The link below relates to a lovely little story I happened across the other day.
It loosely connects with an earlier nom about renewing passports/driving licences on-line, using a photo that could, potentially, be 20 years old, in which I hinted that younger relatives could be using an older person’s passport to illegally enter the UK.
Surely not, you might say. Who would do such a thing?
Well, here we have an unidentified male, who has been “waving through” people arriving from India, mainly, so they can fly to Canada ( what, all of them? ) where they claim asylum.
All for a fee, of course.
He was arrested, but presumably granted bail, because he has fled the country, to India! Wonder who waved him through, and whose passport he used?
ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Your Honors, our constitution bars anyone who has engaged in insurrection from holding any office under the United States. On behalf of Mr Trump I ask you to pretend this isn’t so.
JUSTICE 1: I’m not averse to a game of ‘let’s pretend’. Used to play it when I was a child.
JUSTICE 2: What about the television coverage of his speech before the riot at the Capitol? We all saw what happened.
ATTORNEY: Mr Trump is asking you to pretend you didn’t see it. And to remember he personally appointed three of your Honors to your present position.
JUSTICE 3: Ah yes, I see. Interesting.
JUSTICE 4: But some people might accuse us of a lack of impartiality.
ATTORNEY: No-one you need to worry about. What are they going to do, sue you?
JUSTICE 5: Point well taken.
JUSTICE 6: I’m convinced. Who cares what the constitution says anyway?
ATTORNEY: Mr Trump would like you to find in his favor and pretend it’s for the good of the country.
CHIEF JUSTICE: Sounds good to me. We’re all agreed then? And in a few weeks we get to decide whether he’s immune from criminal prosecution. If the constitution says anything about it, we can pretend that it doesn’t.
It’s not novel for me to be on here moaning about the limitations of modern-day film making, particularly with regard to the efforts of our American cousins. There’s a lot to dislike; cliché ridden dialogue and scenes, an obsession with superheroes, prequels, sequels and ‘re-imaginings’, and worst all, incessant wokery.
To this list I’ll add the penchant for that incredibly annoying technique referred to as ‘fast cut’ editing, where many shots of short duration are piled one on top of another in rapid succession, presumably in an attempt to inject pace or excitement into the film at a given point.
I was confronted by the perfect example of this infuriating trope when the wife and I sat down a couple of nights ago to watch ‘Jason Bourne’. We came to the inevitable car chase sequence (a cliché in itself these days), with the inevitable attempt by the production team to try to outdo all such previous ‘smash ’em up’ efforts.
So what did we actually get? You guessed it. Hundreds of short little takes rammed jarringly together, throwing the viewer around the action in dizzying fashion. Chuck in the inevitable shaky camera and CGI for good effect, and you’re left with a confusing, disorientating, frustrating mess;
As a further evidence to support my case, I offer the undernoted classic by way of contrast. Look at how the director starts things off slowly, with the protagonists prowling around each other like a couple of sparring Siamese fighting fish. Then, aided by a some superb scoring, he shifts through the gears, gradually building the pace and tension to a superb denouement. No fast edit (and no shaky camera or CGI), just superb film-making technique;
M’luds, the prosecution contends that ‘fast edit’ is shit, and rests its case .
We head North of the Border where the jocks are strapping and the women toothless, to a group of leftie loonies called “This Is Rigged” complain about the cost of living, and rising prices, by wasting food, by pouring it on a bust of Queen Victoria, before scrawling an obscenity on the bust:
No doubt the stupid fuckers will be voting for Labour, even though Kweer is really Tory Lite.
Google the Met Office for a weather forecast and what comes up? ‘Weather & Climate Change’ of course, so you know exactly where these cunts are coming from. For years now they’ve been selectively reporting data to ‘prove’ the Climate Crisis (eg from airport runways), whilst ignoring data that disproves it.
But lo and behold, it transpires that even their carefully chosen figures are a load of bollocks. These clowns report rises in temperature of hundredths of a degree when 78% of their weather stations give temperatures with a margin of error of at least 2C. A third are only accurate to plus or minus 5 degrees, for fucks sake. This gives them ‘junk’ or ‘near junk’ status according to the World Meteorological Office. In short, most of the Met Office’s temperature reports are completely unreliable.
Rather than fixing this lamentable state of affairs they continue to use worthless data to push their climate dogma. I suppose it rather explains why the useless cunts can’t even predict tomorrow’s weather with any degree of accuracy.
