Find out what you had to say about Question Time on Thursday, 5 July, 2007 from London.
The topics discussed were:
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received:
Audience question: Has the UK become a terrorist target because of its culture, or because of the actions of its government abroad?
Text: The country has become an easier target via its immigration policy.
You mentioned them having training camps and that it gave us just cause, but is it plausible that they see our army as our very own little "training camp" so it gives them just cause?
Sara Berry, Shropshire
Text: People who value their religion over life have no place in this free thinking country.
Why do they hate us? History. We have been invading the regions of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan for over a century - of course they hate us - we have lied to them in that whole time.
Michael Sparham, Nottingham
Text: We will always be a target while we are liberal on our immigration policies.
Why did we tolerate the IRA and not go and bomb the Republic of Ireland?
Naj Hasan, Livingston
Text: It's rather naive to suggest that our actions have had no effect.
Those who think that Britain's presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is a cause of the terrorism we are experiencing would do well to remember that 9/11 predated these two "invasions".
Stephen Jarratt, St Ives
Text: Islam will never sit well alongside Christianity.
It seems to me that there are two extreme views on how our world should be run. There is the Western view that democracy and the rule of law prevail. This is set against the extreme view of Islamic fundamentalism. History has proved that extreme views in politics can cause world wars! No one doctrine is right!
In Islam, killing any civilian, man or woman, is forbidden. The fighting is between militants only.
Ask yourself a simply question. If the Iraq army invaded England, destroyed our cities and imposed the rule of law, think how we might respond and behave against an invading force.
Tim Chignell, Plymouth
If the Western public are under threat of attack from terrorists because of the situation in Iraq, as Ms McCall stated on the show tonight, could she please explain why Muslim terrorists bombed the twin towers? Also, could someone please explain why most of the suspects involved in such attacks on the West come from relatively well-educated middle class backgrounds and not the disaffected out-of-work Muslim community we are being told about in the press?
Audience question: Is the Live Earth concert an effective way to raise awareness on climate change or just celebrity hysteria?
I would like to pick up on a point raised by Davina about the need for the government to approach manufacturers and supermarkets about reducing the amount of packaging used. I wrote a letter about eight months ago to my local paper saying exactly the same thing. The whole recycling premise and proposed charges are based on the amount of rubbish people throw away, but people don't buy rubbish, rubbish is a by-product of an over-packaged society, and it is that that needs to be addressed first.
Nick Franklin, Worcester
Text: Nothing compares to Live Aid. These other concerts ain't got Freddie!
Instead of a concert I have had a good idea. Why don't we all wear a wrist band? This will show them.
Colin Stewart, Sunderland
Text: Celebrities won't change the climate. Collective action will.
Will the audience give up their iPods, mobile phones and not want to own a car? Or give up their cheap holidays to Ibiza? I think not.
Text: Live charity concerts are all sound and fury with no effect. It is a 60s mentality that is outdated.
The global warming and carbon dioxide debate continues but the real problem is over-population and ever-increasing demand on limited resources. Why are the politicians and programmes like Question Time not raising this and creating a world initiative to reduce the population?
Phil Mathers, Haworth
Text: Wonder what the carbon footprint is for all these concerts?
Apparently there are now four times as many people on earth as there were 100 years ago. We are putting 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. This is 70 million tonnes more than nature would normally put into the atmosphere - it stands to reason that it must have some impact.
Stuart, High Wycombe
Text: Wonder what the carbon footprint is for all the mobiles and computers in use now?
How dare David Miliband say "older people" or "older generations" do not understand about global warming! While the planes, ships and tanks of WWI and WWII may have thrown out emissions left, right and centre, the peoples of this country were recycling for all they were worth! They and land owners also know the value of land and how to grow and harvest - mostly without pesticides. "Dig for Britain" I think was the slogan and one I think should be re-adopted now, certainly as a start!
Jillian Clark, Bournemouth
Text: If Ed Miliband's generation is more aware of the environment, why are there so many litter louts?
The panel talk about climate change and doing their bit for the environment. I wonder how they got there tonight... private car? Did they car share/use public transport ? Or is it up to others to do that?
Daniel Stazicker, Leeds
Text: Celeb madness, surely a massive concert will use more power than actual discussions?
I would just like to say that I hope that all the performers taking part in the Live Earth concert are doing all they can to keep the concert's carbon footprint to a minimum, such as performing acoustically, for example.
Laura Hardy, Isles of Scilly
Text: It's been a rubbish summer so far. I can't wait for the climate to change.
Audience question: Should the West now have a more sympathetic approach to Hamas in light of their involvement in the release of Alan Johnston.
Text: Would be good to see Alan Johnston on QT one day.
Why is it a given that Israel should be recognised?
Charlie H , Wetherby
Text: Hamas regard us as weak. We need to play dirty just as they do.
We have dealt with terrorists in Northern Ireland (IRA) so why can't we deal with Hamas, as undesirable as they may be.
Mark Harper, Bournemouth
Text: Hamas's action is simply a smokescreen!
With regard to the Hamas/Israel situation, I'd like to say that it is extremely unrealistic to keep asking Hamas to recognise Israel and to denounce violence (and I don't agree at all with violence!) when Israel has thousands of Palestinian people detained in prisons.
Fahad Khan, Leeds
I believe those people who demand increased sympathy towards Hamas should remember that the aim of this party is the eradication of Israel. I think that if Britain was in the same situation as Israel and Palestine, then we too would display a heavy-hand in terms of foreign policy.
Andrew Stewart, Cobham
Audience question: Gordon Brown has promised to listen to the people, so isn't it time he listened to the vast majority of university students and abandoned tuition fees?
Text: If tuition fees are scrapped, are these to be backdated?
All these government ministers have climbed up the ladder and burning it behind them. They have all had the privilege of attending university and are preventing others from benefiting.
Lucius Pettengell, Maidstone
Text: Is Scotland the ideal world then?
Tuition fees are a joke. More people going to university creates too many managers. So many people leave uni with expectations that are too high and end up in poorly paid jobs. You need a degree to work in a call centre these days! Ten years later and I have only just started to earn enough money to pay off my loan!!!
Text: If students didn't waste so much money on drink and drugs they wouldn't be so much in debt.
CH, Milton Keynes
The government should stop giving college children money to attend college and fund universities to reduce fees instead. Those who need paying to go to college aren't going to go anywhere. Waste of money.
Caroline Macpherson , Milton Keynes
Text: Tuition fees should make people take useful degrees for once.
Kim, St Albans
Charlie Bell is wrong. We do have apprenticeships in this country - thousands of places in dozens of sectors. And if he looks at how student finance actually works, he will discover that he will only have to pay back when he is earning, and at a rate tied to his income, not the amount he owes. So he shouldn't worry.
Giles Field, London
Text: Sayeeda Warsi is simply wrong about tuition fees. There is always an alternative!
We seem to be forgetting that Tony Blair said he wanted 50% of all young people to go into higher or further education. This is not solely university, but also other courses and training.
Lee Rooke, Stevenage
Text: Degree education has been devalued. Quantity does not always equal quality.
Surely the government must invest more into its student population to ensure that they have a strong positive impact on the economy of the UK. If Scotland can afford to encourage and send their students to university by supporting their fees, then why can't our government?
Manjinder Kaur, Leicester
Grants for uni are all well and good, but it will be the same story - the middle class will pay for everything and receive nothing.
The Scots can afford to give free university education because English taxpayers subsidise it.
Simon Wilton, Brighton
Why should pupils who get low grades at A level be able to go to university? Only those who are academically able should be allowed to go. The 50% government target is a joke.
Jonathan Castro, Guildford
Even though English students have to pay fees at Scottish universities, they still pay less than they would have to if they went to an English university. It's simply wrong for people to complain that it's unfair. This was a decision made by the democratically elected Scottish Parliament. There is only so much money to go round, so if English people want rid of student fees in their own country they should stop complaining and vote for it at the next election.
Audience question: Following Gordon Brown's list of proposals for constitutional reform, should the voting age be lowered to 16?
Great to hear a minister publicly supporting votes at 16. Members of the UK Youth Parliament have been calling for this for years and continue to campaign on the issue. Many of them also agree that the lowering of the voting age has to be coupled with a big improvement in citizenship education. Involving young people in the design of that curriculum is an obvious way to make sure it's both relevant and welcome.
Andy Hamflett, Chief Executive of the UK Youth Parliament, London
Text: How can you contemplate giving the vote to the juveniles in this audience?
The audience is one good reason why the government should not lower the voting age.
David Smith, Croydon
Text: Better the voting age is raised to 21.
On the strength of tonight's debate, the idea that they could be given the vote is clearly ridiculous.
Steve Mitchell, London
Text: Why give the vote to kids when the parents don't bother?
A 16-year-old is allowed to smoke and not to vote?!
Michael Noel-Hill, Haslemere
Text: If you pay taxes or are over 18, have a vote.
I am only 15 and I, and a lot of my friends, would love to be able to vote.
Jack Sharkey, Reigate
Text: Perhaps we should take away the vote from all the senile over 80s who end up as judges.
I'm 15 and I have many political views. It's ridiculous that you think people my age don't have an interest. I'd be ecstatic to have a vote.
Sam Skerritt, Nottingham
Text: Voting should be compulsory for all, like in Australia.
S P, London
If you are not old enough to choose the government of your country then you aren't old enough to fight for that government or country.
Karen Ayers, London
I think that the voting age should be lowered to 16 so that our younger generation can take an interest in politics at an early age. We have seen tonight that the potential is there, so I hope that the politicians take notice and introduce this in the future. Political parties are losing a lot of votes by not letting 16-year-olds take part in general elections expressing their views. I am sure that if politicians see an advantage for themselves in giving these young people the vote, they will.
Steve Fuller, Hove
I'm nearly 17 and I think that we should be allowed to vote. It seems that we are adults when it comes to rail and bus fares but when it comes to how the country is run we have no say.
Emily Stott, Hampshire
It seemed that the views of the younger citizens differ greatly from that of the older generations, such as on war, terrorism and education. Would it not be an advantage to engage the younger generations by engaging their own views? At the age of 22, I am a floating voter because I vote in favour of specific party views on matters that interest and affect me and I don't think the main parties recognise the swings could be something to do with younger floating voters.
Henry Stewart, Glasgow
I have never before been inclined to write, but I thought tonight's programme was excellent. We need to hear the views and opinions of our young people far more.
John Bolton, Manchester
How refreshing to hear deeper issues and views expressed. I really felt that my views were reflected in the panel.
River Brown, Hitchin
I thought Charlie Bell was absolutely excellent, to see a young chap that not only appears to be well read but has such a superb clarity of thinking and opinion was refreshing. I was very surprised at how young he was.
Robin Merritt, Ipswich
I struggle each week to watch the show the whole way through because I end up with "the rage" and have to take myself away every 15 minutes. Tonight was no different. Although I enjoyed a younger audience being able to articulate a mood more concurrent with my interests and opinions, there still was lots of smug point scoring. I'd love the party leash to be taken off the MPs so they could express their own personal beliefs.
Peter Newlands, Warrington
Text: Why do we allow these people in our universities?
It's refreshing to see such a young programme format this week and it seems to be working very well. How about one for us oldies only, anyone over the state pensionable age? After all, we are a growing army that could influence who takes power at the next election depending what each party has to offer us.
Alan Blackbeard, Twickenham
Text: Come on! Good to see contemporary audience & panel.
Douglas Murray is the only person on tonight's panel who speaks any sense. Everyone else including the majority of the audience have their heads in the clouds.
Carol Underhill, Sutton Coldfield
Text: Tread carefully panellists. These are future voters.
I normally find it objectionable to watch your programme due to the style of answers - avoiding the point and clouding it with superfluous detail. It is nice to have a frank exchange, especially as Douglas Murray seems to want to use incendiary language to put across a cynical, if well-informed, view.
Philip Smith, London
Text: Davina's at least talking sense.
A theatre full of young people, many of them very engaging.
Paul B, Oxford
Text: Spare me the screaming audience!
I think Davina McCall is more suited to Big Brother than Question Time.
Elaine Short, Halifax
Text: We don't have an audience, we have a mob.
Text: It's not a mob Brian, it's passion. And it's good to see.
I have never watched a person with such anger toward the way our society is. The gentleman called Douglas should not use this opportunity to promote such bad feeling toward extremist organisations.
Joseph Clare, Cardiff
Text: I'm 63 and I think Charlie Bell and the audience are brilliant!
Text: Douglas Murray would make a great PM.
What a joy - terrific programme; such common sense. (I'm 47) Charlie for PM (after Gordon)!
Text: How come the youngest member of the panel is the only one talking sense?
How refreshing to have Charlie Bell on tonight. He's unbiased, very intelligent, has the ability to see through a problem to its root without prejudice - take him on at once, promote him into politics.
Matt Barry, Surrey
Text: I hope Question Time plays fair & does a programme for us oldies.
Text: What an intelligent group of young people. Makes me proud to be British.
Text: What a refreshing QT. Well done our youth.
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.