Richard Littlejohn. Because he's still a little cunt

Still a cunt, exploiting an national disaster to have a go at some football stuff.Image by radiothings.com via FlickrI tried, Mr Littlejohn. I really tried to leave you alone, in the corner, spouting your ill-reasoned hate. But then, you had to go and be even more bigoted than usual, didn't you? Well, here we go again.

 So, who does our dear friend Dick go after in his beloved column this time? A funny-looking immigrant? A health and safety inspector who doesn't like British cheese? A black man who raped a cat? No. This time, he turns his bigoted, stupid gaze over the whole of Japan! (Original article here)

 As you surely know, Japan recently had a spell of bad luck. Mr Littlejohn, in an attempt to give hope that he may be a decent person, starts of with an adequate 2 paragraphs:

"No one with a shred of humanity can fail to be moved by some of the pictures coming out of Japan, whether an elderly woman being rescued from the rubble or frightened, bewildered schoolchildren waiting in vain for parents who will never return. 

The devastation is on a biblical scale. Comparisons have been drawn with the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Yes. It is a terrible thing, isn't it? Now, a decent person would stop talking. A decent person would offer sympathy. A decent person wouldn't,  66 years after the end of WW2, mention the war. But no, that's what Mr. Littlejohn does. Because - remember - the Japanese army were dicks. That's true, of course. But it doesn't really have a bearing on the modern Japanese man or woman. Our sympathy, I believe, should extend to those bewildered schoolchildren, regardless of what their great-grandfathers - most likely dead, unmet by said children - did in the past.

Of course, under the guise of a dead relative, our heroic author manages to justify us having a go at some foreign types as their country undergoes a nation tragedy. Let's rip the piss out of the little cunt, shall we?

It is wrong to visit the sins of previous generations on their modern descendants (very true. Why not say something stupid next?), although that doesn’t prevent the British Left constantly trying to make us feel guilty for centuries-old grievances, from the slave trade to the Irish potato famine (Erm... Ok, yea. I'm not sure what you think the average left-wing person thinks about, but I for one don't spend all my time planning revenge on the blight itself...).  Yet many surviving members of the Burma Star Association still harbour deep animosity to everyone and all things Japanese, 65 years after VJ Day. (Yes. It is understandable why they feel this way, but that doesn't make it right.) 

They won’t want to be associated with the expressions of sympathy over the earthquake and tsunami. And who can blame them? (I, for one. Again - understand where their prejudice streams from. But if you're saying that it is fine for these people to not sympathise for dead children, then you're a moron. And did you do any research? Did you check what the official stance of the Burma Star Association is? Because all I can see on their website is a comment on their forum, where one guy calls it karma. And frankly, whatever happened to him during the war, he's still wrong. Dead children are dead children, regardless of what colour they are)

Like thousands of other British servicemen who were tortured in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps, my wife’s late grandfather, Harold Tuck, would never have joined a minute’s silence for Japan. (He might have. Did you contact him via a medium to ask?) 

Until the day he died, Harold would refuse to remove his shirt, not even on the beach on the hottest day of the year. The scars inflicted by his sadistic Japanese captors were too horrible to be exposed to the harsh light of day. (Yes. That is shit. It shouldn't have happened to anyone. But why should that make it all right that Japan had an earthquake and got hit by a Tsunami?)

Were he alive today, he would have remained doggedly in his seat if requested to stand in silent tribute to the dead of Japan. (Ok. Nice to know. For someone you evidently admire, you're not exactly painting a hugely flattering portrait)

I often wonder what our fathers and grandfathers would have made of modern Britain’s ghastly cult of sentimentality and vicarious grief. (Well, I've got both, and they're more upset by the ghastly tsunami and the cost it reaped in human lives, to be honest.) 

Ever since the hysteria surrounding the death of Lady Di, when half of the nation seemed to take leave of its senses, a section of the population seizes any excuse for a sobfest. (Really? This is just a series of unconnected thoughts, isn't it? Where are you going with this? 10,000 people are dead, and you exploit that to complain about people being upset? They have a right to be upset. You do not dictate people's emotions, and you have no right to criticise decent human beings for showing empathy to the grief of others.)Showing ‘respect’ has become institutionalised. Before every one of the weekend’s Premier League football matches, for instance, fans were forced to stand and observe a minute’s silence for Japan. Why? (I doubt they were forced, they could have stayed sitting if they wanted. And why not? Are you so busy that you can't afford a minute to show respect for your fellow man? Perhaps you're writing another of your novels. They're more important that 100,000 children uprooted from their homes.)

I have no objection to honouring the dead in public (Yes you do, you just had a go at it), if the occasion or sense of loss warrants it (Ah, then you'll surely follow this statement up by giving an example of an event far more tragic than the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami). At White Hart Lane we’ve recently said goodbye to some of the stars of Spurs’ double-winning side from the Sixties. There was genuine sadness over the loss of men many in the crowd had known personally. (You fucking arrogant little piece of shit. You have no idea how anyone feels. Just because you don't care much that 10,000 people are dead, and 12,000 more missing, it doesn't mean everyone else shares your heartless point of view.)

But how many of the hundreds of thousands of supporters corralled into grieving for Japan could even point to that country on a map? (Wow, probably a lot. I'm surprised you've now changed tack to mock the intelligence of football fans, it seems to have come from nowhere. Then again, I'm unsure if you have much of a central narrative here, apart from the fact we shouldn't care what happens to slanty-eyed foreign types)

Like most monsters, the Premier League has a sickening streak of sentimentality. (Again. You're using the loss tragedy of millions to have a go at the Premier League? How do you even justify this to yourself? And you used the words "monsters" and "sickening". There. In a sentence where, having exploited the deaths of thousands, you dismiss their suffering as insignificant compared to the painful torture good white people must suffer under the hands of the evil Premier League.) Barely a week passes without yet another minute’s silence before kick-off (It's a minute. A fucking minute, spent in quiet reflection on the worth of human life. Is that too much for you to sacrifice?). Soon every club will have to employ professional mourners in black tailcoats and top hats to lead the teams out onto the pitch. Replica shirts will come complete with black arm bands. (Well, if you say so.)

There is nothing more meaningless than seeing highly-paid, precocious superstars linking arms and standing in silent tribute to victims of an earthquake on the other side of the world. (This column is more meaningless, actually. For one thing, I'd like to think those footballers aren't as big a cunt as you, and if it encourages people to reflect on the lives and thoughts of others, then maybe the world will become a little better.)The spectacle of a giant furry mascot dressed as a chicken bowing his head in mourning is beyond preposterous (Well, ok. You have a point, maybe he should stay inside for that bit). It is football’s equivalent of those teddy bears you see tied to railings at the scene of every road accident. (Yes! Let's have a go at some more people showing sympathy! Ha, stupid children dying in car accidents!) 

Of course, there is a commercial incentive here for the Premier League. No doubt the Japanese TV rights are up for renegotiation soon (No doubt? But you haven't actually researched this 'fact', have you? I googled it, I don't think the rights go up for sale again until 2013. I could be wrong though, I only spent 10 seconds looking on the internet. Which is 10 seconds more research than you). 

But why Japan and not, say, those massacred in Rwanda or starved to death by Mugabe in Zimbabwe (You're free to set up a minute's silence to commemmorate those people. I think it would be a worthy cause, and it would be nice for you to do something good with your pathetic little life)? I don’t remember a minute’s silence for Haiti, although I may be mistaken (You are.). I’m sure we didn’t have a minute’s silence for our earthquake-hit Commonwealth cousins in Christchurch, New Zealand, before the Milan game. Maybe we did. (There was certainly a minute's silence. I don't know if it was before the Milan game though, becuase I don't assossiate nation disasters with their effects on football)

These days we’d have a minute’s silence if Harry Redknapp’s dog got run over. (No. I doubt it.)I abhor the modern tendency to co-opt every tragedy in the world as an excuse for a self-indulgent display of cost-free compassion. (But you're fine with exploiting tragedies, using them as an excuse to spout bile at things that annoy you. What is this column, except self-indulgence?)

Sam Kirkpatrick (Hi Sam!), a reader from Stanwick, Northamptonshire, saw a woman taking part in a road race this weekend wearing a T-shirt imploring spectators to: ‘Pray for the Japanese people.’ 

The implication being: not just that she was advertising the fact that she is a caring soul, but if you don’t pray for Japan you must be a heartless bastard. (Well, I don't believe in God. But the sentiment is nice. So, from a humanist persective, I think that yes - not at least hoping for the best for the innocent Japanese people suffering in this tragedy does make you a heartless bastard. If you believed in prayer, how long would it take you to ask the big man for a favour on their behalf? A few seconds? But again, you can't spare that time. You're a busy man, aren't you?)

By all means pray for Japan, if you are so inclined, but do it privately. (Or publically. I don't care, I like the thought people care for other people myself) 

Do you think the Japanese held a silent tribute for the victims of the London Transport bombings in 2005 (Maybe. Probably wasn't such a big thing for them. Does that make it ok to not care they're dead.)? Me neither. Meanwhile, they are getting on with the business of mourning their own dead and beginning the process of reconstruction. In Tokyo, life goes on pretty much normally. (Then why not get on with your life as normal, instead of having a go at people?)

Caroline Graham reported from the Japanese capital in the Mail on Sunday. A businessman told her that reports of panic and chaos were greatly exaggerated.‘Here in Japan we are more like the British with their stiff upper lip.’It only goes to show that the Japanese know as little about modern Britain as we know about them. (Well, that report was from the Mail on Sunday. So I distrust it out of hand)

So there we have it. I don't really know what the point of that piece was. I imagine Littlejohn's supporters will see it as a brave, brilliant blow against an imposed grief culture. But I imagine it would be rather easy to oppose a grief culture without being so narrow-minded and bigoted as Mr. Littlejohn's column. What exactly had the Japanese war record got to do with anything, except as a pathetic attempt to justify not showing compassion for the suffering of our fellow man? What about the Premier League - is Mr. Littlejohn so outraged at the idea of a minute's silence that he feels justified in ranking such a display alongside the Tōhoku earthquake?

The Daily Mail and the Homophobic Journalist

If you're gay and see this woman, please kiss the nearest
member of the same sex. It'd be funny...

Yes, I realise that I had a post accusing the Daily Mail of homophobia pretty recently, but it's not my fault that almost everyone who works there is a homophobic bigot...
Today columnist Melanie Phillips wrote a column claiming that it is now the 'gay agenda' that is prejudiced, and that it is just awful that homosexuality is going to be referenced (in very small and minor ways) in schools. Here is what she has to say on the matter in full, so apologies for the length:

Here’s a question shortly coming to an examination paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with homosexuality?

Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.

For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.

In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught statistics through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population.

In science, they will be directed to animal species such as emperor penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.

Alas, this gay curriculum is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the camouflage of ­education. It is an abuse of childhood. (How dare they try to eradicate ignorance towards homosexuals? What gives them the right to see a world without prejudice?)

And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour. (It's phrases like that one that make homosexuals feel marginalised in the first place. Besides, homosexuality is normal. Up to 19% of mallards engage in male-male relationships.)

Not so long ago, an epic political battle raged over teaching children that ­homosexuality was normal. The fight over Section 28, as it became known, resulted in the repeal of the legal requirement on schools not to promote homosexuality. (And about time it was too. It was a demeaning law, that suggested that homophobia was okay. Afterall, if the government can do it, why can't anyone else?)

As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory. 

And the other side of that particular coin, as we are now discovering, is that values which were once the moral basis for British society are now deemed to be beyond the pale.

What was once an attempt to end unpleasant attitudes towards a small sexual minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse. (Yup. I'm heterosexual and am bullied non-stop because I like women... God you're a vile person aren't you?)

Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into lawbreakers.

The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding Christian values. (I covered this already, they broke the law. The fact that their beliefs forced them to do it isn't an excuse. If a neo-nazi kicked a black man to death because of his beliefs tell him that he is worthless, I think he'd still be locked up.)

Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with same-sex couples. Marriage registrars were forced to step down for refusing to officiate at civil unions. (Again, all of that was breaking the law. Religion isn't an excuse to do whatever you like.)

Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine was charged with making threatening, ­abusive or insulting remarks for saying homosexuality was a sin to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria. In the event, the case against him was dropped and he won a police apology and compensation. 

It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda.

For, in addition to the requirement for gay-friendly hotels, gay adoption and gay mathematics, now comes, apparently, gay drugs policy.

Last week, the Government announced the appointment of some new members to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who included a GP by the name of  Hans-Christian Raabe.

Dr Raabe has long maintained a close interest in drug policy, on which he has robustly traditional views. He has spoken out in favour of abstinence-based approaches and criticised the flawed logic behind the claim that it is the illegality of drugs such as ­cannabis that is the problem. (No, the scientists and professionals in the field point out that prohibition doesn't work at keeping people safe. It makes things worse because it puts more power in the hands of organised crime etc. and increases the danger due to the sometimes toxic chemicals the drugs are cut with. That and the steadily increasing numbers of people using cannabis mean that prohibition isn't working)

Considering the unhappy fact that over recent years many on the Advisory Council have taken the ultra-liberal view that treating drug-users is the priority rather than reducing their numbers, Dr Raabe’s membership of the council was very welcome news. (Oh piss off. These are scientists. They know a fuck-load more about the subject than a thick, ignorant journo like you. Their attitudes are liberal because that makes sense.)

But as soon as his appointment was announced, Dr Raabe was targeted in an astonishing attack. (Not that astonishing. He does hold some pretty horrible views...)

For he is also a leading member of the Manchester-based Maranatha Community, which is dedicated to re-establishing Christian values in society and which campaigns against gay rights. (Yup the same Christian values that led to burnings of heathens and witches, the ostracizing of anyone not white or christian or who was homosexual)

It was the BBC’s Home Editor Mark ­Easton who led the charge. On his BBC News blog, he announced that Dr Raabe’s views on homosexuality were causing such fury among (anonymous) members of the Advisory Council that at least one member was threatening to step down. (Good on them)

Well may you rub your eyes at that. Just what have his views on homosexuality got to do with illegal drugs? Well, according to Easton, more than one member of the council is gay or lesbian. (So his views are quite important to his role on the council, aren't they?)

How extraordinary. Just imagine if the boot were on the other foot and Dr Raabe had refused to serve on the drugs council because some of its members were gay. He would be out on his ear within the hour. (Yes, but it's not really the same though is it? The gay members have never gone around saying that straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married or should be kept to the fringes of society, have they?)

How reprehensible of the BBC to lend itself to such a partisan attack (So your partisan attack is fine then, is it?). Unsurprisingly, Easton’s remarks provoked more advocates of drug liberalisation to join in the blood-sport of baiting Dr Raabe.

Yesterday’s Observer listed among his crimes certain briefing documents he had produced for MPs identifying the benefits of marriage in fighting drug addiction. (Which is complete and utter rot. It is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation.)

He had written, for example, that marriage is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking. But what’s the problem with that? It ­happens to be true. (The raw data is true, but the reading of it is flawed. It could be that people who are happier, drink less and don't smoke are more likely to get married. It is impossible to tell which caused which)

The Observer reported that drugs charities and experts expressed surprise that someone of such ‘stringent opinions’ could be appointed to the Advisory Council.

Clearly, ‘stringent opinions’ in favour of drug liberalisation are considered entirely appropriate in such circles; but anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on homosexuality or who has robust Christian views must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life. (The difference is, that the existing members have opinions born from their studies into drug abuse and its effects. Not dictated by a religion. And Christian views are bigoted when taken to these extremes. I know many people of the Christian faith, they are mostly people who would be as disgusted by this man's views as I am. The vocal minority are only succeeding in making their religion seem even more pointless than it already does.)

In fact, anyone truly concerned to end the scourge of drug abuse should be delighted that at last there is a strong voice for common sense and morality on the Advisory Council. (It's not common sense it is ignorance.)

Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships. (So you would be okay if I were to claim that God told me that all women should be subservient to men, then?)

It must be said that many gay people are themselves uneasy or even appalled by this increasingly oppressive use of their cause. Privately, many will say that all they ever want is to live free from discrimination and not to provoke discrimination against others. (But they'll be appalled by your bigoted views also, I suspect)

After the case of Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in support of the rights of people to express their views against homosexuality — although, by contrast, he also endorsed the lawsuit against B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull on the grounds that the equality laws should apply to all. (So not so much of u-turn as you tried to imply then is it?)

Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true (THEY BROKE THE FUCKING LAW! YOU STUPID CUNT!). Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions. (Actually, equality isn't really oppressive. It's more liberating...)

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has paid £100,000 for a report into how efforts to boost Britain’s coastal fish stocks would affect minority communities including the Chinese, homosexuals and Welsh speakers. (I'm sure they have their reasons)

And the Department for Transport issued a study looking at harassment and discrimination on ships and hovercraft against a range of groups, including transsexuals. (Yes, 'including transexuals' not just transexuals. So not 'just' transexuals. It could also be looking at discrimination against bigoted, middle class journalists for all we know)

Many different groups are involved in promoting this crazy, upside-down world of the equality agenda (Yes. Upside down because homosexuals should be at the bottom. Of they're allowed to live at all...). But the seemingly all- powerful gay rights lobby carries all before it. If it isn’t careful, it risks turning gay people from being the victims of prejudice into Britain’s new McCarthyites. (I think that's pretty much impossible to be honest. But kudos for the scare-mongering...)

How on Earth this rag is still bought by people I have no idea. But it's very depressing...

The Daily Mail and the Homophobic B&B

Recently there has been a bit of a furore about two Christian runners of a B&B that refused to give a double bed to a gay couple. The gay couple then took them to court on discrimination grounds. They won, unsurprisingly. The B&B owners have been ordered to pay £3600 to the couple. Now, with the background out of the way, let's push on to the mocking - this post will deal with comments made by the hotelliers and the coverage found in the Daily Mail, so there should be plenty to see...

Following the Judge's decision, Hazelmary Bull (of the B&B) made a statement saying that Christianity had been pushed to the margins of society and that 'some people are more equal than others'. Well, I'm sorry but these days the number of Christians in the UK is falling. You are not far away from holding a minority view, depending on the survey, so you'll just have to learn to live in this (gloriously) secular society. Also, you've broken the law. Discrimination on any grounds is illegal. You claim that this is what you do to all unmarried couples, fine, but they were married (well, a civil partnership but there is no difference in the eyes of the law) so, as the Judge said:

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the refusal to allow [the claimants] to occupy the double room which they had booked was because of their sexual orientation and that this is direct discrimination 

They also made some other stupid comments, but I'm too eager to start the next bit to go into detail...

The Daily Mail has covered this story, and leaving aside the general tone of the-hotel-owners-are-right and the-gays-are-evil that pervades the whole story, there was something that really stands out. Here it is:

Thanks Daily Mail. I do so hope that you get some heavy fines for this...

I advise you to click on the image to enlarge it, and look at the chap on the left's right wrist. Did you see it? Yup. That's a swastika. Because we all know that being gay makes you a neo-nazi. What? You mean neo-nazi's hate gays? But the Daily Mail is suggesting otherwise! Here, for comparison, are the real gay couple:

Oh, that cartoonist is really good. I can't tell the difference... Oh, you'll be unsurprised to learn that when I was getting the cartoon, not one person on the Mail's comments section for it had complained in any way. Quite the contrary in fact...

Ah, the Daily Mail inciting hatred against one section of society, just a normal day...

Richard Littlejohn's column. Again. Because I don't like him.

Today's Mail column by esteemed prophet Richard Littlejohn offers another tantalizing view of the written medium used to its full extent, a superb piece of artwork comprised of 1,655 individual masterpieces that resemble both the old masters, and words. Well, ok. I lied. Now, I'll start by giving Littlejohn some credit - his end paragraph sticking up for Billy Bragg wasn't too bad. Pity about the rest of the article.

 Today's article was an attack on the police. Not a literal attack, of course, this isn't a blog about bank robberies or anything. But anyway, I digress...
  Speed limits - perhaps you break them, perhaps you don't. I'll be virtuous and claim unabashed, that I've never broken the speed limit. Then again, I don't drive. However, speeding is a serious offense - on average 9 people die on British roads every day, and 85 more are injured. Of this, the Mail claimed (In a 2006 article), only one in 20 of these accidents is caused by speeding. Is that all, only one in 20? Gosh... In reality, that works out at 3.2 deaths every week, and 30 injuries, on average. Now, this isn't a huge weekly figure, but I image that for the friends and families of 3.2 people, this figure is far too high.

  Mr. Littlejohn, of course, disagrees. He refers to the conviction of Mr. Michael Thompson, who was fined for flashing his headlights to alert moterists of a nearby police car.

Presiding magistrate Jean ­Ellerton said: ‘We found that your flashing of your headlights was an obstruction, we found that you knew this action would cause ­vehicles to slow down and cause other motorists to avoid the speed trap and avoid prosecution.’

And your point is, pet? (Pet? Ah, because she's a woman. So you patronize her, brilliant! Another brilliant blow for equality.) 

For years, the Old Bill has insisted that the purpose of speed traps is to encourage safe driving and enforce the speed limit — not to secure convictions and raise money. Mr Thompson’s prosecution blows that argument out of the water. (Yes. It has destroyed society as we know it. Right now, packs of wolves are roaming the streets, sentient and demanding blood. Babies turn and eat their own mothers.)

By warning other drivers of the speed trap, he was encouraging them to slow down and drive safely. So what’s the problem? (Well, let's say I see some police officers on their beat, who have stopped to survey passers-bye. Their job is to encourage people to not commit crimes and to feel safe. Passing them, I warn approaching pedestrians there're policemen up ahead. Or better still, I go and find some would-be murderers, and warn then about the police. They flee, and because of my action, there is no murder. Of course, these people go uncaught, and I don't tell the police about a felony I was aware of. So what's the problem?)

In what way was he obstructing the police, other than preventing them nicking people? He's stopped them nicking people, as you so eloquently put it, when they are breaking the law. This is clearly obstructing the police.

Silly question. That’s exactly why he was prosecuted. Yes. For obstructing the police. Do you want obstructing the police to be legal? Do you live in a fantasy world, where we can go around pushing policemen off cliffs or something?

 He goes on:

Unfortunately, there are coppers who measure their success by the number of arrests they make, no matter how trivial the alleged offence, not by the number of lives they save or the number of crimes they prevent. (As I demonstrated with maths earlier, catching speeders would prevent crime and save lives. It would do this in a very simple and easy fashion.)

 They delight in showing us who’s boss and deliberately antagonising law-abiding, tax-paying citizens (Yes, I image there are police officers like that. Of course, there are people like that in every job in existence. Some people just aren't very nice, and of course, its a shame they ruin it for the rest of us. But really, should we judge the whole of the police force by the actions of a few people? I mean, there are some so-called journalists who peddle bigoted, misleading, fear-mongering columns in tabloid newspapers, but we can't judge their whole kind by a few bad eggs). What’s worse is when they are supported by senior officers, the allegedly-independent CPS (Ooh, are you hinting at a conspiracy here?) and, especially, the magistrates who are supposed to uphold justice.

 This case should never have reached court. And when it did, it should have been thrown out. Speeding costs lives. I've given you the figures. It isn't hard not to speed, and people are rarely in enough of a rush to justify over three deaths a week. Indeed, many speed limits are in place around schools and pedestrian areas - would you be in favour of people helping speeders to continue speeding near where your kids are educated? Because, frankly, I think having to leave your house a little earlier every day to drive to work is a prize worth paying if it saves just one life - when, in fact, if it could save 166 lives a year.

But no, Mr. Littlejohn would rather live in his fantasy world, where the role of the police is simply to terrorise and oppress good white folks, and let terrorists run amok, than accept that laws are actually in place for a reason.

A reply to Cristina Odone

I wrote this as a reply to Cristina Odone's article in the The Telegraph, entitled "The Coalition must protect the right to be true to our Christian faith"

 I’m not a religious person; I’ll be honest about that. It’s not something I hide; I’ve been an Atheist since I was 16. And there’s no need for me to hide it – I don’t fear any serious reprisal against me because of this. However, while I personally do not believe in God, I agree that this country should not discriminate against those who do. As Cristina Odone writes, there is often a disproportionate attack on the Christian faith in this country, compared to the reaction to other religions, at least in the area of law.

  However, having conceded this, I wish to argue with the main points Cristina Odone puts forward in her Telegraph article. Firstly, of course, I would highlight the differences between the persecution of British Christians, and the persecution of Christians in other locations around the world. The persecution of anyone, anywhere, for holding a moderate religious belief is appalling, and I commend any journalist who draws attention to the killing or injuring of innocents simply because of their religions. But these atrocities are, as the author herself points out, atrocities that put the British experience in perspective. To compare the terrorist attacks against Christians around the world with the treatment they receive in Britain, a country which largely operates along Christian principles, is disgusting.

  So, what exactly are the attacks on the Christian faith she perceives in Britain? What terrible events, which she willing compares to the killing of 32 Christians on Christmas day, are being carried out against good-hearted British Christian? Odone gives two examples, presumably the worst cases of persecution present in Britain today; one airline worker being banned from wearing a Crucifix to work, and a B&B owner being forced to allow homosexuals to stay in his B&B.

  Now, I may be exaggerating, but I’m pretty certain these aren’t the most vicious examples, the most disgusting cases of anti-religious persecution in this country. Indeed, in the case of Miss Eweida, the airline worker, the banning of her crucifix was part of the airline’s uniform policy, not an attack on Christianity. Indeed, while I may be out-of-touch with religion these days, it was never my understanding that idolatry was necessary to Christianity. In the second case, the Bed and Breakfast incident, this was also not a religious attack – it is against the law to ban people from using your business because you don’t agree with their sexuality, the same as if he had banned an interracial couple. Indeed, imagine someone else refused a Christian couple access to their premises; would such a virulent defense of the hotelier’s rights be launched then?

  In either case, these incidents are hardly comparable to the persecutions religious people suffer around the world on a daily basis, nor is it even comparable to the many abuses that minority religions suffer here, in our apparently “Great” Britain. But the author moves on; next, an argument Christianity should be defended on cultural grounds. After all, it has been the British religion in one form or another since conquerors brought it to us, and in its present form, since a man wanted a divorce.  Should not this rich heritage - full of the witch-hunts, of Catholic burnings, of Church support for slavery and racism – should this not be respected?

  Of course, I’m making a one-sided argument. Religion has many strong and admirable points, and a great many religious people are worthy of great praise. However, this does not mean Christianity should be forced onto everyone. It is not common sense to respect Christian values, even when these clash with the prevailing liberal consensus. By all means, if this is what you believe, you should stick to these principles. But they cannot be forced onto everyone. Church and State are separate, and religious does not – and should not – dominate British Law. Indeed, given the clashes between the two, it is hard to understand what Ms. Odone means when she suggests the two have always worked together.

  Lastly, it is not necessarily for the State to teach more about Christian values, and less about secular, or non-dominational values. A point is certainly raised, that there is often a focus on documentaries and works produced about religion, which feature factual errors. This is certainly a valid criticism to raise – if one is going to criticize or praise anything, then their work should be as accurate as possible. And furthermore, it is important children learn about Christianity in school, but no more important than that they learn about any religion; this seems a vital factor to furthering our understanding on different people, to spreading a little tolerance.

   But it is certainly not necessary that “In schools, the National Curriculum should be beefed up so that inadequate lessons in "ethics" are complemented by the teaching of the history and tenets of Christianity.” The world has moved on, and we no longer shovel religious beliefs down the throats of children, presenting them as fact. The history of Christianity is fraught with conflict and with denominational clashes. If we are to force our children to learn one particular religion, which domination? Should it be the Church of England? But, surely, this will only act to heighten Christian persecution, as the “false” teachings of Catholicism, and indeed, any other Christian faction, are derided in schools?

  I will not link a spread of religious teachings directly to the spread of bigotry, but the last “50 years of orthodoxy” that Ms. Odone is so keen to see challenged have seen massive steps forward in the areas of Civil Rights, Religious tolerance, Gender equality. Medicine has improved, the quality of life is better, science is expanding. Religion, on the whole, is not evil – most religious people would see these steps forward for what they are; progressive developments, positive steps. But if we were to teach one particular religion as fact in our schools, to enshrine it as a requirement in medicine and in law, then we would set back our progress. To give teachers, lawmakers, doctors, the power to tell others what was fact spiritually slow the progress of our country, not further it. It would encourage difference, persecution, and it would destroy the faithful.

  The place of Christianity, of any religion, is not in the centre of public life. Your religious beliefs are at the centre of your private life, perhaps. To life by a moral code, to have absolute faith in something is not wrong. But to suggest your beliefs should shape the education of our children, the making and enforcing of our laws, and the development and application of out medicine certainly is wrong. No-one has the same religious beliefs as the next person, even if they both come from the exact same Christian denomination. By all means, fight to ensure Christians are treated as fairly as any other religions. But that is not what Ms. Odone wants. What she wants is to force Christianity on the masses, to make it necessary for anyone who wants to practice law or medicine to be a Christian, to make being a Christian necessary for getting a high-school grade. That is not protecting Christians from the small prejudices shown against them in this country, it is barbaric, and it is a step back to the dark ages. To suggest Christianity is a necessary prelude to getting employment, to earning a living, is persecution at its worst, not a blow for religious protection.

The Daily Mail

Today's article from the Daily Mail (here) focuses on what drove 17-year old Ruby Thomas to kill a 62-year old man in a homophobic attack. The details of the crime are, of course, shocking - Thomas mercilessly attacked the man on the street, shouting homophobic abuse and smiling. After the death of her victim, and in her trial, she showed no remorse. So fair enough, giving her a hard time and all.
 
  So, what drove her to this violent act? Surely an article on this subject could be very useful, to prevent future crime and so on? Well, the mail has a theory:

"The story of Ruby Thomas, though ... is also the story of a type of girl for whom violence and thuggery has become the default setting, just like many of their male gangland counterparts."

"She began emulating the language and mannerisms — or, at least, what she and others ­mistakenly perceived as the ­language and mannerisms — of black urban youth culture.""But the ‘ghetto culture’ she had become obsessed with is also intrinsically associated with violence and sex."

So, gangster rap is to blame? Black people are, of course, the cause of all problems. One other possible reason for Thomas's violent tendencies is touched on by the mail.  This possible influencing factor in her life is, by my reading of the article, to be considered as to have influenced her less than 'black culture' - When Thomas was 10, her father, described as a "violent alcoholic", stabbed a neighbour 28 times. Now, credit to the Mail  for mentioning this topic, but surely, in an article exploring someone's mental state, this incident deserves a little bit of analysis, rather that simply being stated as part of her "family background". But no - the fact that her father murdered a man when she was a child seems, apparently, to have had less of an effect on Ruby Thomas than the harmful influence of black people.
  Of course, it is possible to argue that the "violent" music and culture she perceived influenced her somewhat, but surely more emphasis should have been placed on her severely troubled childhood than on rap?

Also, as a side note, the Mail quotes some of her Facebook statuses and the like. Fair enough, they illustrate their point about the victim's lack of remorse and so on. But then they explain "the dreadful grammar and spelling alone tells the story of a wasted education".
 Really? These are the signs of a wasted education? Bad spelling on the Internet? Not the fact she beat a man to death for no reason...

The Sun

The group UK Uncut aims, through peaceful demonstration, to force rich British tax-dodgers to pay their taxes. These people, like Sir Philip Green, are alleged to have avoided paying billions in tax to the British Government. In an age where these billions could see the reversal of harsh government cuts, these actions billions would, if collected, ease the British economy. This is no purely economic issue - this money would mean less cuts in areas such as the NHS, Education, welfare, and so on - saving and improving the lives of many. As such, then surely the aims of this group are applaudable? Surely, even the harshest right-winger would support this group, which aims to see the rich obey tax law?

 Not so, as the Sun deftly demonstrates in an article about yesterday's protests. Also, look out for some splendid misunderstandings about political ideologies! What fun!

Oxford graduate Thom Costello, 22, aims to cause chaos by organising mass demonstrations in 50 towns on the busiest shopping day of the year. (Then he must be very wide, to single-handedly do so much in so many places)

The TV researcher's anti-capitalist group UK Uncut (It is, as you point out later, a 'loosely-knit' group of people, so I doubt the whole group shares the anti-capital, evil Marxist image you want it to have.) will hit Vodafone and Arcadia stores - including Topshop, Miss Selfridge and Dorothy Perkins - potentially costing them millions in lost sales. (Wow, well done. You got the point)

The loosely-knit group of up to 30,000 anarchists (Anarchy: "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society." Anarchists aim to dismantle the state and form a political system where people work together through a willingness to co-operate for the common good, not because they're forced by governments or suchlike. This protest aimed to enforce the law, as should be championed by the government. Instead of weakening the state, these protests aimed to strengthen it by increasing it's capital through taxation, which would be spent on public works. It is really quite different to anarchy - indeed, if this group achieved the anarchy you claim they strive for, there would be no taxes. And that seems counter-productive, given their goal is to make the rich pay the taxes they owe... You probably aimed to invoke images of anarchist terrorists from history, to scare your readers though. Well done, it was a rousing success.) will use Twitter and Facebook to tell the mobs which stores to hit.

On the organisation's main website called today "our next day of mass action". (Well, that's what they would do, when calling for their next day of mass action)

Followers will be urged to set off stink bombs, leave mouldy cheese in clothes and rack up huge sales at tills and then refuse to pay. (Bloody hell, it's like Kristallnacht all over again, isn't it?)

Last month UK Uncut demonstrators shut down 30 Vodafone stores in three days using action such as sit-ins and protesters supergluing themselves to windows.  (Yes. So the protests are working. Splendid)

Costello said: "We are in the process of planning something significantly bigger than what we have done so far." (I assume you're building up to making a point here, Mr. Sun newspaper sir.)

The group has been monitored by undercover cops and tagged on to the student protests last week. (Has it? Interesting... Since they make their plans on open, online pages, I wonder if the cops need to be "undercover"? Do they sit at home, in false moustaches, on Facebook?)

English graduate Costello set up Uncut in October and it has 9,000 followers on Facebook. (Sounds popular then. It also has 11,000 followers, but that could be a 2,000 increase in the one day gap between your article and mine. Which suggests the movement is growing rather fast...)

Among its claims are that Vodafone owes £6billion in tax and Arcadia boss Sir Philip Green gave £1.2billion to wife Tina to avoid tax. (Yes. You're not going to discuss those claims, are you? You just want to slag off young people like the cooler newspapers, hanging round the schoolyard, smoking and cursing. Didn't your mother warn you about them?)

Sir Philip has said his affairs are "not relevant" and that he pays "tens and tens of millions of pounds" in tax. (Well, I see you fully support him. How nice for you two, have you set a date yet?)

What really interested me about that article was how it was pretty much pointless. Yes, the Sun implied the protesters were bad, but it didn't really do much except misunderstand political ideologies and aims. And it offered nothing much expect a collection of points, one after the other, from which it formed no argument, or drew no conclusion. To be honest, this article was a bit of a non-starter.
  You're probably then wondering why I wrote about it? Well, mainly I was bored. But I also found it interesting that the Mail, usually a bastion of anti-youth, right-wing hate, offered some quite balanced, supportive reporting on the UK Uncut protests. Of more interest are the reports focusing on how the "disruption" caused by these riots was actually well-received by the public, who apparently supported and even, on occasion, joined in the protests across the country.

Fox News' reply

The New York Times is reporting that Fox News has replied to the findings that I discussed this morning:

Asked for comment on the study, Fox News seemingly dismissed the findings. In a statement, Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: “The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.”

The New York Times goes on to mention that in the latest Princeton Review the University of Maryland was rated as amongst the 'Best Northeastern Colleges' and placed just 19th in the list of 'Best Party Schools'. Clearly the study did more 'research' than Fox did...
This is just the kind of hard-hitting journalism we've all come to expect from them. It seems to me that, rather than discrediting the study, Fox appear to have rather proved their point... But then again, this is the company that once tried to sue The Simpsons. Before they were told that The Simpsons is also made by Fox...

Fox News Viewers

A recent study has revealed that viewers of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News are the most likely to be misinformed on a variety of political news stories. The study showed that viewers were more likely to believe such utter hogwash as:

• Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
• Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
• The economy is getting worse (26 points)
• Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
• The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
• Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
• The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
• When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
• And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

For some reason I am not surprised by any of this. Perhaps it's because this is the same channel that employs such great minds as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. I feel so sorry for any liberal-minded person who tries to go on there to defend something sensible like the health care bill...

In a case of unfortunate timing, Mark Thompson (Director General of the BBC) has stated that he wants the impartiality rules on TV news in the UK to be laxed to allow for 'opinionated journalism'. Yes, I can totally see why that is a good idea...

Richard Littlejohn

I'm jumping on a bandwagon, I suppose, but justifiably.
  Today's post will be slagging of Mail columnist and general cunt, Richard Littlejohn, and specifically, his column yesterday on Jody McIntyre.

  For those of you who don't know, Mr. McIntyre is a student suffering from Cerebral Palsy, and made the headlines recently when a video of police officers pulling him from his wheelchair and beating him surface on Youtube. Littlejohn, in a hilarious set-up, compares McIntyre to disabled character Andy, from Little Britain. Andy, from his wheelchair, asks for things that he later turns out not to like, and is shown by his carer Lou to engage in articulate and sophisticated dialogue off-screen. He is also shown to not actually require a wheelchair, and has apparent learning disabilities. Mr. McIntyre is a 21-year old student who can walk no more than 100 feet. The similarities are, of course, uncanny. The Lou and Andy sketches are a parody on people's conceptions of the disabled. Credit to Richard Littlejohn for completely missing this and taking the sketches at face value, rather proving their point.

(The original article is available here)

Wheelchair-bound Jody Mcintyre has complained that he was beaten and manhandled by police during last week’s student fees protests. (Actually, he hasn't - at the time of writing - launched a complaint. A lot of other people got pissed off when they saw him being assaulted by the police though. Why don't you write another hilarious piece about each protester, based on one physical characteristic?)
But if he’s looking for sympathy, he’s come to the wrong place. (Of course he has. You didn't have any sympathy for murdered prostitutes, after all)
A man in a wheelchair is as entitled to demonstrate as anyone else (What? You've said something sensible? But surely you'll qualify this statement with something stupid). But he should have kept a safe distance. (Ah, there we are. From the video, he was the actually alone, ruling out the possibility of being caught in a wider clash. The job of the police is to protect individuals. Mr McIntyre was legally protesting. This is a right he has, and this right ought to be protected by the police. As such, it would have been easy, should the police have to move him 'for his own safety', to have done so without tipping him out of his wheelchair and dragging him)

 

Don't like it: Wheelchair-bound Jody McIntyre was wrong to complain about being mistreated at the student protests (I don't like it, no.)

Mcintyre put himself on offer and his brother pushed him into the front line. It’s not as if he didn’t know there was going to be trouble. (So he got what he deserved? Because he was at the front of a crowd, and couldn't move away from the approaching police? The fact he chose to be at the front of a group of protesters does not justify his treatment)
He was also at the last student demo in London and persuaded friends to hoist him on to the roof of the Millbank Tower (So? Should the police have beaten him earlier then?). If his brakes had failed and he’d gone over the edge, who would he have blamed then? (He would. And his friends. But no-one's saying he wouldn't. Just wanted to fit in he's a 'trouble maker' did you? A man who - God help us - is politically active!)
Jody Mcintyre is like Andy from Little Britain. (And you're like some sort of stupid prick)
‘Where do you want to go today, Jody?’
‘Riot.’
‘Are you sure? Wouldn’t you rather go to hear Bob Crow speak at the Methodist Central Hall. You like Bob Crow.’
‘Yeah, I know.’
‘So, we’ll go there, eh?’
‘Riot!’
‘Ken Livingstone will be there, too. He’s your favourite.’
‘Riot!’
‘All right, then.’
Five minutes later at the riot . . .
‘Don’t like it.’ (Now that I've calmed down, and am over the hilarity of that side-splitting sketch, I might offer some thought. Firstly, you're stupid Richard Littlejohn. Secondly, temping as it is to repeat the "you're stupid" part, I'll do something else: How is Jody McIntyre like Andy, except that they're both in wheelchairs? Because Andy says he wants to do things, then complains about them, you may say. And McIntyre wanted to protest, then complained.

  Well, I suppose you have a superficial point there. However, Mr. McIntyre's complaints were not that he hadn't wanted to protest. What Mr McIntyre, and others, complained about was that a man with a severe illness was tipped out of the wheelchair he needed to move, and dragged across the ground, causing him injury and embarrassment. From the video footage, it appears that one of the policemen actually had to be restrained by his colleagues, suggesting their intentions were to continue mishandling an ill man.
  Furthermore, your portrayal of Jody McIntyre as Andy suggests that, simply because he is in a wheelchair, Mr. McIntyre is comparable to a mentally handicapped man. Continuing this theme, if Richard Littlejohn had bothered to actually read anything by Mr. McIntyre, he would see an intelligent man, whose writing is - at the least - as capable as Littlejohn's own.
  Mr McIntyre appears a courageous man who does not deserve the patronizing treatment he had received in the media, in your column, or even any accidental insult I have played in my defence of him. The right to protest is fundamental to a democratic state, and should be protected by the police. If Mr. McIntyre did commit a crime, it must be proven and then punished - to suggest that he may have thrown a rock does not justify his treatment in any way, even if proven true.
  Mr. Littlejohn is known as a man who stands up for his values through vile verbal attacks on minorities, immigrants and sex workers. I suspect he would not understand real values if they were to sodomise him with an explanatory pamphlet.

  There we go, always end on a joke...

Angelina Jolie refuses to celebrate Thanksgiving

Wow. An American who recognizes the country's
less than illustrious past... Image postermall

It has been revealed that Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie has refused to celebrate Thanksgiving because she wants no part in the rewriting of American history and celebration of the immigrants' dominion over the native peoples. According to one of her friends, she doesn't want to teach her multi-cultural family how to celebrate a story of murder. Actually, that's not idiotic at all. What is idiotic is the right-wing news site NewsBusters response to this news. One paragraph in the story reads:

It never ceases to amaze me how some of the folks that have been the most enriched by America's love and adoration are ashamed and embarrassed by what makes this country so great. (So you're saying that the murder genocide committed by your ancestors is 'what makes [America] so great'? Wow. That's pretty brutal. And heartless. I'm British. What we did to quite a lot of the world was horrible (we went to war with China because they wanted to stop buying our Opium for God's sake!). I can admit that. Brits are, generally, sorry for all the horrible things we did to the likes of India and China. Why do you find it so offensive that America's history is less than whiter than white? Surely a true patriot would accept America's faults, but love it anyway...)

That's nothing compared to some of the comments by readers. Here's one that caught my eye:

...What had the "Indians" done with this country by the time the English Settlers got here? (Have a thriving, unique culture built around respect for the world with just as much right to exist as yours. And far more right to the land...) No roads etc., look where the rest of the world was at that time (Yes we made roads. And guns. What did it bring us? War and death. Go us... Being more technologically advanced is no excuse for the extermination of another race.). I know there were instances where they were treated badly ('Instances'? Try basically your entire history. You forced them into reserves because you wanted their land. Then forced them out of the reserves because you wanted that land too!), but that is not just an American problem, it has and is happening the world over (So? That's not an excuse! Didn't your mother ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?). Americans, especially White, Anglo Saxon, and God forbid, Christians are mocked every day almost every where (Have you ever thought that maybe it's because, as a nation, you are incredibly arrogant and meddle in everyone else's affairs? And you also come up with comments like the ones your making. They certainly don't help your standing...), and most strongly by our own President and his Government (They accept that America has faults. They don't mock you, you utter moron). I proudly cling to God, my family, my guns (Somehow, this doesn't come as a surprise...), my country, and even MY TURKEY ANGIE!

Many comments pointed out that all countries have a history of domination by one culture over another, so where would she go? My rebuttal to this would be that firstly, the likes of Britain were occupied in antiquity and since then the only real change has been to the ruling classes, varying from Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Normans. While these were not peaceful occupations by any means, they did not involve the systematic extermination of the previous population, more an amalgamation of the two cultures. Secondly, no-one else celebrates this domination with a national holiday. this was a particularly stupid move on your part, especially taking into account the relative modernity of your conquest.