The rabid anti-capitalist film-maker Michael Moore, director of the global warming propaganda movie Fahrenheit 9/11, is suing his backers, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, claiming they cheated him out of £1.67million in profits. And there was me thinking he did it to save the planet.
In this latest example of the fine research undertaken by Mail columnists, she appears to have confused Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 with An Inconvenient Truth.
As Mr Mordon at the Mailwatch Forum notes, she 'probably got thrown by the word fahrenheit.'
(Hat-tip to Mailwatch Forum)
Posts
Had she even taken 2 seconds out of her day to stop foaming at the mouth and actually type "Fahrenheit 9/11" into google she would have seen from the results exactly what the film is about.
ReplyDeleteWithout even clicking on a link it is clear to see it has nothing to do with Global Warming.
Even someone at the Mail must realise this wierdo is a liability.
The giveaway was when she said "and there was me thinking".
ReplyDeleteAh Platell, the woman who thought her opinion on an actor's autopsy results were better and more informed than the New York Coroner's office. Research is not her strong suit.
ReplyDeleteShe continues her bile after the catastrophic Moore f*ck-up. In response to '1 in 5 failed asylum seekers are removed from this country' she goes on to say:
ReplyDelete"Let me get this straight: People come into this country, often illegally and by the most devious means; they continue to break the law . . . and yet we’re supposed to treat them like visiting dignitaries.
It’s enough to make you want to emigrate."
Once again, the Mail deliberatly allowing one of it's columnists to treat Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants as the same thing.
May I make a plea on behalf of all level headed people in the country? Please do emigrate, Amanda. Go and live with your workmate Ficklejohn in his gated mansion in Florida and comment on the state of the UK based on your twice yearly visits. I'd rather have a million of who you conisder to be 'law breaking illegal immigrants entering the country by devious means being treated like dignitaries' than just one of you any day.
Platell's foaming-at-the-mouth anti-immigration doublethink is made all the more laughable by the fact that she's one herself. One day I'll bust into Northcliffe House with the biggest cluebat I can lay my hands on.
ReplyDelete"People come into this country, often illegally and by the most devious means;" Well, yes, because those seeking asylum are quite often prevented from leaving their homelands by legitimate means. Could almost be a definition of a genuine asylum seeker 'did your government seek to deny your rights by taking away your passport...?'
ReplyDelete@Mr Larrington
ReplyDeletePRATell probably doesn't see herself as an immigrant because even though she was born in another country on the other side of the world, that country is a White governed, English speaking nation.
Immigrants only ever come from Africa, India or Eastern Europe, never EVER arrive here legally, are always looking to steal our best and most highly sought after jobs, interfere in our daily lives, drain the NHS, commit crimes and can't...nae...WON'T speak English didn't you know.
This isn't even about research. It's more to do with remembering the massive cultural significance of the numbers nine and eleven. If anyone else napped on the job that much they'd be out on their ear.
ReplyDeleteWhen I add comments I like to add something worthwhile. Today I just want to say: LOL
ReplyDelete//Platell's foaming-at-the-mouth anti-immigration doublethink is made all the more laughable by the fact that she's one herself//
ReplyDeleteFor the more rational among us, I don't think Platell arrived having tied herself to the axle of a truck by a piece of string.**
Can anyone tell me why the UK is a more legitimate country to seek asylum, rather than France, Belgium, Germany...or indeed, any of the, say, 10 countries that an Iraqi/Afghan needed to transit through to get(t)here?
**Anyone who does such is definitely NOT an asylum seeker. Asylum seekers present themselves to the authorities, not desperately try to avoid them.
The point people are making about Platell is she classifies immigrants and asylum seekers as one and the same when there not. Asylum seekers can't speak the language and are probably fearful of authority given thir countries that's why they don't present themselves to the authorities.
ReplyDelete"Can anyone tell me why the UK is a more legitimate country to seek asylum, rather than France, Belgium, Germany...or indeed, any of the, say, 10 countries that an Iraqi/Afghan needed to transit through to get(t)here?"
ReplyDeleteyes, people trafficers are not a shuttle service, if you pay one to get you out of whatever country they take you to where ever it is they're going, not any of the places along the way. lots of people arrive by air anyway where stopping off isn't really an option.
also france belguim and germany do also take asylum seekers, france perticually take many many more than we do.
That's exactly my point - 1000s of people are turning up in the UK, ostensibly as 'asylum seekers', when they are not. The majority of people on this blog defend them as such, but it's just not true. I'd stick my neck out and say that there are NO bona fide asylum seekers pitching up on these shores. If you were such, you'd've seeken asylum somewhere else long before you got to the UK.
ReplyDeleteI'd like also to note the confusion on THIS blog about the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker.
As for not speaking the language, what a pathetic excuse/tenous justification. I agree that there may be some fear of authority, but are you seriously telling me that someone fleeing a oppressive/brutal regime will choose to flee to a country that they also fear. Or that because an Iraqi has been scared of Saddam, they will therefore be afraid of ALL authority, even the ones they consider safe enough to go to for help?
Are you saying this fear alone justifies hanging off the back of trains/under trucks in order to evade the authorities. A more cynical POV would be that I don't see them being too afraid of the authorities when they are cashing their benefit cheques, do you?
Anonymous (08:34) - Could you link to where this blog is 'confused' on this point?
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, if it is nonsense, then please explain to me how someone can arrive in the UK(an island) on foot without first transiting through a country that is perfectly capable of offering asylum. The nature of asylum seeking is predicated on firstly achieving personal safety rather than on what country you actually fancy living in and what country will give you the best deal!
ReplyDeleteI will accept that in rare cases, someone arriving can legitimately claim asylum, but to be honest, I'm having difficulty thinking of any such situation off the top of my head...
RE: Confusion - I didn't mean this blog - more some of the respondents on it. That was unclear - my apologies.
///yes, people trafficers are not a shuttle service, if you pay one to get you out of whatever country they take you to where ever it is they're going, not any of the places along the way. lots of people arrive by air anyway where stopping off isn't really an option.///
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, that's all rubbish that doesn't deserve a response.
//also france belguim and germany do also take asylum seekers, france perticually take many many more than we do.///
Agreed, although a. they shouldn't (for the same reasons as the UK), and b. that doesn't alter the fact that by the time they get here, they are no longer asylum seekers.
I suppose, on reflection, I could be persuaded that such is the volume of asylum seekers in Europe, we all have to divvy them up a bit. Although, again, I'd say that 95% of people are not genuine refugees/asylum seekers anyway.
Tell me |(08:34) meet any asylum seekers have you?
ReplyDeleteAlso as this blog and ACG other countries take far more than this country.
Anyway the post was Prattell making such a monumnetal goof regarding Micheal Moore. Now if she can't get basic facts like that right. How can we believe waht she says about immigration?
I'd still maintain that any one fleeing persecution can be a legitimate asylum seeker in the UK.
ReplyDeleteNot all Asylum seekers have to be poor. For example a wealthy Gay man might flee Uganda after being outed by the bloodthirsty, lawless press there. He may do so by turning up to Kampala airport and buying a ticket for the next flight out of there, which may well be bound for Heathrow. If he genuinley fears for his life in Uganda at the moment then we should grant him asylum.
If I was fleeing a country I'd at least try and get quite far away from that country. Hypothetically speaking If the UK and most of Western Europe suddenly became hostile, but Ireland remained a 'safe haven' you can be sure I'd still be heading for North America for asylum as I'd not be taking any risks.