General Chat

Not all journalists lie, so not all are scum. Only those who lie, like Littlejohn.

‘Name calling’ was an occasional session of bullying practiced in the schoolyard.

I thought the article in the Op was, as Tecwyn said: Well written - thought provoking - the truth.
I don't think it right to call Littlejohn 'scum'. Unless you give all journalists this title.

I have now read the other article, which is not so well written but is certainly thought provoking. I don't think there was anything there that would make someone actually commit suicide unless there was already such thoughts already there but that is my opinion. The original article is on : http://web.archive.org/web/20121226073921/http:/www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2251347/Nathan-Uptons-wrong-body--hes-wrong-job.html

Words are the dress of thoughts, which should no more be presented in rags,tatters, and dirt, than your person should.

Earl of Chesterfield.

Sir John Cheke (16 June 1514 – 13 September 1557) was an English classical scholar who wrote:

‘I am of this opinion that our own tung should be written cleane and pure, unmixt and unmangeled with borowing of other tunges; wherein if we take not heed by tiim, ever borowing and never paying, she shall be fain to keep her house as bankrupt‘.

In the days when words we no longer use, and when you routinely called the black dog or cat you devoted your life to by that name that begins with an N and that you may no longer use with any sense of decency, prejudices were aired publicly and everybody knew where they stood.

Those prejudices have never left, just the means of expressing them.

I'm not keen on Littlejohn, but I wouldn't call him 'scum' because it's not a word I ever use, except when I'm cleaning my bath after being on the allotment all day and muttering with irritation to myself.

He's just a bloody twit most of the time and he irritates the hell out of me if I ever get past the first sentence of any of his monologues, which is a rare occurrence.

The case of the transgender teacher was terribly sad, but I think it would have happened regardless of his stupid pontifications.

I don't read the Mail as it makes me spit feathers, but a little googling will highlight some of his previous 'churnalism' and the fact that the Mail has had to apologise for him on more than one occasion...

Article - yes, well-written but it just trots out the same old tropes and offers no solutions.

It's interesting..... no not the article, been there, seen it before, nothing new in what he has written ( and I am no kinder to him than Guinevere and yes I have read his articles in the past) but this opinion that " Free speech is being eroded in the name of ‘celebrating diversity’


and when WAS that golden age of "free speech" exactly? when we all lived in this state of being able to say what we wanted about another group of people without "pussyfooting" in case we caused offence ?

Was it back in the day when we could call the physically or mentally disabled " cretins" or when we could call homosexuals ...well you all know the terms...when we could all call Germans 'The Hun' or Blacks " N****s' , unmarried women with children "fallen women" and their kids "bas*ards"?

Isn't being sensitive to other religions, the followers of those religions, or just to those 'different' to us in some other way somehow a mark of maturity rather than something to be disparaged?

I am by no mean against mocking ones own foibles ( if that's how you perceive them) or as mentioned, Dave Allen mocking (reasonably FONDLY I think) the absurdities of the religion of his country... BUT mocking ones own, mocking ones self ...isn't that rather different to mocking others? disparaging others? lumping others all in a 'group' to be either feared or hated ( or both usually)?

And opinion, not fact.

Interesting Dermot I didn´t know that, I always believed if somebody knocked me down I should get straight back up.

Guinevere I don´t remember the case you have brought up and without going back through it all I really can´t comment.

But I still think that his comment as above is well written and well said.

After the suicide of that poor woman, the coroner said Littlejohn 'sought to ridicule and humiliate' her.

I stand by my opinion of him. A little googling will explain why.

'It is apparently an accepted reality that, when you say or do something that knocks a person’s self-esteem, it takes twenty positive actions to get them back to the level you toppled them from'.

I am not a Daily Mail reader, so therefore am not familiar with any of Mr Littlejohn's previous writings or opinions.
I based my opinion on the piece Uzzi originally drew to my attention, and stand by my judgement of that piece.

Tec :-)

I would doubt that Littlejohn alone caused the death and whilst I disagree with any anti transgender comments, we all have to agree that they need to be stronger than us because of the comments they are going to get.

I do think calling him *scum* is a bit strong to be honest.

Guinevere we are all entitled to our opinions and I think that the piece above was well written, as many of his are. I will go and read what you have put up.

Littlejohn is scum. If he said the sky was blue I'd have to go outside to check.

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/why-we-need-press-regulation-primary-school-teacher-bullied-by-daily-mail-columnist-is-found-dead/

Well written - thought provoking - the truth.


Tec :-)

I really like his comments but this is worth reading
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2902762/This-freedom-killed-Little-little-piece-piece-LITTLEJOHN-State-cede-ground-terrorists-wake-Paris-massacre.html