• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Cunning Plan

Question Time

Recommended Posts

Shows like this would be a lot better if they moved to a format of inteligent debate with experts and reasoned opinion..  rather than random public and MPs discussing things they are in no way qualified to talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Libspero said:

Shows like this would be a lot better if they moved to a format of inteligent debate with experts and reasoned opinion..  rather than random public and MPs discussing things they are in no way qualified to talk about.

Since when has public opinion been random on question time other than when the odd bezerker slips through their scrutineering process!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Libspero said:

First time I've watched it.

The first issue is the quality of the audience..  wastes a lot of time listening to Joe public make obvious and uneducated comments.

The second issue is the panellists. Same as above, though to a slightly lesser degree. The thing that makes it boring viewing is that when people start waffling because they don't really know how to answer the question, they still just let them waffle on for minutes at a time instead of cutting it out.  The Tory MP was particularly guilty. Never really answered a question, just immediately jumped in to vague political speak on every subject.

In fact, I bet if you re-edited it you could randomly swap his answers around so they match completely different questions and you wouldn't actually notice any difference.

This a shame about the Tory. I think he's quite intelligent. He could get away with saying a lot more common sense stuff as well if he took his spine and balls out of the family wardrobe dusted them off he could be a decent leader. Possibly unite a few factions behind him. 

I liked Abbots clever little one liner about young black men waking up in the morning looking in the mirror and deciding to stab someone because they have black skin. Got a little clap for that. Well done. 

Do you think they wake up and say oh look I've got black skin I want to get stabbed to death today. Because that's what's happening Diane. 

They have no problem saying it's mostly young men doing the stabbing. They had  no problem targeting Glasgwegian stabbers(racist to West Coast jocks by their logic). Why can't they stand up and say its young black men doing this and are the ones getting murdered too. Might be able to something about the problem. 

Does Abbot go to bed at night thinking. 'well another 2 black lads stabbed to death today, never mind, at least no one's being racist' 

Petersons  response about these young men not getting a stake in society could well be the answer.  They need the chance at jobs, housing, responsibillity. Making job opportunities pay. Not flooding the place with cheap labour/bennie fodder,putting housing out of reach etc etc. Well we on here all know the reasons. But somehow saying we need to restrict mass immigration to help young black men  (and others) of the UK is deemed racist. 

I couldn't say it Jordan Peterson couldn't say it but someone like Kwasi Kwarteng could. 

 

BTW. What was she gibbering about blue collar jobs for them. In London. What does she want to do. Knock down canary wharf and replace it with sugar processing factories and leather tanneries? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

Does Abbot go to bed at night thinking. 'well another 2 black lads stabbed to death today, never mind, at least no one's being racist' 

Obviously the current government logic is that if your kid is killed by someone of the same colour it isn’t as bad a crime so the perpetrator won’t get punished in the same way.  I’m sure that comes as a great relief to all these parents who’s kids are being stabbed.

Mind you, the biggest logical fallacy which went completely unchallenged was by the lady in the audience who started saying it had nothing to do with gangs and none of the kids she knew who had been stabbed were in them.

The VICTIMS weren’t in them. She didn’t know who stabbed them so she had no idea if the perpetrators were in gangs.  This was subsequently taken as fact by all further comments on it 9_9

10 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

The wierdest bit was where they decided that all the stabbing in London wasn't a gang problem.. 

Bugger,  you beat me to it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Libspero said:

Obviously the current government logic is that if your kid is killed by someone of the same colour it isn’t as bad a crime so the perpetrator won’t get punished in the same way.  I’m sure that comes as a great relief to all these parents who’s kids are being stabbed.

Mind you, the biggest logical fallacy which went completely unchallenged was by the lady in the audience who started saying it had nothing to do with gangs and none of the kids she knew who had been stabbed were in them.

The VICTIMS weren’t in them. She didn’t know who stabbed them so she had no idea if the perpetrators were in gangs.  This was subsequently taken as fact by all further comments on it 9_9

Bugger,  you beat me to it !

It's worth saying twice.

xD

What a bunch of Muppets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't be arsed reading back over the last couple of pages properly... But having skimmed it I haven't noticed any reference to Diane Abbots very obvious Parkinsons. In fact, given the general gurning and noticeable lack of motor control in addition to the shaking hand, she might have a more serious neuro-muscular disease.

She's not well, and will be out of politics sooner rather than later.

 

Edited by Roger_Mellie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/11/2018 at 06:11, Libspero said:

Shows like this would be a lot better if they moved to a format of inteligent debate with experts and reasoned opinion..  rather than random public and MPs discussing things they are in no way qualified to talk about.

The problem is I dont think either the guests, the public or the questions are random. It is as choreographed as any ballet. The problem for the So-Called BBC is that 90% of the performers have no talent. A genuine vox pop program might not have better informed participants but it would be more interesting and unpredictable and might allow a wider range of opinions to be aired. Ditto if it was a genuine discussion among experts about a given issue then we might learn something. The problem with Question Time it is ineffective as a media  exercise in public democracy and completely uninformative about real issues. As a result we get the worst of all worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

The problem is I dont think either the guests, the public or the questions are random. It is as choreographed as any ballet. The problem for the So-Called BBC is that 90% of the performers have no talent. A genuine vox pop program might not have better informed participants but it would be more interesting and unpredictable and might allow a wider range of opinions to be aired. Ditto if it was a genuine discussion among experts about a given issue then we might learn something. 

I don’t mind so much that the questions are pre-agreed. If they didn’t I doubt that they’d get many guests to agree to go on..  especially career politicians. My impression was the three main questions (well, two and one 5 second slot tagged on the end) are agreed, and the audience comments are random but can be edited out if controversial without making life hard for post production.

My main issue is with the quality of the debate and knowledge on the panel about the subjects discussed. It might as well be call “drunks in a pub” as much as “question time”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Libspero said:

 and the audience comments are random but can be edited out.

Contacted BBC querying whether panel guests are fact checked. Wouldn't expect audience comments to be qualified.

A panel guest dismissed Mrs M ay visiting countries in Africa as their combined economy was smaller than Leeds. This was broadcast without correction.

Supposedly an editorial team policy of 'light touch' review,  legality, profanity, offensive remarks, technical standards, signs off.

Following week, a correction was made within the programme regarding Princess Nugee school choice after comments made by on the panel.

QT is claimed to broadcast as live with a delay of around one hour.

Guests are not confirmed until last minute. Recently, Aaron Banks, Liz Truss and Priti Patel were substituted.

In North Wales, QT visited Bangor. Audience members from as far away as Chester attended (around 80 miles). I don't know how audience members are chosen 'for balance'.

Questions are proposed by the audience. Panel guests are not informed of questions in advance.

Fair likelihood, BREXIT, NHS, Trump, SJW topics.

Unlike say, The Graham Norton Show, The Jonathan Ross Show, which are recorded, then edited down, QT is strictly the hour. 

Hence, panelist are discouraged from overly long diatribes. Mairead McGuiness once suggested that, as she was the only woman on the panel, she should be allowed 50% of the time to speak. I'm not sure she was joking.

Must admit, the audience comment that knife crime should be tackled by exterminating attackers, and Ab bott's "Pakis and Niggahs" being broadcast was unexpected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.