Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🚨HE SAID IT BEFORE THE CAMPAIGN. Before the forms. Before the petitions. Before he was the one facing the disciplinary committee. He stood in front of party executives and said unity is nothing without fairness and justice. Then he got specific: MPs and executives endorsed one candidate openly and...

50,175 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The pool hall scene in Carlito’s Way is one of the most suspenseful set pieces in all of crime cinema. However, when the studio executives saw an early cut, they thought it was too long and asked Brian De Palma to cut it back - but instead, he made it even longer. The writer of the film, David Koepp explains…. “We showed an early cut to the studio, and one of their notes was that the pool hall scene seemed too long. I was talking to Brian about it, and I said, “what do you think about this note that the pool hall scene is too long? I don't think they're right about that.” And he said, “No, no, no, they're absolutely right, they're absolutely right. But what they mean is that it's not long enough” And I thought he was just being cheeky and defiant. But actually, no - I mean, he knows suspense so well, he felt that it was just that he had failed to set up a little bit of the geography of the suspense - which is of course, his mastery. You know - the guys in the bathroom, the door is slightly open, the other guys over here - all that great establishment of where everybody is, and how close they are to each other, and what all the stakes are. The suspense only works later if that stuff's set up properly before. And so when he went back and furthered some of that coverage and expanded the front of the scene a little bit, the scene was nail biting and great. And they saw another cut and said, “much better shorter, much better shorter.”

Gangster Cinema Central

62,984 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The leader of the Green Party shared a call for Nigel Farage to be BEHEADED. To 700,000 people. Two weeks after an MP was murdered. Then went on live TV, refused to apologise, and made himself the VICTIM. All he had to do was say one word. He couldn't and every reason makes it worse. His defence? Farage cropped it to make it LOOK like I posted it. So here's how Instagram actually works, Zack. A collab stays HIDDEN. You get a notification, tap REVIEW, see the full post, and only THEN press ACCEPT. The second you do, it publishes under your name to all your followers. No accident in that chain. You SEE it. You CHOOSE it and he said it himself. “I shouldn't have ACCEPTED that collaboration.” There's the whole game, in his own word. He previewed a man in a T-shirt calling for Farage's beheading, and pressed accept. To 700,000 people. Watch the word he hides behind. COLLABORATION. As if it drifted onto his page like weather. But you review it, approve it, publish it. He didn't get caught. He CHOSE it. His party says he accepted a 20-image post without realising. A leader who didn't check what he sent to 700,000? That's not a defence. That's the job abandoned. This was no ambush. Not GB News. The BBC. Victoria Derbyshire, one of the straightest interviewers in the country, on Newsnight. She offered him the easiest out on live TV. Do you want to apologise? She asked it four times. Four times he refused. When even a neutral BBC journalist can’t get you to say sorry for sharing a beheading, the problem was never the interview. Then the excuse that should end him. It only got 1,000 likes, until Farage amplified it. So the beheading image was fine, as long as few WATCHED. The problem isn't what he shared. It's that people SAW. Then the logic folds in. If I'd done it deliberately I'd apologise, he said, but because it was a mistake, I won't. We say sorry for mistakes BECAUSE they're mistakes. Here’s the real reason. In his words, the moment he apologises, Farage runs all over social media. So it's not principle. It's TACTICS. A call for a man's beheading goes unapologised for, to save a campaign. Even his OWN party apologised FOR him. He still wouldn't say it. Now the part nobody else will touch. This is the man who warned Britain was descending into AUTHORITARIANISM, who calls our liberties “not negotiable,” who rails against arresting people for posts. Until the post was his. Now he's reported to police, and suddenly he's the VICTIM. Free speech for me. The full weight of the law for you. Lucy Connolly posted a call to set fire to asylum hotels, deleted it within hours, apologised, and got 31 MONTHS. A party leader shares a call for a man’s beheading, deletes it only when it trends, won’t apologise, and so far faces nothing. Both posts called for violence. Only one person went to prison. Same country. Two rules. So what is he, this man who won't say one word? It's ARROGANCE. The belief he sits above the accountability demanded of everyone else. It's COWARDICE, and he admitted it. He won't apologise because it would cost him. Fear wearing a suit. It's CONTEMPT. For you, the public, the murdered. That you'll just forget. It's NARCISSISM. He shares the blade, then rewrites the story until HE is the wounded one and underneath it all, SHAMELESSNESS. A person with shame apologises. He feels none. Not brave. Not principled. The smallest kind of coward. The kind who dresses it up as courage. The mask didn't slip. He pressed accept on it and still couldn't manage one word. SORRY. He couldn’t manage the word.

BanksyCat

59,596 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen