Ukip 100 Days2
Extremism

Ukip: The First 100 Days and Channel 4 gratuitous anti-Israelism

 

If you didn’t see Channel 4’s over-hyped docu-drama Ukip: The First 100 Days, don’t bother dashing for C4 On Demand. It is a tedious effort, dramatic dullsville, full of factual economic errors and replete with political clichés of how Prime Minister Farage would set himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God, and then the End will come. Yes, if vote Ukip, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. How dreadful it will be in those post-election days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equaled again.

But there was one scene which really cannot pass without comment. As the policies pursued by a Ukip government lead to protests, riots and social breakdown, the narrator turns our attention to a group of “Far-Right demonstrators”, while the above image is being broadcast to represent said group. Note that there are no BNP flags and no EDL banners; not even a Nazi swastika or a placard screaming ‘No more mosques’. No, when Channel 4 berates the Far Right, they choose to convey to the nation and inculcate in the minds of viewers that Israel = Far Right, or Far Right = Israel. No doubt you will find the odd Star of David being brandished by the EDL, but the point is that there isn’t a Cross of St George or Union Jack to be seen. It is a very particular smeary denigration. To support the Jewish people in their right to self-determination is ‘far-right’ and ‘extremist’. Such puerile prejudice comes straight out of the Jon Snow Channel 4 News handbook of popular anti-Israelism.

And thence we segue into anti-Zionism, and thence to anti-Semitism. A German court recently ruled that ‘Anti-Zionism is code for anti-Semitism‘. Judge Sastry is quoted as saying: “‘Zionist’ is the language of anti-Semites, the code for ‘Jew.’” And choosing to associate the flag of Israel alone with the Far Right is a consonant defamation: if shouting ‘Zionist’ can be an expression of hatred toward Jews, flying the Zionist flag may be a discriminatory incitement to hatred.

It is extraordinary, as Europe’s Jews are being spat on in the streets, shot in kosher delicatessens and slaughtered in their synagogues, that Channel 4 persists with its pathological antipathy toward the State of Israel. Do they not understand that it is the only democracy in the Middle East? Do they not appreciate that Israel is the only country in the entire region where women are equal; adulterers aren’t stoned; children aren’t sold into slavery; Christians aren’t beheaded; gays aren’t thrown from tall buildings; and prisoners aren’t caged like animals and burned alive?

It is not ‘far right’ to support Israel: the real fascists are those who routinely disparage its national symbols, denigrate its religion and discriminate against its people, and such discrimination includes holding them to higher standards or judging them by different criteria to the way we discern and appraise other nations. Ukip: The First 100 Days was only a crass fantasy docu-drama broadcast in a liberal democracy where the worst that might happen now is the odd swastika might be daubed on a few tombstones. But in some parts of the world, more Jews will now die, and not even Prime Minister Farage can prevent that.

  • Dreadnaught

    There is no such thing as bad publicity. This programme aimed at undermining UKIP’s election chances has achieved the exact opposite effect. Like Cameron referring to UKIP supporters as ‘Fruitcakes and Loons’ this drama will achieve the same opposite effect.

    Total own goal by The Establishment.

    They are insulting the intelligence of the Greatl British Public voters by assuming they cannot read or see between the lines.

    The only possible reason for producing this blatant piece of attempted political influence is that of FEAR! Fear that the GBP is finding it’s voice.

    • Anton

      Well said!

  • Anton

    Prime Minister Farage? UKIP will have its failings as all organisations do but I’d like it to have the chance to show them… We are not voting for Farage vs Jesus Christ but Farage vs CameronBand and I know which I prefer.

    You Grace, on a point of information Christians are not beheaded in Jordan, while if you regard the stoning of adulterers as a matter of shame then you are ashamed of part of Holy Scripture as God commanded the stoning of an adulterous wife and her lover in ancient Israel (Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10).

    • Phil R

      Jesus was a lot less harsh with adulterous wives

      • Anton

        The passage you have in mind (from John 8) is disputed as scripture and in any case Jesus’ response “Let him without sin cast the first stone” presumably means “Let him with a good conscience in this matter cast the first stone”, ie they were all aware that they were using the woman to get at him rather than concerned that the law be upheld. Jesus is not going to disagree with his father regarding what the law should be or anything else.

        • His words meant what they actually say – stone her if you’ve never sinned yourself. He knows we all sin – except Him as God made man (and, of course, His mother, Mary).

          As for the law, Jesus will also have known that law required two witnesses who had attempted to intervene to prevent the sin and, after a trial, judgement to be passed by the Sanhedrin, not a self-righteous baying mob.

          And Jack very much doubts Jesus’ message and His New Covenant upholds public stoning for adultery.

          • Anton

            If Jesus were saying that only the sinless may enact the more drastic penalties commanded by God in the Law of Moses, then that law would be unworkable, because He alone is sinless (Romans 3:23). God obviously did not intend Mosaic Law to be unworkable, and Jesus and God are one about Mosaic Law (and everything else: John 10:30). So it must mean something a bit more subtle.

            They caught the woman in adultery, ie multiple witnesses (as required for conviction) to the woman having sex with a man not her husband. The text does not say that they were not on the way to a local judging elder to present the matter and then stone her; indeed that is what they did with Jesus. (It is irrelevant that her lover got away; he can be caught later.) Jesus’ words, if this passage is indeed canonical (which is anyway disputed), can only refer to the men not having a clean conscience. Perhaps some were adulterers themselves, although it is fairly unlikely that all of them were. More likely is that none had clean conscience over their motives for dragging her before Jesus – to get him either to deny Mosaic Law or usurp the Roman prerogative over capital issues (John 18:31). How clever He is to get out of that fork!

            The new covenant applies to a voluntary society, known as the church, comprising people called out from every nation yet living among their own peoples – governed by their own legal codes – to act as salt and light. In that situation the question of what the law should be does not arise, which is why the question is not considered in the New Testament. For wisdom over what the law should be, the divine – and therefore outstanding – precedent is the Law of Moses. Of course it should not be taken up unchanged because gentile nations do not have a national covenant requiring all people to acknowledge God, and because the crucifixion outdated the sacrificial laws. But the “moral” laws governing interpersonal relations should still be taken very seriously as a guideline, for human nature has not changed.

          • What a convoluted reply, Anton.

            As for its canonical status – its in scripture; its canonical.

            This was a public stoning, a test for Jesus by hostile religionists. The law required judgement by the Sanhedrin and the crowd were proposing a public stoning. Jesus’ response was not directly critical of either the Mosaic law or the judicial system of Judaism. He did however, fulfil the law of Moses and institute a New Covenant and another way for righteousness and salvation.

            His meaning was clear when He said:
            “Whichever of you is free from sin shall cast the first stone at her.”. He did not condemn her; He told her: “Woman, where are thy accusers? Has no one condemned thee? No one, Lord, she said. And Jesus said to her, I will not condemn thee either. Go, and do not sin again henceforward.” It has many meanings consistent with Jesus’ other teachings.

            Why twist and distort its clear meaning?

          • Anton

            “Why twist and distort its clear meaning?”

            And when did you stop beating your wife? If Jesus were saying that only the sinless may enact the death penalty commanded by God in the Law of Moses, then that law would be unworkable, because all are sinners. Obviously God did not intend Mosaic Law to be unworkable, and Jesus is never going to disagree with His Father (John 10:30). So the passage cannot mean what you suggest, can it?

            The rest of my post is a suggestion of what it did mean, if indeed it is canonical. We can proceed to discuss its meaning once you have grasped the preceding paragraph and also educated yourself on how the passage is disputed because it is in some early surviving Greek gospel fragments but not others. See:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

          • “If Jesus were saying that only the sinless may enact the death penalty commanded by God in the Law of Moses, then that law would be unworkable, because all are sinners.”

            Jack never claimed Jesus was saying this. He accepted the ‘Seat of Moses’ and the Leviticus Laws. He was however, pointing out something distinct as a preamble to His New Covenant.

            “Obviously God did not intend Mosaic Law to be unworkable, and Jesus is never going to disagree with His Father (John 10:30).”

            Jack answered this above. You are confusing different things – the message (all are sinners and Mercy before the Law of God) and the means (a woman being publically humiliated and threatened with death by a self righteous mob).

            “So the passage cannot mean what you suggest, can it?”

            Yes it can.

            And Jack accepts the canon of scripture as declared by Trent.

          • Anton

            It is simply an accident of history that the Greek manuscripts from which Jerome translated the New Testament into Latin – the Vulgate declared canonical at Trent – did contain this passage. Other Greek gospel fragments at least as ancient do not. Now, it is not an illegitimate way of arguing for you to say that you trust the conclusions of the Council of Trent, for nobody can personally enter into every detail of every argument. But Trent did not discuss this passage, even though it was already in question by then (as shown in the Wikipedia page about it, to which I have already linked above). Trent was interested in which books were canonical, not in individual passages. Here is the relevant part of Trent’s proceedings:
            http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
            So you are on shaky ground in relying on Trent to settle this passage. (Furthermore, Pope Sixtus V within a few decades of Trent declared himself dissatisfied with the Vulgate, leading to the well-known farce of his own defective translation and its discreet correction by Cardinal Bellarmine and others.)

            If you want to do this properly then you have to get into the kind of scholarly detail outlined in that Wikipedia page. Details of koine Greek style are beyond me and I candidly declare that I don’t know whether the passage is canonical. You have as good as said that they are beyond you too, so neither can you know. This matters because if it is canonical then we cannot have Jesus contradicting His Father in it. (If it’s not canonical then we don’t care what it portrays Jesus doing.) And if Jesus says that only persons sinless in all respects – rather than persons sinless in the matter at hand – may enact this Mosaic Law then this part of Mosaic Law is unenforceable, which God (and therefore Jesus) never intended. Contradiction. So Jesus means persons sinless in the matter at hand. You actually recognise this yourself, when you complain about “a woman being publically humiliated and threatened with death by a self righteous mob”. But you wrote above “His words meant what they actually say – stone her if you’ve never sinned yourself” and you made abundantly clear that you meant in any way.

            If you believe I am misunderstanding you, please feel free to rewrite Jesus word’s in the first person, which would clarify matters and is not irreverent provided you make clear it is all you are doing.

          • Anton, Jack is content with what he has already said and he’s addressed all these points already.

            Jesus said: “Whichever of you is free from sin shall cast the first stone at her.” He didn’t say if you’re free from the sin of adultery, cast the first stone.

          • Anton

            I consider that a reply but not a response and I too am content for His Grace’s readers to decide between us for themselves.

          • There are almost 1,000 Greek texts that contain the verses in question, fewer than 100 that do not. There is no doubt in my mind that they are authentic.
            .
            With regard to their meaning, you need to bear in mind that as well as adultery, sabbath-breaking and failure to honour one’s parents (Deut. 21:18ff) were punishable by death in the Mosaic law. The judicial law is no longer binding on Christians, any more than the dietry laws are (Acts 10:9ff). The judicial laws show God’s detestation of sin, but, ‘Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man [Christ} is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses’ (Acts 13:38-39). Those who reject Christ will pay the penalty for their sins in due time, but the judicial, dietry and worship Mosaic laws are no longer binding on nations today. The 10 Commandments are, of course, still binding on Christians (1 Cor. 6:9ff).
            .
            ‘For the law came was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ (John 1:17). What this woman received was grace.

          • Anton

            Martin,

            I am undecided about the canonicity of the tale and I think you are not taking into account the difference that scholars find between its Greek and the rest of John, plus the fact that it isn’t a simple in-or-out but appears in some versions of Luke. There is more to it than voting with numbers.

            I have been explicit that Mosaic Law is not binding on any nation other than Israel from Sinai to the crucifixion; and have argued here that the religious laws must not be enacted in gentile nations no matter how Christian their rulers because Christianity is a voluntary opt-in faith. Please do not think I was saying anything other. But I do believe that the “moral” laws, ie those governing interpersonal relations, are an excellent precedent because the human moral sense is fallen today just as it was then, and nobody is going to be wiser than God in legislating it.

            As for the Ten Commandments, they are simply part of Mosaic Law which Christians are not under as a body of law; only under those laws which Jesus repeated to his followers plus those determined at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). That means we are under nine of the ten, the exception being the Sabbath. If a self-employed Christian does some work on a Sunday (and/or a Saturday), he is not sinning.

          • Anton,

            I disagree with pretty much all of your post, but I won’t go any further into the N.T. canon here.

            With reference to the continuity of the Moral Law, God wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone, and he didn’t put the 4th one in brackets. have a read of this if you have time and energy:

            https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/the-christian-the-law-and-christ/

          • Anton

            That the decalogue was written by God’s finger rather than transmitted to Moses for writing down is irrelevant to the point that it is part of Israel’s law and not given to any other nation. Of course the moral law is written on man’s heart and partly erased by sinfulness but the 4th commandment is not of that sort.

          • The Decalogue is written on the hearts of all men (Romans 2:14-15), though smudged and defaced by the Fall; was written on tablets of stone for the Israelites, and re-written in the hearts of Christians (2 Cor. 3:3-6; Hebrews 8:10 etc.). I see nowhere that the 10 Commandments are reduced to nine. The Lord Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28), and we look to Him to see how we should keep it.

            ‘Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven……’
            (Matt. 5:19). ‘These commandments’ cannot be the ceremonial law, since our Lord abrogated it in Matt. 15:1-20. Not can it be the judicial law, since He fulfilled it on the cross and nullified it in the very verses we’ve been discussing. No the law of which neither jot nor tittle shall disappear is the Moral law, summarized in the 10 Commandments and epitomized in the Golden Rule (Mark 12:29-31; Romans 13:9).

          • ……….. and she escaped from mob rule.

          • Shadrach Fire

            I always chuckle when I think of the Inspectors version of this story where A stone is thrown that kills the woman, but it was thrown by Mary. The only guiltless person there apart from Jesus.

          • Yes, Jack remembers that …. he chuckled at the time too. Not too sure of the theology, but funny.

          • CliveM

            Well said HJ.

        • CliveM

          So I take it your lobbying your MP for the appropriate legislation?

          Speak to ISIS as well, I’m sure they will be willing to put you in touch with appropriate Muslim groups, who will be willing to give support.

          • Anton

            You might be unaware that this was the law here in the 1650s.

          • CliveM

            And if ever I develop a time machine I’ll keep it in mind.
            However back to the 21st Century (nearly 400 years or the best part of half a millennium later) do you support the re- introduction of stoning for adulterers?

          • Anton

            Not unilaterally, ie I would not reintroduce it if dictator. Even God gave ancient Israel the option to accept or decline the Law of Moses, by acclamation in the wilderness. The only law I would introduce unilaterally would be capital punishment for murder because that is part of the covenant with Noah and all his descendants, ie every nation, in Genesis 9. Unlike the Mosaic covenant, which was with one nation for one period of time, this remains in place unchanged, and St Paul approved of capital punishment in principle at Romans 13:4.

            Although adultery law would not be my top priority compared to matters like abortion, I do believe that this is what the law for an adulterous wife and her lover should be. It is the Mosaic ie divine precedent, and it is not like the laws of sacrifice that were superseded at the crucifixion, for it is a law governing relations between persons, and human nature has not changed since that time: it is still fallen. If you are not convinced then please in turn answer this question: Do you believe that God was wrong to command death for adulterous wives and their lovers in ancient Israel?

          • CliveM

            Assuming Jesus lived in ‘ancient’ Israel (your definition is a bit vague), then I am happy to be guided by the words of our Lord when he was asked , ” let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”.

            I think HJ has provided what I believe to be the right and historical understanding of these words.

          • Anton

            Very well; do you consider that God was wrong to command the death penalty to the Israelites between Sinai and the Crucifixion for murder; or for incest or bestiality?

          • CliveM

            You know I’m all for the death penalty. Unfortunately the burdon of proof would be be so high, I’m not sure we get a conviction.

          • Anton

            I didn’t know that, actually; good to agree and thank you.

          • …….. and sodomy.

        • Phil R

          Disputed as scripture even though it was written by John the Apostle?

          Oh good. So there are other parts of te Gospel I am free to ignore then. Warning about greed and the love of money for instance?

          Quite convenient really. I like the new Bible scholarship. If you don’t like it then make a case in your own in interest that it isn’t scriptural.

          • Anton

            Do you not bother to read what I’ve already written lower down the thread on this subject?

            It is absent from the earliest fragments of that part of John’s gospel that have been discovered. In some early fragments it appears in Luke, whose Greek style scholars say more closely resembles. The earliest fragments in which it does appear are from the era of the gnostic gospels when people starting writing all sorts of trash about Jesus.

            I am not saying it is not scripture, just that it cannot safely taken to be. Please see

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

            before you comment further.

  • Anthony

    The far-right do indeed wave Israeli flags but they are not real supporters of Israel or Jews. They simply want to taunt Muslims and every sane Jew knows that once they are finished with the Muslims they will come after the Jews, assuming they haven’t been “caught in the crossfire” (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7ee952e2-abcb-11e4-a089-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Rzxb60kz)

    But there is an important point to be made here. When politicians wonder why Jews in Europe are considering leaving, en masse, they need to look beyond security concerns. Sure, you might be as likely to be killed by terrorism in Israel as in France but that is only a part of it. In Israel you can support Israel, critically or otherwise, without being denounced as a child-murderer. You can eat meat without wondering when the powers that be will ban you from doing so. You can circumcise your children without fear that you will be labelled a child-abuser. You can be rich and influential without being suspected of nefarious schemes. You can lobby your MPs without being accused of dual loyalty. You can bring up the topic of antisemitism without being told that you’re trying to “shut down debate” about Israel.

    In short, it is becoming a little bit harder to be a full member of British society if you’re also a full member of the Jewish community.

  • The Explorer

    In Europe, paired attack seems to be an emerging pattern. In France, Charlie H and a Jewish deli. In Denmark, a free speech meeting, and a synagogue. Here, UKIP and Israel.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I’ve just been following a rather heated discussion on the DT about this programme. I didn’t watch it by the way. Anything that C4 produces about UKIP is bound to be crass and heavily distorted. With regard to the programmes anti-Semitism, I think a mass complaint to the broadcasting standards authority is in order. This could even be considered a hate crime.

    • Anton

      I would never use hate crime legislation, even against people I disagreed with, because I believe it should not be on the statute book. But multiple complaints to Broadcasting Standards people is most certainly appropriate once we have verified the relevant clip.

    • Dreadnaught

      How can you have a point to make if you did not see the programme?

      • Politically__Incorrect

        Most of us didn’t see the beheadings in Libya yesterday, but it did not stop us commenting on it

  • Athanasius

    Good to see Mr Thomas Cranmer giving such prominence and respect to the judgments of European courts.

    • Anton

      Mr? His Grace Archbishop, if you please.

    • Doctor Crackles

      Even a stopped clock and all that. Also, do you not think recent events in Paris and Copenhagen might not have a bearing on the decision?

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Far Right = Israel

    The equation seems perfectly reasonable. Israel is the Jewish homeland and the far Right wishes to Britain to be the homeland of the British, as she was until 60-odd years ago. I’m in favour of ‘Israel for the Jews’ and I’m in favour of ‘Britain for the British’, all the evidence indicating that countries do best when they comprise one race and one religion. Balfour said much the same in 1905:

    ‘A state of things could easily be imagined in which it would not be to the advantage of the civilisation of the country that there should be an immense body of persons who, however patriotic, able and industrious, however much they threw themselves into the national life, remained a people apart, and not merely held a religion differing from the vast majority of their fellow-countrymen, but only intermarried among themselves.’

    • Dreadnaught

      ‘Israel for the Jews’ and I’m in favour of ‘Britain for the British’

      This is (at the mildest) an idiotic statement.
      Anyone with the right credentials can become British or Jewish. There is no difference between what you say and what the depraved savages of ISIS say in the claim that all land is Muslim land.
      Your views are no lo longer those of a closet Nazi, you are out and probably proud to be an Islamo-fascist-Nazi who fouls the word ‘British’ as you do not display or appreciate what is meant by ‘British values’.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        Oh dear. Seems like somebody needs to cheer up a bit today

        • Dreadnaught

          Mr Rottenbugger is more than capable of speaking up for himself unless of course you are one and the same.

        • Johnny Rottenborough

          Sorry, you got the reply meant for Dreadnaught.

          • carl jacobs

            Just so we are clear, JR. You are saying that “British Jew” is an oxymoron, and that “Britishness” is defined by Blood and Land. Do I have the correct?

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ Dreadnaught—Anyone with the right credentials can become British…

        It’s that kind of wishful thinking that sent Lee Rigby to his grave.

        …or Jewish

        Yes, if by ‘the right credentials’ you mean ‘the right DNA’.

        There is no difference between what you say and what the depraved savages of ISIS say in the claim that all land is Muslim land

        Flattering though it is to be lumped in with depraved savages, I really cannot remember claiming that all land is British land. Such a notion, if it ever existed, died with the Empire. Must hurry, I have a fitting for my Islamo-fascist-Nazi uniform; it’s a burqa with jackboots.

        • Dreadnaught

          If the jackboots fit …

          • avi barzel

            Pffft!

    • Christians are also called to be a people apart.

      “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

    • dannybhoy

      I agree with that on the basis that much more time, energy, resources is spent and more crime, social disruption, corruption results from trying to make a multicultural society work.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ dannybhoy—If Genesis 10:5 is any guide, multiculturalism finds no favour with God. ‘By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.’

        • dannybhoy

          I agree with that too. In fact God Himself made us tribal, not multicultural. It’s interesting that it’s post Christian Europe which is trying to make this work.
          Are we better than all those other people?
          I don’t think so, but I do think our way of life is much better, and judging by the numbers desperate to get here, so do they. That’s why we have to get tough to protect it, get our priorities straight and live within our means.

        • Anton

          Not to mention Mark 3:24: A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Apparently, the producer, Chris Atkins, is the same Chris Atkins who is due to appear in court over an alleged £2.5 million tax fraud. Good to know the program was produced by somebody of integrity.

    • dannybhoy

      Didn’t know that, but it’s a Raw TV production. Here’s a link…
      http://www.raw.co.uk/

      Please don’t anyone tell me the CofE has shares in it…… 😉

  • David

    Ukip is now the only political party that supports our Judaeo-Christain heritage, seeking freedom of speech for all, including street preachers, and freedom of conscience for all, including nurses and doctors who do not support abortion.

    Christianity is all but dead in the mainstream political parties. They may cling to its outward forms, whilst passing laws that make it difficult to live Christian lives.

    • Anthony

      It’s hard to argue that Ukip supports Jews when it has a policy of banning Shechita.

      • CliveM

        As a party, they are all things to all men. I agree. If Nigel thought it would get him a vote, he would get circumcised.

        In public.

        On TV.

    • Coniston

      Re your first paragraph. I would like to think so. Certainly none of the other parties do.

    • CliveM

      Apart from platitudes muttered by Mr Farage, there is no evidence policy in support of what you say.

      • David

        You miss the elephant in the room. English Common Law, now being gradually superseded by the humanism based Brussels legal system, draws heavily on Biblical morality.

        • CliveM

          I’m thinking specific policy. What will a UKIP Govt do? Ok we know it dislikes the EU and immigration, but a programme for Govt needs to be more then that. We know for example it won’t repeal SSM legislation, so what makes it more Judeo/Christian then other parties?

          For a start, what common law legislation is there sympathetic to our Christian origins, that Brussels is threatening that UKIP is pledged to protect?

          • David

            You are thinking “specific policy”, as perhaps that’s the way your mind works, as indeed many do.
            I for my part look at a party and ask what are their general values, their approach to life, what system of law do they support, are they keen to defend or distance themselves from our Christian heritage ?
            Politics is the art of the possible. Understanding an organisations general approach gives the best available guide to what it might do in future, unpredictable situations, I believe. But it’s your vote to cast as you wish.

          • CliveM

            Problem with that, you can then choose to interpret as you wish.

          • David

            Indeed and inevitably that is what we all do, applying our values, standards and ideals to reality, as we see it.
            Politics unlike true science does not possess an accurate balance scale but relies on flawed human judgements.

  • sarky

    Just goes to show how worried the lefties and bleeding hearts are by ukip!

  • “Zionism” – what does the word actually mean?

  • Dominic Stockford

    That was such a badly made programme. It could have been slick, fun and enjoyable – instead it was unwatchable tripe. And, as your lordship points out, full of both lies, and misdirection (both about UKIP and Jews).

  • Doctor Crackles

    I support UKIP.

    I believe the Almighty has a plan for Jacob’s sons in the land promised to Abraham.

    There I’ve said it.

    C4 can shove its ideological drivel up its own fundament!

    • dannybhoy

      Fundamentally I agree with you. If you wish to propose it as a motion I will support it.

    • Inspector General

      Quite unforgivable of you Crackles…
      (Good man!)

  • I hope in the order of balance and fairness that Ch. 4 will be doing fantasy documentaries about another term with the Conservatives, or what it will be like if Labour get in, then there are the Libdems too, what about them? Why have they slagged off just UKIP?

  • Inspector General

    Interesting that support for a country like Israel that wishes to pursue self-determination is considered far, far, right, as they say. It must follow that the same for the UK is…well, you get the picture.

    It’s encouraging that our cultural Marxists are laying it on a bit thick of late. Like the rest of us, they too can smell change in the air. They know what that smell means, the older ones, because it’s the very same provident that propelled them into the driving seat, all those decades ago.

    Not wanting to go down without a fight, they consult their cultural Marxist handbook for ideas, and come up with Israel. Hated Israel, who fires rockets into Gaza, killing tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian children, without provocation. Just for the fun of it. Something to do between Jewish festivals. The handbook says superimpose UKIP onto Israel, and the people will vote to stay in the EU. And if the UK stays in the EU, the international socialist dream will live forever. Well, at least until the last remaining powers are voted away by a treacherous government and “resistance is futile” posters are nailed up in English streets.

  • Inspector General

    Tastes are changing, what!

    There was a time when the Inspector would have eagerly watched or recorded a Channel 4 program like this. In its earlier days, no doubt at all. But one rarely watches live TV these days, even the news, preferring to record what would be of interest to watch as time allows. Come early January, one was unnerved to find he had a mere 3% spare capacity left on his recording device. Drastic steps were needed. What needed to be done had to be done, and it was.

    The Inspector has gone moribund on the Radio Times. At least for the time being. So, without seeing trailers and no listings to tip him off, he’s going to miss such fare for some time to come, until he’s restored some decent amount of available space on his recording thing, at the very earliest.

    All of which makes a fellow pause for thought. He’s far from alone in being distanced from our 5 terrestrial channels. He knows plenty of others who rarely have anything to do with them. After all, if you’re paying good money for a Sky package, it makes sense to get your values worth. What little the Inspector has seen of Sky News impresses him. They give you the news. They don’t subtly get over to you whether it’s good news (socialist friendly) or bad news (anti socialist). They let the viewer decide for themselves. Such responsibility thrust upon us, what! We must have come of age and can now take on full responsibilities, like thought processing and decision making…

    No wonder the rotters at the BBC and Channel 4 are running a sweat. Their carefully packaged propaganda has one failing. It’s not going to work unless people watch the damn stuff.

    As one started off – tastes are changing, and here, thank God, is part of the story why…

    • avi barzel

      No wonder the rotters at the BBC and Channel 4 are running a sweat. Their carefully packaged propaganda has one failing. It’s not going to work unless people watch the damn stuff.

      Bang-on. Which is why they’re trying to get their shaking paws on the Internet.

  • Pierre Lapin

    It was unbearable. Just a confection of metropolitan-liberal pieties and it was telling how the white working-class were portrayed as irremedially racist bigots railing for a punch-up. The spirit of Emily Thornberry lives on!

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    @carl jacobs—I think the Almighty has it right in Genesis 10:5, ‘By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.’

    • carl jacobs

      JR

      So should I take this answer to mean:

      “Yes, you think the phrase ‘British Jew’ is an oxymoron. ”

      “Yes, you think ‘Britishness’ is defined by Blood and Land.”

      Not like you to be evasive.

      • dannybhoy

        Jews are related to Christians by Scriptures if not faith. Their moral values gave us our moral values and they fail to live up to them on the same way we do.
        The difference is that whereas we ask the Lord’s forgiveness they hope they do enough good deeds to cover it..

        • avi barzel

          Not even close, Danny. Apart from three prescribed daily prayers asking for forgiveness and “unscheduled” private prayers throughout the day, there is the doctrine of t’shuvah and not to forget, the High Holydays, from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur which are devoted to it. The idea that Judaism is a cold, mechanical system of clicking-off checkmarks with good deeds or “works” is entirely false.

          • dannybhoy

            Apart from three prescribed daily prayers asking for forgiveness and
            “unscheduled” private prayers throughout the day, there is the doctrine
            of t’shuvah and not to forget, the High Holydays, from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur which are devoted to it.

            Aaaaaah -HA!!

            Well this is what I always taught, but recently in conversation with someone else I was told that devout Jewish people do not see sin in the same way…

            Now when I read the Torah it is quite clear that sinfulness is a part of the (fallen) human condition..

            Genesis 5 Complete Jewish Bible
            “5 Adonai saw that the people on earth were very wicked, that all the imaginings of their hearts were always of evil only. 6 Adonai regretted that he had made humankind on the earth; it grieved his heart. 7 Adonai said, “I will wipe out humankind, whom I have created, from the whole
            earth; and not only human beings, but animals, creeping things and birds in the air; for I regret that I ever made them.”
            This is why He instituted the sacrificial system for Israel, the people He made His own.
            That is why all the great leaders, kings and prophets confessed their sins, and accepted that there were consequences to our actions both in our relationship to God and our fellow man.

          • avi barzel

            Well, you threw in a few more concepts into the pot, Danny. True, we don’t see sin in the same way, most obviously in not accepting the notion of an Original Sin or the idea that it needs to be redeemed by people born generations after it occurred. That, to me at least, would appear as if God is bound to rules and a system, or a process, beyond His control.

            Sin (khet, meaning “missing the mark) can be against one’s self, against others and against God. One must work to correct his behavior and thoughts and regarding himself and God must strive for repentance (t’shuvah: “return”), but for those whom he has harmed, he must attempt to meaningfully recompense them and to seek forgiveness from them. That would be the closest to doing good deeds to “cover” sinful behavior but is, of course, only a part of dealing with sin.

            As for the sacrifices, there are many explanations, but I go with Maimonides, who thought they were installed for our benefit at that stage of our history. It’s certainly obvious that they unified the Nation by leading to the development of a centralized economy and a wealth and food distribution system.

          • dannybhoy

            So what do you think was the significance of Adam’s disobedience and the serpent and the being driven out of Gan Eden? And link that with the verse I quoted?
            Oh yes,and when you seek forgiveness for sin or failure, how does God deal with that for you?
            It’s a genuinely interesting way of learning about each other.

          • avi barzel

            Seems like homework, Danny. Briefly, then.
            You will get a hundred opinions within Orthodoxy alone. I go with Maimonides late 12th century The Guide for the Perplexed, through the filters of my understanding and speculative musings, of course.

            Adam and Eve, an allegory for Humankind, were created perfectly rational and intuitive and capable of understanding Creation as is; realistically and truthfully. In that state they were spared death, illness, work and the difficulty of making sense through judgment, imagination and passions. In disobeying the Almighty by eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil (the question of why was it placed in proximity to entice Humankind is an interesting excursus) they immediately began to judge between what was good and what was bad. They were no longer able to see the Universe and its actions objectively, but filtered everything through human desires, passions, ideas, judgments and such.

            That is the nature of Humankind to the present.
            In having chosen to see the world in this manner, we reap logical consequences which, now as judgmental beings, we interpret as bad, as a punishment. Neither the Torah, nor Maimonides, nor any other interpreters see the event as a “fall” or as “original sin.” Redemption for Humankind is through the possibility of once again drawing closer to our Creator. This redemption comes through the Almighty’s gift of the Torah and the study, intelligent interpretation and joy in physically observing its teachings. While prophets, sages and scholars strive to interpret and apply it properly, the Torah, in its written and oral totality, is singular, unique and eternal. There was none like it before and there were no…nor will ever be…updates, modifications or new “authorized” editions.

          • dannybhoy

            Thank you Avi, so what about the reference to the serpent here and elsewhere as Lucifer (Isaiah) and Satan (Job), where do they fit in?

          • avi barzel

            Again, I go with Rambam…Maimonides and his Guide.

            Unlike Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki), he treats the serpent/Satan allusions as coded, ethical parables, illustrative allegories of human passions and appetites.” Even those who take on a more literal meaning do not view the serpent or Satan as independent beings acting in opposition to or rebellion against God. That would be dualism or Manicheanism. Snakes are animals, angels are “automatons” and neither have independent thought or action beyond their narrowly assigned nature. We are not to pray to them or have supernatural fear of them.

          • dannybhoy

            “Even those who take on a more literal meaning do not view the serpent
            or Satan as independent beings acting in opposition to or rebellion
            against God. That would be dualism or Manicheanism.”

            But no one says that Satan is all powerful and equal to God.

            Rather that there are sufficient indications in the Tenach that God gave various responsibilities to angelic beings, like Gabriel and Michael (some Jewish sources believe there are seven), and that Lucifer made a baaad choice.

            Also it is obvious that the Tenach teaches a spiritual dimension, which God told the Israelites that they should not worship or get involved in.

            Do you think they are ” coded, ethical parables” too?

            I think that whilst we can agree that men are capable of great evil, the Bible teaches that there is a spiritual dimension wherein are spiritual beings always ready to lead men astray, and encourage -perhaps even enable them to greater degrees of evil.

          • avi barzel

            Do you think they are ” coded, ethical parables” too?
            Yes. The Bible was written in a specific time, in a specific language of men and for a specific cultural milieu. The Pagan world imagined that everything was spiritual and magical; disease, good fortune, gravity, heat, inertia, beauty, weather…good, evil. This view was interwoven with language and culture. But Humankind was given reason and the Torah, and the Almighty created our world with laws and properties that are meant to be discovered, studied, analyzed and applied.

            What we see of this world is what we get. It is a beautiful, wondrous world. It’s also a harsh world where life struggles against matter and other life for limited resources. We are remarkably intelligent and complicated beings with talents, weaknesses and powerful passions which can propel us to greatness or pull us down. All that is enough of a challenge. God does not aim to trick or fool us, confuse us with pointless mysteries or challenge us with supernatural burdens coming at us from invisible dimensions. At least not in the Jewish understanding of God. Paganism, aptly called Animism, which is closer to animals than humans, approaches the world from exactly the opposite direction, but our mission in life and through the generations is to strip ourselves of its illusions.
            The angelic beings you mention appeared as specific and physical beings, at specific times and places for specific duties as assigned by God. There is no imperative to believe that they are still floating or wandering around in an invisible plane, that they are intelligent independent beings, or that they are loose among us to do good or tempt us to evil. We are to ignore them, which is the same as not believing in them. Whether they exist or not is as immaterial to us as the possible existence of aliens billions of light years away.

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks for getting back Avi and just to be clear, I am very grateful that you are ready to share your own understanding of spiritual matters.I hope you know that I respect your views.

            You say,
            The Bible was written in a specific time, in a specific language of men and for a specific cultural milieu. The Pagan world imagined that everything was spiritual and magical; disease, good fortune, gravity, heat, inertia, beauty, weather…good, evil. This view was interwoven
            with language and culture.

            You mean then that the Scriptures were not inspired by God in the sense that He ‘oversaw’ what the original authors wrote?
            The authors interpreted events as people of their times, and ascribed phenomena and natural calamities to gods, or supernatural forces.

            That as men searching for the meaning of life and how to live it, they came up with the concept of a monotheistic faith.

            A tribal God served by priests, directed by religious laws of blessing and cursings, and from time to time prophets or seers?

          • avi barzel

            Thank you too…I respect your views and enjoy meandering philosophical musings hiding in older posts! The last time before our era that Christians and Jews could do this was in 12th century Spain, so there’s some catching up to do.

            On your first point, I don’t mean that all. I hold to the dogma that the Torah in its entirety was authored by God. How precisely the authorship took place and what the apparent mysteries mean and how seeming “imperfections” affect the world now and in the future is another matter.

            On the second point, yes, something like that…but not in the Biblical-criticism approach you suspect me of. We easily forget that it was Abraham who sought out God and without a clear sign, without being prompted, single-handedly rejected idolatry. Perhaps you’re familiar with the midrash where young Abraham breaks the family idols and cheekily tells his father that they had afight among themsrlves. When his father exclaims that idols cannot do this, Abraham asks, why then do we pray to them. The intellectual faculties implanted in Humankind, reason, lead Man to discover God. Not spirits, angels, auguries or even the voice of God which came only after. And yes, the Almighty re-emerged on the scene as a tribal deity among many, amidst an unremarkable people, bickering and sinful worshippers, with a priesthood that aped other priesthoods, customs and superstitions, and that in the beginning and on the surface seemed indistinguishable from those of their neighbours. And yet, the Torah and its system of laws and teachings emerge from within this ongoing camouflage not by supernatural means, but by God’s occasional prompts and Man’s continued worship, use of his intelligence and practical application of the Torah from Sinai.

          • dannybhoy

            We gotta Judaeo/Christian love in going on here…..!
            My attitude is that Truth is what we seek, even if it leads to conclusions we don’t like.
            So, you believe that Moshe Rabbenu was the author of the first five books and he co wrote them with the Almighty: (but Moshe was the junior partner and had to refill the inkwells..)

            Furthermore, you believe that God deliberately used ideas current at that time about the world, gods and forces to get His message across?

            We easily forget that it was Abraham who sought out God and without a
            clear sign, without being prompted, single-handedly rejected idolatry.

            Let’s set the scene a little if I may, starting just after the great flood with Noah and God’s commands to him..

            Genesis 9 Complete Jewish Bible
            God blessed Noach and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will be upon every wild animal, every bird in the air, every creature populating the ground, and all the fish in the sea; they have been handed over to you. 3 Every moving thing that lives will be food for you; just as I gave you green plants before, so now I give you everything — 4 only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you are not to eat. 5 I will certainly demand an accounting for the blood of your lives: I will demand it from every animal and from every human being. I will demand
            from every human being an accounting for the life of his fellow human being. 6 Whoever sheds human blood, by a human being will his own blood be shed; for God made human beings in his image. 7 And you people, be fruitful, multiply, swarm on the earth and multiply on it.

            So already we have the Almighty setting out some rules about food – meat drained of its life in this case.

            But going on to Avram’s genealogy in chapter 11 and the scattering of the peoples, there is no mention that Avram was seeking for anything, although safe to assume that the details of the flood were still pretty fresh in peoples minds, so granted he would have had as much awareness of God’s doings as anyone else. But was he seeking God, or was God seeking him?

            Genesis 12 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
            (Parashah 3: Lekh L’kha (Get yourself out) 12:1–17:27)

            “Now Adonai said to Avram, “Get yourself out of your country, away from your kinsmen and away from your father’s house, and go to the land that I will show you. 2 I will make of you a great nation, I will bless you, and I will make your name great; and you are to be a blessing. 3 I
            will bless those who bless you, but I will curse anyone who curses you; and by you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

            Lek l’kha Avi!!
            Over to you.

      • CliveM

        I’d be curious to know what DNA would be defined as specifically British.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ carl jacobs—At the racial level, ‘British Jew’ is an oxymoron because the British are Europeans and the Jews are Semites. At the civic level, a Jew can be a British subject.

        God defines nationality in terms of blood (‘after their families’) and land. Who am I to disagree?

        • carl jacobs

          JR

          No, God doesn’t define nationality that way. Neither in the Old Testament or the New. There were Jewish converts in the OT. And Christianity is predicated upon the idea that there is no longer Jew nor Greek. But someone else defined nationality in terms of Blut und Boden. Do you know who that was?

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ carl jacobs—No, God doesn’t define nationality that way

            I rather think He does.

            Christianity is predicated upon the idea that there is no longer Jew nor Greek

            Someone had better tell St Paul before he makes any more bloopers: ‘For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judæa are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.’ [1 Thessalonians 2]

            someone else defined nationality in terms of Blut und Boden. Do you know who that was?

            That’s easy—the OED lexicographers who wrote the definition of ‘nation’: ‘An extensive aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common descent, language, or history, as to form a distinct race or people, usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory.’

  • Uncle Brian

    “The Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas,
    Boko Haram … they are all one and the same,”
    as Your Grace shrewdly
    pointed out in yesterday’s post on the Copts martyred in Libya. All of them
    explicitly seek to impose the same kind of theocratic dictatorship. They have
    found some support among people living in the Western democracies: that is a
    simple statement of fact. But is there any logical reason why these sympathisers
    should consider themselves, or be considered by others, as anything but right-wing
    extremists? I don’t think so. That goes for the ones who enlist in the ranks of
    ISIS to go and commit atrocities in Syria and Iraq, and as far as I can see it goes equally for the ones who produce anti-Israel propaganda programmes to be aired on Channel 4.

  • CliveM

    I have a theory that this was bought and paid for by UKIP backers. How else could you explain anything so vacuous, self regarding and banal? Clearly this was designed to provoke a backlash in UKIPS favour. Well I’m not fooled, UKIP still don’t get my vote.

    I have come to the conclusion that being labelled ‘far right’ is completely meaningless. It would now seem to cover the belief that Israel has a right to exist.

    Linus please note.

    • Inspector General

      Produced by “Grassy Knoll” productions, of course!

      • CliveM

        ROFL ;0)

        You are right of course!

        • Inspector General

          The Inspector is always right, Clive,

          • CliveM

            So I’m led to believe!

          • carl jacobs

            Inspector

            You can’t possibly always be right because you frequently disagree with me. The latter precludes the possibility .

          • CliveM

            Who says Calvinists don’t have a sense of humour!!

            Lol.

          • Uncle Brian

            Some do and some don’t. They can’t choose, of course. They’re predestined one way or the other.

          • carl jacobs

            I think that over the last fours I have sufficiently established myself as a comedic genius.

          • Dreadnaught

            You must be joking!

          • carl jacobs

            “Four out of five Catholic dentists recommend Tridentine chewing gum.”

            That, sir, is genius. Pure unadulterated genius.

          • You had no choice about posting that joke ….

          • Uncle Brian

            Only four? What happened to the fifth dentist? No bad news, I hope.

          • Ummm ………….

          • carl jacobs

            Don’t even go there, Jack.

          • Does Jack have free will in this matter?

          • CliveM

            You know how you didn’t get it when HJ told you that what Ken Dodd said was funny because it was unfunny?

            I think you now get it…………… :0)

          • Inspector General

            My dear fellow, one is thrilled you adhere to a blog from the mother country, but don’t push it. There’s a good chap……

          • CliveM

            I thought Carl’s mother country was Sweden?!!

          • carl jacobs

            Sweden and Germany. By percentages I am 50% German and 25% Swede. The rest is English, Irish, French Huguenot, etc. My Dad’s family came from Sweden. My Mom’s family came from Germany.

          • avi barzel

            …and to confuse everything, you have a fairly common Anglo-Jewish surname. Only in America, as they say.

          • Dreadnaught

            With such lineage you must be 100% American.

          • Mongrel ….

          • carl jacobs

            My father’s mother’s family was French Huguenot. That side of the family has lineage back before the Revolution (i.e. they arrived in the States before the Revolution.) Suffice it to say that some people in my grandfather’s family weren’t too happy when he didn’t marry a Swede. All the variability in my lineage comes from my paternal grandmother.

          • The Explorer

            Welcome to the Huguenot Club!

          • CliveM

            Me to!

            Can also trace back to the Normans on mothers side.

          • CliveM

            We are all of us mongrels.

            I have Scot, Irish, Huguenot, Anglo-Irish and (oh the shame), English in my DNA. And that’s what I know of. Oh I forgot Norman as well.

    • avi barzel

      That’s an almost understandable suspicion, Clive, given the ..um… quality of the production, but that’s what standard propaganda often looks like. Take it from a former Eastern European “consumer.” What happens is that people who lose track of reality pile on the bullshit in layer after sloppy layer, like an ageing skank trowelling on makeup, thinking more is better. The funny thing is though, it works remarkably well with the simple and that’s good enough for them, as gaining your admiration was never the plan or the hope.

      • CliveM

        Hi Avi

        Well I’m glad you are not including me in the simple!

        I watched a programme on Nazi propaganda a while back. It showed some clips from some unpleasant anti Semite films produced through the Nazi era. Strangely Goebbels hated them. He understood propaganda to be effective was better if it wasn’t “too in your face”. If it’s too crude it puts off your audience.

        • avi barzel

          Hi Clive. Alas, Goebbels was an aesthete who spoke for a minority and he was tactically wrong. The winner was Julius Streicher and his crude, gross, pornographic, antisemitic propaganda. The regular volk gobbles the sex and violence up…just look at our world of entertainment today.

          • CliveM

            Well I never thought I would see Goebbels described as an aesthete.

            Certainly subtlety isn’t my overriding impression of modern entertainment! I have to admit the Left doesn’t tend to overrate it’s clientele.

          • avi barzel

            O, yes, Goebbels saw himself as a superior piece of work, an Adonis with the frauleins and as a student of philosophy was moved by and wrote his thesis on the Romantics, of all things.
            I’m guessing that the creators of the UKIP “docudrama” are testing the waters to see if the Streicher approach works better. Chances are the times are right for it.

          • CliveM

            I never knew that.

            Phone about to run out of juice, so have to sign off!

          • avi barzel

            Ha! It’s why I carry at least a couple of charged power sticks with me.

          • CliveM

            Should of brought a charger!!

          • The Explorer

            Goebbels studied literature and philosophy at four universities, and had a doctorate in literature. Don’t forget that Heidegger was a Nazi.

          • carl jacobs

            I recently watched a documentary of Goebbels that was derived from the diary he kept during almost the whole of his time in the NSDAP. It spanned the early days through almost the end of the war. I thought he was something of a whiner.

          • CliveM

            There was definitely something creepy (almost homo erotic) in his adoration of Hitler.

          • dannybhoy
          • CliveM

            Thanks for this DB.

          • avi barzel

            A scrawny whiner, panty-waist of an aesthete and a Hitler-groupie, and he was more popular with the ladies than you and I. They were such a rum bunch, all of ’em.

          • CliveM

            A well known phenomenon. It doesn’t matter how ugly, weird and frankly inadequate they are, men giving at least the illusion of wielding power, seem to attract the ladies.

            We have David Mellor. He epitomised this rule. Google him!!

          • avi barzel

            This is probably really, really bad. On the personal life of David Mellor, Wiki has zippo to say, except:

            This section of a biography of a living person does not include any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. (November 2014)
            The search continues….

          • avi barzel

            …ah, yes, what a charming fellow. Lucky to step out of the cab in one ugly piece. Wouldn’t be so fortunate with us truck drivers, though.

          • CliveM

            Thing is, a least he wouldn’t look worse after a good beating.

          • CliveM

            Google his name and also type in scandal.

          • avi barzel

            Remarkable. He looked even worse in ’92. What are we doing wrong, Clive?

          • CliveM

            We should have sold our soul to the devil and gone into politics.

            Let me promise, it’s not his personality either that gets the ladies all excited. Narcistic is the description that comes to mind!

  • As there was nothing worth watching on TV last night, I watched a new creationist video instead. I can highly recommend ‘Evolution’s Achilles Heels’ by Creation Ministries International. Much more sensible.

    • dannybhoy

      Where’d you watch it?

  • I don’t know if anyone else here reads Private Eye, but those who do will have noticed a recent unfunny cartoon strip ‘The Kippers’ which was quite the crassest, ugliest Goebells style propaganda I have seen since I had no more sense than to read International Times as a teenager in the 70s. There was almost a whole page of letters complaining, and it has been withdrawn.

    No honest Kipper minds a bit of piss taking, certainly not Our Nige, but this was just crass-asserting for example that if Britain left the EU then our food would become poisonous and our air unbreathable.

    I wrote to say that as a UKIP member I hoped it would continue, as an example of the sort of stereotypical commie agit-prop we can expect until May, what with the liberal left Establishment facing its first real challenge since Thatcher.

    I have decided to give up the mainstream media for Lent.

    • CliveM

      Note my comments below on Goebbels and propaganda. Although their was a lot of crude Nazi propaganda, he was actually more subtle then that.

      Not that it changes the fundamentals of your argument.

    • “I have decided to give up the mainstream media for Lent.”

      That’s not depriving yourself of something you enjoy, now is it Stephen? Jack is thinking of giving up washing dishes. He doubts he will get away with it.

      • The Explorer

        Give up eating. Then you won’t need to wash the dishes.

      • avi barzel

        Go on, Jack, give it a shot. Try floating that one to the Missus at the breakfast table. And appoint in your Will a friend who’ll pass on the gory details to us about how it went.

        • Umm … Jack is being subjected to oppression in attempts to force him to change his granddaughter’s nappies, despite this being against his faith, informed conscience and considered professional judgment.
          One has to take a stand for the God given patriarchal society, Avi. It’s a matter of faith. Long live testosterone !

          • avi barzel

            You’ll be fine, Jack. The first time is the hardest. The time you get an “event” moments after wiping up, changing the diaper and snapping on the hundred little buttons on the outfit properly is the time of testing. That is when all your theology, faith and character meet at a focal point.

          • Turncoat ……….

          • CliveM

            Embrace your metrosexuality! Be a new man. Once you’re through the pain barrier it will get easier.

          • What’s a ‘washing machine’?

          • CliveM

            A piece of advice. Volunteer to do it once. Include something coloured with the whites (new and previously unwashed would be best) and you will never need to use it again!

          • avi barzel

            Pffft! If he throws in his wife’s fur coat together with the silks in the hot water cycle, he definitely won’t be allowed to get near it. If he’s allowed to live, of course.

          • CliveM

            It’s all about risk v benefit. Yours is a good idea, albeit a bit on the risky side for me!! And if it doesn’t work, there is no where to go. Gradiated incompetence gives future opportunities!

          • CliveM

            He’s lucky his Grandchild isn’t a boy. He could get one in the eye!

          • avi barzel

            Ha! I now suspect you may never have changed diapers. Risk is the same with both.

          • CliveM

            Only one son. Learnt to stand well back.

            Didn’t know that about girls, I assumed boys plumbing led to greater risk……

          • avi barzel

            Somewhat, but the aiming can be wobbly and weak, whereas with girls it’s dead-on and with higher feet-per-second flow.

          • CliveM

            I’m HJ will find this both educational and encouraging.

  • Royinsouthwest

    People in senior positions in broadcasting and the press seem to think that they own the organisations concerned and can use them to promote their own views. If someone is employed as a newspaper columnist that is fair enough but it is not fair in the case of administrators and programme makers.

  • len

    The Church is told not to try and influence voters.

    Yet we have a constant stream of propaganda being spewed out through the media.

    Who influences Channel 4 programming?.
    ‘Channel 4 is a publicly owned corporation whose board is appointed by OFCOM, in agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who is – Sajid Javid’ Conservative.

    No possibility of any bias here?.

    • dannybhoy

      Len, do you agree that the Church should encourage Christians to take an interest in politics as individuals, whilst the leadership of the Church concentrates on speaking out on morality rather than politics as such.
      It is the Gospel the Church is called to minister to the world, not political advice.

      • len

        danny ,I don`t think you can separate morality from politics..indeed the two seem inextricably linked.
        The Church and the Gospel act as a as indicator to whatever condition society is in and as such the Church need to mark the progress of society away from Godly morality and ethics.

        In an ever darkening world they church needs to speak out and to be salt and light even if this makes the Church unpopular with some members of society.

        • dannybhoy

          danny ,I don`t think you can separate morality from politics..indeed the two seem inextricably linked.
          I would put it another way,
          “you can’t separate being a Christian from being a citizen.The two are inextricably linked.”
          I think as a Christian one of our main responsibilities as citizens is to guard and protect the freedoms we enjoy to practice our faith. That means Christians should be loyal citizens who speak out when society is taking a wrong or unethical turn, or when groups spring up who would distort or destroy the values on which our society is built.

          So with the official CofE church leadership, their main role is to speak morality into a secular society, but not to dictate policy. Especially if we have no reasonable, workable policies to replace the ones we disagree with.

          For example I think there is a real case for a reworked modernised version of workhouses for the 21st century.
          I think we have families and individuals who really need the kind of support that assisted living, education and employment can bring. Not as a punitive or demeaning measure, but as a way of helping the vulnerable in their relationships, their responsibilities, their skills and their ability to make a constructive contribution to society.
          Considering the moral and emotional disintegration that has come about as a result of a no blame/ ‘free to be me!’ society, then to help rehabilitate and give them hope is surely something that the Church could get behind.

          • len

            Christian values such as fairness truth & honesty are directly opposite to much of what is happening in our society today and much of this is happening with regard to politics.
            Now I can say that (for instance) “this Government is pursuing immoral policies” but this is irrelevant unless I can say what those policies are?.
            The Church needs to hold Government bodies accountable in view of Christian values because if the Church doesn`t do this who will?.

          • dannybhoy

            Hmm.
            I think we’re close enough that it’s not worth exploring futher!
            I would say that the Church cannot favour for example socialism over capitalism. What they can do is speak Christian ethics into any government, and emphasise that workforce and employers must work together for the common good.

  • Linus

    I managed to see this on Youtube and thought it was very poorly done.

    Its depiction of civil unrest following a Ukip victory wasn’t the issue: of course there would be civil unrest! The Left would almost certainly protest against policies that saw the forcible removal of immigrants, and a strengthening of border controls and the authority of police and armed forces to raid premises looking for immigrants would provoke many clashes that both sides would attempt to use for propaganda purposes.

    The economic consequences of a British withdrawal from the EU were also fairly depicted, I thought. Markets hate uncertainty, so of course markets would fall. Businesses that depend on easy access to a pan-European market would be forced to relocate. There would also be a significant flight of capital from the country. If the UK were no longer part of Europe, all those wealthy individuals who’ve moved to London over the past decade would suddenly find themselves stuck in a newly isolated country where they could no longer benefit from freedom of movement within Europe and unfettered access to European markets. What would keep them and their money in Britain? What would continue to fuel the competition that keeps London house prices artificially high? The collapse of the real estate bubble alone would be utterly catastrophic for the UK economy.

    No, it seems to me that the economic consequences of a “Brexit” were, if anything, understated in this strange little film. What it really failed to do was give any kind of reason or justification for the central character’s motivation for supporting Ukip in the first place. Her seemingly miraculous conversion to a pro-immigrant stance came at a point when she realized she was being instrumentalized by racists and xenophobes, which anyone with even an average intelligence would have realized a lot earlier in the candidate selection process and campaign.

    It’s clear enough that many Ukip supporters are closet racists and xenophobes, and it just isn’t realistic to imagine that candidates standing for the party don’t realize where their core support is coming from. Or that anyone with even a basic knowledge of how the economy works in an integrated Europe could imagine that the consequences of destroying that integration could be anything but catastrophic.

    So badly done, C4. This film just wasn’t convincing.

    • dannybhoy

      “Or that anyone with even a basic knowledge of how the economy works in
      an integrated Europe could imagine that the consequences of destroying
      that integration could be anything but catastrophic.”

      So you don’t think the architects of Europe were unwise to impose a ‘one size fits all’ on all the member countries, like Greece, Italy Spain and Portugal? That those countries would struggle was obvious from the start, and the wisest thing to do would have been to allow the nations of Europe to grow together organically; not by Diktat.

      • Linus

        Whatever you think of the wisdom of integrating widely different European economies, the fact of the matter is that integration has happened and can’t be undone without causing massive upheaval.

        If Britain suddenly finds itself without free access to the European market then its position as a major provider of products and services within that market will be jeopardized. Companies that want a European base will relocate elsewhere. Isolationism may be a winning political formula, but it’s never good for business.

        • dannybhoy

          But then you’re leaving out the fact that the EU has changed from being an economic trading bloc of sovereign nations EEC, which is what the British people signed up to,
          to a centralised political bloc run by unelected ministers issuing edicts for puppet governments (UK etc) to implement.
          Which is NOT what we signed up to.
          Add to that the incredible amounts of fraud, bribery and embezzlement that goes on; the ridiculous CAP, and the fact that the EC accounts have never been signed off….
          and you have a mess that only benefits second rate politicians and bureaucrats at the expense of disenfranchised European taxpayers..
          It simply can’t work, and it will fail.

          • Linus

            What you’re really saying is you don’t like the EU because the way it’s run doesn’t correspond to your ideas of good management.

            That’s fair enough. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. But when you express it in ridiculous terms like “it simply can’t work”, what you’re really saying is that you don’t want it to work. It’s an expression of opinion rather than of fact.

            How do I know this? Because the EU does work. Inefficiently, clumsily and probably wastefully. But you can’t argue with the fact that it’s been functioning for over 22 years. That’s the reality of the situation.

            You also can’t argue with the fact that since Britain joined the EEC in 1973, your economy has become more and more dependent on other European nations as trading partners. Pulling out of the EU tomorrow would put those relationships in jeopardy and profoundly affect the British economy.

            Of course that’s a decision you’re free to make as a sovereign nation. You’re free to discourage inwards investment into your country. You’re free to encourage the rich to move elsewhere. In many ways, this is what we currently do in France. But look at the state our economy is in. Is this what you want for Britain?

            No matter how bad it gets in France, we’ll always have Europe to count on. But if Britain decides to leave, who’ll bail you out when your volatile and highly cyclical economy goes into its next nosedive? Which won’t be very far away if you do decide to go your own way. There’s such a huge amount of capital tied up in the British real estate market that if anything bursts that bubble overnight, which a “Brexit” certainly would, you could find yourselves in the midst of an economic meltdown the like of which would make the subprime crisis of 2008 look mild in comparison.

            Your choice of course. But I hope for your own sakes, you make the right one.

          • dannybhoy

            It works because one country dominates it economically and pretty much calls the shots.
            It works in the same way that a drunk can function for years before his liver packs up!
            It works rather like a ponzi scheme works
            It keeps taking contributions from the stronger economies and feeds it into the weaker ones, but investing loads of taxpayers’ money into basket case economies does not change the baskets who run the country.
            Instead those economies take to lying about how well their country is doing. In the same way that communist states lied about meeting their five year plans…

            And actually I have two main objections to the European Union. One is we are buying far more from them than they are buying from us, and secondly it resembles the late unlamented USSR. The same lack of economic dynamism, the same lack of accountability and dominated by Germany.
            Our real partners are the ex Empire /Commonwealth nations. We can develop our economic ties with them whilst preserving more independent trading relationships with Europe.
            Linus the EU is schlerotic. It lacks vision, it lacks growth and it lacks real unity.

          • Linus

            Ah, so you admit it works. You just don’t like the way it works.

            As I said, that’s fair enough. There are many things I don’t particularly like about the EU too.

            The German domination doesn’t bother me so much though, mainly because of the inevitability of it. There are 80 million of them, so they form the largest voting bloc in Europe and are therefore always going to be predominate. Best to be on good terms with them and profit from their innate sense of logic and sound management rather than sit in a corner and pout because “we won the war and they won the peace”.

            Britain has never reconciled itself to the loss of prestige and importance that accompanies imperial decline. You talk of your former colonies as if all you have to do is snap your fingers and they’ll gather round and everything will return to the Golden Age of the British Empire. But that empire disintegrated long ago. Canada is now firmly in the orbit of the US. Australia and New Zealand are Pacific nations whose economic future lies in Asia. India’s experience of British rule was hardly a happy one and it’s unlikely they’ll quit their non-aligned status to come running to the rescue of the nation that occupied and humiliated them for over a century. And Africa belongs to China now.

            So where is all this imperial support going to come from? The United States? You think Germany has autocratic pretensions? Try reasoning with the Yanks while they’re holding you down and forcing their genetically modified Frankenfood down your throat…

            Britain has few choices. The old imperial dreams are dead, so you have to come to an accommodation with Brussels (or Berlin if you prefer, but the whole point of the EU is that Germany can’t act alone now, so it’s not correct to say the other member states have no influence). It’s either that or throw in your lot with Washington DC and be treated like a client state rather than an equal member of a free association.

            The choice is Britain’s. It may well be that you choose to leave the EU. But if so, remember the old adage: better the devil you know. And also, there’s no such thing as an amicable divorce. If you decide to pull out of Europe, your standard of living will suffer badly in the short term, and what long term prospects do you have that will improve your situation? Do you think either Europe or the US will tolerate you setting yourselves up as a Monaco-style tax haven? And is that what you want your country to be? A laundry for all the dirty money of the world?

            I mean, I know your royal family is just like the Grimaldis in that it traces its origins back to a dodgy robber baron, but in the intervening centuries it’s at least tried to rise above illegitimacy and bad blood. But if you’ve decided that your future lies in providing Russian oligarchs with a hiding place for their ill-gotten gains, perhaps we’ll be seeing more dubious billionaires frequenting the gilded salons of Windsor Castle and flouncing about in velvet and ostrich feathers on Garter Day. Maybe little Prince George will end up marrying an Russian heiress with diamonds even bigger and flashier than his grandmother’s. The United Kingdom of Ruritania will probably be a great place to live if you have millions stashed in a bank. But what will life be like for the average Briton, I wonder?

        • sarky

          I think it’s time we stopped seeing Europe as the be all and end all. The economic situation theremeans we should be looking to the emerging economies to do business with. One thing the uk has, is an international reputation for producing quality. We should play to our strengths and leave Europe to sort out its own mess.

          • Linus

            China got there before you.

            France supplies their luxury needs.

            The US supplies their technology.

            Germany and Japan sell them cars and washing machines.

            By all means, try to compete. But it’s going to be a tough sell.

    • Phil R

      Linus

      I am broadly in favour of the EU (I just don’t think it works in the best interests of Britain or indeed British people)

      There
      are things called contracts in any business. They will not be scrapped
      in 100 days or even 50 years or more in some instances.

      We buy
      considerably more from the EU than they do from us. I don’t think they
      will be in any hurry to spoil that state of affairs.

      BTW if lib/lab/con keep borrowing money to keep us solvent there will come a day of meltdown whether we are in the EU or not.

      Do you think the EU will run to help us? Of course not.

      • Linus

        There’s no contract that obliges a company to remain in Britain and employ British workers when Britain no longer has free and unfettered access to the European market.

        There’s no contract that obliges European financial transactions to take place in the City of London.

        Of all European countries Britain would probably suffer the least by seceding from the EU. It’s true that you import more from us than we import from you. But that doesn’t there wouldn’t be a profound impact. If trade slows by even just a few percentage points, that could put hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. And what impact will that have on the financial and property markets?

        Like I said above, Britain is a sovereign nation and can decide for itself whether it stays in the EU. But if you choose to leave, it’s naive to think there won’t be a serious economic impact in the short and medium terms, which is all that politicians think in. If as a direct result of a Ukip victory unemployment spikes sharply, the bottom falls out of the property market and the entire City packs up and heads for Frankfurt, what sort of state will Britain be in 5 years from now?

        On your heads be it!

  • preacher

    What a load of codswallop channel 4 churns out, if this is the best they can do, they should all look for a proper job. Even as propaganda it was a car wreck.
    One wonders what the reaction of Cameron or Milliband would have been to their parties being lampooned like this.
    Obviously people are scared of Messrs Farage & Co, one can almost smell the fear.
    Any undecided voter would in my opinion be swayed toward UKIP by this vitriolic attack.
    Channel 4 has I believe shot itself in the foot & been hoist on it’s own petard.