27 November 2003

Find out what you had to say about the topics discussed on Question Time, broadcast on 27 November from Wolverhampton.

The topics discussed this week were:

• Asylum seekers' children
• Honours
• University top-up fees
• Rugby
• Smoking ban
• General comments on the programme

Asylum seekers' children

INTERACT WITH QUESTION TIME Digital Satellite, Freeview and Cable viewers press red Text your comments to 83981 Read comments on Ceefax page 155 Send and read comments on the website

Audience question: Would kidnapping and holding to ransom children be an infringement of human rights or a civilised and just asylum policy?

You said:

What sort of people are members of this Labour government when they sink as low as to contemplate splitting the children of asylum seekers from their parents?
James Gibson, Edinburgh

Text: David Blunkett spoke without thinking again.
Sean, London

The announcement about taking asylum seekers' children into care was only another example of government spin to create the appearance of being tough on asylum to cover their abject failure over several years to resolve the problem.
Ian Macnab, Bolton

Text: Children should never be used as political pawns.
Carla, Sussex

Text: The asylum debate demonstrates the underlying racism in Britain today.
Steve, Egham

Surely the proposals by the home secretary to accommodate children of asylum seekers are a clear breach of the children's rights. Does the government not appreciate its duties under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Iain Macleod, Glasgow

I think the government has now lost the plot with the whole asylum issue. They don't seem to have thought things through at all about how to deal with it.
Tim Bussey, Guisborough

Text: Something has to be done to move people on who should not be here.
Steve, Southampton

I cannot believe that a civilised country like the UK would use children of failed asylum seekers as "hostages" to get rid of their families. Have we got any integrity left? It's a very slippery road, I cannot believe that the people of this great country will want to be part of this.
Markus Brall, Brighton

Text: Taking asylum seekers' children into care is the sign of a failed government.
Lester, Warks

Text: Desperate measures by a government without a grip on asylum.
Ross, Tamworth

The way the government is dealing with the issue of asylum smacks of utter incompetence.
David, London

Text: The more bogus asylum seekers they throw out the better.
JM, Stirling

Return to the top of the page

---

Honours

Audience question: Would the panel accept an honour given in the name of the British Empire?

You said:

You may not agree with Honours, but this is PC gone mad. By all means turn an Honour down if you are offered one, but at least honour the system.
David, Dunlop, Ayrshire

Until Benjamin Zephaniah made his point so eloquently I had not considered the actual implications of the letters BE in OBE. He is right that the term "Empire" contains all the echoes of inequality and aggression and man's attempt to achieve domination over other men just because they had the advantage of weaponry, numbers - and because they (or "we" as I too am British) wanted to. How about an Order of the British Nation instead?
Adrian Lyndsay, Norfolk

Can someone please explain to me why David Beckham has been honoured? This has really made the honours procedure ridiculous. He is the captain of the England football team. So what? Has he really achieved so much as captain that he should be honoured? I think it is more of an opportunity for Posh to pose for the cameras. Give honours to ordinary people doing extraordinary things!
Jim Blank, London

Text: The British Empire spread liberalism and democracy around the world. We put an end to slavery, unlike every other culture.
Tony, Chester

If the OBE is so intimately attached to the concept of empire, what hope is there now for anyone accepting the Noble Order of the Garter!?
Dr Ian White, Eastbourne, East Sussex

Text: The whole honours system needs bringing into the 21st century.
Roger, Ryde

Change the "E" in OBE or CBE to stand for excellence. This will be inclusive to all.
Carole Grant, Shifnal

There was some discussion about the need to rename the OBE to remove the reference to the British Empire. Why not rename it to the Order of the Commonwealth?
Peter Duffy, Bradford

Text: The notion of Empire is outdated at best, racist at worst. Simon, London

Text: I would abolish the entire honours system. It means nothing.
Ian, Manchester

Text: Labour is running out of ideas to prop up its failing asylum policy.
DR, Oldham

Text: The honours system is now only for celebrities!
Derek, Southampton

The fact that people are calling to change the name of OBEs etc is just plain ludicrous. As a nation we pride ourselves on tradition such as the royal family. It's our history for better or worse so why try to change it?
Kris Massey, Southampton

Text: The honours system has been devalued by this government.
Tim, Elgin

Return to the top of the page

---

University top-up fees

Audience question: Will controversial plans for top-up fees be as damaging to the current government as the poll tax was for the Conservatives?

You said:

Labour's top-up fees are the equivalent of the Conservatives' Poll Tax: no-one likes it, no-one wants it.
Daniel Hutchinson, Lowestoft

Tuition fees are a good idea because students may well take courses that are relevant to the world of work, rather than go for the sake of a good time and with no target to aim for.
Chris Spencer, Northfleet

The government makes a point about saying that no-one will pay fees back until they earn £15,000. I would like to know if any member of the government have tried to live in the south east of England on a salary of £15,000. If you include for payment of overdrafts and credit cards the extra 6% of salary over £15,000 really does make a difference.
Alan Dunlop, Sutton, Surrey

Why should I, as a student, have to accept that to benefit from higher education I must enter the working world with a £3,000 debt? I generally avoid debt, it is unfair that I may be forced to accept this.
Aidan Nolan, Datchet

The reason taxes should pay for degrees is that the students are the future of this country. Maybe they can create a better government, that listens to its people, in the future with their education
Aidan Nolan, Datchet

I think top-up fees should only be paid by students who fail the course.
David Pick, Ilford

I agree that students should contribute to their education. I graduated some two years ago as a mature student. I am 37-years-old and have approximately £12,000 of student loan debt. I also had to pay tuition fees. I don't mind the fact that I pay back approximately £85.00 per month as I was able to undertake a course at university that has allowed me to be employed in the field of my choice. Thank you, from a smoking Rugby League fan!
Laura Smith, Preston, Lancashire

Labour means undermining the working classes.
David, Stalybridge

Would it not be far simpler, and more economic to administer, if they paid 2 or 3% extra in tax once they had graduated and started working? Isn't this a logical solution, or is it just a case of the government raising indirect taxation NOW, yet again ?
Richard Roocroft, Clitheroe

Maintaining some world-class universities is good for UK economy but obviously costs more than the funding they currently receive. For UK centres of excellence to remain on the global stage, they clearly need more funding while maintaining access to poorer but able students.

The right to have what is an increasingly watered-down and run-down higher education is hardly a blessing, but increasingly a liability in a globalised economy.
Mann Ken Li, London

Is the real reason why this government is introducing £250 for babies that, by the time they are 18, the money will have to go to pay for their university fees?
Mark Evans, Lampeter

If we keep encouraging our youth to go to university, where does our manual skilled labour come from? Will we become a society of learned fools?
William Mackie, Glasgow

Text: We all benefit from graduates.
Len, Garnant

It strikes me as hypocritical that this government is asking for fees from English students when Scottish students are given free higher education in both English and Scottish universities, a scheme paid for by the English taxpayer.
Steve Walker, Surrey

Ken Clarke has spoken a lot of common sense on the issue of tuition fees. It will be students from very ordinary backgrounds that will suffer. What start in life for young people is it to start working life with a debt of up to £20,000?
Steve Fuller, Hove, East Sussex

Text: Why not just scrap Mickey Mouse degrees instead?
Eddie, Fife

Text: Why should I fund students? Bring fees in now.
Ross, Tamworth

At this moment in time the UK has a shortage of highly skilled, qualified workers and we are currently recruiting from abroad to fill vacancies. To introduce fees will ultimately result in less graduates and more immigration. In what way is this a long term economic solution for this country?
Sara, Glasgow

The whole point of an education system is to educate the leaders of tomorrow. Today's system is more like a point-scoring charade purely to achieve targets for political gain.
Robert Smith, Welwyn Garden City

There seems to be a myth that people with degrees automatically earn a lot of money.
Paul, Camberley

Text: How much did the Prime Minister pay for his university education?
Karen, Stoke

Text: Education is a right, not a luxury.
Ant, Southampton

I am at university and it needs more money and more investment. Staff are paid poorly, and the buildings need repair. There is a clear private benefit that comes from having a degree. We are more than happy to incur debts of hundreds of thousands of pounds to buy a house. Why are we not willing to pay for our education?
Paola Grenier, London

I totally agree with top-up fees. Why should the general taxpayer pay more for something they do not use? I would much rather pay more tax to repair our primary and secondary schools, or pay more into the national health service.
Summer, Falkirk

Return to the top of the page

---

Rugby

Audience question: Now that the World Cup has been won by England, will rugby union be accepted as a game of the people and not just for toffs?

You said:

Whilst not wanting to diminish the wonderful achievements of the English rugby union team, it was nice to hear Mr Dimbleby acknowledge the speed and excitement of the 13 man game. He was correct to distinguish between the two codes as the term "rugby" has been hijacked of late. His apparent appreciation of the wonderful sport of rugby league is very welcome indeed.
Christine, St Helens, Merseyside

As a rugby man, I hope rugby does not become as big as football. We may then be spared overpaid players, widespread cheating and gamesmanship, hooliganism and a complete lack of respect for other players and supporters. Unfortunately I am seeing the first signs of some of this creeping in.
JF, Caerphilly

Text: Soccer is a business - rugby is a sport.
Ian, Lancs

Text: Rugby is not for toffs. It is for men with funny-shaped balls.
Roy, Redcar

It was supreme effort, not politics that won the World Cup.
Lucy Hall, Gillingham

Text: Rugby league is proper rugby, not boring like union.
Phil, Hull

Text: Bring back bowls.
Mike, Bolton

Text: Let's be proud of something in this country for once.
Mandy, Leicester

I congratulate England on their World Cup triumph. Rugby is first and foremost, a very honest game. Honesty is not bound in the slightest to the exclusive domain of "The Toffs".
Ken, Glenrothes

Text: Rugby is the new footie. Well done England you've done us proud.
Nick, Richmond

If the game is a national game why then is the victory parade confined to a few streets in London, especially as most of the players, and in particular Jonny Wilkinson, do not play for clubs in London?
John, Ipswich

Return to the top of the page

---

Smoking ban

Audience question: Should Tony Blair listen to his doctors and ban smoking in all places of work?

You said:

Ken Clarke and Bonnie Greer both choose to smoke and according to KC "take risks with his health". Is it right that they should get NHS care for ailments associated with this choice?
Colin Hill, Hemel Hempstead

I have never smoked and I do not like others smoking near me, but I think it is wrong to use the law for such issues. People like me will choose to eat at places that respect non-smokers and therefore market forces will naturally control the issue. Some eating places will prosper because they encorage smoking. I think they are mad but that's their right.
Chris Knight, Sowerby Bridge

Let's face it, most non-smokers are happy to pollute everyone else's lungs with car exhaust fumes - ban cars as well.
Allan Dyas, Hastings

If your going to stop people smoking in public, are you going to stop people using cars in public?
A Traill, Aberdeen

I agree with Bonnie and Ken. People have a right to choose. We are adults who know the consequences. A lot of the Royal College of Physicians are, or have been, smokers and there is still a lot of debate as to whether passive smoking will harm you. Please don't let us go down the American route. They ban smoking because it can kill you, yet people can carry guns and kill you. which is worse?
S H Wilson-Clemens, Morden, Surrey

There is no need for this. Surely the simple answer is for the owner of a pub or restaurant to decide if their business should be smoking or not. The customer can choose.
Carol Scott, Huntingdon

The real issue here is that a smoker is forcing his/her disgusting, smelly, anti-social habit onto the general public, affecting their health and making their clothes smell without their consent. In a democratic society the smoker should not have the right to force his/her habits onto the general public. This applies not only to smoking but to any activity where one person is affecting the liberties of another. Until smokers realise that their anti-social habit is affecting OTHER PEOPLE - and most do not - only a change in the law will alter this situation.
Richard Marsh, Birmingham

The only way to stop people smoking is stop making fags.
David Thomas

Cigarettes are far more dangerous than a mobile phone, but mobiles are to be banned in cars. Why not ban smoking in cars too? You still have to take your hands off the wheel, you have to divert your attention to lighting the cigarette, and smoking definitely will kill you (a mobile won't) and will contribute to the early death of the passengers too. Smoking should be banned outright, unless you are in the privacy of your own home.
Ryan Davie, Aberdeen

While I wholly concur with the idea of effectively segregating smoking and non-smoking areas in public areas such as bars and restaurants, the ideal of a complete ban would at best be impractical to implement and at worst draconian.
Tegid Jones, London

Why should people impose cancerous toxins on others? Surely a free and liberal society means that non-smokers should be able to freely breath in the oxygen in the air and not the tobacco in the cigarettes.
James Richardson, Isle of Man

Text: Why should someone else's dirty habit kill me? Ban it now!
Guy Gibson, Chester

Text: An all-out ban on smoking in public is surely impractical.
Simon, Driffield

Talking about the health hazard of smoking, what about the health hazard of spitting in public places, like railway station where you can't sit on a seat on the platform because of all the spittle around the seats.
MB, London

If everybody in the country gave up smoking, how much would income tax have to go up by to cover the tax lost by the loss of tobacco tax income?
John Slack, Swindon

Try finding somewhere to have a single drink without it stinking of tobacco - impossible!!!
Neil Davies, Stalybridge

Smoking should be banned in public places because it is a pollutant and a risk to others and children.
Mr Lambert, Sheffield

Non-smoking sections in pubs are all well and good, but why do we always have to walk through the smoking section in order to get to the toilets? Also, the idea that smoke does not pass over the invisible line dividing these two section is laughable to say the least.
Mark Crossland, Reading

Why impose a ban on all public places? Surely the sensible route to go down would be to make some bars/pubs/restaurants non-smoking and others smoking. Then people would have the choice of which to use.
Maddy, Guernsey

Non-smokers have a choice to use the restaurant they want, so smokers should have the same choice.
Judith, Torquay

Return to the top of the page

---

General comments on the programme:

You said:

Once again the audience seemed to be stuffed with rude and unbending left wingers, which made for an unbalanced programme.
Matt, Scarborough

Why have any Lib Dem contributor to your excellent programme? It is entirely predictable that, whatever "bandwagons" are currently rolling, the Lib Dems will be on them! They have few, if any, policies and those they do have are updated weekly to reflect latest public opinion.
John Cooper, Portsmouth

It seems that only Ken Clarke lives in the real world rather than the politically correct one.
Derek, Derby

Wouldn't it be nice if all the leaders of each of the three major parties (Con, Lab and Lib Dem) met on a special programme in London (if it wasn't too much trouble!) Ultimately my view is there will be no buck-passing on policies and viewing figures would sky-rocket at the thought of the big guns firing at each other!
Ian Maden, Enfield

I thought the last episode was pretty interesting, and I liked the mix of panellists. I thought Simon Heffer was good, as was Ms Greer, and of course Mr Clarke was his usual, good-natured self. However Lord Falconer was basically slaughtered by the audience, which was exceedingly fun to watch!
Colin Chambers, London

Text: What a stuffed shirt Simon is!
Tony R, Uckfield

Text: Why not have a two hour long programme with a phone-in once every two months?
Stuart, Essex

Could we please have someone with a little more intelligence than Baroness Walmsley in the future? She really is very silly, agrees with everyone and has not an original thought in her head.
HE Aspden, Blackburn

Return to the top of the page

---

Disclaimer: The BBC will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. The BBC reserves the right to edit comments that are published.