Keith Mothersson
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 303
Location: Perth
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: Report and Advice about Question Time |
 |
|
I got a tip off from a thread in our Scottish section that QT was coming to Stirling on 28 Feb. I thought about mentioning this on an e-mail newsletter i sent out to 911Truth Scotland - but decided against it, as i felt sure the spooks would be watching.
The company running it is Mentorn, which I really suspect following a 911 documentary they did, also the Who wants to be a politician? weeklong series they did - with 'audience voting' which I suspect was manipulated to leave a final evening line up of Lab, greenish woman LibDem, radical Asian Muslim = Respect and cuddly NF-style racist-populist.
I assumed (wrongly) that the thing went out live, but when i realised later that it wasn't I assumed that they would film extra in case of dissident 'trouble'. decided nontheless to register online. I knew the odds were against me/us but I decided to do what I could without serious lying or pissing eveyone off with some over the top intervention perceived as aggressive or too 'way out'.
Filling in the application form I played it straight - and again when I was phoned up by the organiser, Alison Fuller, who wanted to know what subject most interested me in today's news: I said 'Cabinet minutes about Iraq war', and I mentioned I was concerned about the way things were going, as a grandfather.
She sent me an e-mail to tell me I was accepted, and I should send in a question of 20-30 words about some topical subject, and come prepared to write on a card another such question when i arrived.
I decided not to stand out with anything too 911-directed on the first question.
[This is the question I sent in (not accepted):
| Quote: | Following disturbing allegations concerning the ruling Establishment in Jersey, and in the light of new evidence uncovered by Sandra Uttley, should Holyrood re-open the Inquiry into the Dunblane massacre?
Best wishes,
Keith Forrester-Paton -
QT invitation number 3983
(grandfather of three)
NB Hamilton lived in Stirling and frequented the University campus at times, so the location for this question is pretty relevant !
Sandra Uttley found out the name of the off-duty police officer, Grant McCutcheon, who was delivering his kids to school when Hamilton struck, and whose witness statement, contradicting the report of the headmaster and janitor on key points, was somehow airbrushed out of the picture by Central Scotland Police, and/or ignored by Lord Cullen, nor did the Crown Office call him as a witness.
I am not interested in 'conspiracy theories' but as a grandfather of three I am interested in ensuring children are safe, and I believe that only the full truth can help towards that end (not a 100 year shelving of reports). |
-- and at the gathering I took a risk and talked with some people about Sandra's book, which I have just read, and her website: [url]www.dunblaneunburied.tk [/url] - giving out about ten handwritten slips of paper with the URL on the way out. Sandra reckons, and I agree, that Hamilton was shot by a police or SAS/spook marksman who had been grooming Hamilton towards some desperate action for some time and followed Hamilton that morning, who may even have shot the kids too? [H may have just wanted to kill the head?] -
with the police/spooks fiddling bigtime with the crime scene, cremating H's body quick, and having prepared a whole media script about the need for gun control, including notifying media as soon as it happened - before the police quite possibly. Anyway, I digress.]
On the Thursday I trimmed my woolly face and cut my hair, put on a conservative looking blue shirt. Arrived around 6.15 and stood in queue to be frisked, bag searched, then registered, filled in my other question:
| Quote: | | It turns out neither Iraq nor Iran had Weapons of Mass Destruction - so why should we believe Western governments about the terrible Act of Mass destruction of Sept 11th? |
And wrote 'Question of Government Accountability' at the top (in case they thought I had covered two different points or the link to what was topical was too tenuous). Also not chosen.
As we waited around (free tea, coffee, biscuits and a few bowls of fruit) the TV screens carried an extended orgy of royalist militarism - most people thought it over the top. Then David Dimbelby came out to brief us and answer questions, which he does in such an beautiful relaxed, funny and seemingly caring and concerned way that we all gave him a clap at the end.
Among his statements:
| Quote: | "You make the programme, you have terrific power to say what you think, ... please also participate by applause, laughter, even boos if you want, politics is controversial enough to allow that..."
"After the warm-up question with panelists [which turned out to be about Cuba/Castro when Galloway was excellent] we will then film straight through unedited for 58 minutes exactly " - which surprised me and somewhat impressed me, I have to say. (Though I guess if anyone had really gone over the top they might really have the warm-up question as back up?) |
Then we queued to get into the auditorium for a warm-up period of mock panel discussion chaired by the producer. I thought about volunteering to be one of the five panelists, and could easily have been accepted in that capacity - but thought I might get discriminated against later if i went out on a limb too much. I don't think that happened - cos from the floor on a question about surveillance cameras I first won some applause when i said that I would like cameras in Downing St while people are plotting illegal wars, and then - less effectively - said that the CCTV footage often wasn't available to us when we most needed them - e.g. 17 cameras from Ritz Hotel to where Diana died, 9/11 airports, Madrid station and no pictures of the four men in London on July 7th, so why weren't they working? [this packed a little too much in]
Then we started 'live' - first question about Harry and Iraq and the press went to Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) who was touchingly pro-Harry, pro-our boys; Cathie Jamieson was also feeble - [Later in the programme the SNP and LibDem leaders did better on the illegality of the Iraq war issue a bit later, along with Galloway.]
Then it was time for the rather popular Gorgeous George who was well-informed, cogent and sharp - but as always he models a little too much ego and righteous anger as if to say to people, this stuff i am denouncing is too awful for us to connect with from our underlying compassionate natures, so let's settle for juicy denunciations of the bad guys.
I had my hand up and was now called - forgetting to bring my hand down! (despite advance tip from Dimbleby).
FWIW my half minute's worth came at 6 mins 30 secs to 7.01 on
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7270000/newsid_7270400/7270469 .stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2
After a nod to the Harry officcial starting point and mention of the 8,000 soldiers Sturgeon and Jamieson had gone on about, and before summing up from the heart i wish I had managed to weave in something like:
| Quote: | | "And what are they there for? Aghani feminists are entirely discredited by association with countries which bomb villages with dozens of women having jelly babies from depleted uranium poisoning a year or two later. The price of Heroin keeps dropping - unlike under the Taliban. There's no democracy to speak of and the official reason that the US and UK went in has turned out to be as big a pack of lies as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, namely the Sept 11th act of mass destruction fathered on Bin Laden - who always denied it ... " |
[in your dreams, Mothersson]
Actually I just might have gotten this far without being cut off by DD or barracking beginning from people feeling threatened in the audience, but then I am pretty sure i wouldn't have been able to sum up from the heart at the end, which I was pleased I was able to do/feel. Sometimes less is more.
So my advice to truth activists:
Why not give it a go? but not as a big conspiracy thing. You have a right to be heard. Just don't stand out too far from the crowd. Slightly better chance if female and/or ethnic minority.
300 questions chosen from, only five or so taken - so you are unlikely to get your question acepted unless it is witty/punchy and also very tightly linked to the top five or so stories of that week/day. You will probably be asked for your view after the panelists have had their go - so keep any radical slant for the end - like "well personally I don't have a lot of faith in these answers, I'm still waiting for the BBC explain why they announced the fall of the third tower half and hour early at five oclock in the afternoon."
There may have been a spook or two circulating beforehand and in the audience, but there didn't seem to be any obvious discrimination going on in terms of political views during the discussion, so there is a good chance of you being able to put in your tuppenceworth.
Think carefully of how much you will realistically be able to get in, 30 secs to 1 min MAX, maybe role play to get it short and pithy enough.
Above all speak from the heart: people may laugh out of anxiety or embarrassment but no one will hate us if we connect with our compassion which has gotten us to want to understand this political stuff deeper, so we can help make life a better place for all . OK!
Evn if you don't get called it was a not bad venue to talk with politically interested participants; the one(s) who go in shouldn't leaflet outside beforehand - but some others might? or else dish stuff outside at the end?
Finally: From the comfort of our homes we can e-mail stuff to the Question Time discussion forum - (the sooner the better, I guess, as also Any Questions):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/your_say/default.s tm
which has some amazing display system for getting comments from particular areas if you want.
Your comments may or may not be picked up on a new Question Time Extra programme on BBC News 24, which I thought was pretty dreadful actually, 'expert' dominated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/6994949.stm
_________________
For the defence of our one worldwide civilian Motherland, against whatever ruling or informal fraternities.
May all beings be happy |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
