On the morning of the 24th June 2016 I was not alone in feeling immensely proud to be British and of my fellow countrymen and women who voted to leave the European Union. To understand this pride and the after shock heard around the world we must go right back to January of this year, three months before the official campaign started David Cameron had already agreed the tone of the governments campaign which would be swiftly labelled "project fear". The very moment Cameron decided to concentrate on the economic factor to win over the population he was on a loser because the economy was far from the minds of the great British public. Immigration became the main concern as since 2004 the free movement directive has seen the UK population rise considerably from central and eastern European countries, in just 12 years Polish had become the second spoken language in the UK. In 2007 this was extended to Romania and Bulgaria and studies showed that many working class people had concerns over public services, housing and the living wage. In 2015 the UK had a general election and during the lead up to the vote every political party was talking about immigration, this topic became the mainstay of every episode of BBC's Question Time so it should not have been any surprise that the referendum would follow a similar vain as immigration had not been controlled as promised. A yougov poll shows that lower paid working class British people were more likely to vote to leave than the higher earners and the reason for this is clear, working class people could not see the benefits from staying in the EU indeed they were experiencing precisely the opposite. David Cameron's "project fear" was relentless and unforgiving, it began back in January with a warning that the UK could "disintegrate" if it left the EU and continued in that vain. We were warned that households would be thousands of pounds poorer, that Putin would bomb us, that terrorists could bomb us, house prices would plummet, holidays would be more expensive, thousands of jobs would be lost, the elderly would lose their pensions, a third world war would happen, we would have a recession, an emergency budget and worse still Milky way Stars wouldn't be sold in Britain. The usual suspects were rolled out in succession to offer the same scary warnings, President Obama, the IMF, the bank of England, the big corporations, Tony Blair, Bob geldof and even David Beckham warned the UK of economic disaster from one of their many mansions. As if project fear couldn't stoop any lower, the tragic but well timed death of Jo Cox gave the remain campaign an added boost as they steered the campaign to a "it's what Jo would have wanted" tone and some pro-EU newspapers were even calling the murder a "brexit" killing. The timely death of Jo Cox was used by remain campaigners right up to the vote day and leave supporters were blasted for the tone of some of their campaigns when in reality the remain camps were the most negative in nature, since the result of the referendum Jo Cox has vanished from the media limelight. One cannot talk about the referendum without mentioning Nigel Farage, because but for UKIP and Farage there wouldn't have been a referendum in the first place, a fact that few are prepared to admit. One politician who did admit this was George Galloway who despises UKIP as a party but happily shared a platform with Nigel to ensure the UK left the EU. Although Nigel Farage was the driving force behind this referendum the official leave campaign was awarded to the conservative led 'vote leave' group and although not part of that campaign Farage is taking the blame for some of their statements. David Cameron has shown his cowardliness in refusing to debate head-to-head with Nigel farage on many occasions. There is no doubt that project fear was successful, it was a devastating attack and it made a huge impact in the final results of the referendum. This fact is perhaps why I feel so proud of my fellow countrymen and women who voted to leave, because without project fear the majority of leavers would have been much bigger ...but we still won the referendum. The working class voted as one against the establishment, against the big banks, against our own government, against our own opposition party, against the celebrities, against the corperations and against the so-called experts. The real back bone of this country didn't need to be told facts and figures because they could SEE and FEEL what was really going on in the country, they were LIVING it. The real working class don't have mansions with Romanian maids, Polish gardeners or nannies from the Czech republic. the real people of this country can't use private hospitals and private schools, we can't buy luxury pads in chelsea or fly to Italy three times a week, we can see our wages come to a stand still, we can hear the language being spoken in our own country that we can't understand, we sweated as we waited to see if our daughter got her school place, we waited for two weeks to see our doctor, for us the country is changing and not for our benefit. As the final results came through and it was clear that the UK had voted to leave the EU the BBC in particular started the media tone that would continue for the next week, doom and gloom. The BBC were quick to drag on as many pro-EU talking heads as they could muster telling us how silly the country had been and how it was a devastating result for Britain. David Dimbleby could barely hide his anger at the result taking a nasty swipe at Nigel Farage for his repeated interviews even though the media had chosen to conduct them, after all it was Farage's battle and the media would naturally want to hear him. Talk of a 2nd referendum quickly began on social media including an on-line petition and many politicians were swift to capitalise on the media swing by also supporting a 2nd referendum while others were asking the government to simply ignore the result completely. A week after the vote and the political landscape has changed beyond recognition, Cameron resigns, Corbyn is facing a coup, Johnson has apparently shown he had no intention of wanting out of the EU in the first place, the Scottish toad stall Sturgeon is using the vote to further the SNPs cause for an independent Scotland and even the Mayor of London has suggested London should remain part of the EU, it is an utter disaster for democracy. Before the vote took place many people were suggesting that even if the country voted to leave the EU it would never actually happen, far too many forces are working against the working class and David Camerons resignation is likely part of the bigger plan to remain in the EU. Cameron's replacement will undoubtedly be a remain campaigner like Theresa May who will delay triggering article 50 as long as she can. Project fear never ended and it will continue until these forces change public opinion and force the UK back into the EU. What began as a fantastic day for Britain and democratic people power is beginning to seem like it was just a dream
0 Comments
Sound is interesting, what you may think is the sound of someone's voice is merely an illusion. When you hear a voice for example, waves and vibrations travel in the air and are received by the ear, these are then transmitted electrically to the brain, the brain then processes the information and displays its interpretation of it so you can understand. So what do we really sound like beyond our interpretation?, because what we think certain humans sound like is merely our human interpretation of the waves and vibrations. When a dog makes a sound we call it a bark because as humans that's what we interpret that sound to be, another dog however may hear something different as they can process other frequencies and nobody can replicate the inner brain interpretation of another species. So why do we hate the sound of our own voice on tape, and why do some people say that it doesn't even sound like them, even when a friend listening to the same recording will say it does? Well it goes back to the interpretation of sound. When we talk we hear our own voice much like the person you are talking to, however our inner ear picks up other signals from our throat, jaw and other inner functions of our bodies, also when we "think" to ourselves we have the same sounding 'inner voice' as our interpretation of it and it probably gets a make-over in our minds, so this produces a unique "sound" for us individually as we are receiving many separate inputs at once, the person you are talking to only receives one. So that's why we hate it, it doesn't sound the way we hear it.....or should I say the way our brain tells us it sounds. These are my own series of posters highlighting the distractions, fakes and influences taking place.Why the "Carry-On" movies belong in the pastThis week it was announced that two brand new "Carry-on" movies have been given the green light with the first set for release in 2017 to coincide with the 25th Anniversary of the last film. The series of 31 films ran from 1958 to 1979 with a revival movie "Carry-on Columbus" made in 1992. The movies were set around lampooning British institutions and became British institutions in their own right and undoubtedly one of the most successful British movie franchises of all time. The Carry-on series began with "Carry-on Sergeant" in 1958 and starred Doctor Who actor William Hartnell in the title roll, this was followed by another 30 movies which included a compilation film "That's Carry-on". So what made these movies so successful? Every Carry-on was filmed at Pinewood studio's under the direction of Gerald Thomas and Producer Peter Rogers, although several writers were used it was Talbot Rothwell and Norman Hudis who were the most notable and Eric Rogers provided the now iconic musical scores. By the time the fourth movie was made "Carry-on Constable" in 1960 many of the regular acting team were in place including Sid James, Kenneth Williams, Charles Hawtrey, Joan Sims, Kenneth Conner and Hattie Jacques. The Carry-on films still hold the record for the most films in any British film series and comes second to James Bond as the longest running UK film franchise, the movies often lampooned history and other genres of the film industry and many British institutions such as the Police force, the NHS, schools and the military. In 1971 the carry-on franchise hit it's first bump when the subject of the film was British workers themselves and the striking unions of the seventies, although "Carry-on at your convenience" was one of my personal favorites the movie didn't have the impact of it's previous offerings and it took 5 years for the studio to make any returns on its production cost's, was this a sign of things to come? After the failure of "convenience" the team went back to it's former successful formats with "Matron", "Abroad", "Behind" and "Carry-on Dick", but things were about to change. Up to this point the carry-on's had been quite innocent making use of the "double-entendre" and likened to the saucy seaside postcard humour of the time, but then movies like "Lemon Popsicle" and the "confessions of.." series took this humour to the next level becoming more adult in nature and featuring much more nudity than before, hence "Carry-on England" and "Emmannuelle". For many people the last real carry-on movie was "Carry-on Behind" made in 1976 and gave us another "Camping-like" experience, "England" and "Emmannuelle" were not only missing so many of the regular cast it also increased it's nude content unlike anything before in carry-on and both received an 'AA' certificate cutting off audiences below the age of 14. This was the end of the carry-on as we knew it. In 1992 Gerald Thomas and Peter Rogers made their final Carry-on "Carry-on Columbus" but with many of the original cast dead and others rejecting a part in the film it barely resembles a carry-on at all. Many fans agree that whilst it was great seeing some old favourites return to the series (Jim Dale, Jack Douglas, Bernie Cribbins and June Whitfield) the film just didn't hold water (no pun intended) and alternative comedians like Rik mayall and Julian Clarey only served to remind us that this wasn't the same carry-on experience that we yearned for. From 2003 to 2009 another revival was planned with "Carry-on London", the production went through many changes and planned cast members including (this is soul destroying) Vinnie Jones, Shane Ritchie, Daniella westbrook, Shawn Williamson and Frank Skinner to name but a few very poor substitutes. The death of peter rogers put an end to this nightmare of a project. This week it was announced that Carry-on would return in 2017 with "Carry-on Doctors" and "Carry-on campus". The new films are being written by Tim Dawson and Susan Nickson, who have previously written BBC's "Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps" and produced by Peter Rogers friend Jonathan Sothcott. The trouble with any attempt at a revival is that the ingredients that made this franchise so successful are lost, for many people the term "Carry-on" can only be applied with those cherished actors we so loved in the starring roles, without them there can be no Carry-on film. In this politically correct liberal world the Carry-on's are a snapshot of Britain's yesteryear, a time we will never see again that is lost forever.
Fixes and lies for only 15 minutes of talentITV's BRITAIN'S GOT TALENT certainly provided what had been lacking from TV schedules for many years when it started back in 2006.....and that was variety. For a while variety shows had been considered old hat with the likes of Paul Daniels and co being piled on the scrap heap only to be replaced with endless superficial singing shows. Now 10 years on something seems rather superficial with the show itself, was it always like this or has something changed? "Britain's Got Talent" is produced by 'Syco' the money making machine of Simon Cowell, so perhaps BGT has always been the insulting fakeness it is now...but I can't be sure. So let's begin with the current show's running time which is 71 long minutes, now 71 minutes is roughly an hour and ten minutes, and within that time frame you would expect that a TV show dedicated to showcasing the best of Britain's talent would allow a substantial amount of program time to doing exactly that...wouldn't you? The shocking truth is that the time allocated to showcasing talent within the 71 minute program is....are you ready? 15 MINUTES and 22 SECONDS, I shit you not, the total performance time throughout the show is just 15 minutes. While you are reeling from that kick up the arse, let's consider for a moment what could possibly consume the remaining hour of the program. Advertising of course plays a very big part in all of Ant and Dec's programs with the most blatant example being the odious "Saturday night takeaway" but even the outrageous amount of ad breaks in BGT doesn't cover the 56 minutes of talentless content. For example, in last nights show a full 5 minutes was dedicated to the talentless Richard Bayton who clearly could not sing or dance and yet managed a standing ovation from the hysterical orchestrated audience and some of the judges. Bayton is just one example of an act taking the place of hundreds of talented hard working performers not given the opportunity, true talented performers like Harlow's Carl Owen are not afforded the same opportunity and to add insult to injury Richard Bayton had performed on the show just two years before and performed just as bad. How can this be? This cannot be a coincidence and one must remember that acts like Richard Bayton shave off a further 5 minutes of the 15 minute window of entertainment allowed on the show leaving less room for genuine talented singers like Carl Owen. A similar state of affairs can be seen with 14 year old Jazzmine Elcock who performed a version of Cher's "Believe". As soon as the young girl admitted to being "nervous" the alarm bells should have rang out and you just knew she would be fantastic, this is a tired old trick used at least once per series. Jazzmine Elcock however had already played Annie in the west end musical of the same name and clearly should not have been on a show that's purportedly designed to find talented amateurs in Britain. It was no surprise then to viewers that she would perform brilliantly but not it seems to Alesha Dixon who sobbed unconvincingly throughout the performance. Ant and Dec then hysterically pressed the 'golden buzzer' (designed to assure a contestant reaches the final who may not have done otherwise) completely wasting their vote. Not wishing to be outdone by Dixon; Ant could also be seen wiping tears away from his eyes admitting to feeling emotional leaving some viewers wondering what was in Ant and Dix's drink, after all this was simply a professional west end performer covering a Cher song? I mean have I missed something here? Last nights show saw Ben Blague perform a death defying crossbow stunt using king Cowell as part of his act, Simon said at the end of his act that he had never seen anything like it....really? Simon must have forgotten Ben's success on America's got talent in 2012 where he reached the final under the eye of executive producer....yes you guessed it Simon Cowell. So then, apart from the numerous commercials, the shameful viewers telephone quiz and Dixon pretending to cry what do we actually sit through for the 56 minutes? Quite frankly a lot of meaningless nonsense. The judges arriving, the judges walking upstairs, the judges walking downstairs, David Walliams mum, the David Walliams "I'm gay and I want to have sex with Simon" routine which is becoming incredibly tiresome, endless cutaways of the audience making whimsical comments having been miked up beforehand and film segments of contestants some of whom are filmed even before arriving at the studio?? Some very observant viewers have even noted the obvious edits that take place and this is because the audience are part of the big con. At some stage throughout the show the audiences are asked to take part in "reaction shots" when nobody is even on the stage. They are asked to react as shocked, then surprised, then hysterical and then these shots are edited in as appropriate....shameful. The truth about "Britain's got talent" is that it is a very cleverly constructed TV show following a very specific format that is copied and syndicated throughout the world. Ant and Dec still come across as the cheeky little chaps we all think we know when in fact they are the shrewdest businessmen in the country each owning their own companies since 1997. many of their shows have been the subject of fraud investigations including "Saturday night takeaway" and "gameshow marathon". In 2005 producers of "The British comedy awards" awarded Ant and Dec the peoples choice award when in fact they had overturned the publics real choice "The Catherine Tate show". Ant and Dec....it's a no from me. DON'T EVER BELIEVE THIS SHIT!!! STOP CLICKING ON THESE THINGS! I am getting so fed up with these items on facebook, they never tell you the full story on the post, they say things like "this man walked into a Lion's cage....you won't believe what happened next", or "10 celebrities you didn't know had died of food poisoning...you won't believe number 8" FUCK RIGHT OFF!!! You click the link and get pop ups you can't get rid of, arrows that fool you into going to another site, just stop it all right now! A classic one I saw the other day was this.."10 child stars who died from drug abuse", the photo they displayed with the post was Melissa Sue Anderson who played Mary in "The Little House On The Prairie"...big mistake!!! Myself being a massive massive fan of LHOTP (yeah ok so sue me!) I know that Melissa is very much alive and well lol. "Day 6,296 in the Big Brother house, fiction becomes fact"In George orwell's classic novel "1984" Orwell painted a bleak picture into the future where Britain has become a province of a superstate (Oceania) and controlled by a socialist political party called "big brother". The party elite dominate and strictly moderate the masses persecuting individuality and independent thinking as "thought crime". This totalitarian state also controls the language introducing what they call "newspeak". In 1999 the Netherlands aired the first ever TV series of "big brother", produced by Endemol and based on Orwell's novel, even naming the show after the fictitious political party. The show places it's subjects in a strictly controlled environment making them live together whilst being under video surveillance the entire time. Whilst the first series of the show seemed to follow the main premise which was basically a social experiment requiring housemates to interact with others who may have differing ideals, beliefs, and prejudices, the programme we see today is very different indeed. let's forget the fact that it is pure "car crash" TV, and that the participants are so odious you would never stomach them in real life, forget all that....the shows aired in the last few years are flawed. Something has changed in the Big Brother house, because instead of analysing the human condition with individuals living together with different prejudices and ideals, now we are merely witnessing individuals with specific ideals and beliefs being scolded and silenced if they do not conform to the media's liberal left persona. Lets take a great example...... The 14th season of the UK's Celebrity Big brother included Frank Malony shown on the left during his professional involvement with BOXING, and on the right as he appeared on the show wearing a wig and dressed as a woman. By an amazing coincidence (lol) against all the odds (snigger) BOXER Audley Harrison was also booked for the same series (no shit!) and had actually known Frank before the wig (can you believe the odds!!). At some stage during this series Audley Harrison made the grave mistake of admitting to Frank that he felt uncomfortable, having once known him as a man, to now have to consider him a woman. This was far too offensive for the liberal media to take and so Big brother (the producer) hauled Harrison in and scolded him for his feelings. They told him it was offensive that he should feel that way as if it was a perfectly normal state of affairs. The producers clearly intended and expected this exchange to take place, as they have done many times before. They deliberately engineer instances via the selection process and through the 'games' they create to incite confrontation. Consider for a moment, that you have a drinking buddy called "Dave" whom you always see at the local pub, after a few months of not seeing him he turns up in a wig dressed as a woman and says his name is now 'Precious'....are you really not allowed to feel a bit weird about that? OF COURSE YOU ARE! Audley Harrison however was told in no uncertain terms that if he uttered another word about his feelings or beliefs and even hint that Franks transformation was a little shocking for him he would be removed from the house. Audley was forced to apologise to the nation for his heinous crime. In Orwell's novel 1984 the masses were being controlled by "newspeak" how ironic that political correctness has created the very thing Orwell was warning about and how with the E.U trying to turn Britain into a province of their superstate 1984 seems to be coming true. Liberal progressive lefties, these are the guys at the front of the marches, holding the placards. baying for blood over equal rights, gay rights, transgender nonsense and everything else. They are obsessed with racism and discrimination, but what if they were the one's who were discriminating? Liberal lefties will treat a person or a group of people differently depending on the colour of their skin. The photo below displays two men who share EXACTLY the same opinions on same sex marriage, liberal lefts will be very vocal in showing their disgust for the Christian without daring to criticize the Muslim. When faced with this obvious flaw and discrimination the liberals have little choice but to shut down and/or call you a racist. Given the scenario shown below the liberals are faced with a difficult choice, on the one hand they need to defend their LGBT friends but on the other hand they are incapable of criticizing a religious minority group. The result is this utter hypocrisy. The same can be said for their feminist views, liberals will shout and protest when a woman has been asked to cover her breast in a restaurant and moan about equal pay for women, but ignore the plight of thousands of women treated as second class citizens all over the world. In Pakistan it is estimated that there are at least 1,000 honor killings every year (women killed by relatives for bringing shame on the family name, these crimes can include looking at a man twice or accusing a man of rape) but liberals are too busy complaining about posters on the underground showing sexy bikini clad women instead. In a recent exchange with a liberal when confronted with the fact that sexual assaults on women have increased in Germany and Sweden because of immigrants I was shut down. So when we delve deeper into the thinking behind the liberal brain it becomes even more unpleasant. The very fact that liberals can be SO vocal and disrespectful of a Christian religion but dare not utter a word against others, especially Islam, takes you in a shocking direction. It is this, liberals believe that white Christians can "take it" whilst the poor backward less intelligent more aggressive religion can not. This thinking is racist and discriminatory and goes against their supposedly liberal beliefs. Let's take the Mohammad cartoon incident as an example, when the Paris attacks took place the newspaper involved in the attack published a cartoon of Mohammad, this fact made world news, however not one UK newspaper/media outlet showed that front page, it was after all just a line drawing of someone nobody has ever seen before. So why the media blanket? The answer is quite simply...fear. It wasn't out of respect that's for sure, it was quite simply the fear that another attack could take place by members of a religion that cannot control itself. When "The Life Of Brian" was released people protested, some countries banned the movie but nobody was killed and nobody expects Christians to come out fighting so they are fair game. It's also interesting that while I am saying "Christians" all the time I must point out that liberals (true to their form) see things in black and white so therefore they tend to treat our black African Christian friends like the minorities....weird huh? According to the liberals everyone else is the racist!!
1. The Bratz doll principle.All your female characters must look exactly the same although hair colour may differ slightly, a trip to the 'Bratz' doll factory is the look you are going for here. They must be very attractive, very slim, and completely blemish-free, please note the only exception to this rule is where you need an English evil type who is permitted to have defects (see 'Jessie's' Agatha) or if they are related to the show's producer (as this can be the only explanation for 'Trish' on Austin and Ally.) 2. Sing it loud.Main characters must be in some way connected to the performing arts and must sing their own theme tune (cut away shots of them performing in a studio with headphones optional) the tune must be simple and catchy but with no real substance. You must try and create instances where the characters can perform song/dance numbers in each episode, this could even be included in clever 'dream' sequences when otherwise it would not make sense. During crossover episodes special arrangements combining both theme tunes are permitted. 3. Picture perfect.All your characters must live in huge houses that are immaculate with bright colours and must be completely dirt free. Any props used on your set must be brand new products that have never been used and these include props that are actually supposed to be dirty (mops, brushes etc). Similarly any additional sets required (cafe's, schools,parks etc) must also be completely fake looking and blemish free with ridiculously bright orange objects in view at all times. Double-back your sets to make show cross-overs much easier to film and your actors won't have far to walk. 4. Be stereotypical. Be lazy in your creations, include stereotypes we can all identify with. Consider the success of 'Jessie' and the outrageous stereotypes within. RAVI - Indian boy with over-exaggerated accent, owns a pet lizard, and talks of curry, samosas and fortune telling. ZURI = African child adopted by a very rich middle class family but talks like a stereotypical urban street black girl from the ghetto. EMMA - White dumb all american blonde princess. LUKE - White dumb all american wise-cracking kid whose constantly hitting on the nanny. 5. Hook the parents. Remember you can only be successful if your audience can gain control of the TV remote to keep watching, so keep Mum and Dad in check by including some references that only Mum and dad would understand. Some of your episodes could even be complete parodies of films that your target audience couldn't possibly have seen. The 'Jessie' episode "The Whining" was a blatant parody of the horror movie "The Shining" and the 'Victorious' episode "The breakfast bunch" was an even bigger nod to John Hughes "The Breakfast Club". 6. Hey, lighten up. Another good tip for making a good Disney Channel Show is to never get too serious. Always try to keep the mood high and have problems that clear themselves up before the next episode. The situations that the characters are thrown into are never that deep so as to not offend any of the audience and to keep it "safe". Always remember that new Disney shows are not run by film makers anymore they are controlled my academics who have statistics and research under their belts instead of innovation and risk. Compare Disney's new show "Girl meets world" to it's original series ABC's "Boy meets World" which aired from 1993. While "Boy meets world" tackles real issues and offers a much more realistic flavour throughout (the school lockers are even GREY!) it's follow on series "Girl meets world" is your standard Disney artificial product that looks and feels just like all the others with sets borrowed from 'Liv and Maddie'.
|
Archives
June 2016
|