"If a filmaker like Kenneth Griffith felt so strongly about an untruth..should he not take it upon himself(with his theatrical heritage )and total calculation of the FACTS..the truth(again)to assemble a filmcrew-go to the scene of the crime ..turn on the camera and refuse to be evenhanded because ,as he rightly saw it,there waas never any REAL evenhandedness handed out to the CATHOLICS in Ireland..am i wrong here?/it is far better to have a point of veiw and the conviction of your interests.. coupled with the permission and finance to broadcast to millions of people...he did that,whether it be highlighting the plight of the lowest castes in India(incedently-that is where i first saw him speaking..at the Ambedkar society..where he was their president) or in support of the jews(Ben Gurion)and their great fight for their land..Griffith always tried to show us the otherside"

But there are always another side. Griffith is one of those people who loves to praise to the heavens one side while damming to Hell the other. His passion for the support of Isreal was matched by his contempt for the Palestinians. His support for the Republican cause in Ireland was equalled only by his lofty dismissal of the Protestants. Don't forget that the Boer War was fought on African soil... and Africans were barely mentioned in Griffiths films. A decent film maker would show all sides, contextualise it, and allow his audience to make up it's own mind.