Just watched it - another incredible documentary.

There's so much good stuff on the BBC, ITV and Ch4 on demand services that it staggers me to think that the three females in this house are sat in the other room watching Geordie Shore, their brains must be the most under used organs in this house.

Well, there is one more I can think of that never used at all these days...

Absolutely - just the right side of OTT.

On the historical front, I've been enjoying the dramatisation of Phillipa Gregory's books The White Queen. Although i missed it last night, I'm also looking forward to watching Gregory's "The Real White Queen and her Rivals" to get further background into the characters.

Me too, and the one last night was as good as the drama and filled in a lot of the gaps.

What gets my goat a bit is the moaners, the TV drama train-spotters equivalent, the ones who whine about "historical inaccuracies" because someone is wearing a pair of gloves that look as though they have a press stud in them, or they spot a zip in the back of someones jerkin - FFS just sit back and enjoy an hours entertainment, we all know it wasn't filmed in 1470, its drama, you're supposed to use your imagination a bit.

It's that quite delicious school of Brit character acting, whereby villains actually become rather sexy – see anything Alan Rickman does, plus Antony Hopkins in [iSilence[/i etc. From a non-Brit perspective, Al Pacino has it too.

I first saw Irons on stage at the RSC doing Richard II – I remember finding the character so utterly wimpy and this is so different.

Do you mean the sort of pedants who watch an episode of, say, [iSharpe[/i and know the regimental costumes are wrong. Or can tell you (without being asked) why the tanks are wrong in any drama set in WWII? That sort of pedant?

Did anyone else see [iThe Daily Show[/i last night, as it dealt with the Zimmerman verdict and the entire issue of Florida's 'stand your ground' law?

WTF are the BBC doing waving a flag for supermarkets?

rlBritain's Favourite Supermarket Foodsrl

Quote: Mintball "Did anyone else see [iThe Daily Show[/i last night, as it dealt with the Zimmerman verdict and the entire issue of Florida's 'stand your ground' law?'" I didn't watch The Daily Show, but I did watch The Charlie Rose show a couple of nights ago. Pretty much everything I'd seen about Zimmerman since the verdict was announced was so inaccurate it made me want to throw the TV through the window. I think the media have been disgraceful - bordering on inciting riots. The Charlie Rose show was a room of sanity in a world that's gone mental IMO. I'll try and find a link to watch the DS. www.charlierose.com/watch/60241735

Quote: Mintball "Did anyone else see [iThe Daily Show[/i last night, as it dealt with the Zimmerman verdict and the entire issue of Florida's 'stand your ground' law?'" I didn't watch The Daily Show, but I did watch The Charlie Rose show a couple of nights ago. Pretty much everything I'd seen about Zimmerman since the verdict was announced was so inaccurate it made me want to throw the TV through the window. I think the media have been disgraceful - bordering on inciting riots. The Charlie Rose show was a room of sanity in a world that's gone mental IMO. I'll try and find a link to watch the DS. www.charlierose.com/watch/60241735

I'm watching it now. It's another throw my TV out of the window response.

The police dispatcher did not explicitly tell Zimmerman to stop following Martin, which is what the presenter said, and is a lie the media keep telling.

Zimmerman was following Martin and trying to find their exact location. The cop realised that Zimmerman was following him and asked him if he was following him. Zimmerman said he was, the cop said, "OK, we don't need you to do that", Zimmerman replied "Ok."

They then carried on talking about where they were and when the cops would be getting there.

The cop did not tell him explicitly to stop following Martin.

The actual phone call from Zimmerman is available to hear. The transcript of the conversation is available. It is a blatant lie to say that the cop told Zimmerman to stop following Martin and go back to his car.

"We don't need you to do that," as a response to being told that he was following someone, would, by most normal people, be understood as 'stop what you're doing - ie following'.

The core issue is the law itself, which is a straightforward excuse to do what Zimmerman did. The other case that has been mentioned, from last year, where nobody was even injured but where a (black) woman with a gun (shooting at a ceiling as a warning shot – she claims her partner was abusive) was subsequently jailed for 20 years does raise the question of race.

But the law is bonkers. Where, then, was Martin's right to 'stand his ground' when he was followed and 'challenged' by an armed man with a vigilante complex?

No it doesn't. She was found guilty by a different jury and sentenced by a different judge in a case based on a completely different set of facts. Was the sentence ludicrous? Yes. Is the law ridiculous? Yes. But what does that have to do with race?

One thing I find strange is that Zimmerman is being described in US media as white in a country that would, in almost all other case, describe him as being Hispanic. This case has been turned into a 'white v black' issue by the media. The focus should instead be on the farcical 'Stand Your Ground' Law. Common sense dictates that Zimmerman should have been convicted of something. The law over there says otherwise and on the facts presented, he was rightly found not guilty. The anger should be directed at the state for allowing such a dangerous piece of legislation to exist.