In short, An Inconvenient Truth should not be sent to schools: not because it is political (although it undoubtedly is) but because it is inaccurate, misleading, emotive and, in far too many places, demonstrably and deliberately false.
It seems that the judge in the case essentially agrees with me, but is going to let it go out nonetheless.
Al Gore's climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth promotes "partisan political views", a High Court judge has ruled.
Normally that would almost certainly make it unlawful for the Oscar-winning film to be shown to schools.
But Mr Justice Burton indicated that it can be shown if teachers follow new guidance to prevent the former US vice-president's views being wrongly "promoted" to children.
The Department for Children, Schools and Families and its lawyers offered to make changes to the accompanying written guidance for teaching staff so it can be shown.
Really? What do you want to bet that the fuckers have already bought the DVDs and are just trying to save face? Come on, chaps, 'fess up; how many millions of pounds have you shunted Gore's way?
The surprise move was a result of concerns voiced by the judge during the hearing that Gore's critically-acclaimed work contained statements about global warming for which there was currently insufficient scientific evidence.
The judge also queried whether the film might appear to promote partisan views, rather than provide information about climate change, and thus make showing it in schools - without further efforts to counterbalance it - a breach of the 1996 Education Act.
Right, so the judge thought that it contained partisan views and inaccurate science and yet the government's rewriting of the "guidelines" makes this OK? What do they say then?
The Government's counsel, Martin Chamberlain, said the original guidance notes distributed to schools with the DVD, warning against political indoctrination, would ensure that the documentary was presented in a balanced way.
Although teachers could present the film in any way they wished, they were under a duty to provide balance - for instance, by explaining to pupils that some of the views expressed in the documentary were political and asking "What do you think about it?"
This is not balance, for fuck's sake! A teacher could provide balance by going through the film and explaining where the science is wrong, inaccurate or deliberately falsified, e.g. the 800 year lag.
The teachers might then care to point out that Gore's own carbon footprint is far larger than that of the average person and that he is not only a charlatan but also a hypocrite. Now that would be balance.
I fucking despair, seriously. I think that Bishop Hill sums it up best.
But if the film is genuinely biased or is based on incorrect science, it's surely going to take a bit of explaining as to why it is so vital that every secondary school child in the country sees it.
"This is a pack of lies and propaganda. But it's imperative that you study it carefully".
State education. Gotta love it.
I wonder if "Call Me Husky, Hug A Dave" Cameron will pledge to stop this insanity: now that would be a policy that I could get behind...