Christopher Tookey Special

The Daily Mail's main critic, Chris Tookey, is a bit of joke really. The man who started a campaign to ban David Cronenberg's Crash (the one about people turned-on by car crashes, not Paul Haggis' dull, preachy, Oscar-winning Crash) has plenty of howling reviews for me to look at. When Tookey gets it wrong, boy does he get it wrong... Let's start with his 2-star review of the French prison drama A Prophet, considered one of the best films of 2009/10 (depending on which release you want to pick):

If you want your melodrama red in tooth and claw, Jacques Audiard's prison movie A Prophet has been wowing critics and winning awards around the world (I'll say. It has an approval rating of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. It won the Grand Prize at Cannes, Best Film at the London Film Festival, the Louis Delluc Prize and best foreign language film awards at both the BAFTAs and the British Independent Film Awards. It was also nominated for 13 César awards, winning 9, and nominated in the Best Foreign Film category at the Oscars.). I'm only sorry I can't join in the chorus of wholehearted approval. (Yeah, you are quite alone here...)

It's the story of Malik (Tahar Rahim), a 19-year-old French thug with Arab origins, coming of age within a brutalising prison system. It's partly a story of self-education, partly a tale of a man descending into a kind of amoral hell. Most reviews emphasise the first aspect. (Well that's because it is a very important part of the film. It is what separates it from other crime films and Rahim's ability to change from learning to brutality freely is central to his wonderful performance.)

Very few point out that the behaviour of the protagonist - which includes several gruesome murders - makes him extremely hard to identify with. (He is a man who has made mistakes in his life, partly as a result of his poverty and illiteracy, who is forced to do horrible things to survive in the brutal world of the prison. Once he has set out on this path, he is drawn in ever more by money and power.)

In a film that lasts for more than two-and-a-half hours, this makes the movie a long haul (It is a tough watch, but who watched this film for light entertainment?). Impressive aspects include an intense performance by newcomer Rahim, and an unforgettably malign one from Niels Arestup as a domineering Corsican crime lord who continues to run his empire from inside prison. (The acting is uniformly excellent, and yet these two do, indeed, stand out.)

Audiard is at his best when dealing with well-observed, quirky detail. There's a lovely little sequence when Malik flies in a plane for the first time and behaves in inappropriate ways learned in prison - opening his mouth when he is scanned by security, and grabbing extra croissants on board when he has the chance (This, too, we agree on. Though my personal favourite scene was the one where Malik is shown how to hide a razorblade in his mouth). 

Audiard is less confident with his story's surreal aspects, such as our anti-hero's unexplained prophetic powers (This is the film's only real stumbling point. But not one big enough to knock it down from five stars, let alone down to your 2...) and the repeated appearances in ghostly form of his first murder victim (I attributed this to his guilt at what he has done, and what he has become. And I felt they generally worked pretty well really. I think there was one appearance that didn't work as well, but that's really it.).

Some of the story-telling is muddled, and no attempt is made to imbue the proceedings with any kind of morality (Look, I know that you love morality, but a lot of people in the real world are immoral. It is ridiculous in the extreme to expect every film to show only moral people and moral acts.). We are presumably meant to admire the leading man's opportunism, resilience and ability to cast off and reassume his Muslim identity at will. (I think you're supposed to admire his self-education more than that, to be honest...)

I found the film's reluctance to examine Malik's inner life and personal beliefs irksome (But were such details necessary? No. All they would have done is remove some of the mystery surrounding him, and added to the already long running time.). The picture is also extremely lethargically paced, especially in its first hour (Look, it's bad enough when amateurs complain about films that take their time to develop, but from someone who is supposedly a professional is even worse. No wonder Rotten Tomatoes don't class you as a top critic like they do reviewers from other newspapers like The Guardian...).

A Prophet glorifies crime (Yeah. It all goes so well for everyone...) and regards murder as a perfectly normal response to being a member of a racially abused underclass (What? There's no such thing as 'normal' for a start. And I think you'll find that such a response is an all too common one.) - which may be a fashionable doctrine among film critics, but may not strike quite such a responsive chord with the general public. (Well this is an arthouse film, so the general public won't watch it anyway. They're far too busy watching dross like Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean...)

Now let's have a look at his 'review' of Che: Part One. This film is flawed, but is enthralling nonetheless, and has attained a score of 66% on Rotten Tomatoes from everyone and 79% from Top Critics, so where Tookey gets his score of 0 from I don't know...:

A strong early candidate for the most agonisingly tedious film of 2009 is this first part of Steven Soderbergh's hagiography of Che Guevara. (Look, just because a film takes its time does not make it tedious. How old are you? Five? And Guevara is a saint to many in Bolivia, so technically it is a hagiography...)

He is presented throughout as a secular saint (It may not delve too deep into his flaws, but it never suggests he was perfect), rather than the Stalin-worshipping (He actually became pretty anti-Soviet after the Cuban Missile Crisis.), mass murdering (According to the award-winning biography by Jon Lee Anderson, no innocents were ever put to death by Che or on his orders. He executed only agents of cruel and oppressive dictatorships, dangerous criminals and those guilty of treason or desertion. All of which were common reasons for execution at the time. Especially during times of war.) Communist (Actually he is presented as a communist. It would be quite difficult to tell his story and leave that out. And being a communist is not on a level with mass-murder.) who helped to destroy industry (He actually supported a China-like rapid expansion of industry in Cuba, so how does that work?), society (He did destroy the old Cuban society. One where 1% of the population controlled nearly 50% of the wealth. Clearly a society worth saving...) and the rule of law in Cuba (The rule of law in Cuba? You do realise that Batista was a monster?), and believed he had the right to imprison or execute anyone who disagreed with him (It was war. Such means were not only common, but pretty much required. And the CIA were so much better in executing Guevara weren't they...). 

Benicio del Toro poses rather than acts in a series of outfits which seem surprisingly clean for a guerilla. (Yeah. That'll be why legendary critic Roger Ebert described de Toro's performance as "heroic" and "self-effacing".)

The main hint as to why he won Best Actor at the Cannes Film Festival is that the chairman of the jury was that well-known armchair revolutionary Sean Penn (Yeah, couldn't possibly because it was a really good performance. And the chairman only has one vote anyway, clearly at least most of the rest of the jury agreed with him.). 

Peter Buchman's slack, disorganised screenplay (It was intentionally disorganised. Soderbergh pointed out the stupidity of complaining most films are too conventional, then turning on a film for being unconventional.) never probes Che's character or challenges his beliefs (Perhaps not as much as it should, but this is hardly a heinous crime.), and sparks into life only in the final half hour: a prolonged action sequence in which Guevara captures the town of Santa Clara. (That was a good sequence, but my friends and myself were all entertained throughout the film's running time.)

The rest is as insanely long-winded as a speech by Che's old mate, Fidel Castro (That'll be Castro is so beloved by pretty much everyone in Cuba then...). 

Amazingly, I gather that the second half of this movie  -  to be released on February 20  -  is even more turgid than the first. (Really? I heard it was better, though I haven't yet watched the second, so I cannot say for certain.) 

Verdict: Radical chic at its dullest
A turkey (Oh, piss off Tookey you right-wing hack. Do you even know what film criticism is? It isn't disliking a film because you dislike the main character.)

You may have noticed that the last point is a running theme here, a theme that looks set to continue with his review of the small British film Bronson. The film depicts the criminal Charles Bronson (not to be confused with the actor) who is renowned as the most dangerous man in the British prison system:

British Lottery-funded projects don't come much more barking than Bronson (Well it is a strange film. Especially the bits with Tom Hardy on stage in make-up. But those eccentricities are what make the film as great as it is.), a heavyweight contender for most unpleasant, ugly and pointless film of 2009 (Can a film be pointless? I'd argue not. Every film has a point, even if that point is merely to entertain. They may fail, but they still have a point.).

Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn's ill-advised excursion into art-house brutalism (Except he did very well with it. His "ill-advised excursion into art-house brutalism" has a score of begins with the actor playing Britain's most violent prisoner saying to the camera: 'I am Charles Bronson, and all my life I've wanted to be famous.' (Well that is a possible explanation for Bronson's otherwise inexplicable bouts of violence against prison staff.)

Well, now he is (Actually, he already was. The tabloids have been talking about him for years already.). That's one of the most obvious gripes about the movie. In taking a studiously nonjudgmental, fashionably nihilistic line, it will prove to morons the world over that attacking people for no reason is one sure fire way to attain celebrity (Do you really believe these things, or do you just write what The Daily Fail want you to write? Anyone who comes away from this film thinking "Yes, that's all a good idea" has some major psychological problems).

Mr Bronson's offences outside prison have been armed robbery and robbery with violence. Inside, however, he has distinguished himself with such bestial conduct that he has had his sentences extended to 34 years, 30 of them spent in solitary confinement. (Exactly. This strange man was always a likely candidate for the movie treatment. The public have always enjoyed watching criminals. Just look at The Great Train Robbery from 1903.)

Why on earth such a creep should be glorified, I cannot imagine, especially as the film makes no attempt to understand him or derive any lessons from his behaviour (It does actually. He commits one robbery to steal an engagement ring, for a woman who then rejects him. This reignites the anger inside. But when the man himself refuses to say, how can the film just guess? It does a very good job considering.).

It would be churlish to deny that Tom Hardy gives a powerful performance, but it's necessarily one-dimensional, since Bronson appears to have no redeeming virtues whatsoever. (Doesn't he? He is a complex individual who can be intelligent, is a talented artist and yet performs these brutal acts for no gain whatsoever.)

In addition to celebrating violence, this most brutal of biopics is virulently homophobic (Excuse me? It's not homophobic. The character is, not the film. And anyway, it's more than a little rich for you to claim homophobia whilst writing for a newspaper that is demonstrably homophobic.). And its other disagreeable overtones of pretentiousness and precious fringe-theatricality make it a uniquely gruesome experience. (It isn't pretentious. It is just as clever as it thinks it is. It is a fringe film, but that is all that it ever aimed to be. Such a violent film was never going to be a blockbuster.)

Especially distasteful is the use of classical music, in the questionable tradition of Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, to add a pretence of ironic nobility to Bronson's thuggishness. (It actually works rather well. It reinforces the idea that this is the 21st Century's A Clockwork Orange whilst being very much its own film.)

I gather that a worldwide petition is in circulation to free Mr Bronson (That is silly, but is hardly the film's fault.). I would happily sign any petition to keep this ludicrous lout off our streets, and indeed off our screens. (Yeah, but you seem to support the general censorship of all cinema, a la the 1980s. Because you're a fool. Who doesn't understand films he doesn't want to like.)

On the strength of this movie, both Mr Bronson and the Lottery panel need their heads examined. (Yeah, how dare the Lottery panel provide funding for such a successful film.)

Verdict: Could be a big hit... among psychopaths (And, indeed, 77% of critics. Are you saying that most other critics are psychopaths? Pretty sure that's libel...)

I think that'll do for now, but there are plenty of other dreadful excuses for reviews in his canon, so I will be back.

Richard Littlejohn's House of Fun Pt. II

RL mourns the passing of 'Great' Britain - when a man could
be homophobic and racist and be celebrated for it...

I was glancing through my old posts when I saw my old post on Richard Littlejohn's fine book House of Fun: Thirteen Years of (Labour) Madness and noticed that I'd left the door open for a sequel. Well here is that said sequel! Obviously it'll be worse than the original (unless it's a Godfather Part II, or Toy Story 2, but I don't hold out much hope) but I'm lazy, so I'm going for the usual easy target. Anyhoo, here's a couple of 5-star review from amazon:

I have to say that this is a genuine five star review. You'll notice there are many but some are oh-so cleverly masking negative reviews that are not only cringeworthy and unoriginal but patronising (Some of them are pretty funny though... And the people who do that are at least people with views that aren't horrible...). These people should do stand up. (The 'do' isn't needed in that sentence.)

As A. Birchall said, "there's clearly a campaign to slate this book. No doubt by Labour loyalists or Con-Dem haters" (Sensible people who are left-wing then...) Another said "my friends got brain damage so he loved it!". Which says alot (That should be two separate words. And yeah, because RL has never mocked disabled people...). If you hate the Mail and RJ (RJ? His name isn't Richard John. His fans are so thick they even don't know the rat-bag's name...) fair enough, say it. Even if you haven't read the book - which some admit to. You're opinion of him can still help someone to dicide to purchase or not (That is true, except I would say almost everyone who buys this book has also read his columns, so it really doesn't matter). But it's a different realm altogether when a number of people are scrambling for the 'no' button after every positive review (Perhaps that is a little far). Some positive reviews are very descriptive, intriguing and to the point and make me want to know more, yet for example only "0 out of 10 people find this review helpful" ...why? (Maybe other people felt differently?) Who can these people be I wonder? (You have no possible way of knowing, but I suspect that won't stop you jumping to conclusions) Sometimes a negative review is placed and followed by positive one, these are then mysteriously blanked out through the mass of people who "don't think this adds to the discussion" - when it clearly does - in a poor attempt to hide what's great about this book (That's not how Amazon reviews work. I think you mean Amazon comments. And maybe, just maybe, the comment was insulting or otherwise wasn't adding constructively to the discussion). These actions, frankly speak volumes and indicates that his work clearly hits a nerve somewhere (Yes it does. Because his views are offensive and hateful.). 
Both the positive AND negative reviews made me want to buy the book because of how much he clearly annoys the followers of the self-serving crooks who were massively part of the mess this country is in (or all because they simply don't like a certain newspaper) (That's a bit petty isn't it? And the mess the country is in is a result of a global economic crash. Not the Labour government. Indeed, Gordon Brown is considered one of the favourites for the vacant position as head of the International Monetary Fund [IMF], except Mr. Cameron has said he won't support him. He is also currently an advisor for the World Economic Forum. He didn't do this by being incompetent. He got it by being so highly respected by the economic community as a result of his safe leadership and economic recovery packages that were copied by most of the rest of the world. Unlike Mr. Osborne, who isn't highly regarded by anyone.)

As a hard-working Brit taxpayer who's never relied on benefits (People who rely on benefits can still be hard working you know. They may have been laid-off and can't find a job as a result of the swingeing cuts made by the current government. Not everyone on benefit is a work-dodger. Though you and RL will probably never accept that...), who's fathers' pension was stolen (I don't think Gordon Brown nicked your dad's pension somehow...), who was fined for using fog lights in dense fog (That would have been the police, moron. As much as Brown doesn't steal pensions, he also doesn't go around fining people for using fog lights either...), I could go on. Reading it was so enjoyable to the point it reminded me there was someone with a voice on my side, someone who, ok, knows he can't make a difference but can simply, like me, sigh, roll my eyes and chuckle at the madness we've witnessed from a government of a once great country. (Out of these many lines, only four of them are an actual review. And a really shit review at that. It's entirely subjective and about as in-depth as a character from a Dan Brown novel...)

Thoroughly recommend it! (And yet you never say why I should buy it...)

And here's another one, somewhat shorter than the last:

Judging by the number of faux reviews from guardian munching (I don't know about the Daily Mail, but people usually read the Guardian rather than eat it...) leaders of the proletariat (How dare people be middle-class, but champion the cause of those less well-off and influential than themselves?) who are obviously uspet enough by LittleJohns (He doesn't have a capital J. It's not like McRae or anything...) musings to take precious time out of their busy schedules to mock him (Actually it's just really, really fun. It's certainly worth taking time out of my empty schedule to do.), this is a read I will thoroughly enjoy (So you have not only not read it, but not even purchased? I really don't think you should be 'reviewing' anything. Really this is as much a 'faux review' as anything by any 'guardian munching leaders of the proletariat'.). Thanks again to the above mentioned persons, what would I do without you. (nb - thats not a question) (And what would this website do without Littlejohn and his followers? Pick on other people obviously, but there would be no go-to idiot for when I'm feeling particularly lazy...)

That's really it for good reviews that aren't fake or two lines long, so we shall have to end it there. But there are other Littlejohn books to mock!

David Cameron Shows What A Homophobe He Is

 Some media sources (such as the Daily Mail and random news websites, such as pinknews) are reporting that David Cameron intends to ban same-sex kisses from appearing on TV before the 9 o'clock watershed. That's right, not "normal" kissing or kissing in general, but just gay kissing. Apparently such images are 'indecent'. Cameron is, in effect, saying that seeing two people of the same sex expressing their feelings for one another is as damaging to children as the word 'cunt' or seeing someone eat babies. The leader of the enquiry, Reg Bailey, said that:

'For some parents, what has been considered acceptable in the past - such as that Brookside kiss - is not appropriate for children to see early in the evening.'

The Brookside kiss being referred to here is the one from 1994 where two lesbian characters kissed on screen. So what he's saying is that rather than society becoming more liberal and accepting homosexuals for who they are, we should return to the old system of mass homophobia. Perhaps after supporting this ban he will stop gay marriages, reintroduce Section 28 (this stated that local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship", y'know a generally pretty horrible thing) or perhaps we should just go the whole hog and ban being gay again.


What's great about this story, though, is the response on the Daily Mail website to the story. There are the usual horrible comments, such as:

Good, we also need to stop the BBC from pushing out all their gay agenda. Which TV station has the most cameras out at any gay, demo, walk, parade and is allways the first with gay news. The BBC. Up until 10.00 pm. only hetrosexuals kissing should be shown, and show that it is the normal for a man and a woman to live together, not pushing their gay agenda down our throats - Geoff Fuller, Devon, 01/5/2011 07:59..... it's because of people like you that i'm glad human rights laws exist

But, shockingly, rather than receiving praise by the other site users, that comment got a rating of -162. On the other hand, this comment got a rating of +179:

A lesbian kiss or a gay kiss, i.e. a simple peck on the lips or a more romantic kiss in the context of a relationship isn't going to harm anybody - children or adults. It might just make some kids grow up more accepting of gay and lesbians - it won't make them gay if that's what worries you. A small homosexual kiss is not indecent - I find the notion that is indecent offensive. If a simple gay kiss is to be banned then I'd expect the same for heterosexual kisses before the watershed - you can't have it both ways.

When even the Daily Mail commenters are saying you've gone too far, then you really are in trouble...

The Daily Mail, Charles Manson and the Environment

The world's second most popular online news site reported the other day on an interview with Charles Manson by Vanity Fair Spain. Manson is, of course, the man responsible for the murder of 8 people (including Roman Polanski's pregnant wife Sharon Tate) in 1969. You would expect, then, that it would just be an article discussing what a horrible man he is or somesuch non-story. Instead we are treated to the following headline:

Global warming must be true, Charles Manson believes in it. Killer breaks 20-year silence on 40th anniversary of gruesome Sharon Tate murders

Yes that's right. The Mail are actually using the fact that a nutjob believes in global warming as proof of its fallacy. I would also like to point out that it is in fact the 40th anniversary for his conviction, not the crime themselves. They occurred in July and August 1969 as you actually point out in the article. And that he didn't kill anyone, he ordered the murders. Pretty much the rest of the article is concerned with discussing his crimes, or quoting some of the mad things he says about the environment. Such things as:

'If we don’t change that as rapidly as I’m speaking to you now, if we don’t put the green back on the planet and put the trees back that we’ve butchered, if we don’t go to war against the problem...'

or:

'You have to accept yourself as God. You have to realise you’re just the Devil just as much as you’re God, that you’re everything and you’re nothing at all. Europe is the United States just as much as the United States is America and America is Europe.'

Of course you will all be shocked to learn that the DM resolutely refuses to mention the fact that almost all scientists agree that humans are having an effect on the environmental climate.  There is some debate as to the level of human influence, but the idea that there is warming of the Earth is an irrefutable fact borne out by every major study into the area. I am studying Environmental Geography at university and have seen the global temperatures for the last few thousand years. They've gone up quite a bit. Look at this composite graph from the New Scientist (via climateaudit, click the image for a larger version):

As you can see, all of the graphs collated here are higher at the right-hand side, than the left-hand side. The downward trend in the middle is what is known as the Little Ice Age. Since then, the climate of the Earth has risen incredibly quickly, reaching higher temperatures than at any other point in the last 1000 years. This is not normal. Also, despite the claims of some people, and indeed the Daily Mail itself, there is no great debate  amongst scientists. There is no recognised body that denies climate change.  The odd scientist that does deny climate change is generally one that does not publish reports in peer reviewed journals such as The New Scientist or any of the others I read every week for my degree, but newspapers and websites where their findings are not subjected to the same scrutiny from fellow scientists. These scientists are not ones taken seriously by their fellows. They are generally shunned by the greater scientific community as an embarrassment. But that's probably enough science-y stuff for now. Let's instead get back to mocking the Mail.


Alongside the quotes that clearly come from a troubled mind, we have pictures that show a man that couldn't pass as normal under any circumstances. The swastika tattoo on his forehead, for example, doesn't exactly scream environmental scientist, but that's all to make sure that the reader picks up on the idea that global warming is a sham and a lie only believed by madmen. There are also two images of a very attractive Sharon Tate, just to make sure you know that Manson is a monster who's opinions are not to be trusted.


Before I finish for today I shall cast my eye over the commenters on this story. There were I think 4 posts that were sensible among the many I read. All of those received highly negative ratings... These, however, were generally well-received by other site users:

If a maniac like this criminal believes in global warming,then I know I'm being right in being sceptical. That is stupid. As you can see above, global warming is a fact. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves that everything will be alright if they shut their eyes and pretend nothing is happening.

And here's another:

Manson and Al Gore... perfect pair! Both whackos with their beliefs. Yeah, one man ordered his followers to kill people, another tried to be President. Both believe in global warming. They're practically the same...

And another:

makes about as much sense as anything Al Gore has ever said. Actually, Al Gore says very sensible things. Indeed, he is campaigning for measures and ideas that the EU came up with upwards of a decade ago. It's just that the US' environmental record is as awful as their humanitarian record.

More? Here you go:

That has got be a really good endorsement of the insanity of anthropogenic global warming. Because an insane man agrees with a concept, doesn't mean that it is automatically insane you ignorant pissant. Hitler believed in gravity, doesn't make it any less true.

And here's one more. I have my limits after all:

What a degenerate. It pains me this guys gets to take a breath every day. At least lonely Algore has a new ally in the "global Warming" farce. Pretty sure his name is Al Gore, not Algore. And he's not alone. As I've said, every scientist agrees with him that climate change is a real and worrying fact. In fact, he has far more intelligent allies than you. He probably doesn't read and agree with the Daily Mail either, which is always a good place to start...

How can people just ignore all the evidence?

The Christian Party

Now, I have no idea how I managed to get onto the Christian Party website, but this is where I found myself this very morning. Here is a rundown of some of their stupider policies. I apologise for the staggering length, but I tried to avoid leaving anything horrible out...:

Taxation
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Introduce a single rate Income Tax of 20 per cent for earnings in excess of £12,000 per annum. (It's nice to see you would protect the most vulnerable in our society. So the poor get to pay the same as before, but the rich? They get to pay far, far less. Wahey!)
• Introduce a single rate Corporation Tax of 20 per cent based on revenue minus the purchases of raw materials and inputs from other firms, wages, pension payments to workers and the purchase of plant and equipment.  All other corporate tax relief will be scrapped. (So, you want to cut them back further? Is 24% just too damn high? I suppose you're right, why the hell should we take billions of pounds from businesses that screw us over? Why should they be punished for the economic meltdown that they caused by being greedy and stupid? It's far better that ordinary people should be punished...                                                                              
• Abolish Inheritance Tax. (Ah. Inheritance tax is good. It prevents the rich from propagating the class system by leaving all of their stuff to their children who have done nothing to deserve it. Far better that the government can spend some of the money on schools and hospitals than some little brat can buy an extra yacht, surely?)
• Increase VAT to 20 per cent whilst maintaining the current exemptions. (Sadly, the ConDem government has done just that. Doesn't make it any less regressive or unfair on the poor mind you.)
• Reduce the size of the Inland Revenue Service. (Pah! Who needs taxes eh? Oh, hang on...)

Law & Order
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Stamp out the sex slave trade.  Bring heavy penalties to bear on sex slave-traders and slave-drivers. (I'm pretty sure that the sex slave trade is more than just frowned upon as it is. The police do what they can, but it's not exactly easy.)
• Raise the motorway speed limit to 90mph. (Now I'm all for raising the speed limits, after all they haven't been changed since they were implemented in 1965. But isn't 80 a better figure? There are quite a few cars on the road that can't do 90 for a start. And 90 is just excessive.)
• Enact a speeding fines amnesty in cases where fines were more a matter of revenue collection than road safety. (Are you going after the Jeremy Clarkson vote or something?) 
• Limit fines for overstaying in car parks to a maximum of the cost of the day rate for parking in the facility. (What if you stay longer than a day?)
  
• Establish the concept of restorative justice with the imposition of substantial financial penalties on criminals in order to compensate victims and pay for damage done to property. (What crimes are we talking about here? Because those who steal often do so because they have no money...)
  
• Put in place a zero tolerance approach towards illegal drug possession for personal use through the use of a full range of alternative punishments, rather than prison sentences. (Prohibition doesn't work. For proof, see Mexico. And what 'alternative punishments'?)

Education

The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Re-instate the teaching of ‘Classical’ subjects in every school. (What do you mean by 'classical'? Do you mean stuff like Latin? Because Latin is almost entirely useless.)
• Allow schools to elect to use supervised corporal punishment as a “punishment of last resort” instead of ‘Exclusions’. (Seriously? You want to reintroduce corporal punishment? There's no better way to say 'violence is bad' to a young child than beating them...)
•  Re-instate mandatory Christian religious education in schools. (Fuck off. I'm not religious. Almost none of my friends are. Many people in this country are either irreligious or believe in a different God. The days of Christian Britain are over. And the nation is much the better for it. Now deal with it.) 
• Seek sanctions for schools that refused to comply with their obligation to assemble pupils for an act of daily worship.  Such acts of worship should be Christian. (I would personally go to each and every one of those schools and shake the hand of the headmaster. You should not brainwash children to believe your lies. Every child has the right to make up their own mind.)
• Ensure that the United Kingdom’s Christian heritage is properly reflected in the National Curriculum. (We all know Britain used to be Christian. We have the blood on our hands to prove it. The Crusades were so noble...)
• Ensure that proper balanced teaching and debate occurs in schools around the concepts of ‘Evolution’ and ‘Creation/Design in the universe’. (Well that would be a fucking quick debate wouldn't it. Creation/Design has no place in the science room. Evolution is a theory based around quantifiable and observable evidence in nature. C/D is based solely on faith in a book written by men a few thousand years ago. A book that says the Earth is younger than two separate instances of the agricultural revolution.)
• Ensure that schools are not forced to change their values by employing those who disagree with those values. (So they can't hire atheists, muslims or anyone who isn't christian? Going to find it difficult to get the science teachers then...) 
• Call a halt to plans to give sex education lessons in Primary Schools. (I had sex ed in P7 [last year of primary for those not in Scotland] and I've not become some kind of sexual predator...)
• Ensure that chastity before marriage and faithfulness within marriage - as the best and safest sexual practice - will be taught as an integral part of any sex education curriculum. (Abstinence is only a small part of that. And wake up. This is the 21st C, people have always had, and always will have, sex before marriage. If God wanted us to not do it, then why did he make it so fun?)
• Call for the end of the promotion and teaching in schools of homosexuality as a family relationship. (Seriously now, you can go and take a running jump off a cliff now. People are gay. It is the way they are born. Those who are should be told that it is perfectly natural for them to act upon it.)
• Abolish SATs testing. (Agreed)

Health
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Sell off state owned hospitals and healthcare facilities to private sector healthcare providers. (The NHS works. It is well regarded throughout the world. We are 20th in the table for life expectancy. Partly because everyone can get to see a doctor.)
• Contract in services from private sector healthcare providers in order to maintain and improve the National Health Service provision. (It'd get worse. And more expensive.) 
• Make private health insurance a visa requirement for migrants. (No. We're moving into uncomfortable territory here. If they pay taxes, then they are entitled as humans, to use the NHS' services.)
• Review Health and Safety legislation and reduce them to more appropriate levels. (They're fine! Stop reading the fucking Daily Mail. No schools have to wear goggles to play conkers.)
• Give parents knowledge and decision making rights regarding the medical treatment of their children. (No. Doctors are trained professionals who know what they are doing. Parents are terrified and ignorant, too scared of making the wrong decision to make any decision. Leave it to people who can look at the case objectively)

Immigration
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Place European Union migrants on no more than the same footing as those from the Commonwealth nations. (Sorry, but that's against EU law. We'd get fined millions, if not billions, of pounds. And it's stupid)  
• Support deportation for economic migrants convicted of imprisonable offences. (What about that whole 'forgiveness' thing that God and Jesus talk about so much?)
• Maintain tight border controls. (We do. We let in people we need. Well, we did when we were governed by people who ignored the Mail anyway...) 
• Support measures for the intensive processing for removal of all illegal immigrants that do not qualify for amnesty. (They're illegal immigrants. We already try to remove them you morons. It's finding them that's the problem.)

Environment
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will: 

• Call for the restoration of Sunday as a day of rest, to allow reflection by individuals and communities on the role they have to play.  A re-ordering of values is needed. (What has that got to do with the environment? And no. We're not all Christian in this country.)

Government & Democracy
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Support radical cuts in the public-sector workforce in order to reduce both the size of government and the size of the government spending. (But the public sector does a good job. Sorry, did a good job. At least till the Tories burned them all. They are far better value than the private sector is. And they are more likely to support ideas that help the environment etc as they do not look for profits.) 
• Support a radical re-employment and training programme so that public-sector workers are not thrown on the ‘scrap heap’, but are empowered for a smooth transition into the private sector. (Where are these jobs going to come from? Trees?) 
• Call for withdrawal from the European Union in the event that the United Kingdom electorate votes against the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum. (But the EU nets us quite a lot of money in trade. Why would we leave? If we're on the inside at least we can try to change its flaws, i.e. its hugely undemocratic nature)
• Call for voting in civic elections to be compulsory, and non-voting to be subject to a fine. (No dice. It's just not right to force people to vote. It is the duty of the parties to ensure that people trust them enough to vote.)

Respect for the Human Person
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Reject all attempts to re-define marriage. (I'm guessing this refers to gay marriage. In which case, I hate you.)
• End the practise of human cloning and the destruction of human embryos. (But if organs can be cloned, then we could potentially cure such things as cancer.)
• Oppose moves to impose abortion on Northern Ireland. (Your wording suggests that all women will be forced to have abortions. And your idea is stupid. Fetuses are not babies. They are a collection of cells that could not survive outside of the womb. They are not yet people. They barely even look like people. More like an HR Gieger kind of thing. And they are unaware of anything. They don't even have brain connections.)
• Withdraw government aid from any agency which promotes abortion or euthanasia. (Oh piss off.)
• Challenge the culture of death by seeking legislation which confers the full protection of the law on all human life from the conception until natural death. (A 'culture of death'? Yeah, because the Biblical world is a far happier, less death-filled place...)

Defence
The Christian Party Members of Parliament will:

• Maintain a wll resourced military with a nuclear deterrent. (But we don't need a nuclear deterrent. We'll never use it. No-one would bother attacking us for a start. What would be the point? We're not exactly the superpower we used to be. Might as well save the £8bn)
• Withdraw British troops from Afghanistan. (We're there now. We have to stick it out now. We can't just leave the Afghans in the lurch to be controlled by the Taliban again.)

Well, that's that. There are a few policies that are good, but I didn't want this post to challenge War & Peace in length...