What you've said

Find out what you had to say about the topics discussed on Question Time, broadcast on 3 July from London.

• Silvio Berlusconi
• Alistair Campbell, the BBC and weapons of mass destruction
• Ban on hunting
• Legal rights for homosexual couples
• Margaret Hodge
• General comments on the programme

Silvio Berlusconi

Audience question: After the offensive behaviour of Silvio Berlusconi do you think he is fit to be president of the EU? You said:

Berlusconi is not alone in being immune from prosecution. Jacques Chirac has been charged with corruption, but cannot be tried or called as a witness whilst he remains president of France. Whilst Berlusconi was wrong to respond with the 'capo' jibe, his opponents in the European parliament were ill-mannered and insulting.
A.D.Williams, UK

A corrupt politician is very well suited to be president of a corrupt organisation.
Keith Wiseman, England

Certainly a politically incorrect "joke" from a politically incorrect character. A surprise? Despite his efforts, I will never be ashamed of being Italian.
Michele Tagliavini, Italy (living in London)

If anyone in the European parliament is behaving like a fascist, it is Berlusconi.
Peter Jarvis, UK, Worcestershire

Re: the comments by Jack Santcross about "Kapo". I heard S. Berlusconi speaking Italian, not German. So he said "capo", which has been correctly translated by the media that he quotes.
Robert, UK

The word Silvio Berlusconi used was "Kapo". In nazi concentration camp parlance a kapo is a prisoner put in charge of fellow prisoners (an analogous relationship is a school prefect put in charge of other pupils). Kapo does not mean "camp commandant" as The Independent chose to translate it, nor does it mean "nazi concentration camp guard", as heard on the BBC this afternoon.
Jack Santcross, UK

Return to the top of the page

---

Alistair Campbell, the BBC and weapons of mass destruction

Audience question: Is the spat between Alistair Campbell and the BBC a diversion and should we concentrate on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, be they ready in 45 minutes or not? You said:

For all those who keep saying "War was justified to get rid of Saddam" that is NOT why we went to war. We went for the WMDs. If the government lied about it this time, what about when we next go to war? (probably in Iran). Can we believe them then? And saying we should support "our boys" is ludicrous; just because we are against the war, and now the occupation, doesn't mean we want to see British soldiers die - in fact I wish they had never risked their lives there in the first place.
Nadeem Shaikh, UK

Surprisingly, for so distinguished an academic, the logic of Janet Daley's pro-war argument was badly flawed. Viz -"Why should the British people demand a threat of invasion before resorting to war?" "because they didn't when declaring war on Hitler...". For her information, quite apart from the fact that this appeared (unconsciously?) to justify Tony Blair telling lies as a means to such a 'worthwhile' end, Britain entered WW2 on the grounds of a broken treaty, when Germany - (already clearly embarked on aggressive 'Regime Change' in several countries!) - invaded Poland. We can draw our own conclusions as to which world leaders today offer the most appropriate parallels.
Steven Cox, UK

Blair's accusers over the dossiers examine all government utterances with a forensic precision. Surely their accusations should be precise. Instead the claim is made, tonight by Mr Collins, that the February dossier was drawn from a 12 year old thesis. It was actually an article in a learned journal, The Middle East Review of International Affairs, published in September 2002 - but that doesn't sound so crass & dated does it?
Robert, England

Why were we so stupid to disbelieve Saddam Hussein and his politicians when they said they were intent on harmonious relations with their neighbours and the rest of the world. After he had given his word that he would destroy stocks and never acquire weapons of aggressive superiority, the United Nations were unfair to insist that conditions for future peace required inspections. If only we had believed him none of this would have arisen. Or would it? Saddam is my source.
Greg, UK

A tory ex minister, Nicholas Soames, backed Alastair Campbell stating that he had been told by a person high up in security that the later had not in any way jazzed up the report, and therefore was backing him.
David Appleton, UK

I, and over 1 million people marched on February the 15th and at the time we almost knew it was futile. We knew we were marching for the aftermath; for Korea, Zimbabwe, Israel, America, Britain and the US general election next year. We know we have been lied to and we knew it was going to happen, but we haven't forgotten February 15th.
Holly Anderson, UK

I agree with Alistair Campbell - the BBC is not impartial anymore. It is blatantly biased, anti-war and anti-American and I am very disappointed with it. People do not forget. The BBC is in danger of losing all credibility. I never thought there would come a day when I couldn't trust the BBC. These days it seems to have its own axe to grind.
D.Alexander, England

Aren't we all a little irritated now by the arrogance of a government, who, when faced with criticism - usually for deception, apologises without accounting for their actions and then proceeds to tell us that "we're not interested in raking over these issues, but only in the public services" - which they still appear to be inept in improving (despite taking more money from us than ever through the back door!).
Nick Evamy, UK

As I understand, our legal basis for going to war was that Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction formed a clear threat to the world at large. Since these weapons have been found not to exist, and considering we control most of the country I'd expect we could find them if they were there, surely our legal basis has been removed.
Tom Nicholls, East Sussex

I can't believe the ongoing dispute about the legitimacy of the US and UK going to war with Saddam to rid Iraq of this impossible tyrant. It seems some people are only capable of learning from hindsight and are unwilling, or incapable of, making current decisions based on lessons that we are supposed to have learned from history. The man was a maniac - pure and simple. Questioning the legality of the decision to go to war is a matter now for the politicians and the courts and the do-gooding liberals should steer well clear of this argument. If we were to rely on them, then this country and possibly even the world, would be run by a very small clique of sociopaths.
Richard, Scotland

If the UK and the US had NOT gone into Iraq, Saddam would still be sitting in the palaces giving orders to kill thousands of people. If it was happening in this country then I like to think that other countries in the world would put treaties and agreement aside to prevent it here. I hate the whole " It's not happening to me - so don't bother about it" attitude that some of the audience and members of the public have.
Frank Harry Smith, UK

As much as I dislike Alistair Campbell, I'm very happy he (and Janet Daley) has pointed out the BBC's blatant anti-war bias during the Iraq conflict. I would much rather trust our government and intelligence services over Iraq's WMDs than Saddam's claim that he did not have them.
Nick, London, UK

When I was young I always remember my parents advising me not to believe what politicians said, although if any politician accused another of lying it was considered a terrible thing. In recent weeks I have heard politicians, the media and the public all accuse the prime minister of lying. Have we sunk so low that our prime minister can be openly accused of lying? And the fact that he is not taking legal action against any of the accusers suggests he probably has. What shame on our country if the prime minister is a liar, how can he expect the citizens to be honest? I am 41 and have never bothered to vote mainly through apathy triggered by my parents warnings, but next time I will vote - if only to make sure Mr Blair does not get back in.
Richard Fountain, UK, Essex

The reason we went to war with Iraq was because Saddam did not comply with the United Nations' requirements. If he did not have WMDs why didn't he produce the evidence?
Frank Chammings, England

As I understand it, there were many challenges to the Iraq dossier. The fact that it was mainly written by an American student, and that the information was largely over a decade old, being just two of them. I would think that those two challenges alone would be enough to cast sufficient doubt over credibility of the document.
Mick, England

The UN needs to be reformed into a truly democratic organisation i.e. one country, one vote and no veto's allowed. The reason they could not get a mandate on war with Iraq was that countries like France and Russia had big oil contracts with Saddam and thus didn't want to jeopardise this income. Genocide is a legitimate reason for war - we went into Yugoslavia to stop Muslims being killed , Iraq was the same. The permanent members of the security council have created the most insecurity in our world.
Adrian Bonnington, England

Adrian Bonnington's argument is at best simplistic. I see three main problems. First of all, a majority of countries in the UN at large, and most probably in the Security Council, were not ready to back an American led attack on Iraq. Also, one country one vote would make a mockery with the Vatican weighing the same as China. Finally, there is nothing in the UN charter to agree to the removal of a regime because it is dictatorial. This said, I am very happy Saddam is gone, but I am unhappy at the way the war was justified and I believe not enough was prepared and done to lead to the reconstruction of the country and the establishment of a truly democratic system.
Pascal Jacquemain, UK (French)

With intelligence saying that Saddam has gone over to Syria, shouldn't we be threatening Syria in order to hand him over? It was after all, intelligence that started this war.
Sean Williams, UK

We need a full independent enquiry about the government dossier manipulations. Anything else is already looking manipulated and the Foreign Affairs Committee investigation looks like a bunch of toothless patsies
James Tiernan, UK

Saddam Hussain is a wicked and evil man and his removal is best for everyone. Someone the Iraqi people can trust needs to work with the UK and USA to bring peace and make a better life for the Iraqi people. I think we were right to go to war.
Andrew Barber, UK

I will never vote for Tony Blair or the Labour party again. They've lied once too often for me. As for the lady who said we should back the forces, they had no choice in the matter, they had to go out there because of this government.
Toby Durkin, United Kingdom

Do the US or Tony Blair seriously believe that if any WMDs were found now everyone would not assume they were planted ?
Jeff Webb, UK

If there were any intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, how come we are having difficulty in finding them? Obviously we can only take the so called intelligence with a pinch of salt. It does not exist and is only a figment of the security agencies imagination.
Olu, UK

The muddying of the waters continues on Labour's part- the important issue is not the "one source" of the BBC as Baroness Amos continues to plead, but rather the much bigger and hugely important issue of taking this country into an unjustified (before or after the fact) war.
Joe Maitland, UK

Surely everyone has realised by now that the reason we went to war was to remove Saddam Hussein because Israel would never pursue peace in the Middle East while he was still alive?
Dave Dartnell, UK

The BBC and the Government should begin 'quiet' dialogue and allow the recent debacle to fade. The current situation regarding Iraq is simple. It was the distrust built up by Saddam that led to war, we knew he had WMD because he had already killed enough of his own people with them.
David John Lovell, England

Return to the top of the page

---

Ban on hunting

Audience question: Does the panel believe that a ban on hunting is of sufficient national importance to invoke the parliament act? You said:

Foxhunting is philosophically and morally unjustifiable, and must be practiced by people who must gratify their need to participate in animal cruelty. There can be no UK democracy if an evil minority have the power and influence to overrule the wishes of a majority at anytime. The need to eliminate the House of Lords forever is reinforced. The Countryside Alliance is not worthy of respect nor aid from the majority, until it expels from its ranks the evil foxhunters.
BJ Thomson, England

Why do people constantly question the House of Lords' right to disagree with the elected parliament in such situations? It's what it's there for! The elected parliament votes, the counter-balance British institution rejects and parliament invokes the parliament act if it feels strongly enough. Done. End of argument. Any MP arguing that because parliament has voted one way or the other, the Lords should just fall into line is either missing the whole point of a second chamber or effectively calling for its abolition.
Glen Evans, England

I am very concerned about the obviously pro-hunting bias of the BBC in relation to the issue of hunting with hounds. In tonight's edition of Question Time, David Dimbleby cut off a statement by a member of the audience who was trying to bring up the issue of cruelty - that is what the whole debate on this issue is about. Yet he gave ample time to a pro-hunting youth to give his perspective. Be fair BBC. Your reports on the day after the hunting vote were devoted to potential job losses in the hunting community. When are you going to allow a debate on the ethical issues surrounding cruelty to animals of which hunting is a blatant example?
Karen White, England

How sad that we have to hope for the unelected house to defend our liberties from a despotic small minded New Labour class war obsession to care more for wild vermin than the health service or education. The Lords must reign in this prejudicial persecution of a minority pastime.
James SG, England

I get fed up and disgusted at the hypocritical, skewed and ignorant discussions about foxhunting. Humans cruelly prepare and kill animals for food or because they are vermin, angle for fish for food or sport and shoot birds for food or sport. Animals, by instinct, hunt and kill other animals or birds for food or other reasons . Human activity can be controlled by laws. Why are politicians so arrogant and stupid that they believe that they can control animal's instincts by law? In foxhunting, hounds hunt and kill the fox - humans merely watch!
Harold Norcross, England

The Conservative MP quoted a senior police officer, as saying that the police don't have time to arrest hunters, in the event of hunting being banned, because they're too busy catching burglars [hold on, I just saw a pig fly past my window]. But you can bet your bottom dollar, that they would hound [excuse the pun] anti-hunt protestors, & take them to court for the slightest misdemeanour, whilst ignoring the blatant violence used by hunts on those protestors.
Charlotte Lewis, England

Tony Blair has used the parliament act to push through more legislation in six years than every other PM who has previously had the opportunity (put together). He is riding shotgun over the checks put in place to stop that kind of thing. the parliament act should be revoked.
Kurt Robertshaw, UK

The reason that so much time has been spent on the fox hunting issue is that it was in the Labour party's manifesto at the last election. The British public has very strong views on fox hunting, as has been voiced tonight in the audience. When election time comes around the public will remember that the fox hunting issue has not been dealt with to their satisfaction. It does look like it could take years for a ban on fox hunting to become law. This is a very controversial subject, but in a democracy we have to accept the will of parliament.
Steve Fuller, England

The hunting debate is not about foxes. It is about the effect on people of ancient cruel practices which makes them blind to the cruelty they are inflicting. This historically has been the people who are too rich and with too much power in this country. They are also in a minority in this country. Therefore it is very important to use the parliament act as a superior power for the rest of the population.
David McKnight, UK

How many people know that when Labour was elected they took 1 million pounds from a well-known animal charity saying that they would ban hunting for good? This should be investigated!
Jenny, England

The foxes do not consider it a waste of time discussing a ban on men in red coats on horses and dogs chasing them across the countryside. I have seen the end result of a chase and kill and think it is barbaric.
J. Godfrey, England

Perhaps we should send our red-coated, horn-blowing fox hunters to Iraq and flush out Saddam.
Tony Walker, England

Spending time debating fox hunting is certainly not a waste of parliamentary time! On the contrary, it is the expression of a concern that the majority of people in this country have, both those for and against true democracy for a change!!
Dean Pignon, UK

Can you please put over to the Labour government that the British public are sick to death of time wasting on important issues, get on with running my country on important issues, e.g. illegal immigrants, NHS, Education.
P.Crane, England

The government has just said that farmers should now send dead animals to the local hunt for disposal instead of burying them, but they have just banned hunting, therefore the hunt wont exist. Has Alistair Campbell had his hand in this and which dossier was it published in first?
Mark Newton, Wales

Return to the top of the page

---

Legal rights for homosexual couples

Audience question: While I fully welcome the overdue gay legal rights does the panel believe the same legal rights are due to heterosexual unmarried couples? You said:

The continued rhetoric of so called "Christians" that homosexuality is a sin because it says so in the Bible is tiresome and highly selective. The Bible says nothing of "homosexuality", as we know it today, as Biblical writers were not aware of it. The Bible also has a contemptious atittude to sexuality as a whole, so it is hypocritical to round on homosexuals. It could also be argued that the Bible mentions so many things regarded as sins, some sensible but many preposterous, as to make the homophobic readings of scripture redundant. Examples of this can be found in Leviticus Chapter 21 that appear to discriminate against those with disabilities, bald heads, etc.
Chris McEwen, Scotland

I'm disturbed but not surprised at the assumption on tonight's show that a homosexual union is in any way equal to, or as good as, marriage between man and wife. No matter how unpalatable it is to some, or politically incorrect, they are just not the same and should not be accorded the same status or privileges. Marriage is an institution ordained by God, whereas homosexuality and heterosexual cohabitation are sinful unions - whether you accept God's word on the subject or not.
Phil Martin-Summers, England

I cannot recall being more offended than when Lord Razzell referred to people like my wife and I as "non gay couples".
Russell, England

Are homosexuals going to be fighting to be treated the same as heterosexual couples when it comes to claiming state benefits? i.e. if one is working the other cannot claim, or if neither are working they must claim as a couple and get less money than two people claiming individually? For true equal rights lets have the disadvantages of being treated as a couple applied also - not just the advantages.
Rod, UK

Return to the top of the page

---

Margaret Hodge

Audience question: Does Margaret Hodge's failure to deal with the issue of child abuse in Islington when she was leader of the council make her unsuitable to be minister for children? You said:

I am very concerned at the appointment of someone who had a serious child abuse scandal occur on her watch and who apparently gave so little credence and support to the whistle-blowers. I appreciate that she has since apologised, but think that whoever chose her for this job should have been much more sensitive to the views of those who lived through the horrific events and to everyone who remembers the scandal. However, I am troubled by the attitudes of right-wing commentators on the programme and in the press, who seem to be using this tragedy to mount self-indulgent attacks on a high-ranking, left-wing woman. What we should learn from tragedies like the Islington case is to put children's needs at the top of the agenda, and to support the people who work with vulnerable children. These duties apply to all people in power, whatever their political orientation.
Katie John, UK

The youngsters that suffered abuse by the disgusting perverted creatures that worked in children's care in Islington must feel that they have been totally disregarded by Tony Blair's appointment of Margaret Hodge, the very woman who had the power to stop their torment when the social workers asked her to do something about their plight. How can she possibly accept this appointment? How can Tony Blair possibly justify his position? What if it had been his children that had suffered in such a dreadful way, would he then be so ready to promote his 'friend'? Moral turpitude, this government doesn't understand the first thing about such a concept.
Linda Kendall, England

Another case of jobs for the girls. Albeit possibly a competent politician but why put her into a job where she has "form" when there are numerous others better qualified?
Cliff Moffat , Wales U.K.

Would the contributors opinions over the Margaret Hodge issue have been altered if she were a man? (or any other minority group)
John Baggaley, England

I find it shocking that Margaret Hodge has been given a role in the government as minister for children considering her record whilst at Islington. This news must be devastating to the families who have to live with the nightmare of child abuse. She is only sorry that the press are highlighting the issue again and not because she feels remorse.
Melanie, England

Return to the top of the page

---

General comments on the programme:

I would like to see more panellists who can argue their case from the evidence. Most just make assertions and don't bother to substantiate them. For example, Tim Collins main assertion, repeated several times, last night, was that Blair is an inveterate liar. Dimbleby should stamp down on gratuitous insults that are a substitute for argument.
A.D.Williams, Consett

The BBC must be livid - they designed a 3 to 2 panel of lefties (Lib Dem Lord, Labour Lord and openly Labour-supporting author against a Conservative MP and right-wing journo) but Tim Collins and Janet Daley clearly had the better arguments, put them more clearly and won over the audience. Fantastic! Other highlights included Collins shutting up Amos, Dimbleby (finally) shutting up Amos and a LibDem Lord being crushed over detailed policy - the LibDems don't really "do" policies, let alone detail. A classic show - thank you!
A Little, Norwich

Tonight's programme was a disgrace. It was chaired very poorly. Why was Baroness Amos allowed to talk so much and prevent the other members of the panel having a proper say?
David French, England

Nice to see Valerie Amos supporting the Blair line. It gives me so much hope to see an independent black woman following the party line.
Brian, UK

Janet Daley seems to think that Britain went to war with Nazi Germany over a principle. If she got her history right she would know that Britain, France and Russia had previously signed a treaty stating that German invasion of Poland would result in a de facto war declaration. Stalin of course made the Warsaw pact and the allies had no "principle" to keep, it was a matter of law.
Chris Bell, UK

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.