Listened to 5Live’s film review on Friday(23 mins 40) and they were talking about ‘American Sniper’, a film set in Iraq about an American sniper killing Jihadis…apparently it is a ‘problematic’ film.
Mark Kermode’s thoughts on the film…technically no doubt good but problematic in that it is very one-sided.
Pretty much sums up the BBC mindset…there is always two sides to every story and no such thing as good/bad, right/wrong…unless of course you are a climate sceptic…..moral relativity is the only principle they abide by….the only conviction being that they should have no convictions.
No doubt Kermode would think that all those films about WWII are somewhat too one-sided for his liking…..The Dam Busters or The Great Escape….or Schindler’s List. Yep, there’s two sides to every story and though the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and many other unfortunates they must have had a jolly good reason…only fair to give them a hearing eh Mark? Never mind that ‘American Sniper’ is the personal story of one man and his view of the conflict. It is not a political film just a film telling a story of one man’s war. His story not history.
However when a film is political then a more nuanced and rounded approach should be taken and the various arguments aired otherwise the film is nothing more than a propagandist polemic.
And talking of Climate Sceptics and polemical propaganda….the same programme had a pop at the sceptics back in December when reviewing the pro-alarmist film ‘Merchants of Doubt’.
Apparently the sceptics are conjuring up, out of thin air, the appearance on doubt in regard to the science of climate change using snake oil salesman tactics and sleight of hand. Not sure just how much of the IPCC’s ramblings Mark Kermode has read but judging by his claims on this programme not much.
Kermode tells us that after watching the film he was enraged by the subject and the level of filibustering by the sceptics who are in the pay of big companies with vested interests…..apparently they are all flat earthers.
So no position taking there then by a BBC chappie…all based on his indepth and learned scientific knowlege of the science of climate change..or at least his having read something about it….or not…in reality he’s just a victim of what is patently a very one sided propaganda film by the Green industry….is there no two sides to this story then?
Firstly of course much of the climate scepticism, and the most sucessful, comes from people who have absolutely no backing from any industry, many of them scientists themselves….and all of it based upon study, analysis and critique of the published science…..and a very small part played by this site in exploring the BBC’s failure to report the inconsistencies in the scientific claims about climate and their lead environmental journalist’s own admission that he has been campaigning on the issue for 20 years...’We Think, Therefore It Is’
The BBC’s Roger Harrabin admitted he was a climate change campaigner:
I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change.
Second Kermode fails to mention the backing for the Greens from enormously rich business propagandists, such as Grantham…not to mention governments who pay billions into the climate change campaigner’s fighting fund…and not forgetting the BBC itself which provides invaluable and almost pricelss pro-climate change propaganda for the cause.
Nor does he mention the often violent opposition to any hint of criticism of the Green pathology.
Kermode vividly demonstrates what we suspect is the ingrained BBC attitude towards what it reports….everything is relative and there are no rights and wrongs in issues that the BBC supports…until we come up against a subject that the BBC is institutionally against such as immigration control, criticism of Islam, at least by white, working class people who haven’t checked their privilege, and the aforementioned climate change.
That sort of atttude, where the BBC will only let you voice your opinion if you are deemed to have the correct credentials, and it is the BBC who judges whether you have or not, is starkly illustrated by this exchange that Sue from ‘Is the BBC Biased?‘ had with a TV reviewer from the Sunday Times in 2007……
Rant about right rant
In 2007 I [Sue] wrote to the then TV editor of the Sunday Times to question a headline in that paper’s preview of an upcoming programme. The headline was: “Right Rant.” It was about Richard Littlejohn’s programme on C 4 about antisemitism in the UK. The War on Britain’s Jews, broadcast in July 2007.
I was surprised that the editor responded promptly, and at length…..
“Hopefully, you have now seen the programme and can understand why our critics dismissed Littlejohn’s programme as an incoherent rant from an extreme right-wing perspective. He had some valuable facts, but was shoehorning his tired old polemic on top of an argument that raised disturbing matters about which every sane person in the country should be alarmed. Should we really blame the left-wingers for the BNP painting swastikas on synagogues?
Simply put, Littlejohn does not have the credibility or authority to convince in a television programme arguing against violence towards one community when he himself has been guilty of prejudice towards other communities (have you ever read some of the things he has said about the Roma people, for example?). A serious journalist would have been able to put up an argument that was not simple bias riddled with holes. That’s not Littlejohn, though, is it?
I, too, deplore the rising incidence of attacks on Britain’s Jews, and on any other community, but none of our critics wanted to be accused of siding with Littlejohn. The fact is, in the television section, it is our jobs to rate the programmes as such, not to support or attack their polemics. Littlejohn’s record as a television and radio presenter is pretty atrocious, I think it was obvious for all to see why last night. What might pass for intellectual debate in the pages of the Mail or Sun does not necessarily pass muster over an hour on Channel 4.
I look forward to a serious film about the alarming growth of intolerance and prejudice in Britain, and I hope it is made by serious and responsible reporters.
Yours sincerely,
A fascinating reaction from the Times….in black and white the ‘left wing’ visceral hatred of anyone who disagrees with them and the refusal to even register someone like Littlejohn has an argument…..the refusal to admit the Left are guilty of whipping up anti-Semitism and of siding with Islamists….which is more than proved by the evidence…and lots of it.
I thought the film entirely measured and well researched….the main voices in support were actually all left wing, Wilby, Cohen and Mann…and the chief constable of course said some damning things….and apart from the images of orthodox Jews the speaking heads were pretty normal people…’for Jews’!
The Times’ reaction was based upon it being Littlejohn and the nature of those he said were to blame for the anti-semitism….a statement that anti-semitism was said to be endemic in the Muslim community (recently backed up by Medhi Hasan…That ‘dirty little secret‘), the NUJ were slated for supporting the boycott of Israel and the Left were damned for joining forces with at least radical Islamists and at worst terrorists like Hizbollah.
The programme was no more a ‘right wing rant’ than Panorama’s recent investigation into ‘Islam in Britain’ and regardless of Littlejohn’s reputation amongst the chattering classes, who of course all secretly lap up what he says in their Daily Mails which they read assiduously and on the quiet, the programme was a worthy attempt at investigating the issues….dismissing it because of the ‘messenger’ smacks of the usual attempt to ignore those issues…the now famous culture of denial and political correctness that hides the inconvenient truths and pervades organisations like the BBC and others dominated by progressive leftwingers.
Having looked a bit further this might be of interest...Littlejohn in 2006:
He said:
‘None of it is particularly revolutionary. Anyone with half a brain could see that New Labour’s obsession with multi-culturalism, unlimited immigration and ‘human rights’ was destined to end in tears. And that the burgeoning health and safety bureaucracy was doing tremendous damage, not just to businesses, but to our way of life.
Yet we were dismissed, scorned and smeared as heartless, knee-jerk, Neanderthal Nazis. So you might think that after the amazing about-turn of the past week, we have the right to feel vindicated.
You have to understand that even though we were right all along, we were the ‘wrong’ kind of people, therefore our opinions were odious and illegitimate.’
‘The wrong kind of people’ reporting, dismissed conveniently as Neanderthal Nazis whose opinions were odious and illegitimate…how right he was…and how very Stalinist those who decried him.
But there’s more of great interest in his article…ala Farage and the Romanians…what did the Labour government say in 2006 about the expected influx of Romanians and Bulgarians?….
This from a BBC report … they knew, even as they recently maligned Farage for his Romanian comments, that Labour had expressed the same concerns back in 2006….
‘Government departments have been told to draw up emergency plans to deal with pressure on public services from an expected “step change” in immigration levels when Romania and Bulgaria join the EU next year.
The document, entitled Migration from Eastern Europe: Impact on Public Services and Community Cohesion, was written by junior Home Office Minister Joan Ryan and leaked to the Mail on Sunday.
In the leaked report, Ms Ryan argues that many more English teachers will be needed to deal with a big rise in the number of eastern European children unable to speak the language.
Hospital beds are being “blocked” by east European patients because they cannot claim social care and benefits if they leave.
And towns and cities where large numbers of new immigrants have settled are now calling for millions of pounds of extra funding to cope, the report says.
The report, which is marked “restricted” and dated 19 July, came the day after Ms Ryan put out another document saying that 45,000 “undesirable” criminal migrants from Romania and Bulgaria could settle in the UK next year.’
45,000 ‘undesirables’…wouldn’t want them as neighbours? Racist to say so.
Farage was right then.
Or Labour is racist.
James O’Brien? He’ll be ramping up the kangaroo court once again and no doubt putting all those Labour politicians in the dock…..and Newsnight will once again embrace him as one of their own.
Don’t hold your breath.
Ironically, on another thread a view is being pushed that Public success is a great measure of value.
Of course, this can be driven, or hampered by powerful media monopolies telling the public how to think, favorably or not.
I watched a review of American Sniper a while ago by Cousin It’s twin sister and the two hit men from Diamonds are Forever.
They were not keen. In fact the review was more about Clint Eastwood’s politics, and even managed a snigger on George Bush.
So I figured the movie was toast.
Oddly, it seems to have prevalied. Darn you, free-thinking movie goers, darn you.
The film clip says that the Jews have been in this country for 350 years, but it’s been a lot longer than that.
The Scottish people originally came from Israel, predominately from the tribe of Levi as this section of the Declaration of Arbroath written in 1320 states.
‘Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown.
They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous.
Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today’
Shalom Albaman.
The film clip says that the Jews have been in this country for 350 years, but it’s been a lot longer than that.
I’m no historian, but I think the Jews were here, then were driven out, but were invited back by Oliver Cromwell when he was in power (about 350 years ago).
Wikipedia says: [My comments in brackets]
‘The first written record of Jewish settlement in England dates from 1070. The Jewish presence continued until King Edward I’s Edict of Expulsion in 1290’. [It has been suggested that some Jews arrived with the Romans. After all why should Britain be any different than Germany?]
After the expulsion, there was no Jewish community, apart from individuals who practised Judaism secretly, until the rule of Oliver Cromwell. [It has been suggested that some Jews came as traders or as part of foreign delegations but no community. Ironically it is extremely likely that neither William Shakespeare nor Christopher Marlowe had ever met a Jew.] While Cromwell never officially readmitted Jews to Britain, a small colony of Sephardic Jews living in London, was identified in 1656 and allowed to remain. [Making the 350 years figure reasonable. Perhaps the commentary should have been the modern history of the Jews?]
The Jewish Naturalisation Act of 1753, an attempt to legalise the Jewish presence in England, remained in force for only a few months. [But the need for such an act implies the presence of Jews].
The earliest reference to the Jews in Ireland was in the year 1079. [Traders]
By 1232, there was probably a Jewish community in Ireland, as a grant of 28 July 1232 by King Henry III to Peter de Rivel gives him the office of Treasurer and Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer, the king’s ports and coast, and also “the custody of the King’s Judaism in Ireland”. [Jews were property of the monarch. Jews probably lived in Ireland continuously from that point. They would have avoided the 1290 edict by moving into the areas outside English control.]
“I hope this will cheer Albaman and his fellow Scottish anti-Semites up.”
I suggest that you arrange with the site owner for the removal of this libelous statement.
Is it easy for someone who hides behind a pseudonym to successfully claim a libel?
I’m always pleased to learn.
Probably not as easy as it is for “for someone who hides behind a pseudonym” to make unfounded allegations about me.
I have seen Albaman ducking and weaving for many months – but to be fair I would not regard his interruptions as showing any anti-semitism.
However it is perhaps typical of him that he threatens legal action which he should know is ridiculous as no-one knows who is being traduced. A pseudonym cannot have a reputation to be damaged unless everyone knows who is behind the pseudonym.
Also – damages in libel depend on how widely the libel is spread – so would be miniscule for a site with a small readership.
Alby – here’s an Idiot’s Guide to Libel Law for you :
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
“However it is perhaps typical of him that he threatens legal action…………………..”
Where did I threaten legal action. I merely asked that TheHighlandRebel arranges for the offending statement to be removed.
#notenoughpopcorn
This one looks like being good value.
Especially if Rumpole files the papers & Judge Deed presides.
Sheik bin Al -bum-man – I suggest that the neo Nazi party you support apologise to the Scottish people for encouraging Islamic terrorist groups in Scotland with lies and anti semitic racist bile.
http://canaryinthecoalmine.typepad.com/my-blog/2011/05/scotland-goes-mad-for-islam.html
It is amazing what some people will believe.
The article you cite dates from May 2011. In the penultimate paragraph the author asserts that:
“The Scottish National Party may still wave the saltire, but it might as well replace it with the star and crescent. Muslim immigration has boosted its political fortunes, but the aging Scottish population is being displaced by Pakistani immigrants. As immigration rules funnel more Muslims to Scotland to replace the native population, the Scottish National Party is aligning itself with an Islamist agenda. Mosques are clashing with traditional pubs. Scottish medical workers have been barred from eating at their desks during Ramadan. The Burka is being promoted and Scottish Muslims have been planning to set up an Islamic state in some remote part of Scotland. But they might as well do it in Glasgow.”
Maybe you can enlighten us at to what progress has been made in setting up this “Islamic State in some remote part of Scotland”. I am sure such a move has been reported widely and you can show some evidence from other sources in the ensuing period of almost 5 years.
Maybe at the same time you can provide some evidence to support your claim that I am an anti-Semite.
I won’t hold my breath because the challenge to provide evidence usually results in a prolonged silence.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-islamic-foundation-on-security-list-alongside-extremists-1-820468
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/press-releases/quilliam-alert-scottish-national-party-to-endorse-islamist-candidate/
http://jihadinscotland.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/muslim-agitator-humza-yousaf-appointed.html
http://hurryupharry.org/2009/04/25/quilliam-offends-the-snp/
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/snp-candidate-accused-islamist-agenda
Shalom
Have that.
Maybe you should have read the thread and the articles cited before responding.
Interestingly as evidence of the progress made, since May 2011, in setting up this “Islamic State in some remote part of Scotland” you cite three articles from 2009, one from 2010 and one from May 2011.
Just as well I did not hold my breath.
That Labour screwed up for over thirteen years on Iraq, the extent of immigration(though this was deliberate too, says Andrew Neather)-and tanked the economy so comprehesively is unarguable.
Which is why the BBC etc don`t allow time nor room for the arguments, the case for the prosecutions-the sentencing of traitors, or those who gave us White Dee and Obajellebubs-the lowlife that beheaded Lee Rigby and their camp followers.
In other words-to quote Littlejohn-we may be right-but the BBC/Guardian etc won`t allow us to be proved so-because we are indeed “the wrong sort” .
Whereas the Left are always wrong-but in the Right Cause-so they are forgiven and given yet MORE rope to hang the nation with-hence the likes of Blunkett, Prescott, Mandelson, Campbells(Ali/Ming) Hezzas and Clarkes getting perpetual conch shells of privilege to school us with.
The BNP/EDL were 100% correct about child abuse of white girls by Muslim gangs of paedos “oop north”-but they too were “the wrong sort”-so have never been credited or exonerated for what they were saying LONG before Saviles travails for the BBC were-er “considered”.
Let`s hope England votes the elite back to the “Stones Age”-UKIP trounce up and down the land, Labour are disembowelled for a generation and the lIberals turn to slime trail as Thorpe, Oaten, Opik, Huhne/Pryce require.
Albampot….youse right big yin. A unproven allegation and should be removed….though you’re not averse to playing the man yourself are you Albampot?
But I reckon you can understand the confusion in ‘TheHighlandRebel’s’ mind that led to the libellous claim…well, libellous if youse wasn’t hiding behind a pseudonym.
The SNP, and youse very deffy an SNP activist no?, are national socialists of a very totalitarian bent and a party which enthusiastically tried to forge close links with Muslim Brotherhood activists in the homeland. That’ll be the Muslim Brotherhood which is the ideologial inspiration for Al Qaeda and is associated with terror groups around the world. The same group that took its guidance for how to carry out a poltiical insurgency from the Commies and the Nazis.
The Daily Mail are onto the SNP: ‘The Tartan Stalinists’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943915/The-Tartan-Stalinists-Forced-sales-country-estates-Snooping-state-guardians-child-Contempt-wealthy-Britain-Fantasy-No-s-stark-reality-SNP-landslide.html
Very unfair to label Albampot an anti-semite and yet the party he supports is a very nasty little organisation which shames Scotland.
Albampot – a much better name !
The article you cite is full of errors including two in consecutive paragraphs.
“It has created a single Scottish police force, free of any local democratic control.”
No it has not. Local Police Commanders are still required to report to their Local Authorities and Local Policing Plans are agreed between Councils and Police Scotland.
http://www.scotland.police.uk/your-community/
http://www.spa.police.uk/about-us/partnership-and-engagement/134573/
“Another SNP measure hits at the autonomy of the family. This is the Named Persons Act, which provides for the state to appoint a named guardian, usually a social worker or teacher, for every child and adolescent in Scotland.”
There is no such thing as the Named Person Act. The “named person” is designed to ensure consistency across Scotland when an intervention is required to protect a child. It aims to ensure that the breakdown in communication between agencies which has led to may tragedies is avoided. Social workers are unlikely to be the named person as the role falls to a health professional up to school age and the Headteacher thereafter.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright/named-person
As you seem to disagree with the SNP’s policies then you are free to vote for one of the opposition parties – something that you would not be able to do in a “Stalinist” state.
Another cost of an Islamic presence in France, extending beyond banning of film-making-
1.) Jihadwatch’-
“Paris stops action movie filmings for fear locals will take actors for terrorists”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/02/paris-stops-action-movie-filmings-for-fear-locals-will-take-actors-for-terrorists
2.) Beeboids’ ‘Entertainment’ page-
“Action films restricted in Paris following attacks”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31163424
What will happen to the next series of French TV crime action series, ‘SPIRAL,’
to be shown on BBC TV 4?
Harrabin’s
‘I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change.’
translates as
‘I have done my best to make sure the far left agenda behind climate change doesn’t fail’
Here is one reason the left don’t like Littlejohn:
Toynbee’s hypocrisy, of the sort common with champagne socialists, exposed for all to see. Even the Question Time audience expressed its disgust. Notice how she tries to move the debate on the instant she is exposed.
Hahahahahahaha……….