Discussion of article from the Mail's columnists and RightMinds contributors
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#477063
It seems they have built up the courage to attack the Clooneys again, after a humiliating slap down last time.

People trying to help others in need always makes Dacre very angry. Even more so when those people are rich and famous, because we all know rich people can't possibly genuinely care about helping others.

It's been a good few days since Amal's comments, so this epic rant is a bit overdue.


Spare us from these bleeding heart luvvies like the Clooneys who lecture us on migrants while jetting off from mansion to mansion, says CHRISTOPHER HART
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -HART.html


Millionaire celebrities love nothing better than a ‘Cause’ which makes them look good.

They hope it might allay suspicion that they are, in fact, rather selfish and egocentric people who have dedicated their lives to the single-minded pursuit of fame and fortune.

Once upon a time, the favoured Cause was symbolised by ostentatiously wearing an Aids ribbon. Remember those?

Then it was Climate Change: Leonardo DiCaprio descending from on high in his private gas-guzzling jet to explain why everybody else should be doing something about it.

The latest Cause that appeals to this unlovely class of people is Refugees.

The great thing about such Causes is that they allow you to posture and pose as morally superior to the common herd without having to make the personal self-sacrifices that traditional religions demand.

You don’t have to fast for the month of Ramadan or the season of Lent, you don’t have to practise celibacy or humility or self-denial — quite the opposite, in fact.

You don’t even have to go on arduous pilgrimages. And you certainly don’t have to follow one of Jesus’s fiercest instructions, when he told the rich man who wanted to be saved that he should give all his money to the poor.

Instead, you can just fly around the world spouting hot air about how people are suffering, about how deeply you care, and how other people ought to care as well.

The latest such dubious poseuse is celebrity lawyer Amal Clooney, wife of the famous George. She has been addressing the UN, with George in tow. Indeed, George was pictured holding her hand as she spoke.
When they stepped outside for the inevitable selfie pictures with fans, though, plenty wanted pictures of themselves with Amal — not George.

Speaking on Channel 4 News this week, Mrs Clooney criticised Britain for having taken in only carefully restricted numbers of refugees from Syria and Iraq.

In contrast, she specifically praised Germany, under Angela Merkel’s ‘open-door policy’, for having received a staggering one million refugees and immigrants in a single year.

Yet Mrs Merkel’s ill-considered knee-jerk policy, against the clear wishes of the German people, has led to immediate and alarming consequences.

Among many other incidents, there have been horrendous reports of sex attacks committed by migrants.

The biggest event in Britain this week concerning refugees was the hijacking of Parliament Square for a demonstration about the plight of migrants crossing the Mediterranean and the Aegean sea.

Hundreds of lifejackets were laid out on the grass in the shadow of Winston Churchill’s statue.

The protest was organised by David Miliband’s aid charity International Rescue, but inevitably there were Left-wing celebrities, such as the actress Juliet Stevenson, in attendance to help publicise the stunt.

It goes without saying the refugee crisis is complicated. There are no easy solutions. At least, this much is obvious to the common-sense man in the street.

Caution is needed. Humanitarian aid where possible, for sure. Refugee camps for Syrian asylum seekers in the nearest safe country, according to international rules.

But never mind such complications. They don’t impinge upon the permanent floating champagne-bubble of luvvie-land, where you get to walk all those red carpets, receive enormous pay cheques and fly first class or even private.

If you’re Amal Clooney, you might be flying between your various, luxuriously appointed homes. Your villa on Lake Como — oh sorry, two villas. (Perhaps she and George like to have separate bathrooms). Your mansion in Berkshire. Your beachside place in Mexico. And, of course, the pad in Los Angeles.

Although George and Amal have repeatedly talked about the need for the West to take in more refugees, it is not known yet just how many Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans or Eritreans they have personally welcomed into any of their lovely houses.
The greatest blessing of all in being a celeb, it seems, is that suddenly you are knowledgeable about everything, or at least you think you are. The most intractable international problems — which have baffled the greatest statesmen — become magically clear to you.

For Mrs Clooney, this means that the West should take in apparently unlimited numbers of refugees and asylum seekers, and then the terrible problems of Syria will be solved.

She also has great faith that the UN can and should sort out that murderous bedlam, if only she demands it firmly enough. Why do our celebrity luvvies continue to have such faith in the UN? Perhaps because like them, it’s international, unaccountable, very generously funded and a little bit useless.

Amal Clooney is far from being the only culprit. Plenty of others, with zero obvious expertise in the area, have presumed to lecture us on how we must accept more refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, even jihadis — without ever troubling to explain how these very different groups might be distinguished.

In the past year alone, we have heard from Benedict Cumberbatch, Helena Bonham Carter, Stephen Fry, Emma Thompson, J.K. Rowling, Bob Geldof . . . the list goes on.

Actually, it’s probably just easier to say ‘all of them’. The whole ghastly, smug, cosseted, self-adoring crew.
Referring to the Syrian crisis while he was on stage in London after a performance, Sherlock star Cumberbatch announced that we

should ‘f*** the politicians’. J.K. Rowling went online to ‘retweet’ the comments of others, calling [former] British Prime Minister David Cameron’s stance on refugees ‘utterly shameful’. She also linked her comments to a petition for the UK to accept more asylum seekers.

She wrote: ‘If you can’t imagine yourself in one of those boats, you have something missing. They are dying for a life worth living.’

Meanwhile, a gang of stars, including Oscar-winner Cate Blanchett and Keira Knightley collaborated to produce a video this month to highlight the plight of refugees.

And then there’s another Academy Award winner, Emma Thompson, who can always be relied on to say something eye-wateringly right-on.

She gave a controversial interview last year saying Britain had failed to take in thousands of refugees from Calais because of ‘racism’. She told the programme the UK’s response to the refugee crisis in Europe was ‘really shaming’.

Last Saturday, had you been in London, you might have found yourself caught up in a pro-refugee march among whose ranks were the firebrand actress Vanessa Redgrave and, once again, Juliet Stevenson.

All this stuff is the luvvies’ religion, remember, and heretics in their ranks would have a pretty hard time.

Any celebrity who thought our current policies on admitting refugees — we have promised to take in 20,000 from Syria, and have donated more money to the refugee camps in the Middle East than any country except America — were reasonable would have their membership of luvviedom revoked.

But then our continent-hopping stars have no interest in how the man or woman in the street may feel. They are uninterested in poll after poll which shows that opposition to immigration remains high across Europe. (A YouGov poll last month found that 70 per cent of British people think there has been too much immigration over the past decade.)

But celebs don’t have to worry about the legitimate and well-informed concerns of ordinary people. They don’t worry about losing their jobs to a new arrival. They don’t find the waiting lists at their local GP growing ever longer. They don’t find their children are in a class where English is a minority language.

Their jets are private, their doctors are private, their children’s schools are private. Their entire lives are private, as exclusively set apart and jealously guarded from the real world as the Clooneys’ Italian villas.

Fine, if that’s the way they want it. But it does mean that they are spectacularly unqualified when it comes to understanding the problems the real world has to deal with, day in, day out.

When are they going to realise this and put a designer sock in their very big and hypocritical mouths?
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#477068
The greatest blessing of all in being a celeb, it seems, is that suddenly you are knowledgeable about everything
The greatest blessing of being a highly trained human rights lawyer is that after many years study, you are knowledgeable about certain things.

The greatest blessing of being a 2 bit hack is that you have opinions on every bloody thing.

PS Christopher Hart? Not Christopher "I didn't need to watch this film to know it was evil" Hart? seriously. Look up "Antichrist" in the forum archive.
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#477150
Is self awareness a superpower these days? A columnist in the Daily fucking Mail objects to pontificating about refugees and immigration .

What is telling is that he's able to tell us how out of step these celebrities are with opinion polls. He's a little less forthcoming on how they sit visa vis facts and basic decency.
 
By Messianic Trees
Membership Days Posts
#520695
Banning AD and BC isn't just bonkers, it's an insult to minorities: As schools replace Christian date system with 'Common Era', CHRISTOPHER HART expresses his fury

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... AD-BC.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Paul, Once a green and pleasant land, United Kingdom

Is it possible to still send a child to school these days and not have their minds warped with all this PC BS? I'm serious. I want to know I can send my kids in the future to schools where they are not bombarded with left wing crap about not ever saying anything traditional in case it might offend and that by the time they reach puberty they are not questioning the gender they were born to be? Is it possible? I'm honestly beginning to get concerned!
ConstantGardener, Letterkenny, Ireland

It's BC and AD. It's HIM and it's HER. It's MEN and it's WOMEN. It's BOY and it's GIRL. Future generations will laugh themselves silly at some of the nonsense earnest socialist 'thinkers' have dreamt up today.
expat, auckland

I don't know about everyone else but aren't you sick of P.c. can't say Christmas ,wives and and husbands ,Christian names ,no surnames ..I spend most of the time on the 'phone telling people no I don't have a partner ,no I don't have a first name and no i don't have a last name . Most people now are chairs not chairman or chairwomen,and the annoying habit on the news when the know the gender and say,Harold Smith spokeperson.the word man and women seem to be on their out. My last moan is seeing plough persons lunch on the menu.
Lady of the Lake, Avalon, Antarctica

So messing up the older generation's understanding of the timing of history - just like they messed up this country's imperial measurement system causing untold misunderstandings of whether things are measured in feet and inches or metres and centimetres or lbs and ounces or grams and kilos. What a mess.
GMB, Bristol UK

I'm developing a dislike of minority groups that has only arisen since they have became the focus of the perpetually whinging politically correct troublemakers. I wish they'd all shut up and accept we're all different.
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#520794
There's always a BAN isn't there? To inflame DM rage. As always, the reality is that nothing whatsoever is "banned", there is simply a contemporary tendency increasingly not to use archaic terminology that focuses on a single religious faith in a multi-faith, multi-cultural 21st century society. Which is perfectly understandable, perfectly okay, and as Malcolm pointed out has been happening for the past 30 odd years in any case.

I do have a sneaking admiration for the author of this guff. If I was asked to write a polemical piece raging against the falling into disuse of the archaic terms BC and AD, I'd really, truly, struggle to do so - because, you know, logic.
Labour, Generally.

I’d love a confirmatory vote that was an off[…]

Jeremy Hunt

Preferring Katie Hopkins to an elected official. […]

The Tories, Generally

https://twitter.com/john3ners/status/1140621530046[…]

That Time Of Year Again.... (Two)

Whilst no doubt completely ignoring the coked-[…]