Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Whilst I'm generally a strong supporter of the right to free expression I strongly object to the Ö÷²¥´óÐã giving air time to that odious prat MacKenzie who is the last person entitled to call on Tony Blair to apologise for his actions. If he wants a platform why doesn't he travel to Liverpool and make his case to the local media and public. At least Boris Johnson had the humility to do this.

The fans that protest should learn to forgive.

Mr McKenzie has a right to publish his opinions in a free press and not be pilloried for them over the rest of his life.

We all desrve a break and it is a time that a line were drawn under this matter.

"A strong line-up - Lord Falconer, George Osborne, Charles Kennedy and Clare Short - had been booked and announced before the show's Christmas break. The fifth panellist - also announced - was David Starkey."

So that makes 3 left wingers, 1 campaigner for gay rights and 1 conservative. Show some balance for once.

Kelvin McKenzie was not 'given a hard time' over Hillsborough - he avoided the issue claiming he only apologised because he was told to by his boss (shades of Neuremburg?). Quite why a programme with the pedigree of question Time chose to have a panel member who is happy to make such statements is beyond me - not a single word he uttered could be believed and therefore his inclusion was a poor choice. If the Ö÷²¥´óÐã cares for accurate reporting it would not employ someone who, even in the face of the facts, will not withdraw inaccurate and scandelous reporting. it would have been preferable to have an empty chair than fill it with someone with an empty head.

It's nice to hear James Stephenson's comments about the furore regarding K Mackenzies appearance onthis weeks Q-Time. Firstly it was an amazing demonstration at Anfield for the protest against the Ö÷²¥´óÐã's use of Mackenzie{ Iwas there} but how shameful of the Beeb to reduce the impact of it with so little actual coverage. I agree with the premise that the more we see of Mackenzie the more the debate will come out into the public arena, this man thrives on being contraversial{ it used to be called being rude and ignorant} He was given a golden opportunity to put this matter away for good by the excellent Claire Short but he stonewalled this chance and then claimed to be made a scapegoat for the days events-so very weasel of him, he is being brought to task for his comments on the aftermath of the disaster. He chose to mention his sources -anonomously, apart from a surprise new entry- a Liverpool news agency. Yes, Mr stephenson, lets have a dedicated Q-Time programme with all the un-named demagogues present and that way a real challenge to the scurrilous version of the events of that tragic day can be publicly aired.

I must admit on watching the show last night i was amazed that Kelvin was on. The guy has the potential to do to the show what did for TFI Friday.

I must admit I love the show and watch it religiously.

I must congratulate you on covering all angles in the media and news, like you so regularly do. The way i see it if you at the Ö÷²¥´óÐã do not ask these questions of people in high places, in politics, in law, in media and in the public spotlight then who will.

I was a bit young when Hillsborough happened, but realise as a football fan that it is still a very sensitive issue in certain peoples eyes. I had to do a bit of research into this story as I was not fully understanding of what Kelvin actually said. Lets just say I was amazed when reading his stories that he actually got away with it. The way I see it, however is that the past is the past in many ways - the guy is obviously sticking to his opinions, and is sentitled to do so. Looking at him on the show last night you could see he wasnt exactly a man with a great concious, so what do you expect.

Also i would like to say it was nice to see the so called Lord Chancellor made to look like a child and political toy that he has been since he took his half hearted office, the guy is a waste of time and effort.

Charles Kennedy has also very much came out his shell now he has nobody in government or opposition to worry about - the guy just speaks his mind, which is extremely refreshing.

Again thank you to the Ö÷²¥´óÐã and the QT team from not backing down and having these lively debates that to me are a symbol of what QT is and should remain focused on.

Kind Regards

Kelvin Mackenzie showed why most people abhor tabloid journalism by his Performance on Question Time on Thursday evening. He is self-centred and arrogant. He 'believes' that anything he says is correct and damn anybody else's feelings.

Surely one could argue that Question Time is increasingly irrelevant these days? I'd be most interested to know what the viewing figures for the show is?

Most week's it's nothing more that a Government bashing session or anti-Iraq war rant. David Dimbleby plays a leading role in and increasingly he has lost the art of actually chairing the show. Why does he have to repeat the question from the questioner? Also why does the feel the need to inject with his own questions it's supposed to be show for the public? Not to boost Mr Dimbleby's ego.

To be honest i've give up on Question Time, which is a real shame because as Politics Undergraduate it's the sort of show that should really be appealing to me. The Ö÷²¥´óÐã really needs to rethink's politics and current affairs output i.e stop treating it's audience like fools and engage with them in a construstive manner and no that does mean having copus amounts of audience generated materal like etc. But it does mean the Ö÷²¥´óÐã informing and educating and analysising.

An absolutely fantastic edition of Question Time. The combination of Kevin Mackenzie's comments, the grudge match between Clare Short and Charlie Falconer, and that lady blaming Blair for single-handedly taking the Great out of Britain made it well worth the licence fee.

the bbc should be a neutral organization so why does it always treat muslim with special care and natives as if they were second class citizens that white boy who was attacked by asians was a racial attack but you failed to mentioned it.Obviously if it was an asian to be attacked by whites the bbc would be making a storm in a glass of water, I wouldn't condone it either but I certainly would treat everyone with the same law and not giving one side a red carpet treatment only because they are a ethnic minority, isn't this racism too?

Whilst I agree that it is important to have people on the panel with a variety of viewpoints I don't feel this justifies having K MacKenzie whose 'performance' was that of an ignorant shouting bully. I would turn off another Q.T. if he appeared on it.

I did not think it was appropriate for David Dimbleby to keep pressing Kelvin MacKenzie for an apology over Hillsborough, Since it was not a question from the audience, and the fact that David Dimleby is always reminding the panel to stick to the question. A chairman's duty is to remain impartial and not to use his position to gang up on one panel member in support of another panel member's agenda.

James,

I was one of the people emailing Clare Short in attempt to make sure Mackenzie did not go unchallenged on Hillsborough. The protest at the FA cup game was against Kelvin Mackenzie's continued employment by the Ö÷²¥´óÐã.

Less than a week after that protest you must understand it stinks of callousness to put him on at short notice when it was impossible for any knowledgeable fan to get tickets to properly challenge him. Particularly after his withdrawal from the previous planned appearance when those campaigning against him did have tickets for exactly that purpose.

By not allowing anyone with the appropriate knowledge to properly challenge his views you risk jeopardising the Ö÷²¥´óÐã charter of fair and impartial opinion. You are close to being seen to support that mans views complicitly by allowing them to go unchallenged.

It was only the hard work of LFC fans that meant the subject was broached in the manner it was.

I am seriously disappointed that you chose such a week to put this man in a position to spout his immoral and contradictory views on national television.

I think Kelvin McKenzie got off surprisingly lightly considering what he said and how he said it. It was breathtaking to hear him apply his Nuremburg defence when pressed about his views on Hillsborough. And, to be honest, his views on press intrusion and privacy were almost beyond belief.

It is one thing to "have a few photos taken". It is quite another to be continually and systemically physically assailed by massed ranks of paparazzi. That he either doesn't or will not acknowledge the difference is either utter idiocy or a supreme act of intellectual cowardice and self-interest.

I personally believe it to be the latter. Still, I'm glad he was there, so we could hear it from his own mouth.

please bbc, dont give the poor excuse that is Kelvin Mackenzie anymore airtime, he doesnt derserve it and you are only driving away the liverpool fans and many others by having him on, show some common sense bbc, listen to the liscence payer, online petitions of 12,000ish and 2,000 (still climbing) cant be wrong.

Peter (message #8) whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your message, I'd dispute that most people abhor tabloid journalism. A glance at the circulation figures of the red-tops, the various women's magazines which have taken the 'sex, celebs and diets' formula even more downmarket, or indeed the way society in general seems to be deteriorating, educationally and culturally, towards the lowest common denominator, demonstrates to me that the kind of poisonous rubbish produced by McKenzie and his ilk is now the dominant culture in Blair's Britain.

I don't understand in the slightest why the Ö÷²¥´óÐã, as an organisation which is supposed to stand as the antithesis of everything Kelvin McKenzie represents - is giving this sad excuse for a human being a platform, far less a paycheck.

Excuse my ignorance but thursday night was the first time I had heard of Kelvin Mackenzie. No one has reminded us what he said that was so offensive. What did he say? Interestingly, past comments aside, I instantly thought the man was vicious and a waste of space and pressed the mute button every time he spoke. There are other odious people that continually re appear on Question Time and I wish the organisers would listen to the long suffering viewers and stop inviting them back.Whose on this week ? Nick Griffin?

IRT number 3 (anon):

3 left-wingers? I'd be interested to see your reasoning behind that statement. Clare Short, bless her, certainly is. Charles Kennedy is a somewhat left-leaning centrist, but not a left-winger. Charlie Falconer is a blairite centrist and george osborne is indeed conservative. David Starkey, the only non-politician, is known and respected principally as a historian. Yes he is gay and yes he has stood up for gay rights, but that doesn't have anything to do with political standing. So on balance we have a lefty, two centrists, a conservative and a historian.

Sounds pretty balanced to me.

In response to Tom (21):

Well if we are playing your game. Clare Short is a left winger. I would say that Charles Kennedy is a left-winger, under his leadership the Lib Dems shifted left from the centre left (but lets split the difference and call him a 1/2 left-winger).

If we are going to call Falconer a centrist then I would argue that the same could be said for Osborne (a key player in the more central newer breed of Conservatives).

So that makes it 1 1/2 left wingers 2 centralists and no right-wingers. Partywise it is balanced but not from a political viewpoint.

And I for one would be quite happy to have Nick Griffin on the show, the best thing that we can do to the BNP is allow them to air their views. It will give them the rope to hang themselves. As it is now, they just claim that they are being silenced or censured and seem like the victims. They are the ones who claim to want to address issues in the open while those who oppose them campaign in the streets demanding that their viewpoints are silenced.

The continued public appeal for a proper debate about the sheffield tragedy will not go away. Even 18 years on there is a growing sense on injustice. please Ö÷²¥´óÐã lets have a proper balanced programme about it. Don't just try to ignore it as MOD did ( apart from the excellent John Motson ).

To Martin, #20.
MacKenzie was Sun editor at the time of Hillsborough, 15/04/89. A couple of days afterwards he approved the running of a story called "The Truth", which alleged that LFC fans urinated on, and stole from the pockets of, the dead and dying.

He also alleged police giving CPR were attacked, as well as saying drunk fans stormed gate C, causing the crush. He apologised later on TV.

Just before last Xmas he was after-dinne speaker at a Newcastle law firm's party. Thinking it was a private thing, he said he regretted apologising and that Murdoch had forced him. He believed then the story was true and he still does. He still defiles the memory of the victims and disregards the feelings of the families, in spite of the Taylor Report finding "The Truth" article held no basis in fact.

This is why his appearance on QT was controversial and objected to, not just by LFC fans.

For him to place further allegations (press agency nonsense) and cite unnamed sources, as well as refusing to apologise for being wrong, smacks of cowardice beyond belief. It's good you objected to him on instinct. Trust that instinct!

The Ö÷²¥´óÐã hopefully has learnt a valuable lesson from this and should think twice before inviting back to any programme other than a frank and open, balanced, dedicated debate so he can be called to account for good. /j

Yes, he should be banned from the Ö÷²¥´óÐã. As should George Galloway, Nick Griffin, Robert Kilroy-Silk, Tony Blair, Mark Oaten and everyone else who's opinion I disagree with. Oh hold on wait...that's called fascism.

I complained to the Ö÷²¥´óÐã and have only just received a reply today, directing me to this webpage.

I think that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã's response to the level of criticism it has received has been inadequate.

The above comments by James Stephenson are simply a history lesson. They can be summarised as:

"we know mackenzie would be controversial and the programme uses controversial people because we want to be controversial in order to boost our ratings otherwise the network would pull us. my wages depend on that."

With regard to the comment above about banning people whose opinion we disagree with :

The point is not that people disagree with him. If he were just an odious and opinionated person, the people objecting to him would not be taking issue. Neither is he just controversial, as expressed in the article. Nor is it that he is obnoxious, sensationalist and sexist, all of which he showed on Question Time.

QT has always been my favourite programme. It has been considerably cheapened by including mcKenzie on its panel.

why is this man being used once more by the bbc? disgrace!!!

Mackenzie= scumbag
Ö÷²¥´óÐã= disgraceful for employing him!

So, was Mr MacKenzie paid for his appearance?

Is he going to be paid to front the documentary coming up on Ö÷²¥´óÐã4 about tabloid journalism?

Is the Ö÷²¥´óÐã paying license payers money to someone who refuses to apologise, or admit any wrong doing over such a terrible incident?

I too have only just received a reply to a complaint registered on the night of a News Night debate on devolution. I was complaining about the presence of Kelvin McKenzie on the Ö÷²¥´óÐã again, within days of the protest at Anfield (feebly reported if at all on the Ö÷²¥´óÐã websites and news programmes)he has been invited onto two Ö÷²¥´óÐã TV programmes. It seems to me that he is being pushed onto our TV screens due to the fact that people objecting somehow makes him viable as a pundit. He appeared just as ignorant on News night as he did on Question Time, surely to God there must be more people of intelligence and standing who can make far greater contributions to Television than this man who represents everything that is odious about our media these days.
I am not prepared for the Ö÷²¥´óÐã to state that he is on TV to be questioned who had any in depth knowledge of Hillsborough on the panel? Claire Short received a number of emails asking her to raise the issue but a few knowledgeable people from the Hillsborough Justice Campaign or Clued up fans would have dissected his comments and wouldn't have let him spout on about his sources without reply. The Ö÷²¥´óÐã as a previous comment said had arranged for him to be on Question Time before and some clued up people were going to challenge him He dropped out at the last minute surprise eh!
The Ö÷²¥´óÐã should know that people won't let things rest until you give an opportunity to show this man up for what he is.

KEVIN MACKINZIE? WHO IS THIS DOLT? AND WHY IS HE NEWS? THE WORLD IS GOING TO HELL, AND EWE FOOLISH FOLKS GIVE ATTENTION TO KEVIN WHAT'S HIS NAME? OBVIOUSLY... OUR PRIORITIES FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES ARE SKEWED.

The allegations of theft and urination were from a third party.

The deaths were undoubtedly caused but the inrush of latecomers, who were predominantly Liverpool supporters, many of whom were ticket-less.

The reason they were late, we are led to believe, was because they had been drinking.

Therefore, to state that the disaster was caused by drunken Liverpool fans really shouldn't have caused such a furore, except for the fact that Scousers a rather touchy when they get accused of anything.

Was message 33 written by Kelvin?

Phil, you're obviously on the internet. Do a bit of research before you degridate the unnecessary deaths of 96 people, many of which were children. As far as I can see the only statement you got right was 'the sudden inrush of supporters.' No mention of the traffic delays on the motorway that fans were caught in; the polices refusal to delay the kick off; the lack of crowd control management from the police thus forcing fans into the stadium, via only three gates even if their tickets were for different areas and then continuing to do so whilst people were being crushed against the wire barrier between the fans and pitch or fans who were trying to climb over the barrier to save their lives were being forced back by police with dogs?

There was never any justice for those who died. The man in charge was out of his depth, had never managed a large crowd before and was given a blank cheque of tax payers money to pay for lawyers to stop him and his bosses from being prosecuted.

I was 14 living in Merseyside when this happened and the blatant lies and insensitivity of Kelvin Mackenzies front page in the sun three whole days after, (ie there was enough time to gather facts,) was as appropriate to the people of Merseyside, Liverpool supporter or not, as if the sun had headlined 'Londoners deserve bombing' after 7/7.

Fair enough it was the man responsible for the disaster who gave the media interviews damning the Liverpool fans but does that justify for front page headlines that were so evil and Kelvins continued refusal to accept responsibility for the additional pain he caused such a large portion of the population of this country, never mind his then readership?

"So that makes 3 left wingers, 1 campaigner for gay rights and 1 conservative. Show some balance for once."

Ridiculous comment. Falconer and Short are at opposite ends of the Labour party. Kennedy to give the Lib Dems a voice. Osbourne for the Tories. Add Richard Littlejohn next and you have the full spectrum. Some panels are more right wing or left wing than others. Parris, Soames, Atkins - all right wing - plus Bull and Hoon - no very left wing people there.

I must take issue with Ben Volpone (no.2)
The fans, and, more importantly, the families of the fans who did not return from Hillsborough on 15th April 1989, cannot possibly forgive, while justice continues to elude them.
Their deaths were directly attributable to the mis management and gross incompetance of south yorks. police. The sham show trial which followed failed to incriminate the senior responsible officers, who were retired soon afterwards.
The s*n printed what purported to be facts, not opinion, subsequently completely disproven as lies. The paper was informed by Kenny Dalglish & LFC exactly how to aplogies:- front page banner headline in 'second coming' font - WE LIED. This the paper failed to do.
Why the bbc ever considered emplying this disgrace to journalism & humanity belies belief.
The matter, Ben, just like the needless 96 (ninety six) dead, will only be put to rest, when justice is served and seen to be done. Then, and only then, can a 'line be drawn' as you suggest

Hey does anyone else agree with the claim 9-11 is a cover up? Having watched a film called loose change, i believe that the world was lied to about events concerning that historical event.

What annoys me thought is this staement from G.W.Bush

November 10, 2001 - President Bush Speaks to United Nations
G.W. Bush:
"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous
conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists,
themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance
the cause of terror."

Hmmm right George, why would you say this???!!!!

If 9-11 was carried out by al qaeda you wouldnt have to say this, but because 9-11 was carried out by the U.S, i think its understandable.

In response to James Stevenson's comment, which I found somewhat patronising KM shouldn't go on telivision just to have is views challenged - he has had plenty of time to retract his false accusations and has not. To say that it's right of free speech is a little lame. I am all for freedom of speech, and I'm perfectly educated enough to realise that engaged debate is a healthy thing and more of it. I don’t think we have to continue that through Polarisation of viewpoints – which is what overpublicising and overemphasis of extreme views to the detriment of majority views. People may say that politics has switched far past centre right and that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã is just merely reflecting that. Okay, had there not been a major protest about KM that very week I would agree that he would sit very nicely in the right wing chair - not that he should be on telivision at all in my view. There was a protest and putting him on the show was courting controversy and was sensationalism in the guise of freedom of speech.

I would say that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã has been moving towards this sensationalist route in general - not their role as a public broadcaster in my opinion. I suppose it's a general point that telivision is moving towards such polarisation and exagerration and I view it as laziness on behalf of the makers of Telivision and in this case a quick decision by a programme. As a public broadcaster I think the Ö÷²¥´óÐã has responsibility to actually be better than that.

The comments of Phil (#33) are a great example of the importance of the continuing campaign by the people of Liverpool to highlight the Sun's lies. As the saying goes "mud sticks" and the Sun's reporting of Hillsborough has certainly done that. Phil states that the 96 deaths were "undoubtedly" caused by late arrivals - many ticketless. According to the Taylor Report - the major build-up of fans was between 2.30 and 2.40. For a 3pm KO, to assert a degree of blame to lateness when that was when most of the people arrived, is ridiculous. Through poor planning on the part of South Yorkshire Police, the Football Association, and Sheffield Wednesday Football Club (again according to the Taylor Report), the area of the ground allocated to Liverpool supporters had so few turnstiles, that at a steady rate of arrival, it would have taken TWO HOURS to admit all the ticket holders. Finally the HSE were asked to estimate how many fans entered that section of the ground. By checking turnstile records, and then estimating, using video footage, the numbers who entered through the gate which the police opened, the HSE concluded that somewhere between 9,734 and 10,124 fans entered the Leppings Lane section. 10,100 tickets had been sold for that section. Not surprisingly, Lord Taylor concluded from this that ticketless fans were not a major factor in causing the ensuing crush. What caused the crush was opening the gate without making any attempt to divert fans away from the nearest pens which were already full.

Mackenzie got away with printing what he did because it is impossible for a group of people to sue for libel if they have not been individually named. However by impugning the reputation of such a large group, the Sun in particular has reaped what it sowed. The sheer number of people it offended meant that the ensuing boycott was big enough to really hurt the newspaper financially. The strength of the masses was beautifully demonstrated by the Liverpool fans at the recent televised cup game. That the Ö÷²¥´óÐã could let Mackenzie have his say on the grounds of free speech and then do their utmost to deflect attention from the Liverpool fans' "right of reply" is the most shameful aspect of the Corporation's behaviour.