suppose one or more of those countries have their internal conflicts (re-)ignite? Syria could be multiplied x4 and that’s not counting Yemen and Libya.
Wars can only be fought – post-VietNam – now if UK & US public opinion can be maintained in favour. It can slip away very quickly.
Then there is the economic situation. The world is very fragile economically at present. The UK now exerts far more economic power than we think. It used to be said ‘If the US economy sneezes then the world catches the cold’. You can now substitute the UK for the US. Our economy is vulnerable to our oil & gas dependency and our tax system and tax situation. Wars cost money and we do not have any to spare at present. If the oil price then rockets, the UK economy is likely to tank & take the world (possibly Indonesia, USA & less possibly Canada excepted) with it.
I do not think Cameron & Osborne will respond wisely economically & fiscally in that situation.
I think we (UK) have made progressively bad choices over Syria since March 2011. Now it is too late. The only hope is that Da’esh do collapse and that the UN put together the means of bringing peace and stability to Iraq, Libya and Syria and nothing else goes wrong. That’s a big hope.
Perhaps a newspaper column might be better format?
Bobble, LOL !
What do you think you were getting, above, BHB? 😉
I’ve got my money on the question being worded as –
“Are we safer now that British aircraft are involved in the Syrian conflict?”
That is a hideous panel and there I was hoping for someone like Peter Hitchens to be on it talking sense about the situation in Syria.
So the panel is three women, a muslim and a frog – though only Jeremy’s magic touch could transform her into a princess, apparently.
Is it going to be at one of the Trojan Horse schools I wonder, and will the mob be segregated?
Here’s a question for Question Time.
Who is further to the left? Dianne Abbott or Caroline Lucas?
Supplementary. What do they disagree about?
Other supplementary. Who thinks the panel is representative and unbiased?
Nicki Morgan is in for a pasting, some of that is justified by her own rather stumbling capabilities, a lot will be courtesy of the carefully arranged Al-Beeb bias.
I hope I’m proved wrong.
Dianne Abbott? On the BBC? Again? Shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
It’s good that Abbott is on the screen all the time (obvious digestive problems notwithstanding), because the electorate need to see liebour for what they are.
Agreed, a woman of limited thought. Absolutely no depth and a nasty racist to boot.
i’m struggling to see why the Tories put Nicky Morgan on the screen. She rarely comes across very well. There are better candidates, prefer a UKIP member on election night!
Diane Abbott, with her rabbit rabbit rabbit !
There really is a magnificent put down of this truly awful woman in this article
http://life.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/lunch-with-jess-phillips-mp-is-like-bunking-off-with-the-naughty-schoolgirl-she-once-was/
Brilliant!
They put Morgan on because in a certain light (and to blokes of my age) she’s worth one – as long as she keeps her trap shut.
neilw, That is what Corbyn said about sweet Diane .
Grant – yeah, but with the lights off he could only see the whites of her eyes! Absolutely no excuse though.
neilw, I don’t want to lower the tone of this esteemed site, but, for some people, when you see the white of their eyes, it is time to shoot !
Nicky Morgan is exactly the right choice by the BBC then?
Agreed. but doubt that is what motivates BBC producers, bless ’em.
Chakrabatti/Greer/Livingsone/Begg and GRANT SHaps.
what a row of cunts.
I hope one of the questions is: Is it time to chuck out Corbyn for Benn ? Of course the loathsome piggy Abbott will say NO.
Maybe one question to the lovely Diane would be ” Why did you have an affair with Corbyn ? “
Grant – or a more pertinent question would be “why the f**k did Corbyn have an affair with YOU?”
neilw, these will be the first 2 questions on QT tonight
Supplemented by ‘You’ve got a dog in this fight haven’t you, Diane?’
Or possibly ‘Aren’t you just a dog in this fight, Diane?’
But more pleasingly ‘Aren’t you a dog, Diane!’
I bet there’s lots of discussion about Cameron’s warning to his MPs about walking into the lobby with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers and none about the Corbynistas vicious attacks on pro-military action Labour MPs.
Oh, and a bit of Hilary Benn character assassination thrown in.
Good to see the BBC sticking to its Charter duty towards impartiality and balance in the selection of tonight’s QT panel.
Oh, wait –
I’m tempted to watch this tonight just to finally discover what it’s like to go an acid trip into an alternative reality…
Watching the tv today, I was of the firm belief that Diane Abbot has cut the fringe of her hair, it does not look great. I always thought she wore a wig, maybe she has cut the fringe badly to show hair authenticity and take the attention away from the wig! She has me scratching my head-(non wig by the way).
Have a look.
It looks more like a chunk of badly trimmed hearth rug.
I will TRY to watch this QT but I fear for the safety of my television. I have my compact blood pressure monitor at the ready and will watch it closely – I may have to switch off if levels exceed danger point. My old ginger cat now recognises the QT theme music and skulks off to the furthest, darkest corners of Chez Benny. He’s probably thinking “Oh no! Not this fucking shit again – I’d better clear off until it all the shouting blows over”.
And heeeeer we go! Lots of headscarves in the audience – promising.
Oh massive applause for the pacifist poof in the pink shirt. I think that sets the tone.
….and he’s got a beard!
So we have an over feminsied panel supplied by great expense by the telly tax payer, yet its the super diverse audience’s views we get in the first minutes….
Oh and feck off Abbot…
The tone is set early. A bearded hipster says bombing Syria is “a racist backlash to the events in Paris”. First applause of the evening. Jeeez!
I would use the Chat thing but I couldn’t even get the registration to work. Comments in the comments al-la Guido maybe?
Same here.
It’s not very user friendly – keep trying!
It looks like something from the early 1990s. I’m not sure I wanted to engage with it.
Hipster prick gets ‘waycist’ comment in early, in order to stifle intelligent debate.
Younger generation are spineless, don’t bomb ISIL because they might take it out on us. I was brought up to smack a bully in the face bloody hard, so he will learn you’re not for being messed with.
Works on the rugby field as well.
Perhaps ISIS should form a rugby team and then we can sort the whole thing out in a more gentlemanly way. We could have a tournament where the ISIS squad play all the civilized nations and the result would be conclusive and binding. Rules: – no suicide vests in the mauls, no bombs in the scrum.
Every time i see that ugly fat t**t, that stupid haircut, hear that condescending whiney voice I know it’s diane bigott…I utterly despise her. Want to solve the IS crisis by diplomatic means? Send bigott to the caliphate to lead the way,I would have loved her to have been emwazi’s last victim before being vaporized.
I’d just love someone to ask her what kind of ‘diplomatic settlement’ she thinks ISIS would find acceptable. “Convert or die” would be their start and end position. What would her position be?
Well, judging by the behaviour so far of the Caliphate’s diplomatic staff I don’t think she’d be given much choice over her ‘position’.
That just put me off my scotch!
I am not sure. I think ISIS would surrender to Diane within 5 minutes. They certainly would not keep her as a sex slave.
Now! There’s an idea …
… pincer movement on ISIS: Phil Collins from the north, Diane Abbott swinging (handbag’n’all) in from the south.
Moderate Muslim = Misnomer, read taqiyya…
I like Majaad Nawaz, speaking sense, disappointed with Jill Kirby.
I like Majaad Nawaz, speaking sense, disappointed with Jill Kirby. Not happy looking at ‘Green’ Caroline’s fake eyebrows though.
I think Caroline Lucas cuts her own hair as well.
With a solar-powered strimmer by the looks of it. She looks like a skull on a broom handle.
The stench of appeasement is almost overwhelming. 3 – 2 to the non-bombers!
correction 3 – 1 plus 1 I’m not sure about.
Maajid Nawaz speaking the most sense here by far.
There’s a lot of ‘terrorist sympathisers in the audience’
Oh plant with the “I resent being called a terrorist sympathiser” shtick – Irish accent too. Ha ha!
Diane Flabbutts’ teeth are quite chipped.
Has she been fighting?
Might improve her looks if she had have done!
Blimey! I just caught sight of the length of Nicky Morgan’s nose. In the world of Pinnochio I think she might have told some lies in the past.
Those KFC chicken bones can be quite tough to gnaw though sometimes.
Abbopotamus about to explode denying terrorist sympathies of Labour leadership. Fucking hilarious.
She looks like some kind of quizzical demented crow.
I honestly can’t get my head around the fact that a tosspot with an obviously low IQ like Abbott can carve the career and have the influence that she has, yet better and more intelligent people are struggling to make ends meet, life ain’t fair!
She has a sort of low, animal cunning and race and gender privileges as well as a long history or arse-licking anyone who she thought would advance her own avarice.
Geoff.
There’s loads of them with low levels of intelligence – David Lammy, Jess Phillips, Andrew Turner, Kerry McCarthy, Ronnie Campbell, Dennis Skinner,etc,etc, mostly Labour, all thick.
Forgot to mention that only one party are 100% filled with intelligence in the Commons – UKIP.
Morgan goes nuclear! Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathizers! The mob jeers.
Diane says Jeremy has got the biggest mandate. She should know!
Mr. Golightly, LOL !
Abbot “yesterday I had lunch…” – no fucking kidding!
Only one?
Yay! QT diversity bingo card complete : Transgender – tick…
What the fuck is that weird looking 9 year old of indeterminate gender doing in the QT audience rah-rahing for Corbyn. (s)he should be in bed by now.
“Skull on a broom handle” so very upset that we haven’t discussed the climate change summit. Well tough fucking shit. Actually though, I remember when QT discussed at least four topics and then a frivolous little ditty at the end. Now we get one topic that takes up over half the program and two debated in insubstantial terms. Who knew QT could get even worse?
I’m listening to Piers Corbyn (Jezza’s older brother)on This Week and I agree with him on the climate change debate. I’d vote for him.He’s exposing the climate change farce. Good on him.
No! He’s just as big a cunt as his brother.
Oh God – Jeremy Corbyn’s brother Piers on This Week — If you thought Jeremy was in incoherent, piss-smelling tramp, look at this guy. He’s supposedly a meteorologist but comes across more as a meths-ologist. Fucking funny. Brillo is grilling him and it’s like asking a bin man about Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.
Totally disagree, the guy talks sense, forget the family connection!
No he fucking doesn’t!
Perhaps you think he does because your opinion on climate change is formed mostly from your political opinions and biases rather than the logical evaluation of hard evidence. But it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.
Hard evidence?
Yes. Look it up. I’m not going to get involved in a pointless round-and-round the houses debate with those who lack the cognitive and analytical abilities to research and evaluate data. The climate is changing. We are not yet sure why. Some change may be due to natural causes and some because of man’s activities – we cannot be sure by how much.
‘Look it up’ and what source of ‘hard evidence’ should I be accessing ? East Anglia’s?
The climate may well be changing but it has jack to do with our habits.
Read my fucking post!
Dear Bobble Hatted Benny, I too initially could not understand Piers Corbyn’s boffin speak, he includes complex maths that I have forgotten due to my use of a calculator. But the proof that Piers is the top climate scientist in Britain is that he is the only media famous climate scientist in Britain, to my knowledge, who understands the implications of the paper (Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011).
So what logical evaluation of hard evidence are you referring too, please be more specific. Do you understand how this paper proves that man cannot possibly be responsible for Climate Change, or why Piers Corbyn regards Professor Lockwood as a charlatan for producing bogus evidence, using low energy Cosmic Rays to rebut a theory based on high energy cosmic rays, therefore hiding from journalists what really causes Climate Change.
Oh sorry I forgot it was practically an article of fucking faith here to deny climate change.
Benny, you seem like a bit of a ‘fucker’.
Climate change is hotly disputed, while I don’t agree with you, it might be an idea to put your arguments on the climate change threads. I’m sure if you produce an evidential argument you’ll enjoy the debate with some other ‘fuckers’.
You’re other comments tonight have been quite amusing. I’ve ‘liked’ a few of them.
Well thanks Wronged.
The thing that disappoints me is that politically I agree fully with most of the sentiments expressed here. The essence of this site is supposedly BBC bias – which I fully recognise and loath.
However, as with most of these kinds of forums, there is a lot baggage and a dogma that none may deviate from without inviting the opprobrium of the established ‘commentariat’.
I suppose it’s a natural tendency that those with strongly held opinions seek to express those opinions and have them re-enforced. The problem is that such forums turn unto echo chambers and nothing is challenged or debated in any meaningful way.
If my opinions are not welcome here then I will gracefully remove myself and let you all get on with patting each others backs.
I’m sorry about all the ‘fucking’ – my blood was up.
No worries , keep posting.
Got timed out,
The contributors to this site tend to provide amusing, considered and interesting comments. However, should they disagree with your view that’s ok. If you argue your point of view with facts then that’s fine. Less of the swearing. I may disagree with your opinion on climate change but that’s ok. Debate it and try and change my mind, I certainly won’t think any less of you for having a different opinion. Nor do I think will anyone else on this site.
Keep fighting the Anti BBC, and most importantly keep posting.
Well thanks for your magnanimosity but I will swear as as much as I like. But thanks ever so fucking much for your support.
BHB
The climate has always changed, the question is: is it changing in ways that it hasn’t in the past or are we just experiencing normal cycles?
You don’t seem to be offering any arguments backed by evidence here so I suggest if you want to understand where many of us are coming from on this you immerse yourself in the alternative scientific views and commentaries on global warming theory (and there are lots of them). Here are one or two websites to get you started:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
I also highly recommend Donna LaFramboise’s book ‘The Delinquent Teenager’ and Delingpole’s ‘Watermelons’. If you look for these on Amazon you’ll also find a whole host of books varying in scientific detail which are written from a sceptical point of view.
Following posts on here will be helpful too when the topic comes up. I’ve provided lots of links in the past which clearly prove this is nothing to do with science and everything to do with an eco-socialist political agenda.
Corbyn’s answer to everything is to compare our scientific understanding with that of the Middle Ages (Galileo etc). Just like his brother’s view of life.
Reading all this makes me glad I never bothered (or more accurately hadn’t the nerve) to watch it. It sounds as f it was up to the usual predictability.
Beeb this morning over the moon about the Oldham by-election result…more predictability, yawn..
Oh, groan! Now Toksvig on Desert Island Discs. I’m going out!
Anyway, back to the bias.
Dimbleboid had a great chance to really nail Abbott by pointing out the hyp[ocrisy at the centre of her argument, namely that she also opposed Iraq airstrikes. But then he let her off the hook as she went rambling on to avoid the issue.
He could have nailed her there and then but chose not to.
Personally I found the audience a bit schizophrenic. Huge cheers for the terrorists one minute then only muted applause later for a similar viewpoint.
The mass ethnic audience representatives are still so obviously swallowing the guff that its all about the West v Islam (which is another issue) so they have to support their ‘fellow Muslims’ in ISIS, and avoiding the fact that ISIS probably kill, enslave, and rape and torture more Muslims than they do any other religion. Weird that.
Sluff,
Dimbleboid has never nailed anyone in his life. He is a useless pussycat.
Majaad Nawaz (poacher turned gamekeeper) was impressive with his knowledge and insight into the situation in Syria and I found myself agreeing with most everything he said. Nicky Morgan was uncomfortable, Abbott was predictably annoying with nothing constructive to add to the debate, Caroline Lucas was obviously disappointed with not being able to discuss climate change (thank god!) and the woman on the right was there to make up the numbers of panelists who are against bombing into a 3 to 2 majority, which hardly reflected public opinion or the vote in the commons.