CIA lied over brutal interrogations

It's great to know the "f*ck em" attitude is common in the forces, no wonder the yanks used us to rendition children and innocent men round the world for torture.

it is the MILLIONS that voted for blair in 2005 (which I was not one of them)

it was clear as day light that he lied to the whole nation and was in charge of these very things we are still hearing about

it is the MILLIONS that voted for blair in 2005 (which I was not one of them)

it was clear as day light that he lied to the whole nation and was in charge of these very things we are still hearing about

At the time it wasn't. Hindsight is an amazing thing and can change people's recollection of what they thought at the time. You were on a sub working for him for instance.

it is the MILLIONS that voted for blair in 2005 (which I was not one of them)

it was clear as day light that he lied to the whole nation and was in charge of these very things we are still hearing about

"Sorry sonny its Blair what makes me kick you in the nuts. "

Or is it "well some brown fellas did 9/11, chances are, if we torture a couple hundred other brown fellas one of them bound to confess."

Very few people seriously think.

I think no humane person can with good conscience condone torture. I also think that no responsible government should enact this barbaric practice or even turn a 'blind eye' to it for that matter. So there I am, happily riding around atop my moral 'high horse' confident that my civilised modern attitude towards human rights is of course correct and that there are no moral issues here that are even worth debating.

But what if someone was to tell me that information gained via torture had prevented some utterly horrific large scale terrorist attack from occuring? And to bring it home, what if that said attack would certainly have taken the life of someone I love - my innocent little goddaughter perhaps? Not so easy a issue now I think.

I suppose we have to stand by what we believe in and reaffirm that the ends don't justify the means under any circumstances. But if one day that attititude leads to a mushroom shaped cloud appearing over the centre of New York, Paris, or London then I reserve the right to change my mind on that question ... by which time it will be far too late of course.

Surprisingly liberal thread. Refreshing is some ways.

Pap and others - would you advocate sleep deprivation as measure to weaken resolve?

Not really. I'm a coder by trade. One of the things you see new developers do is shoddy fix work. Instead of delving into the specifics of the problem and solving root cause, they'll put a technical band aid on it. At some point, something else will go wrong and they'll put another plaster on top of that. Do that for a year on a project, and you'll end up with some broken, chaotic mess of fixes, with new fixes going in all the time to fix the fixes, the original problem utterly forgotten and misunderstood.

It could be argued that the entire response to Islamic extremism has been a fix by inexperienced fixers that didn't really understand the problem, its context or its own nation's traditions. Torture would be one of these. George W Bush stated that they hate our values. What values? We abandon them as soon as they become inconvenient. Fúck, we'll forget history if it's inconvenient. Forget the centuries of Western meddling and imperialism, and just go with the common consensus that these people are born evil and just hate us.

Any proper fix will involve recognition of the above and a complete rejection of principles that we say we no longer believe in. Sleep deprivation may be the thin end of the wedge, but it's still part of the wedge. It's still a fix, and just like all these other fixes, breaks something else in the implementation.

Of course, that all needs political will that probably just isn't there. There seems to be an agenda against Islam which shows no sign of abating. Take a look at Whitey G's comments and consider how he might have been perceived if he'd made those comments about Jews instead. As stereotypical slurs, they're surely much worse than the "coin-grabbing" that Super Mario lost a life over, yet comments that denigrate Muslims as barbaric based on the actions of lawless extremists are fair comment, apparently.

I think no humane person can with good conscience condone torture. I also think that no responsible government should enact this barbaric practice or even turn a 'blind eye' to it for that matter. So there I am, happily riding around atop my moral 'high horse' confident that my civilised modern attitude towards human rights is of course correct and that there are no moral issues here that are even worth debating.

 

But what if someone was to tell me that information gained via torture had prevented some utterly horrific large scale terrorist attack from occuring? And to bring it home, what if that said attack would certainly have taken the life of someone I love - my innocent little goddaughter perhaps? Not so easy a issue now I think.

 

I suppose we have to stand by what we believe in and reaffirm that the ends don't justify the means under any circumstances. But if one day that attititude leads to a mushroom shaped cloud appearing over the centre of New York, Paris, or London then I reserve the right to change my mind on that question ... by which time it will be far too late of course.

Charlie, sacrificing the few for the greater good is a numbers-game moral-dilemma that has haunted people since the beginning of time; Churchill’s decision to sink the French fleet before it fell into German hands in WWII is just one example. I believe that sacrificing our values in a few instances for the sake of the greater good is a similar moral-dilemma that can be applied to the torture discussion. Each of us must come to our own conclusions as to how best to riddle this dilemma. In this instance, imo, the most pertinent point from the recently released report is torture’s lack of effectiveness.

As for the issue of personalising hypothetical scenarios: yes, if my loved-ones lives depended on extracting information from a suspect – and all other techniques had failed – then I would probably administer the cattle probes myself. By the same token, even though I don’t believe in the death penalty, if someone murdered my loved-ones I would more-than-likely be prepared to wreak bloody retribution with my own bare hands. At times like this, reverting to primeval instincts, unfettered by social mores and values, I would be prepared to do whatever it takes. But, in the cold light of day, where does all this lead? Most likely, my victim’s loved-ones then exact their own bloody revenge on me; and so begins the slow spiral into the abyss that I referred to in a previous post.

Credible governments and their agencies do not revert back to primeval instincts, unfettered by social mores and values. On the contrary, their role is to prevent people acting in this way; and, thus, prevent the inevitable slide into the tit-for-tat blood-filled pit. But I acknowledge it must sometimes be a difficult role to perform, especially when you’ve just had nearly 3,000 innocent civilians murdered on your territory.

There never can be an excuse for torture. Using hypothetical scenarios about ones family and saving them seem to me a pathetic attempt to justify something that has consistently throughout history produced poor results and demonised those who practice it: The Gestapo, The Inquisition. We in England for most of the middle ages resisted the use of torture it gained in 'popularity' due to the Church in Rome feeling threatened by the growing move towards Protestantism. It is ironic that the societies that most easily accept torture as a legitimate tool of the state are often the most devout and fundamental religious societies, and tend towards the right of politics where fear, greed, and self-interest proliferate.

In addition I don't think we should expect to be able, or entitled, to ask any question we want of our 'secret' services, or expect to receive an honest, or any, answer.

I just want to believe they are working away in the background doing what they do. I don't want to know what they do.

In addition I don't think we should expect to be able, or entitled, to ask any question we want of our 'secret' services, or expect to receive an honest, or any, answer.

 

I just want to believe they are working away in the background doing what they do. I don't want to know what they do.

Ah, the head in the sand approach? Popular with ostriches, I believe.

Thing is, you not knowing the details doesn't make you any safer. In fact, it could be argued that a lack of oversight leads to a lot of these problems in the first place. The 1953 coup in Iran is a great example.

There never can be an excuse for torture. Using hypothetical scenarios about ones family and saving them seem to me a pathetic attempt to justify something that has consistently throughout history produced poor results and demonised those who practice it: The Gestapo, The Inquisition. We in England for most of the middle ages resisted the use of torture it gained in 'popularity' due to the Church in Rome feeling threatened by the growing move towards Protestantism. It is ironic that the societies that most easily accept torture as a legitimate tool of the state are often the most devout and fundamental religious societies, and tend towards the right of politics where fear, greed, and self-interest proliferate.

So, so, so this.

Maybe we should ask ourselves if we'd be happy having these deeds done in our name. Would we vote in favour of them? Would we be happy to carrying them out ourselves?

Cheery stuff, this torture. Imagine you were nabbed off the street, totally at random, and subjected to some of these little pleasantries. Of course, you would talk. But, and here is the but, the whole thing is self-defeating for three reasons:

1. You are innocent so just make stuff up to make it all stop.

2. You are maybe guilty/maybe not but tell them everything. How can the torturers be sure you're telling the truth? You'd say anything to make it stop, wouldn't you? (see no. 1)

3. You tell them everything. They then torture you anyway because they think you might just be withholding something. So, you make up stuff in order to try to get them to stop.

Maybe we should ask ourselves if we'd be happy having these deeds done in our name. Would we vote in favour of them? Would we be happy to carrying them out ourselves?

it started to come (in the press) about Iraq and about torture/abuse in 2003.

blair romped home to win the General Election again in 2005.

it started to come (in the press) about Iraq and about torture/abuse in 2003.

 

blair romped home to win the General Election again in 2005.

Your point doesn't really work if you add context.

First, there was a culture of fear and propaganda. Second, there's the fact that incumbent governments only really get unseated when enough folks are at the end of their tether. Third, Labour got their majority on 40% of the vote, due to the fúcking shít-fest electoral system we have. Finally, there are people that'll vote for other policies that Labour are putting forward. They may not like the war on terror, but they still feel it is their best option. Remember that Labour were up against Michael Howard, and also remember that turnout was only 60%. Oh, and there wasn't a credible party running anti-torture policy either.

You're essentially arguing that the 2005 general election victory = general assent for torture. It isn't.

Your point doesn't really work if you add context.

 

First, there was a culture of fear and propaganda. Second, there's the fact that incumbent governments only really get unseated when enough folks are at the end of their tether. Third, Labour got their majority on 40% of the vote, due to the fúcking shít-fest electoral system we have. Finally, there are people that'll vote for other policies that Labour are putting forward. They may not like the war on terror, but they still feel it is their best option. Remember that Labour were up against Michael Howard, and also remember that turnout was only 60%. Oh, and there wasn't a credible party running anti-torture policy either.

 

You're essentially arguing that the 2005 general election victory = general assent for torture. It isn't.

im saying that when it comes to it. being 'outraged' online is about as far as it gets for most of us.

when it comes to it. we dont really care that much

You don't need to be outraged to disagree with it in principle and practice. And you can't so easily remove yourself from the responsibility of your government, which is why I ask whether people are happy for torture to be happening in their name.

You don't need to be outraged to disagree with it in principle and practice. And you can't so easily remove yourself from the responsibility of your government, which is why I ask whether people are happy for torture to be happening in their name.

if it is in 'your name' vote for someone else?

which people very much didnt do previously...which is my point. People will only really show their 'not in my name' lines on places like this.

then that is it

if it is in 'your name' vote for someone else?

which people very much didnt do previously...which is my point. People will only really show their 'not in my name' lines on places like this.

then that is it

Based on what?

A dream you had? The product of your lunchtime leisure?

There are demonstrations happening all over the country for various "not in my name" causes, and I think you're probably guilty of projecting your own lack-of-arsedness onto everyone else, probably because it makes you feel better about your own lack-of-arsedness.

You don't need to be outraged to disagree with it in principle and practice. And you can't so easily remove yourself from the responsibility of your government, which is why I ask whether people are happy for torture to be happening in their name.

It seems to me that 'happy' has nothing to do with it - unless you happen to be some sort of sadist that is. It is a 'given' that no decent person wants to see anyone else tortured. A better question however might be: are there (extreme) circumstances when a form of interrogation technique that could be described as torture might just be the lesser of two evils?

Most of you lot seem 'happy' that there are no circumstances whatsoever that would justify torture - I applaud your sense of ethics - but that strikes me as a easy thing to say when you lot aren't responsible for the security of this nation and you won't ever have to justify one day why your sense of personal morality should me more important than the lives of your fellow citizens.

If I imagine myself in the position of Home Secretary - yes this does take some doing - and the head of the Secret Intelligence Service informs me that there is hard evidence that a terrorist suspect they have apprehended is involved in a imminent plot to attack this country with a weapon of mass destruction, a weapon that might kill tens of thousands of people ... well it would deeply trouble me but I might well authorize the SIS to go away and do whatever it takes to get to the truth of this matter, and I'll worry about the fate of my soul later.

But Jack has already put the case better than I ever could.

Pap

Given your rational on this subject I guess you are totally supportive of the iRA with PIRA, RIRA INLA's use of barbaric technigues they used on informers, sympathisers or cathlolic lasses that went out with soldiers,

How many of their vistims have still to be found or are walking round the streets of NI due to the technique of knee capping

There were some pretty nasty individuals in the 70's / 80's on both sides , the proddies were nowhere as bad as the republicans

are you suggesting they should never have been interned?

Perhaps you are one of those lefty types who would like to invite them round for tea and cakes and ask them nicely what they did with Jean McConville, Robert Nairac, Seamus Ruddy,

The CIA while wrong in some of their techniques are pussy cats compared to al queda, the Taliban and the likes of Pol Pot.Black September

two wrongs dont make a right but.............................

Don't really see how you got that from my posts. Read the one about root cause again.

Pap

 

Given your rational on this subject I guess you are totally supportive of the iRA with PIRA, RIRA INLA's use of barbaric technigues they used on informers, sympathisers or cathlolic lasses that went out with soldiers,

How many of their vistims have still to be found or are walking round the streets of NI due to the technique of knee capping

 

There were some pretty nasty individuals in the 70's / 80's on both sides , the proddies were nowhere as bad as the republicans

 

are you suggesting they should never have been interned?

 

Perhaps you are one of those lefty types who would like to invite them round for tea and cakes and ask them nicely what they did with Jean McConville, Robert Nairac, Seamus Ruddy,

 

The CIA while wrong in some of their techniques are pussy cats compared to al queda, the Taliban and the likes of Pol Pot.Black September

two wrongs dont make a right but.............................

Well said V W.

I think that the word "torture" is too emotive for some people so perhaps it should be substituted with "vigorous questioning" ?

Some people seem to think that they live in a dream world where no evil will happen to them if they bury their heads in the sand.

Alas this doesn't work as some really nasty evil bas*ards HATE everyone who doesn't follow their perverted views and so have

declared war on the decent people. War isn't very conducive to your health and no-one in their right mind wants one but if you do

go to war you have to do anything and everything, no matter how nasty, you can to smash the other side. If you don't then your

enemy will certainly do it to you. History shows those who want to see it - wimps never win and always end up suffering.

I don't want wimps trying to defend me.

.

That last line is classic.

You don't need to be outraged to disagree with it in principle and practice. And you can't so easily remove yourself from the responsibility of your government, which is why I ask whether people are happy for torture to be happening in their name.

I'm more than happy to let my security services use their judgement. At the end of the day the people at the sharp end are best equipped to make the decision. Face it, no one on here has a clue what goes on.

Pap

 

, the proddies were nowhere as bad as the republicans

 

I wondered when you would blunder into this debate and now you have with the most ignorant one-sided statement I have ever seen on a situation that has nothing to do with the OP. I presume you are a long term inhabitant of the Falls/Shankhill and are speaking from personal experience?

No I thought not - you know nothing, as neither do I because we weren't there (although I did visit Belfast many times during the dispute). This has been a good debate up to now, with posters who are arguing rationally until you ruined it with a bigoted Sun newspaper viewpoint.

Well said V W.

I think that the word "torture" is too emotive for some people so perhaps it should be substituted with "vigorous questioning" ?

 

 

Some people seem to think that they live in a dream world where no evil will happen to them if they bury their heads in the sand.

Alas this doesn't work as some really nasty evil bas*ards HATE everyone who doesn't follow their perverted views and so have

declared war on the decent people. War isn't very conducive to your health and no-one in their right mind wants one but if you do

go to war you have to do anything and everything, no matter how nasty, you can to smash the other side. If you don't then your

enemy will certainly do it to you. History shows those who want to see it - wimps never win and always end up suffering.

I don't want wimps trying to defend me.

.

I think we should listen to Saint in Paradise on this subject of HATE. He is after all, the resident expert.

Well said V W.

I think that the word "torture" is too emotive for some people so perhaps it should be substituted with "vigorous questioning" ?

 

 

Some people seem to think that they live in a dream world where no evil will happen to them if they bury their heads in the sand.

Alas this doesn't work as some really nasty evil bas*ards HATE everyone who doesn't follow their perverted views and so have

declared war on the decent people. War isn't very conducive to your health and no-one in their right mind wants one but if you do

go to war you have to do anything and everything, no matter how nasty, you can to smash the other side. If you don't then your

enemy will certainly do it to you. History shows those who want to see it - wimps never win and always end up suffering.

I don't want wimps trying to defend me.

.

You're certainly not the sharpest knife in the cutlery set.

Based on what?

 

A dream you had? The product of your lunchtime leisure?

 

There are demonstrations happening all over the country for various "not in my name" causes, and I think you're probably guilty of projecting your own lack-of-arsedness onto everyone else, probably because it makes you feel better about your own lack-of-arsedness.

but they were very much in the minority.

people just dont really care too much

Pap

 

Given your rational on this subject I guess you are totally supportive of the iRA with PIRA, RIRA INLA's use of barbaric technigues they used on informers, sympathisers or cathlolic lasses that went out with soldiers,

How many of their vistims have still to be found or are walking round the streets of NI due to the technique of knee capping

 

There were some pretty nasty individuals in the 70's / 80's on both sides , the proddies were nowhere as bad as the republicans

 

are you suggesting they should never have been interned?

 

Perhaps you are one of those lefty types who would like to invite them round for tea and cakes and ask them nicely what they did with Jean McConville, Robert Nairac, Seamus Ruddy,

 

The CIA while wrong in some of their techniques are pussy cats compared to al queda, the Taliban and the likes of Pol Pot.Black September

two wrongs dont make a right but.............................

Have you no grasp of what this debate is actually about?

Big boys games, big boy rules.

We are in an unfair media fight, our current ideals v medieval ideologies

View from the top , for your information I do have a grasp of what this debate is actually about .

Like you I have an opinion .

Pap

 

, the proddies were nowhere as bad as the republicans

 

I wondered when you would blunder into this debate and now you have with the most ignorant one-sided statement I have ever seen on a situation that has nothing to do with the OP. I presume you are a long term inhabitant of the Falls/Shankhill and are speaking from personal experience?

No I thought not - you know nothing, as neither do I because we weren't there (although I did visit Belfast many times during the dispute). This has been a good debate up to now, with posters who are arguing rationally until you ruined it with a bigoted Sun newspaper viewpoint.

 

 

Give it a rest fitzhugh , you are becoming very tedious with your anti viking posts . . I am not bigoted let alone a sun reader . I know all about the falls , Shankill road areas you mention But I don't have to justify my experience to you , having done three tours of duty there.

I'm glad you were able to visit belfast in more peaceful times . Did you go there in the 70's? Some proddies were equally bad. I had friend who was killed by the bomb at the military wing of musgrave park hospital .

I could say more about my experiences . I have family living near belfast as well as medical friends living in belfast . Your the One that is ignorant accusing someone who has no experience of NI . But then you seem to want to have a pop at me at every opportunity .

Torture is mostly for the gratification of the torturers, and little to do with "information-gathering", no matter how often that pathetic rationalisation is trotted out. The two "psychologists" hired at colossal expense by the CIA - they could spend several lifetimes trying to spend $81 million, the price paid for their racked-up torture techniques - are little more than sadistic monsters, differing from "Jihadi John" only in the desire to conceal their actions. They share with ISIS murderers and torturers the desire to humiliate and glory in the pain and suffering of an "enemy combatant" (all too often a misidentified and innocent bystander).

The US government does now need to widen its focus and deal with these and other atrocious abuses in the law courts.

The case of Dilawar, the Afghan taxi driver killed by his US army interrogators in 2002, is well documented and absolutely horrific. He was beaten over his entire body with a level of violence that defies belief. His legs, for example, were so badly damaged in the days-long assaults that they were, in the words of the autopsy, "pulpified", and if he's survived, he'd have had to have them amputated. The US Army interrogators were court martialled: one had the charges dropped after recounting the torture in great detail, and the other, facing possibly sixteen years in jail, was merely demoted.

When the Abu Ghraib photos were published by the New Yorker in 2004 there was uproar and condemnation. But condemnation of what? And of whom? Judged by the people who were prosecuted and went to jail, it was the low-grade US army personnel taking the photos and humiliating Iraqi suspects (note: not convicted terrorists) who were to blame. This was despite the fact that some of the photos featured dead Iraqis, killed by their CIA interrogators.

What was the fate of these interrogators? Total exoneration and immunity from prosecution in 2012 by Obama's Attorney Eric Holder. Holder did this because, in his words, "it would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the justice department." The precise meaning of that sentence is horrifically chilling, and should be revisited after the Senate Intelligence Committee's report.

In the light of the publication of the Senate report, these immunity certificates need to be withdrawn and the CIA interrogators prosecuted. When they, if found guilty, are jailed, the US government needs to prosecute those in the DoJ and the White House who, in Holder's own accidental admission, sanctioned all of this, and profited from it, in the first place.

I'm more than happy to let my security services use their judgement. At the end of the day the people at the sharp end are best equipped to make the decision. Face it, no one on here has a clue what goes on.

You haven't read any of the report clearly.

The fact that the C.I.A. refers to torture as "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" - actually, even that is problematic, so they prefer to use the term EITs - tells you all you need to know.

Why was this not discussed on BBC Question Time. Big story of the week surely?

Why was this not discussed on BBC Question Time. Big story of the week surely?

"Only approved questions get answered. Now stand your ass up for that national anthem".

Question Time is rarely live. The fact that it was the Brand vs Farage show last night probably didn't help.

"Only approved questions get answered. Now stand your ass up for that national anthem".

 

Question Time is rarely live. The fact that it was the Brand vs Farage show last night probably didn't help.

Don't want to embarrass the Labour government that was aware of the torture, that's the problem with a party based national broadcaster.

Don't want to embarrass the Labour government that was aware of the torture, that's the problem with a party based national broadcaster.

Question Time is one programme and yesterday's was led by the two big personalities on it.

The BBC have covered the story all week.

You haven't read any of the report clearly.

As it's 6,000 pages long no I haven't read it. I've read the key findings and the only thing I'm surpassed about is the fact that some people are surprised.

What did you think went on at Guantanamo?

The matter of torture or enhanced questioning techniques is a very emotive subject indeed.

The CIA report which is some 6000 pages long so my learned friends above have said. I dont intend to read it but many such reports always appear to focus on the most extreme abuses , bad practices etc what ever report is being published

look at the reports in recent days - Such Ofsted is warning that too many secondary schools in England are not making sufficient progress, with almost a third judged not to be good enough.

When I saw the banner about the schools it came across as rather negative to all the hard working teachers , Yes its right to focus on these issues but it also need to focus on all the good aspects these schools are achieving .

Here is another example

Today there is a report on about A&E performance is deteriorating . A&E units across the UK are struggling to hit their waiting time target as winter hits, latest figures show. The mounting problems come as the BBC launches its NHS Winter project, which tracks how the health service is performing down to individual hospital trust level. A number of my former medical staff colleagues who work in A&E. ITU ICU etc are hacked off with this constant negativity , They are all doing a fantastic job

MY questions is just to get back on track is Like the CIA report , have the media or the authors of this report given a balanced view of the contents of the report or just focus on the newsworthy bullet points they wish the media to focus on?

I dont know but what I do read and see is the most extreme concerns hitting the headlines .

I trust this extreme torture was not endemic but is the result of a very small percentage of rogue operators

I recall the Camp Breadbasket scandal back in 2005 . The press had a field day . Some of the media suggested every British servicemen was just as guilty as the perpetrators. It wasnt it was just down to a handful of bad apples. I was still serving at the time so know the impact it had on service personnel

As I said it is an emotive subject , but equally many other country's carry out far more enhanced interview technigues, than Cia. Look at

Russia, China etc etc

Time for my kevlar helmet .

Is it true that they were putting hummus up people's bumholes?

Edit: Hummass!

"Only approved questions get answered. Now stand your ass up for that national anthem".

 

Question Time is rarely live. The fact that it was the Brand vs Farage show last night probably didn't help.

Still talking in riddles? It is never live. Filmed same evening though

Still talking in riddles? It is never live. Filmed same evening though

Nah, just quoting song lyrics. The way this game is normally played is someone picks up on it and says "nice reference, pap". Sometimes it's just too damn obscure and that's ok too. You've ruined it now, so just enjoy the fecking song.

On the QT thing, the program's validity is always going to be in question for various reasons. It purports to be an armoured vehicle, with weapons that allow members of the public to shoot any question at prominent public figures. It isn't that. They ask potential audience members what they'd like to discuss up-front, there is obviously some degree of selection in accommodating the questions. It's not usually recorded live to prevent "nutters" like me from pretending we want to talk about parking fines in Dorking and then dropping the conspiracy bomb. However, there have been occasions where it has gone out live, which is why I qualified the description with "rarely".

As it's 6,000 pages long no I haven't read it. I've read the key findings and the only thing I'm surpassed about is the fact that some people are surprised.

 

What did you think went on at Guantanamo?

I didn't realise that they were killing people, no.

Nah, just quoting song lyrics. The way this game is normally played is someone picks up on it and says "nice reference, pap". Sometimes it's just too damn obscure and that's ok too. You've ruined it now, so just enjoy the fecking song.

 

 

On the QT thing, the program's validity is always going to be in question for various reasons. It purports to be an armoured vehicle, with weapons that allow members of the public to shoot any question at prominent public figures. It isn't that. They ask potential audience members what they'd like to discuss up-front, there is obviously some degree of selection in accommodating the questions. It's not usually recorded live to prevent "nutters" like me from pretending we want to talk about parking fines in Dorking and then dropping the conspiracy bomb. However, there have been occasions where it has gone out live, which is why I qualified the description with "rarely".

I thought this might have been you

If QT audiences are fixed, that would explain why this bloke was so prominent

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30448645

If QT audiences are fixed, that would explain why this bloke was so prominent

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30448645

I think it is obvious that all the parties have "set pieces" sat in the audience

The points he made are still relevant