Tag Archives: The Littlejohn Series

Too many brown faces in Question Time audience, says Littlejohn

Appropriately, Richard Littlejohn’s last appearance on BBC’s Question Time came on the first of April 2010. It was in Stevenage and Richard Littlejohn looks back on this appearance in his column today – a column that calls for Question Time to be scrapped and ‘put out of its misery’. Why exactly does he want the show to be scrapped, what was it about his final appearance (he insists he has turned down invitations to appear on the show since) that made him no longer want to engage with the public?

Well, it all seems to boil down to the fact that Richard Littlejohn is a bit of a racist xenophobe. He just hates stepping outside of his own gated, white, affluent, Conservative monkeysphere and realising that we’re actually a diverse bunch of non-tory voters. Richard Littlejohn recounts how in Stevenage he looked into the audience and saw:

The audience is always the same noxious, inarticulate blend of Left-wing local government activists, NHS malcontents, trades union officials, spotty students and women in headscarves. Occasionally, they throw in a couple of comedy Tories with dandruff, for the rest of the crowd to boo.

Last time I was on the programme, it came from Stevenage, Herts, where 93 per cent of the population is white, and which elected a Conservative MP in 2010 with 41.4 per cent of the vote.

Yet the audience looked as if it had been bussed in from central casting, carefully selected to reflect the BBC’s view of what Britain should look like. If 41.4 per cent of that audience were Conservative voters, they did a damn good job of disguising it.

He saw the people outside of his monkeysphere and labelled them all as enemies. He saw not just women – a group he has always reserved a special level of deep hatred for over the years – but, gulp, women in headscarves. Thus his ultimate fears – women and foreigners – were combined in one frightening instant before his droopy, vision-less eyes. For the record whilst it is true that 41.4 per cent of people voted Conservative, it should be noted that 33.4 per cent voted Labour (the seat had been retained by Labour since 1997) and another 16.6% Lib Dem. Therefore Conservatives voters where never likely to form the majority of the audience – even more so when the local turnout for the election was only 64.8 per cent.

As for expecting 93% of the audience to be white, well, isn’t the point of BBC programming to be as representative as possible and in particular political discussions should be as inclusive as possible – which is kind of the point in Question Time giving a wide audience of people the chance to engage with senior politicians.

You will have noticed that I suggested Richard Littlejohn was a racist at the start of this post, it is a point he is always quick to deny. In fact he fielded a question during his last Question Time appearance from a young lad who suggested he was a favourite writer of BNP leader Nick Griffin, which he was, Nick Griffin said so. Littlejohn reacted very angrily and made the young lad retract the accusation. I’m pretty sure Richard Littlejohn would never read this blog, but if he does and he wants to get his lawyers in touch for libel I think I would take my chances and stand by my belief that Richard Littlejohn is racist.

Richard does not help his case by constantly providing my point of view with clear evidence, as he does in his column today. When he remembers looking at the audience in Stevenage he recounts his shock that it wasn’t the 93 per cent white, 41.4 per cent Tory audience he had hoped for and comments:

I took one look at them and thought to myself: if this is a true representation of the people of Stevenage, then we really are all going to hell in a handcart.

I’m not quite sure how he could argue that this isn’t a blatantly racist statement, especially given his statistical prelude in which he tried to argue that the number of brown faces in the audience should have been minimal. He is basically suggesting that when even Tory-voting white enclaves are dappled with brown faces then the end of the world is nigh – he is after all suggesting that such a path is a path towards hell. Add to this his normal inverted comma disdain of any attempt to ‘celebrate the “diversity” of the nation’ and you can see why Littlejohn candidly admits that you ‘shouldn’t waste your time’ applying to be in the audience ‘if you happen to be a Daily Mail reader’ (although he doesn’t comment on the frequent appearances of Mail columnists on Question Time, probably because this kind of ruins his very narrow, silly argument).

Indeed, what Richard Littlejohn fails to see is that his argument for why Question Time should be scrapped is actually a pretty compelling argument for why Question Time should carry on just as it is. If you are a Daily Mail reader, or tabloid reader in general, then you already have many ‘news’ outlets filled with xenophobic, dishonest bile that you can cuddle up to everyday; you don’t need Question Time to be turned into more of the same. Littlejohn complains that the BBC should ‘devise a programme which accurately reflects the wider views of the great British public’, without realising that it does reflect the wider views of the public, what it is careful to avoid is representing the noisy minority whom Richard Littlejohn writes for.

Irrespective of how hard the right-wing media try to turn us into a nation of xenophobic, ignorant bigots, Question Time demonstrates time and again that they’ve not succeeded. When a right-wing journalist gets a hard time on Question Time from the audience it is not because that audience is stuffed full of liberal malcontents, but rather that an intelligent audience can easily see through the usual distortions trotted out by such people. What Littlejohn sees when he looks into a Question Time audience is the future: diverse, intelligent, concerned and proactive individuals who want a fairer world for everyone (along with the occasional person that makes me facepalm as happened last night). It is the reason that tired, simple, Conservative thinkers like Littlejohn rarely step outside of their own sycophantic mailbag, and why they decide to lock themselves away in gated communities in foreign countries.

As a brief aside, I also found it amusing for Richard to describe the audience as ‘inarticulate’ given his past record of very famous verbal humiliations, and to claim that Question Time has passed its best when earlier this week he plagiarised his own writing, again, and made a claim that was astoundingly stupid, even by his standards:

Haringey hired someone to give hopscotch lessons to Asian women.

As Full Fact points out:

Back in 1995, former Conservative Party Chairman Brian Mawhinney regaled his Party’s Conference with a story of how taxpayer’s money was being similarly spent on hopscotch for Asian women.

In fact, it later transpired that the public money had been given to the Hopscotch Asian Women’s Centre, a well-respected voluntary organisation that deals with domestic violence, language and integration issues in Camden, which neighbours Haringey.

So could a similar misunderstanding have been made by Richard Littlejohn?

We contacted Hanringey Borough Council to ask about the mysterious job, who weren’t aware of one fitting Mr Littlejohn’s description. We’ve also tried to get in touch with Mr Littlejohn himself to find out more about how he came across this vacancy, but have yet to hear back from him.

But the Hopscotch Asian Women’s Centre did advertise for a management position in May last year.

So whilst as yet we’re unable to say with complete certainty that Haringey haven’t been engaging the services of Asian hopscotch specialists, given the claim’s history and the proximity of an Asian women’s voluntary centre named Hopscotch to Haringey, you might be advised to treat this particular “non-job” with some scepticism.

And isn’t it funny how Richard Littlejohn is only now calling for the scrapping of Question Time, when largely Conservative politicians are getting grief, when he seemed perfectly happy to appear when Labour were getting the same treatment. Or perhaps the audiences back then were still white enough, perhaps his brain has a clear limit on the amount of brown faces in a crowd that are acceptable and it was finally broken last April?

Who knows. What I do know is that if Richard Littlejohn is concerned about certain things passing their sale-by-date, he should really start with his own career.

How Richard Littlejohn gets paid to recycle his own crap

Richard Littlejohn dedicates his main piece today to more ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ bans, calling it ‘a special Guy Fawkes edition of Mind How You Go’. I was going to go through the claims one-by-one, but as the first claim unraveled it become so amusing and lengthy that I don’t think I’ll bother. Instead, enjoy a look at how Richard gets paid to recycle and embellish his old crap over and over again.

The claim: ‘On the orders of elf’n’safety, residents of ­Ilfracombe, in Devon, were forced to watch a virtual bonfire on a big screen.’

I just knew this story was rubbish, given that generally speaking those responsible for health and safety don’t ban things, let alone give ‘orders’. A quick Google search reveals the truth:

The idea was hatched after rugby club officials started to wade through the mountain of health and safety paperwork needed to hold the event.

Officials at North Devon District Council, which owns the rugby club land, have cracked down on safety rules after yobs hurled fireworks onto a nearby football club bonfire four years ago.

Under the new regime the club would be required to hire five qualified fire marshals, recruit dozens of volunteers to watch over the 2,000-strong crowd and fix metal barricades around the fire to keep people at a safe distance.

So, it was the case that the organisers didn’t want to go make the effort to comply with health and safety regulations that most people would consider sensible – especially given the incident that made North Devon Council become stricter in their approach to safety. Isn’t this the whole point of health and safety legislation, protecting people not just from themselves (which they might argue they do not need) but from the irresponsible actions of others.

Yes, perhaps it is a shame that we have to fence off bonfires because of the idiot actions of a few, but then it is also a shame that the actions of a few Muslim extremists lead to the whole Muslim population being smeared by the tabloid press. The press cannot bemoan one whilst actively reveling in the other.

The organisers and participants actually seemed to enjoy the event according to reports:

The organisers of the non-fire night built a fire on private earlier this week and Ilfracombe rugby player Joel Cooper, 25, and his 22-year-old brother Leo, recorded it with a video camera. Joel said: “I think it was a brilliant idea. The health and safety stuff was a real pain.

“We used to have the bonfire on the pitch so we have the added advantage of a clear ground for the next game.”

What is clear, as usual is that nothing was banned, at all. No orders were given and in fact the council, who declined to comment on the tabloid rubbish did point out that ‘the rugby club had not been in contact’.

The best thing about this claim is where it was dredged up from, step forward the book ‘Littlejohn’s Britain’, written by, you’ve guessed it, Richard Littlejohn. An abridged version of the story already appears on the Mail website, it was put there in April 2007:

On November 5, 2006, a crowd of more than 2,000 people assembled in a field in Ilfracombe, Devon, to watch a virtual bonfire on a big screen.

Heaters were arranged strategically around the field to give the sensation of the warmth of a real bonfire and loudspeakers played the sound of wood crackling.

The organisers decided on this performance after concluding that it would be uneconomic to comply with precautions insisted upon by the local council’s elf ‘n’ safety officers.

They would have to hire steel safety barriers, an army of stewards and first-aiders, and have the fire brigade on standby. They concluded it wasn’t worth it.

Hilariously, in 2007 Richard conceded that no orders were issued by ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ but that it was a decision made by the organisers in order to avoid having to meet or bother with the new requirements. Not only is he lazy enough to copy and paste the bulk of his ‘new’ column from stuff that has already appeared on the Mail website at least twice and in his book, he actually feels the need to embellish his own bullshit a bit further.

This column provides a perfect example of how Richard Littlejohn gets paid to recycle his own shit.

First of all, he produces his shit by rehashing Daily Mail articles or reader emails (normally making them even more dishonest than they were originally) and publishes them online and in print. At some point he collects all of this shit, staples it together and calls it a book. He then abridges this shit and prints the same shit back in the Mail again. He can then copy and paste the same shit – with some new embellishments – years later into a ‘new’ pile of shit.

Somehow, he gets paid every step of the way for doing this. You couldn’t make it up.


One of the other snippets from Littlejohn’s column today has already been laughed at by Primly Stable. Littlejohn hilariously wonders whether after prisoners have been given the right to vote why don’t we ‘go the whole hog and let them stand for election’. As Primly Stable points out, they already can stand for election.

Just a reminder that Littlejohn gets paid nearly a million pounds a year to write this shit.

Richard Littlejohn: ‘no excuse’ for ‘lazy, biased reporting’

Richard Littlejohn – unsurprisingly – has no sympathy for the ‘self-pitying grumbles of the “victims”‘ of the government cuts. He identifies the ‘victims’ as:

from bone-idle Welsh benefit bandits who can’t be bothered to catch a bus five miles to get a job, to middle-class teaching assistants complaining that the ‘cuts’ will mean they’ll have to forego one of their foreign holidays next year.

The Welsh reference seems to be made about what I overheard being repeated on Radio 4 this morning, the unemployed residents of Merthyr Tydfil – along with Blaenau Gwent it has the highest level of benefits reliance in the UK – could get a bus to Cardiff where there are jobs. The thing is, the distance is 20 miles not 5, which Richard would have known had he done even the slightest bit of checking.

The next point is really offensive, attacking those notoriously overpaid and under-worked ‘middle-class’ teaching assistants. Firstly, the term middle-class does not mean middle-earner when the Daily Mail uses it. In the past they have claimed that the ‘middle class’ was being slammed based on a single-parent family with one salary of £50,000 per annum. Yet the true average wage in the UK is just £26,020, whilst the median gross annual earnings are even less at £20,801 – this is the salary point at which half of the country earns more than you and half less.

So, presumably Richard wants to imply that teaching assistants earn huge salaries and that the ‘cuts’ (which he refers to in inverted commas as if they are some kind of invention for fuck’s sake) might only affect their ability to have a second foreign holiday! These bloody teaching assistants! The thing is the average salary for teaching assistants is actually around £15,153, they are poorly paid and often limited to term-time only contracts – meaning their actual salary is far less than this. Richard Littlejohn as ever revels in bullying the poor from the luxury of his Florida mansion paid for by writing not even two columns a week in which he recycles stories he has read in the Mail.

In a final, astonishingly hypocritical insult he then declares that the cuts are not actually bad at all, its just a media invention:

This sense of grievance is fed by the broadcast media with its endless stage-managed, vested-interest ‘case studies’ intended to terrify the ‘most vulnerable in society’.

I’ve worked in TV and know how ­difficult it is to fill half an hour, let alone a voracious 24-hour news ­channel. But that’s no excuse for some of the lazy, biased reporting.

There is ‘no excuse’ for ‘lazy, biased reporting’? Then do the decent thing and resign Richard. To think that I was actually starting to feel sorry for this clueless, inhuman piece of shit.

The terminally stupid Richard Littlejohn deserves our sympathy

I know it is not news that Richard Littlejohn has no compassion or empathy for anybody deemed foreign to him – or unworthy of life in his eyes – but his column today demonstrates just how deep his misanthropic xenophobia runs in that he cannot even comprehend how anyone else could be compassionate about somebody living in another country. It was perhaps inevitable that Littlejohn would pass comment on the rescue of the Chilean miners and it was certainly inevitable that in doing so he would be demonstrating once again his staggering misanthropy and ignorance.

I have known people to argue in the past that Littlejohn isn’t the deeply ignorant racist that appears in his columns, but that actually he was a fairly intelligent chap who was just writing this stuff for the money; knowing that he can earn more writing trash than he could writing anything intelligent on any given topic. I could always see their point, perhaps he was happy to play this character – after all, he does earn nearly £1m a year for knocking out a few hundred words based solely on flicking through the Daily Mail twice a week.

However, the more I read of Littlejohn’s body of brain vomit the more I really feel that this just isn’t the case.
Littlejohn is not a talented writer, he is not capable of purposely mimicking the writing of an ignorant buffoon, he just happens to be one. He confesses as much on his website by claiming that he believes that journalists:

should be in a state of permanent opposition and scepticism, opposed to vested interests of all political persuasions and fiercely protective of civil liberties.

Before undermining this point by confessing what it is that he really does:

His job is to sit at the back and throw bottles.

As we should all recognise from our school days, the classroom skeptic gained their reputation through intelligent analysis of the classroom / teacher dynamic and smart-ass comments during the lesson – they were, in short, defined by their words / thoughts, not physical actions. Whereas the person throwing bottles was the frustrated student who was utterly unable to understand what was going on around them, thus they had to resort to physical acts to compensate.

Throwing bottles is not the act of an intelligent person, it is the last resort of the terminally stupid.

The description of Richard Littlejohn as the terminally baffled, disinterested idiot throwing bottles from the sidelines is perhaps the only accurate sentence on his entire website – but its accuracy is amusingly unintentional.

Anyway, the point is that Richard Littlejohn’s musings on the rescue of Chilean miners were never going to be
insightful or intelligently provocative, they were just going to be another bottle thrown from the intellectual
wilderness. After his stupidity (and arrogance for believing himself anything but) perhaps Littlejohn’s greatest
failing is his complete lack of humanity. Being completely devoid of empathy for his fellow man allows Littlejohn to live in America as an immigrant but to still hate all other immigrants. He also cannot understand how anybody can exist that looks or acts differently to him – he finds any kind of diversity utterly baffling because of this.

He genuinely does not understand how any person can have any sympathy for a person that they do not know, especially if that other person happens to be a different nationality. His infamous statement about the Rwandan Genocide (in which around 800,000 people were murdered) demonstrates this:

Does anyone really give a monkey’s about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them.

He just cannot understand why anyone would care about black people in a distant land, in the same way that he writes today of the Chilean miner rescue:

I don’t know any of these people. Nor does anyone else in Britain. So why invest so much time and emotional energy in the fate of total strangers?

The answer that I think Richard is striving towards is that most people have a shred of human decency and are able to understand that we all share a common humanity irrespective of our arbitrary geographical locations. We can understand the plight of men being trapped underground, the frailty of life and the awful uncertainty of the waiting loved ones on the surface. It is a very human story, one that demonstrates that as a species we go to great lengths to save those in trouble, even if in the great scheme of things those miners may not find a cure for cancer or live the life of Mother Teresa. We believe – bizarrely according to Littlejohn – in the sanctity of all human life.

Littlejohn’s lack of humanity and human decency allows him to objectify the value of a human life and actively
campaign against equality. Equality, for example, would ensure that prostitutes have as much right to life as nurses. Richard Littlejohn does not agree with this, he is firmly of the opinion that prostitutes are less deserving of life and ‘no great loss’ when they are murdered, after all he considers murder as being merely ‘an occupational hazard’ for a prostitute.

Because he has no compassion, no humanity and no understanding of the human condition Littlejohn has to create other reasons why people would want to watch the Chilean miners being rescued. Rather than the viewer sharing an emotional journey with a fellow human being, they instead become ‘armchair ghouls’ and ‘disaster tourists’ who watch only because there:

was the ever-present possibility that it might all go horribly wrong.

If it had been clear from the off that it was only a matter of time before every last miner was brought out alive, television viewers outside Chile would soon have lost interest and the camera crews would have left in search of some more bankable human misery.

Presumably the search for human misery would have done well to seek out the nearest news agent to pick up a copy of the Mail. Like all Littlejohn columns you are never more than a paragraph away from his rampant xenophobia, in this case he is upset that we care about Chilean miners, but what about the IGNORED BRITISH VICTIMS of accidents at work:

I discovered this week that twice as many men have died in accidents on British building sites since 2001 as have been killed in action in Afghanistan. But you won’t be seeing a Panorama special on them any day soon.

Unlike the Chilean miners, there won’t be any movies made about these unfortunate construction workers, nor any book deals or newspaper serialisations.

Littlejohn’s strange belief that somehow the poor white victim is being ignored once again is perfect fodder for his BNP readership, yet Littlejohn still claims not to be aligned with them. Strangely Richard does not muse over his own newspaper’s reluctance to report these deaths, nor his and its ongoing campaign against ‘elf ‘n’ safety’. As if he was seeking a perfect score of his usual disinformation Littlejohn continues his amazingly oxymoronic statements and campaign against ‘elf ‘n’ safety’. In one paragraph (above) Richard bemoans the amount of deaths on British Building sites since 2001, yet move forward just two paragraphs and you get this:

Call me callous, but I couldn’t help wondering what would have happened if 33 men had been trapped down one of our few remaining British mines.

Under our modern elf ‘n’ safety culture, the emergency services are actively discouraged from risking their own lives to save others.

Well, Richard, which is it? Is Britain just as dangerous a place to work as Chile or is it a country in which ‘elf ‘n’ safety culture’ is all-powerful? You cannot have it both ways, either ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ is wrapping up the entire country in cotton wool, or ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ is failing because twice as many men are still dying on building sites than are dying on active service with the Army in Afghanistan.

In the past I have probably been guilty of saying nasty things about Richard because I mistakenly assumed he knew roughly what he was writing. However, I think I should not give him that credit anymore. His writing – wild inconsistencies, constant oxymorons, complete lack of rational arguments or any understanding of logic – always asks a few questions which I think absolve Richard of a lot of blame.

When he asks questions like: ‘I don’t know any of these people. Nor does anyone else in Britain. So why invest so much time and emotional energy in the fate of total strangers?’ he isn’t being satirical, provocative or rhetorical he’s genuinely confused and desperately seeking some sort of answer. He really does not understand.

If he were back in the classroom he would be hurling a bottle at the blackboard* in frustration and being asked to leave the room again. Remember, Richard Littlejohn’s only crime is being terminally stupid, luckily it is also his punishment. The real blame should be aimed squarely at the newspapers that have paid him handsomely over the years to publish his desperate cries for help.


* Now banned by the PC brigade of course.

The world is full of sexually deprived saddoes with a laptop and a broadband connection

I live in South Wales and my drive to work has been affected over the last year by the construction of a new bypass around Church Village. The last few months I noticed some metal structures being built over the roads (like posh goalposts), which I initially thought were for hanging road signs from. Then they became more elaborate and I thought they had been built for squirrels to use. However, in conversation with a work colleague yesterday I discovered they had actually been built for dormice to use, because they would not cross roads otherwise.

So, imagine my delight when I saw Richard Littlejohn’s column today: ‘A walkway for dormice is a bridge too far…‘, I just knew he had discovered what I had. Quite a feeling to know that thousands of miles away Richard and I shared a moment of discovery. However, I imagine the sharing ends there, given what thoughts I took away from the discovery and what he has managed to spew out.

His column begins – as so many do – with something that will be contradicted by the rest of the column. His claim that:

On the face of it, there’s something rather charming about the decision to build a special bridge to help dormice cross a busy new road.

It reminds us that there are more important things in life than constantly bickering about politics and spending cuts.

Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and our concern for the welfare of even the most humble forms of life is touching.

When I discover that a bypass has been delayed because its proposed route would involve bulldozing the natural habitat of the lesser spotted water vole, I find it strangely reassuring.

Eccentricity goes to the very heart of our identity as a nation. Any society which can be bothered to worry about the impact a new road may have on dormice can’t be all bad.

Is completely ruined by the rest of his column that Britain and the EU (for it is naturally their fault) is a screaming wasteland of insanity for building such bridges for dormice. It is all numbingly familiar, like the time when he claimed at the start of a column: ‘I don’t condone torture’… but then went on to demand that we attach electric cables to the testicles of every suspicious looking foreigner.

It’s a bit silly really and again he misses the whole point of his claim that we’re an ‘eccentric’ land of animal lovers. Surely his initial argument is that it is good that we spend time and effort ensuring that our society tries to work around (to some extent) some of the native inhabitants of our small island; such an argument must be aware that such eccentricity costs money. Furthermore, his use of the word eccentricity actually implies that the cost will not be insignificant.

Let me try and break it down for Richard (in case he ever reads this – you never know). Richard, you are a columnist who is paid around a million pounds a year for choosing around 1000 words twice a week and putting them into your column. You get paid an awful lot of money per word, so you really should be expected to have a mastery of language. The word ‘eccentricity’ is most commonly used in relation to money when someone is spending a lot of it on something considered by others to be wasteful (like: ‘John Smith is eccentric for spending his life savings on a luxury apartment just for his cat’).

This means, Dick, that you cannot then move onto the next part of your column and say the following:

In the scheme of things, a couple of grand spent building an underpass for frogs, in the context of a multi-million-pound motorway extension, is little more than a round of drinks.

Because, Dick, that is not eccentric in any way, is it? Eccentricity in financial terms would be spending £1000 on a motorway extension and £10 million on a underground underpass with escalator, calming music and central heating for moles.

But, you’re not finished, are you Dick, with displaying your fundamental stupidity as you go on:

when I learned that Rhondda Council, in South Wales, had constructed three walkways to allow dormice to traverse a bypass near Pontypridd.

I assumed a couple of workmen had strung a length of wire between two poles and dangled a piece of Welsh cheddar to encourage the dormice to use the makeshift bridge, instead of getting splattered beneath the wheels of an articulated lorry taking bananas from Barry docks to Britain’s greengrocers.

Then I saw the pictures and read about the cost. What should have been an afternoon’s work has escalated into a major engineering endeavour, consuming £190,000.

I mean, sure, they could have dangled a piece of string between two poles, but then that wouldn’t be eccentric, would it, Dick? I know I might be boring you all with what maybe amounts to not a great deal, but I just think that language matters, words matter, meaning matters and that if you’re being paid an obscene amount to string a few together you should at least consider what connotations your choice of words has – particularly if one word seems to completely destroy your argument.

Furthermore, his claim that he imagined the bridges would be cheap and ‘makeshift’ he is using a word that clearly has connotations of not being permanent. After an earthquake people create ‘makeshift’, temporary structures until they are able to rebuild something more solid and lasting in the future. The bypass around Church Village is now a permanent feature of the Welsh landscape, so why is he shocked that the bridges have also been constructed in the same fashion? Perhaps, once again, he is just stringing these words together without really thinking.

To put things into a little perspective, the overall project has a budget of £90 million, so £190,000 makes up just 0.2% of the overall project budget. Again, this is the complete opposite of eccentric spending. Consider it this way: a new bypass has been built and just 0.2% of the budget has been put aside to deal with the impact on local wildlife. Hardly seems like the kind of outrageous waste that should be written about by a columnist, does it?

Just one final point to demonstrate Dick’s complete lack of self-awareness is that he writes this in another segment today:

The world is full of sexually deprived saddoes with a laptop and a broadband connection.

Couldn’t agree more, Dick. Some of them are even paid obscene amounts by the Daily Mail, or choose to write extremely misogynistic, sexually confused ‘novels’ in their spare time.

You couldn’t make it up!

Mind how you go, Richard

Another day, another lazy ‘Mind how you go’ section from serial bullshitter Richard Littlejohn. This week he casually claims that:

In Suffolk, the police are giving stolen bikes to young offenders to help them look for work.

Of course, this is not true and if Richard could be bothered to try and remotely justify his huge salary by doing the faintest bit of research he would know this. Checking the recent news section of Suffolk Police’s website gives a detailed description of the scheme:

Police in Ipswich are to trial a Re-cycling Cycles scheme whereby the Norfolk and Suffolk Probation Trust can apply to the police for a cycle to be donated to them for use by a prolific and other priority offender (PPO).

So, firstly, the scheme is only currently being trialled in Ipswich, not the whole of Suffolk as Littlejohn implies. Furthermore, the bikes are never ‘given’ but have to be applied for by the Probation Trust and then:

Each application for a cycle will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Only PPOs who are engaging and complying with the PPO scheme and where provision of a cycle would be beneficial to them will be considered.

A disclaimer has been produced by the police, which the probation service will sign on receipt of each bike successfully applied for. This will be filed in the property store in case the owner of the bike becomes known. It will then be recovered from the probation service and returned to the rightful owner. The probation service will allocate and manage the bikes.

Detective Inspector Richard Crabtree of Ipswich CID who came up with the Re-cycling Cycles scheme said, “Bikes will not be given to every PPO and are not to be seen as gifts. They will be on loan from the probation service to the PPO who will be responsible for their own cycle safety.

This little casual line from Littlejohn pretty much sums up the sneering output of the Daily Mail, in fact his column is a nice little window into the Daily Mail mentality: on the one hand you have his main piece which moans about the problem of irresponsible dog-owners letting their dogs foul parks and pavements (something I am more than aware of, being a park footballer) and his desire that something be done to tackle this problem. Then, straight afterward, when the police try a simple, free initiative to try and help ‘prolific and priority offenders’ get employment and turn their backs on crime, he mocks them with one short, misleading sentence, even though you’d think he (and the Mail) would be all for free initiatives that were trying to reduce crime.

The Daily Mail and Littlejohn never want to offer anything constructive on any issue, they just want to scream ‘it’s all shit, we should all be outraged’ from the sidelines no matter whether what they are reporting has any merit or not. They cannot moan about crime, anti-social behavior or dog-fouling whilst simultaneously also bemoaning any attempt to tackle them. For example, Richard argues that attempts to shame dog owners into modifying their behavior are always doomed to fail and what we need to do is tackle ‘the core problem’. So, how does he suggest we tackle ‘the core problem': by employing more people to hose down streets with water and bleach. This doesn’t tackle ‘the core problem’ at all, it just means we accept the behavior of irresponsible dog owners and are happy to clean up after them.

As ever with Richard Littlejohn even a cursory glance at his column – even on topics you really agree with, like dog fouling – demonstrates that he has no intellectual capacity whatsoever – as demonstrated whenever he has appeared and made an utter arse of himself in radio shows and TV programmes. His capacity for only knowing enough to push the buttons of a bovine readership has led him to lead an isolated existence in a gated mansion in Florida where he would never dream of entertaining any form of criticism or debate: because he has not got the balls or brains to do so.

Getting back to the bike story, it is also strange why Richard refers to the bikes being given to ‘young offenders’, given that the word ‘young’ does not appear a single time in the news report on the Suffolk website – and that the news report clearly states that it is open to all ‘prolific’ and other ‘priority’ offenders. The phrase ‘young offender’ is used by Littlejohn to invoke suitable outrage from Mail readers; here are young criminals who should be locked up and given the cane instead being GIVEN BIKES! It’s PC gone mad and so forth.

Yet, in reality, it is a small trial in Ipswich in which probation officers can apply – for any prolific or priority offender – on a case-by-case basis for the loan of a bike that would otherwise be doing nothing until is was sold on at a police auction. The scheme is a trial, it might help reduce re-offending, it might not; but what seems fairly clear is that reducing crime is something the Daily Mail seems to want, so really they should reserve judgment or even support the scheme until the results are known. Otherwise I’d argue that they give up the right to moan about social issues, given that they seem hell-bent on sneering any attempt to improve social problems.

Richard Littlejohn’s throwaway ‘facts’

This is part three of ‘Richard Littlejohn: The cloaca series


Richard Littlejohn’s columns always contain a few titbits of misinformation in which he repeats – normally with exaggeration – stuff he has read in the Daily Mail. Yesterday’s column was no different when he was making the usual slurs against gypsies. At the end of this slur he suggests that:

It might explain why they’re Tarmacking over Snowdonia.

It is classic Littlejohn. The story he is referring to has alway been thoroughly torn to pieces by Tabloidwatch, yet here he is after the event still repeating the original lie. The story was a typical cry of outrage that was only heard in the head of the Daily Mail journalist:

Snowden is not being tarmacked

Tabloidwatch looks at how the claim of the ‘tarmac path up Snowden’ ebbs away from a ‘tarmac pathway… laid on one of the ancient routes’ to ‘work to level and partly tarmac a mile-and-a-half of the Miners’ Track’ until finally we emerge at the truth which is:

Emyr Williams, director of land management at the SNPA, said: ‘The path stretches for two and a half kilometres and the only part which has been tarmacked is three separate stretches totalling only 100 metres.

Furthermore, it is also made clear that the tarmac has ben covered with crushed stone to make it in keeping with the rest of the path and one of the reasons behind the work was that the existing path was badly eroded.

Still, this is all beyond Littlejohn who simply makes the claim: ‘they’re Tarmacking over Snowdonia’.

What a complete and utter cloaca.


I am getting married in 23 days and have entered a competition to try and win my bride an amazing holiday. To win the competition I need your support, I am currently in 6th place and need you to vote for me to win. Voting takes less than 30 seconds and you can vote every 24 hours. Please vote, share, tweet and do whatever you can to spread the word, I cannot win this without your support. Thank you.

Richard Littlejohn on torture

This is part two of ‘Richard Littlejohn: The cloaca series


It is vitally important to understand that Richard Littlejohn does not condone torture, but that he does condone torture whenever he writes about it.

I’ve described the Daily Mail writer / reader’s use of the word ‘but’ as essentially an admission that they are about to write something that contradicts the first part of the sentence that has gone before it. For example, the old line ‘I’m not racist, but most crime is committed by black men’ is a typical example of pre-empting an accusation by stating that you are not guilty of something you know you are about to be accused of.

In today’s column Richard Littlejohn uses this exact technique in textbook fashion when he talks about the use of torture on people suspected of being connected to terrorist activities:

I’m not condoning torture, but it would be naive to pretend that it doesn’t exist in less scrupulous parts of the world…

The problem I have with this statement is that his argument is that torture happens, therefore we should accept it and use it when it suits us. Let’s try using the argument with another kind of crime, rape for example:

I’m not condoning rape, but it would be naive to pretend that it doesn’t happen in less scrupulous parts of the world…

You are either against something or for it. You cannot be against torture if you then accept that it happens in other countries and that we therefore ‘can’t discount vital intelligence simply because it hasn’t been gleaned under the Queensberry Rules’. Littlejohn’s argument for the use of torture is always the same: whatever it takes to get results is justified when it comes to ‘terrorists’. Yet what results has torture actually achieved? Littlejohn always argues that those suspected of terrorism are guilty because of where they were ‘picked up’ (he used the exact same argument to suggest that Binyam Mohamed is guilty):

They were arrested variously in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Africa  –  on the battlefield, in Al Qaeda training camps and safe houses, or trying to board planes with fake documents.

This is what Littlejohn lists – and all that he lists – to support his argument that: ‘There seems to be convincing evidence of their involvement in terrorist activity’. Which is complete rubbish, it is precisely because torture has failed to procure any evidence – convincing or otherwise – that these men are eventually being released, many of them after spending several years in ‘detention camps’  – a useful euphemism designed to make us think of naughty schoolchildren passing an hour idly staring out of a window after school, rather than adults locked up for years in a constant ritual of sensory deprivation and other forms of torture. If all these years of torture and detention have left columnists like Littlejohn with no other evidence than the locations where they were originally ‘picked up’ then I would be arguing that not only is torture completely barbaric and amoral, it is also a complete waste of time.

Probably the worst part about Littlejohn claiming that he does not condone torture is not just the fact that he clearly attempts to condone torture for the next few paragraphs of this article, but the fact that he has told us in the past exactly what he thinks about torture: ‘How should we grill terrorists – with a cuddle and a cup of tea?‘. Here he makes it clear in the very first paragraph what he thinks of brown people who allege that they have been tortured with the implicit collusion of the British government:

Maybe I’m in a minority of one here, but I still don’t understand the fuss over Binyam Mohamed.

And he argues that the British should be using torture:

British intelligence officers are accused of colluding in his alleged torture on the basis of supplying a few pertinent questions to his interrogators about what he got up to while he was living here.

That’s their job, for heaven’s sake. They would be failing in their duty if they didn’t make every attempt to glean information from suspected terrorists who want to do us harm.

No one is actually accusing any British officer of physically torturing him, merely of turning a blind eye. There is a legitimate debate as to whether he was tortured at all, in the true sense of the word.

Condoning torture does not get much clearer than that – especially his sinister suggestion that what is accused of having taken place might not be ‘real’ torture. This becomes ever more callous when Littlejohn then goes on to  list the treatment he suggest might not really be torture:

While at Gitmo, he was shackled and deprived of sleep – practices approved at the time by the White House. He is also said to have suffered severe mental stress over threats that he would be removed from U.S. custody and transferred to a more cruel regime.

OK, so the Americans put the frighteners on him, but if they hadn’t cared less whether he lived or died, they wouldn’t have had him on suicide watch.

His treatment wasn’t pretty, but it has to be put in context of the 3,000 people killed in the worst-ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

As to his claims to have suffered genital mutilation while in CIA custody in Morocco, there has never been any firm evidence produced.

Littlejohn is happy to suggest that the torture might not have happened because of the lack of ‘any firm evidence’ yet he is happy to condemn as guilty those suspected of terrorism on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Richard Littlejohn condones, justifies and makes feeble excuses for the use of torture although – as his columns unintentionally make clear – no useful evidence seems to be procured through the use of torture.

The two columns have another link, equally as unpleasant, and it goes like this: ‘OK, so we torture people, it’s not like they’re even British anyway!’. In the case of Binyam Mohamed he argues:

Why did the Government go to such lengths to secure his release from Guantanamo Bay and then charter a private jet to fly him ‘home’ to Britain?

For the umpteenth time, he’s not British. He’s not even a British ‘resident’…

Frankly, he is not our responsibility. We owe him nothing. Why would anyone in their right mind want him back?

In his latest column he makes much the same argument, but in even more extraordinary terms:

we bend over backwards to give succour to our enemies. Only a couple of these men can be described as ‘British’ by any stretch of the imagination.

They are mostly foreign nationals, granted permission to live in Britain, who voluntarily chose to move abroad.

The argument seems at worst to be implying that anyone foreign is our ‘enemy’ and at best to be arguing that as they are not – in Littlejohn’s eyes – technically British they do not deserve our concern or protection from torture. You could argue that the only technicality that makes them not British in Littlejohn’s eyes is their skin colour or religion.

Richard Littlejohn condones the torture of people racially or ethnically different to himself. His calculated ‘but’ is a complete shambles and is contradicted not by the paragraphs that follow in the same column, but also by the attitudes and columns that have come and gone before it. He condones torture not necessarily because he has the stomach for human suffering, but because he does not view people racially different from him as human beings. This is why he goes to such lengths to argue that the people being tortured are not really British (even when they clearly have British passports) and why he can dismiss the 1994 genocide in Rwanda with the question:  ‘Does anyone really give a monkey’s about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them’.

Richard Littlejohn is a cloaca, this cannot ever be stated enough.


I am getting married in 23 days and have entered a competition to try and win my bride an amazing holiday. To win the competition I need your support, I am currently in 7th place and need you to vote for me to win. Voting takes less than 30 seconds and you can vote every 24 hours. Please vote, share, tweet and do whatever you can to spread the word, I cannot win this without your support. Thank you.

Siding with the enemy

This is part one of ‘Richard Littlejohn: The cloaca series


In August 2006 Richard Littlejohn in an article about Muslims entitled ‘If they hate us so much, why don’t they leave?‘ wrote about Muslims that a:

sizeable minority… have no desire to adapt to Britain. They want Britain to adapt to them. For a large number of Muslims, their faith is incompatible with Western freedoms and democracy.

This being the case, Littlejohn argued, why don’t they simply bugger off?

In 2007 Littlejohn produced a short ‘cut-out-and-keep guide to the two dominant branches of Islam‘:

Sunnis are the peace-loving, Saudi-backed wing who brought you Al Qaeda. Shias are the peace-loving, Iranian-backed strain behind Hamas and Hezbollah. I hope that helps.

Very helpful and very tolerant towards Muslims I’m sure everyone would agree.

In 2006 Littlejohn in an article entitled ‘Is it any wonder Britons are leaving in droves?1 wrote that:

You don’t have to be a card-carrying BNP neanderthal to worry about the consequences of this sea-change in our society. It is simply impossible to absorb and assimilate this many people from a myriad of cultures in such a short space of time – that’s always assuming they want to assimilate, which in the case of many Muslims they don’t.

So the trend tends to imply that Muslims are bad, they don’t integrate in the UK, don’t like us and should really just bugger off back home.

Yet in spite of this, Littlejohn in 2009 wrote a column in support of the intolerance of some Muslims simply because those Muslims (and Christians – but Littlejohn doesn’t seem to hate them) were being intolerant of the right thing: gays.

However, do not think that Littlejohn is going soft as he slowly approaches his eagerly awaited death, he still finds time in the same column to laugh at a devout Muslim for having a funny beard.

Littlejohn’s primary column seems to argue that young people today are uneducated and ignorant2 (the majority ‘think Auschwitz is a brand of beer’) because they are having:

lessons ‘celebrating’ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month… smuggled in under the radar in the guise of ‘history’.

Some parents decided to withdraw their children from such lessons, and it is these parents Littlejohn bravely defends because:

these aren’t the usual feckless mothers and absentee fathers content to let their children bunk off school. They are deeply moral and religious people who object to their children being force-fed homosexual propaganda in the classroom.

One wonders if these ‘deeply moral and religious people’ were arguing for lessons on Islam Littlejohn might be screaming ‘PC gone mad’ or ‘to hell in a handcart’ before trying to force-feed those same parents his favourite word: ‘integration’ (‘or go back to your own country’, he sometimes adds).

Leaving aside Littlejohn siding with his traditional enemy against the gays, it is worth examining exactly what Littlejohn finds so abhorrent about the teaching of diversity. Littlejohn is obsessed with the idea that teaching diversity is actually a propaganda mission determined to turn all of our children gay:

Regular readers may remember these fairy stories from a couple of years ago, when they were part of a £600,000 government-sponsored project designed to peddle gay propaganda to children as young as five.

‘gay propaganda’? Littlejohn seems to have such a paranoid and warped mindset that he even states that ‘this isn’t education, it’s cultural fascism.’

He also does not seem to understand that being gay isn’t really a choice. Why a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, anyway?’ he argues, ‘Why not a Foot Fetishists, Spankers, Sadists and Masochists History Month?’. Littlejohn lists these fetishes for two main reasons: one; to make Gay, Bisexual or Transgender people sound as perverted as Mail readers assume those who practice those fetishes to be, and two; to make it seem as if being Gay is a behaviour that one can choose not to indulge in – with the implicit assumption that to indulge in such a behaviour is a perversion.

His arguments are linked to a basic ignorance of what it is to be ‘gay’ – it could of course be that I’m talking rubbish as I am not gay – but I understand that people are born with a predisposed sexual preference; therefore no amount of propaganda is going to make a gay person straight or a straight person gay. No doubt Littlejohn still believes that gay men could be turned straight if only they were made to play rugby or visit a lap-dancing club.

Teaching diversity is important because it demonstrates to children that we live in a tolerant society where they can grow up and be accepted for who they are. The gay child in the classroom who is battling with desires he or she may not understand is relieved to find out that he or she is not alone, not perverted and won’t be ostracised or shunned by his or her fellow citizens for simply being whom he or she is. The straight child in the class will realise that being gay isn’t some horrific crime or perversion, something to be hidden or worse, scorned at by others. Teaching tolerance of others regardless of perceived differences is an important part of defeating fascist ideology; not – as Littlejohn stupidly argues – fascism in itself; nor is it ‘propaganda’.

That Littlejohn can pretend to understand the concerns (intolerance) of devout Muslims when those concerns (intolerance) align themselves; yet underneath in the very same column completely mock devout Muslim faith is astonishing – if it only highlights the moronic sycophancy of his readers.

PC Javid Iqbal (sub-heading: ‘Shiver me timbers – it’s Cut-Throat Pete’) is a PC who alleges racial abuse, from the routine mocking of his beard to being called a ‘fucking paki’ and left on patrols without a lift back to the police station. However, Littlejohn, as he makes clear in his sub-title is only interested in mocking the way that he looks:

I’ve never seen a dafter beard than the one sported by PC Javid Iqbal.It’s less a beard, more a privet hedge. If he entered it in a Best-Kept Village competition, he’d win a gold rosette.

It resembles those fake pirate beards we used to cut out of comics. PC Javid is a dead ringer for Captain Pugwash’s adversary, Cut-Throat Pete.

I wonder if it’s real, or comes off with his glasses, like one of those Groucho Marx masks. No wonder his colleagues couldn’t help poking fun at it.

Littlejohn, after this mocking introduction, mentions that ‘ PC Javid says the beard is part of his Islamic religion’ but mocks this reason immediately: ‘But surely a Jeremy Beadle or a Manfred Mann would have done the job just as well.’

For good measure Littlejohn makes a mockery of his claim for compensation:

Needless to say, PC Javid is suing for com-pen-say-shun and claims to be suffering from depression. In case that argument is laughed out of court, he also claims to have been called a ‘f***ing Paki’, which is usually worth about 50 grand.

Before using the magic but to imply that he is unlikely to have actually suffered racist abuse:

If he has genuinely been racially abused, fair enough. But Bedfordshire Police is one of the most ‘diversity-sensitive’ forces in Britain, especially when it comes to its large Muslim population.

And finally concluding that he was probably a rubbish policeman, and is better suited to being a ‘garden gnome':

And the official line is that PC Javid was sacked because he was ‘not cut out to be a police officer’. Sounds about right.

A garden gnome, maybe, just not a copper. Last time I saw a beard like that it was sitting on a toadstool, holding a fishing rod.

I find it difficult to comprehend how Littlejohn has the audacity to write a piece showing solidarity with  ‘deeply moral and religious people [Muslims – photographed next to article] who object to their children being force-fed homosexual propaganda in the classroom’ and immediately following it with a piece completely mocking a Muslim who is presumably just as ‘deeply moral and religious’.

I guess it is clear to see how Littlejohn picks those to vilify and those to support: intolerant of gays = support; growing a beard that looks a bit funny but for the same religious belief but no mention of intolerance towards gays = vilify and mock.

Perhaps I just can’t believe that such an utter cloaca exists.


1. The logic of Littlejohn’s argument (there are so many foreigners in the UK, Brits are being forced to emigrate) is hysterical. If people dislike other cultures and foreign people that much, how can moving abroad, to a different culture full of foreigners, possibly be the answer? The whole article is staggeringly hypocritical; on the one hand Littlejohn finds it ‘profoundly depressing that so many energetic, qualified young people feel they have no future in the country of their birth’ and therefore choose to move abroad for a ‘better life’. On the other hand, foreign people moving to the UK, many precisely for the same reason as those bright young things leaving the UK, are a terrible thing.

Littlejohn really makes it clear that he values British people above people of other nations. How can he understand emigration (living as he does, mostly in Florida, USA) but not understand immigration? They are the same thing.

2. The irony of Littlejohn complaining about education standards… whilst simultaneously writing absolute drivel for a specifically targeted audience of morons.

This article first appeared on Angry Mob back in March 2009.


I am getting married in 23 days and have entered a competition to try and win my bride an amazing holiday. To win the competition I need your support, I am currently in 7th place and need you to vote for me to win. Voting takes less than 30 seconds and you can vote every 24 hours. Please vote, share, tweet and do whatever you can to spread the word, I cannot win this without your support. Thank you.

Richard Littlejohn: The cloaca series

You may have noticed a campaign started fairly recently by Tim Ireland, a longtime member of the legendary b3ta.com to get Google images returning pictures of Richard Littlejohn for searches of ‘cloaca’ and ‘pictures of feathery mess-holes in searches for “richard littlejohn”‘. So, you may be wondering exactly what a ‘cloca’ is, I certainly was:

In zoological anatomy, a cloaca is the posterior opening that serves as the only such opening for the intestinal, reproductive, and urinary tracts of certain animal species. The word comes from Latin, and means sewer. All birds, reptiles, and amphibians possess this orifice, from which they excrete both urine and faeces, unlike placental mammals, which possess two separate orifices for evacuation.
(source [via Bloggerheads])

So, you might be wondering what the point of this all is, apart from the obvious amusement of puckered posteriors returning in Google images when an unsuspecting Daily Mail reader is searching for images of their beloved Littlejohn. There is a reason, and a good reason, given by Tim Ireland for doing this and it doesn’t just revolve around Littlejohn. Tim argues that the word ‘cunt’ – whilst still extremely offensive to many – is overused and fails to adequately explain the real outpouring of sewage that many tabloid journalists and general Internet warriors produce each day. Tim argues that the cloaca is in effect the most powerful swear word of all, with the benefits that it passes most swear filters and its Latin meaning of ‘sewer’ really does strike a meaningful chord with journalism.

Therefore the picture of Littlejohn’s happy face (which is badly out of date if you have seen the droopy dead-eyed cloaca on Question Time recently) you see here is not a picture of Richard Littlejohn; it is a picture of a cloaca:

Cloaca
A Cloaca

To try and justify this description Angry Mob has been tidying up the archive and will be posting a series of articles on Richard Littlejohn, demonstrating just why he can rightly be labelled as a definitive cloaca.

Watch this space, the first post in this series will be up shortly.


I am getting married in 23 days and have entered a competition to try and win my bride an amazing holiday. To win the competition I need your support, I am currently in 7th place and need you to vote for me to win. Voting takes less than 30 seconds and you can vote every 24 hours. Please vote, share, tweet and do whatever you can to spread the word, I cannot win this without your support. Thank you.