keithwhu

Answered by G20 London Summit

Click play to watch this video answer

Answered by G20 London Summit

Click play to watch this video answer

Answered by G20 London Summit

Click play to watch this video answer

Answered by G20 London Summit

Click play to watch this video answer

Answered by G20 London Summit

Click play to watch this video answer

Answered by G20 London Summit

Click play to watch this video answer

Answered by Siân Berry

People are realising that Green policies are about so much more than the environment. We’re committed to combatting fuel poverty, getting fairer wages, improving human rights and liberties, basic democracy... Show more »

People are realising that Green policies are about so much more than the environment. We’re committed to combatting fuel poverty, getting fairer wages, improving human rights and liberties, basic democracy and, of course, challenging climate change.

The Mayoral election is virtually guaranteed to be decided on second round votes (to make sure of this any vote other than for Boris Johnson will help to make sure he doesn’t get 50% to win in round one). In a two-round contest, people are completely free to vote for who they want in the first round, which means if people vote Green first, their second vote will still count as a full vote n the final round.

So, by voting Siân 1, Ken 2, you actually have two full votes counted for the price of one, which I think is a bargain.

Answered by Paul Williams

The charts are extremely accurate; in fact they are more accurate than they’ve ever been. They’re based on every conceivable music sale that can be recorded. So that includes CD’s, vinyl and downloads.... Show more »The charts are extremely accurate; in fact they are more accurate than they’ve ever been. They’re based on every conceivable music sale that can be recorded. So that includes CD’s, vinyl and downloads. In terms of what recorded music was sold last week they couldn’t be more accurate. However in terms of what the charts tell us these days; although they tell us about one aspect of popularity, they are no longer the perfect guide to tell you who the most popular acts at this moment are. They will tell you who are the most popular acts in terms of selling music, but there lots of other factors now that determine how popular artists are. For instance, how much they gross from touring, how many hits they have on MySpace, how many times they appear on TV and the radio. There are all sorts of measurements nowadays. It’s only by looking across different factors that you can make any kind of judgement about artist popularity. If you were to look at the music charts over the last twenty years to judge how successful the Rolling Stones have been during that period you would think that they had lost their way and must be struggling now. But if you look at their touring revenue you think wow they’re the biggest band on the planet. Show less »

Answered by Conor McNicholas

We’re about to find out what their options there might be. Could there ever be a band that worked entirely in a live sphere and didn’t release any studio music? Yes, I could easily see that there could... Show more »We’re about to find out what their options there might be. Could there ever be a band that worked entirely in a live sphere and didn’t release any studio music? Yes, I could easily see that there could be an artist who would do that. Bear in mind that Led Zeppelin never released singles, and that was considered the big money earner at the time. So some bands could certainly operate entirely in the live sphere. Studio recording, in terms of the album, is definitely breaking down. People are beginning to experiment by sending out one-off tracks, but some bands will always want to do albums. But I think the standard package of single, album and tour is definitely beginning to break down now. I think that the whole point of the new digital world is that it will deliver a number of choices. The most dangerous thing that you can ever do in this new sphere is say that something is impossible, because actually everything is possible. Show less »

Answered by Steve Bennedik

I would advise them to work very closely with the police and to consider the detectives' advice. I would advise them that public exposure should be channelled to one aim, finding out what has happened... Show more »I would advise them to work very closely with the police and to consider the detectives' advice. I would advise them that public exposure should be channelled to one aim, finding out what has happened to your child. Having covered a few stories where parents have lost their children through death or abduction, I know some parents don't always behave rationally in these circumstances. But who would? I find it hard to imagine the strain these parents' must be going under. Show less »

Answered by Steve Bennedik

The media coverage of the McCann case should be considered in the context of developments over a seven-month-period, not looking back with the benefit of hindsight. When Madeleine first went missing, ... Show more »The media coverage of the McCann case should be considered in the context of developments over a seven-month-period, not looking back with the benefit of hindsight. When Madeleine first went missing, the media had a justifiable interest in reporting the story. Later, there was coverage of the police investigation and family appeals. Since the McCann’s returned to the UK, I think there has been less justification for coverage. But I think it's too easy to look back and label all that's happened as "satisfying peoples' morbid curiosity". Show less »

Answered by Simon Bucks

We only lead on it when it is justified editorially. That means when we judge it to be the most important or interesting story of the moment. I slightly take issue with your reference to "one missing ... Show more »We only lead on it when it is justified editorially. That means when we judge it to be the most important or interesting story of the moment. I slightly take issue with your reference to "one missing child" which I presume to be perjorative. Many stories revolve around one individual. That is because generally people find it easier to relate to individuals than to large nebulous groups and abstract concepts. But as I mention earlier, I think this single child's case personifies important and big issues about child raising and child safety which is why people find it interesting. Show less »

Answered by Simon Bucks

I don't agree with Adam about this. We value comments by our users, many are very intelligent and thoughtful. Of course, there will be some which are daft or abusive, but that is the nature of the internet.... Show more »I don't agree with Adam about this. We value comments by our users, many are very intelligent and thoughtful. Of course, there will be some which are daft or abusive, but that is the nature of the internet. Show less »

Answered by Simon Bucks

The Portugese media is largely unregulated and has sometimes printed stories which are untrue and unsourced. Elements of the UK media may have followed suit. But most responsible and serious sections... Show more »The Portugese media is largely unregulated and has sometimes printed stories which are untrue and unsourced. Elements of the UK media may have followed suit. But most responsible and serious sections of the UK media have covered the story well. Show less »

Answered by Simon Bucks

It's very hard to tell. They have certainly helped keep the story in the public eye across many countries. If the child was kidnapped then more people would have know what she looked like and might have... Show more »It's very hard to tell. They have certainly helped keep the story in the public eye across many countries. If the child was kidnapped then more people would have know what she looked like and might have alerted the police if they recognised her. On the other hand some people argue that the glare of publicity would have scared the kidnappers into killing the child for fear of being caught. In their position, I would have probably done what they did it. But I am speaking personally here. Show less »

Answered by Shelina Begum

I am not that well travelled - I have just been to Spain, Greece, Italy and a few other places - and I have to say with a hand on my heart that I have not seen any other place as multi-cultural as England.... Show more »I am not that well travelled - I have just been to Spain, Greece, Italy and a few other places - and I have to say with a hand on my heart that I have not seen any other place as multi-cultural as England. It really, truly is a very multi-cultural country. Even from where I come from, Manchester, the girls can wear their hijab, Sikh boys can wear turbans to school. Obviously there is racism in every society but in England, for example, a lot of people have a lot of freedom to do what they want, as long as they are not harming anybody, they are well accepted [in society] and I truly believe that. I was in Greece recently in a small place called Kaditz but no one could get the concept that I was British. They just wanted to know where I was really, really, REALLY from. For instance, my grandparents were from Bangladesh but they [the Greeks] didn’t know it. I finally said they were from India but they still couldn’t get the concept of me being English – born and raised in England – because I had dark skin. And when I came back to England, I really could appreciate everyone being side by side and they do. Show less »

Answered by Gerard Batten

Thing is, you have to divide it into two things – people who come here to work and people who actually want to emigrate here. Now, if there are gaps in the job market eg there are farmers that’ll tell... Show more »Thing is, you have to divide it into two things – people who come here to work and people who actually want to emigrate here. Now, if there are gaps in the job market eg there are farmers that’ll tell you they need these European labourers to harvest their crops. That’s a temporary thing, lasting three or four months or whatever part of a year. We should have a government ministry that sees what gaps the industry’s got, what places you can’t fill and then we issue work permits that people can apply for and they come here. And that might be on a very temporary basis, maybe 3 or 6 months or 1 / 2 / 3 years. But what that will give them the right to do is come here and work for a specific period of time and after that, they have to leave. Second thing – emigration, allowing people to emigrate into this country. I think it should actually be very difficult to do because we are a very densely populated country and we all know from personal experience that our quality of life is suffering because of congestion, particularly in London and the South East. So, if people want to emigrate here, I think we should have a very strict system similar to other countries in the world, where you have the points system, again, which says “what age are you?’, “what are your educational and professional qualifications?”, “how much money have you actually got?”, “can you support yourself when you get here so that you don’t become a drain on the public purse, the benefits or the health service?” and we decide on that basis. Someone has done some very interesting research on this and found out in order for an immigrant to have a neutral effect on the economy, they should actually bring with them £144,000 in cash. If you try to emigrate to a country like Australia, you will find they require you to have a profession they want, the right age so they can get X years of work out of you and you have to bring with you certain amount of money. Unless there’s a particular gap in the job market, eg, doctors, nurses, dentists etc, in which case they would waive that condition. But they have a very strict system. I think we should have one too. Show less »

Answered by Gerard Batten

It cannot, under current projection. Some demographers have done some research on this and Professor Rich Lynn is forecasting that under current demographic trends, within the lifetime of anyone aged ... Show more »It cannot, under current projection. Some demographers have done some research on this and Professor Rich Lynn is forecasting that under current demographic trends, within the lifetime of anyone aged 50 or under, the native British, particularly the English, would become an ethnic minority in their own country. This is based on current rates of immigration. It is uncontrolled, unlimited and indiscriminate. We effectively have no control over people coming in from the EU; it is possible, very easy for people outside the EU to get false identification papers and to come to Britain through the EU. Although we supposedly have control over people in EU, in reality, they don’t work. If people turn up on holiday or a trip, they can disappear into Britain and never be heard of again. Which is why we have 1 million illegal immigrants. Show less »

Answered by Gerard Batten

I don’t think so. The ID cards scheme, as you are well aware, is a bit of a red herring. It is not the ID card that matters, it is the information database that lies behind it, in which they will have... Show more »I don’t think so. The ID cards scheme, as you are well aware, is a bit of a red herring. It is not the ID card that matters, it is the information database that lies behind it, in which they will have all the information about a citizen on a safe database. There’s around 50 different categories of information they are going to have about you. It is very very dangerous to put all this in one place because if one of this isn’t secure, anyone can hack into it. It isn’t secure enough – when all your information is in one place, criminals can get hold of it that much easily. Extremely dangerous – I don’t trust the State to have this information, neither do I trust its security. Your personal information would become public property. I don’t think we owe the State that. [About tapping], all electronic communications are tapped anyway. Any communication you have by phone, fax, e-mail all goes through GHQ in Cheltenham and they can look at that whenever they want to. It’s a fact of life. They deny it is not. The security services have that ability to do that; the Americans have a system called ‘Echelon’ which can track any electronic communication in the world. It’s the nature of it now for electronic communication that this can be done. And while of course there are billions of messages every day, the security services look for special keywords and sophisticated searching device in order to track terrorists. And this is how many of the terrorist threats are actually countered and uncovered. That’s a fact of life. It happens. There’s no such thing as private or secure communication. If they want to tap you, they can and they will. What I’m saying is that these can be used in court and since the Security Services do use it, let’s regularize it and insert the circumstances when they can do it. Show less »

Answered by Gerard Batten

Well, there used to be such a law, sedition under the government. A lot of these things were removed by the Labour Government - they had a mania for reducing legislation. They actually got rid of some... Show more »Well, there used to be such a law, sedition under the government. A lot of these things were removed by the Labour Government - they had a mania for reducing legislation. They actually got rid of some very useful things. If government decides at some public order, that there should be an offence, we should have got rid of this – for example, Islamic fanatics – on that kind of legislation we could have dealt with them, instead of not being able to. Which is what we have at the moment. Show less »

Answered by Representative of easyJet

The expansion of Stansted would not significantly increase our emissions, as we are always looking for the latest technology to ensure reductions. easyJet emits 27% less Co2 than a traditional airline,... Show more »The expansion of Stansted would not significantly increase our emissions, as we are always looking for the latest technology to ensure reductions. easyJet emits 27% less Co2 than a traditional airline, due to the nature of our business - high loads and modern aircraft. This means flying low-cost is a more environmentally efficient way to fly. Show less »

Answered by Salma Yacoob

No I don’t think he was representing the will of the British people. The majority of British people were opposed to the war. The anti-war demonstration on February 15th 2003 was the biggest protest ... Show more »No I don’t think he was representing the will of the British people. The majority of British people were opposed to the war. The anti-war demonstration on February 15th 2003 was the biggest protest in 2,000 years of British history. The comments from Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to Washington at the time, in his book DC Confidential, that Blair was ‘seduced’ by US power seems to me much closer to the point as to whose interests he was more concerned about. It is difficult to believe that he will be taken seriously as a Middle East envoy in view of his uncritical stance to US and Israeli policy and his support for their invasion of Iraq and attack on Lebanon. Show less »

Answered by Salma Yacoob

I supported Labour in 1997 and I had been quite impressed by Tony Blair. So I was delighted when Labour were back in power. I was hopeful that Labour really could introduce ‘an ethical foreign policy’... Show more »I supported Labour in 1997 and I had been quite impressed by Tony Blair. So I was delighted when Labour were back in power. I was hopeful that Labour really could introduce ‘an ethical foreign policy’ abroad as they suggested and greater social justice at home. These feelings were gradually replaced by disillusion and anger as Labour transformed itself into New Labour. When Blair stepped down I felt pride that it was opposition to the invasion of Iraq that had dogged him to the end but also sadness at the tremendous opportunity he had squandered. Show less »