Richard Littlejohn's House of Fun Pt. II

RL mourns the passing of 'Great' Britain - when a man could
be homophobic and racist and be celebrated for it...

I was glancing through my old posts when I saw my old post on Richard Littlejohn's fine book House of Fun: Thirteen Years of (Labour) Madness and noticed that I'd left the door open for a sequel. Well here is that said sequel! Obviously it'll be worse than the original (unless it's a Godfather Part II, or Toy Story 2, but I don't hold out much hope) but I'm lazy, so I'm going for the usual easy target. Anyhoo, here's a couple of 5-star review from amazon:

I have to say that this is a genuine five star review. You'll notice there are many but some are oh-so cleverly masking negative reviews that are not only cringeworthy and unoriginal but patronising (Some of them are pretty funny though... And the people who do that are at least people with views that aren't horrible...). These people should do stand up. (The 'do' isn't needed in that sentence.)

As A. Birchall said, "there's clearly a campaign to slate this book. No doubt by Labour loyalists or Con-Dem haters" (Sensible people who are left-wing then...) Another said "my friends got brain damage so he loved it!". Which says alot (That should be two separate words. And yeah, because RL has never mocked disabled people...). If you hate the Mail and RJ (RJ? His name isn't Richard John. His fans are so thick they even don't know the rat-bag's name...) fair enough, say it. Even if you haven't read the book - which some admit to. You're opinion of him can still help someone to dicide to purchase or not (That is true, except I would say almost everyone who buys this book has also read his columns, so it really doesn't matter). But it's a different realm altogether when a number of people are scrambling for the 'no' button after every positive review (Perhaps that is a little far). Some positive reviews are very descriptive, intriguing and to the point and make me want to know more, yet for example only "0 out of 10 people find this review helpful" ...why? (Maybe other people felt differently?) Who can these people be I wonder? (You have no possible way of knowing, but I suspect that won't stop you jumping to conclusions) Sometimes a negative review is placed and followed by positive one, these are then mysteriously blanked out through the mass of people who "don't think this adds to the discussion" - when it clearly does - in a poor attempt to hide what's great about this book (That's not how Amazon reviews work. I think you mean Amazon comments. And maybe, just maybe, the comment was insulting or otherwise wasn't adding constructively to the discussion). These actions, frankly speak volumes and indicates that his work clearly hits a nerve somewhere (Yes it does. Because his views are offensive and hateful.). 
Both the positive AND negative reviews made me want to buy the book because of how much he clearly annoys the followers of the self-serving crooks who were massively part of the mess this country is in (or all because they simply don't like a certain newspaper) (That's a bit petty isn't it? And the mess the country is in is a result of a global economic crash. Not the Labour government. Indeed, Gordon Brown is considered one of the favourites for the vacant position as head of the International Monetary Fund [IMF], except Mr. Cameron has said he won't support him. He is also currently an advisor for the World Economic Forum. He didn't do this by being incompetent. He got it by being so highly respected by the economic community as a result of his safe leadership and economic recovery packages that were copied by most of the rest of the world. Unlike Mr. Osborne, who isn't highly regarded by anyone.)

As a hard-working Brit taxpayer who's never relied on benefits (People who rely on benefits can still be hard working you know. They may have been laid-off and can't find a job as a result of the swingeing cuts made by the current government. Not everyone on benefit is a work-dodger. Though you and RL will probably never accept that...), who's fathers' pension was stolen (I don't think Gordon Brown nicked your dad's pension somehow...), who was fined for using fog lights in dense fog (That would have been the police, moron. As much as Brown doesn't steal pensions, he also doesn't go around fining people for using fog lights either...), I could go on. Reading it was so enjoyable to the point it reminded me there was someone with a voice on my side, someone who, ok, knows he can't make a difference but can simply, like me, sigh, roll my eyes and chuckle at the madness we've witnessed from a government of a once great country. (Out of these many lines, only four of them are an actual review. And a really shit review at that. It's entirely subjective and about as in-depth as a character from a Dan Brown novel...)

Thoroughly recommend it! (And yet you never say why I should buy it...)

And here's another one, somewhat shorter than the last:

Judging by the number of faux reviews from guardian munching (I don't know about the Daily Mail, but people usually read the Guardian rather than eat it...) leaders of the proletariat (How dare people be middle-class, but champion the cause of those less well-off and influential than themselves?) who are obviously uspet enough by LittleJohns (He doesn't have a capital J. It's not like McRae or anything...) musings to take precious time out of their busy schedules to mock him (Actually it's just really, really fun. It's certainly worth taking time out of my empty schedule to do.), this is a read I will thoroughly enjoy (So you have not only not read it, but not even purchased? I really don't think you should be 'reviewing' anything. Really this is as much a 'faux review' as anything by any 'guardian munching leaders of the proletariat'.). Thanks again to the above mentioned persons, what would I do without you. (nb - thats not a question) (And what would this website do without Littlejohn and his followers? Pick on other people obviously, but there would be no go-to idiot for when I'm feeling particularly lazy...)

That's really it for good reviews that aren't fake or two lines long, so we shall have to end it there. But there are other Littlejohn books to mock!

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?

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.

Richard Littlejohn's House of Fun: Thirteen Years of (Labour) Madness

FREE! Cut out and keep dartboard...

As you may have gathered from previous posts, Richard Littlejohn is not one of our favourite human beings (if that is indeed what he is. Rather than, say, a festering pile of manure that's been left out in the sun). In fact he's right down towards the bottom with Nick Griffin. This is mostly to do with his racist, misogynistic, homophobic and generally repellant views. At this juncture you could point out that well thought out and reasoned opinion is a basic human right. Which is all very true, except that none of that applies to Littlejohn's writings; based, as they are, on lies, prejudice, misinformation and incorrect assumptions. But anyway, Richard released his new addition to the Western Canon earlier this year with the not-at-all cumbersome or one-sided title of Richard Littlejohn's House of Fun: Thirteen Years of (Labour) Madness. Obviously those who give it one star are right, so we'll look at the idiots who gave this rallying cry for the BNP five stars instead:

It`s pretty clear that there is a campaign to discredit this book on here (This much is true. And I thank you Amazon readers for all the incredibly sarcastic and witty fake 5-star reviews), Trouble is when you are as brutally frank and honest as Littlejohn you are going to ruffle a few feathers (Or, you're going to ruffle feathers when you lie through your teeth or are horrifically prejudiced against any/every minority. One of the two). I have no axe to grind (You can have an axe in your head if you want. I'll gladly take time out of doing this to deliver it to you post haste), I read all kinds of books (Piers Morgan as well eh?) and as an ordinary joe so much of what I`ve read in this book rings true (I presume you get your news from the Daily Mail then? Only one of you could be so ill informed in this country). Littlejohn writes it as it is (No he doesn't, he invents most of his stories out of thin air. The rest are drawn from the Daily Mail's own made-up stories). I find this book entertaining,funny and echoes the feelings of many people today who are in disbelief at what new labour have done to this country (What, lead it through the greatest economic boom in years? No? Then the improvement in education and health? Still no? Oh, then you're referring to the economic crisis. You realise that was America and the banker's fault right? Of course not. Why let the truth get in the way of a good jab at the 'loony left'...). You dont need to be a Daily mail reader to enjoy Littlejohn but it probably helps! (Well of course it does. Only Mail readers would be so stupid to think a word of what's written in here is true. 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' and all that...)

Here's another:

What I found most hilarious is that the majority of people that have rated it 1 haven't read it (Who needs  to? It's Littlejohn, we all know what will be contained therein. And it ain't better than Tolstoy no matter what he says...). It's typical Labour rubbish of claiming that anyone that disagrees with them is bigoted or racist (This would be a better defence if Littlejohn weren't bigoted and racist.). When probably his views are fair and balanced. (They aren't. I've read some of them. They're enough to make a man cry...)

I actually found the book fantastic (Can we get a lobotomy to here!). It highlighted some of the absolute nonsense that went on under Labour (Yup. Like Increasing VAT during an economic recovery. Or increasing tuition fees, whilst simultaneously making far less money available for Universities and trying to discourage foreign students from gaining access. Or cutting up to 40% from local councils. Oh, wait hang on, that was all the Tories in less than a year...). They'd rather spend money on daft diversity programmes (Those equality loving bastards!) such as encouraging more of ethnic minorities to go fishing (Actually I think they were encouraging them to go on to higher education) than spend money on cancer drugs that could have saved my father's life! (Look. NICE are in charge of all that, and they are independent. You're precious Tories are taking them away, meaning that whatever drug is currently being touted by your precious 'newspaper' [I use the term quite incorrectly] as a 'miracle' will be approved. Who cares if it is no better than placebo in proper medical trials, Mrs Bloggs says she was saved while she was on it therefore it will cure everyone and it only costs £500,000 a box...)

I'm sorry, I know I normally do 3 or so, but this time I can't. If I read any more reviews about the 'loony left frothing at the mouth' or 'nulabor' (They can't even spell Labour the British way...) I will end up on the 6 o'clock news having hacked my way through most of England. These people make me ashamed to be British, they really do. Perhaps I will come back to it at some later date, but just now, it's all too depressing...

On a lighter note, Happy 4,540,002,011th Birthday Earth, try not to get too drunk eh? And stay away from that Venus, she's not good enough for you...

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...