I am sure of it. His work has involved renegade paedophile hunters, Muslim terror attacks, 9/11, the Haiti earthquake. His IMDB ratings go as high as 8.2 and as low as 2.3. He also has a 3.7, and a 3. The rest are around the 5-7 mark. Despite this very low ratings for his work he has won 3 BAFTA Awards. To me this stinks of the TPTB propping up this director to give him a bigger platform.

His 9/11 work has focused on the Ground Zero mosque and a few people who lied about having dead relatives in the attack to win some money. To me this is an attempt to display Americans as rabid Islamaphobics and to draw attention away from the real criminals of 9/11 and shine unnecessary light on small time crooks.

His documentary about a renegade paedophile hunter is one of better rated documentaries however what shows like this do is bring out the liberal lefties who love to look down their noses at working class people who are sick of soft prison sentences or police turning a blind eye to paedophiles. I've no doubt this documentary was made to make these people look like fools.

His other work on Haiti focused on the fact that prisoners used the tsunami to escape from jail. Is this a story worth telling? Bad people doing bad things? Maybe. But his other work just makes me think he was hired to make the documentary to divert attention.

His documentaries on legal highs and the Charlie Hebdo attack received ratings of 3 and 3.7. Suggesting he's in fact a very poor documentary maker despite this being his career he supposedly won 3 BAFTA awards for.

Dan Reed

Legally High

Three Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks

The Ground Zero Mosque

The 9/11 Liars

Battle For Haiti

Was anyone convinced by his Michael Jackson documentary?