ANGRY MOB

Another Friday morning and another hideously hypocritical festering turd of a Richard Littlejohn column infects my PC screen. In it Richard tells us that the 'real world' is sunny and all is well, but he still woke up yesterday wanting to slash his wrists (oh how happy the real world would be if he actually did). Why would he be feeling this way? Because of Gordon Brown of course:

It was the soul-destroying sound of Gordon Brown on the Today programme, droning on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…

Not for the first time, I found myself shouting at the wireless - which isn't an ideal way to start your day. Stop telling lies. Answer the damn question. For once in your life, don't patronise us. Oh, for heaven's sake, just shut up.

The irony of Richard Littlejohn writing this makes me want to put my fist through my PC screen, but I'd much rather Richard actually engaged with his critics in an adult debate about any of his favourite topics, because if he did that he'd be utterly destroyed. Littlejohn is too thick, too ignorant and too wrong to do this. Hence why on Question Time he forced an audience member to take back his perfectly reasonable question that he was one of the BNP's favourite writers. Littlejohn's blunt-headedness was entirely predictable: 'I've called them knuckle-dragging scum etc in my column, so take that back', he completely misses the point that his columns regularly attract a large BNP comment base and he provides the BNP with exactly the right blend of bullshit and outrage that they thrive on.

If Littlejohn actually engaged in a sensible debate he would realise how he fuels the BNP and shares many of the same attitudes, but as demonstrated in his clashes with Will Self and Johann Hari, he is just a blustering coward who shouts down his opponents or dishes out childish insults. Littlejohn seems to think that thanking his mail box for supporting him every now and again is engaging with his audience, or thanking some idiots who paid to attend a 'literary' lunch with. It isn't Richard, how about you tackle some real questions or topics once in a while, rather than writing horseshit from a gated mansion in Florida. Perhaps if you did, you could then criticise others for not doing the same you hypocritical coward.

Before Littlejohn even got into any of the above he couldn't resist a quick plug for his new book, claiming that sales were good. Which is a surprise given that Amazon have already started slashing the price by 50%, in preparation for the hordes of 1p copies that will be available shortly.

Here's a tip for your Littlejohn fans on a budget: rather than waste £6.49 on his book, why not just visit the Daily Mail website and copy and paste Littlejohn's archive into a Word Document and print it. Get a nice A4 sheet of cardboard, defecate on it, and bingo: a front cover. Which reminds me, Littlejohn's website is back up and runninggiven that he has something else to sell - funny how it was abandoned when he wasn't whoring anything isn't it? Just look at it, I think the pen dripping poison is a designer having a laugh and Littlejohn isn't in on it. Likewise, look at the title in the browser bar, he is referred to as 'Richard Little John', brilliant, the web designers have managed a small cock joke!

I do have some issues with accuracy though, the cartoon drawing on the front page is missing proper lines of face fat, and the grinning photo on 'the career' page is badly out of date - considering the bloated mess that waddled into the Question Time studio the other night. It also fails to mention what an utter lying bastard he is as well. Which is why I'm offering to set up and host an alternative Richard Littlejohn website, perhaps links to the latest blog posts on his lies, homophobia racism and general shitness. If anyone is interested in getting involved with content / running it / graphic design, email me at angrymobATuponnothing.co.uk (replacing AT with @ of course).

For now though, enjoy these comments from his latest column:

"The LibDems have unveiled a poster modelled on the Tories' 'Labour's tax bombshell' campaign in 1992. It claims, without a shred of evidence, that Conservatives are planning to put up VAT." says Richard Littlejohn.

I'm not sure why you're upset about someone making claims without a shred of evidence. It's pretty well your rasion d'etre.

- ZedsDeadBed, Truro, UK, 9/4/2010 8:46 Click to rate Rating 22

I'm genuinely surprised by this. do you really get paid for churning such dull nonsense.

- David, London, 9/4/2010 0:40 Click to rate Rating 17

If the quality of this article is anything t go by its no wonder the price of your new book has been slashed only a week after its release

- Simon, Newcastle, 9/4/2010 0:53 Click to rate Rating 17

Not long agoI tried to examine just what sort of person thinks Richard Littlejohn is a serious social commentator, and today I'm going to just copy and paste one comment from underneath his column today:

The Government can't tell us what we should think, as much as fascist labour would love to control our minds. You can't force people to like Gays, you can't someone who they should allow in to their homes even if it is run as a B&B, right of admission is at the discretion of the business owners. I have nothing against Gays, but I am really sick of many of them thinking they are special and deserve special treatment, they are special and should get on with life like everyone else has to.

- Kerry, Cheshire, 6/4/2010 7:32 Click to rate Rating 2

Kerry, wants right of admission to be at the discretion of the owner, meaning they can refuse to accommodate gay couples for the night if they wish. Yet, somehow, gay couples wanting to be treated exactly the same as other couples, in not being turned away for the night are in Kerry's eyes wanting 'special treatment'. The whole point of this current debate is whether B&B owners have the right to discriminate against gay people, seeking equality is not the same as seeking 'special treatment' and turning away someone based purely on their sexuality is discrimination.

Littlejohn tries hard to push his liberal credentials throughout his column, but lets himself down when he refers to Ben Summerskill as 'the hate-mongering bigot who runs the homosexual pressure group Stonewall'. The whole piece is focused on the 'hate-mongering' left who want to force us all to accept gay people, or as Littlejohn phrases it - again: 'I have often argued in this column that those who force 'tolerance' down our throats are among the most intolerant bullies on Earth.' Yet, this kind of argument ignores the real problem: which is intolerance. If people were more tolerant then we wouldn't need pressure groups or legislation to force people to treat people equally.

You might not like gay people, you might find the idea of them staying in your hotel distasteful or whatever, but that should be irrelevant: you do not have the right to discriminate against them. Littlejohn argues that he thought the B&B owners were wrong in not letting the couple stay, yet he then attacks anyone who tries to force the B&B owners to have no choice but to treat people equally. So what he is basically saying is that he is on the side of gay people in theory, yet in practice he doesn't want 'tolerance' forced down his throat. Ideally it seems, he supports the ideal of tolerance, but only as long as no practical steps are taken towards achieving it.

As soon as you actually try to take practical steps towards tolerance or equality the same old accusations are wheeled out - you're a 'diversity nazi', you're the real fascist for taking away our fundamental right to be bigots. Those seeking equality become the real bigots - as Littlejohn describes Stonewall on a regular basis - and the groups affected by the arguments are labelled as seeking 'special treatment', when all they are really seeking is equality.

Tabloidwatch has already pointed out that Richard Littlejohn's drivel on town hall 'Nazis' is about as reliable and factually accurate as normal, but I felt that some comment must be made on 'Gary's' accompanying picture. Not for the first time it seems in pretty bad taste. If you haven't seen it, here it is, (I personally don't give a shit about nicking it and putting it here):

Firstly, like all of Gary's cartoons, it is a simplistic pile of shit created for the sort of utter moron that actually thinks Richard Littlejohn is a working class hero fighting the good fight. But more importantly, it is full of Richard Littlejohn stereotypes and ignorant assumptions. For example, the 'Diversity Manager' is black, because according to Littlejohn only black people could be concerned with issues of equality and race relations. Littlejohn absolutely slates diversity 'nazis' and the cartoon plays on the fact that groups like the BNP think that 'white culture' (whatever that is supposed to be) is under attack by other cultural groups. Here we have a black person employed to be a diversity manager, but, because they are black we can assume that it's just another attack on the poor white person who no longer has any rights.

I don't think i'm making unfounded allegations that having the diversity manager a black person is racist and pretty crassly offensive. I'm white, but I care about diversity because I really don't think people should be judged by anything other than their character. You don't have to be from a different cultural background or have non-white skin to be interested in diversity, you just have to be a half-decent human being. Not that you run into too many of them on the Daily Mail website (either as writers or readers).

The depiction of the 'transgender co-ordinator' is just the same: a hairy man in a dress, smoking a pipe with a tattoo of an anchor on his arm. Clearly, anybody with gender issues is the perfect target to be mocked - the comedy moustache, smoking a pipe whilst wearing a dress, as well as the unsubtle tattoo - oh, he's a sailor, how original. Still, originality is the last thing the average Littlejohn reader is looking for. Again, the implication is that councils are making up jobs for freaks and paying them to be freaks. It is deeply stereotyped, ignorant and designed to be divisive. Like most topics Littlejohn engages with, rather than try to actually understand an issue he just mocks it and dismisses it as crazy and enforced by evil (Nazis).

One comment - currently 752 in the red - tries to engage with just how utterly silly and offensive the 'diversity nazi' label is, and I think it is worth quoting here:

Quite how anyone should engage with Richard Littlejohn as a serious social commentator when he uses such a stupidly offensive phrase is beyond me. However, the trouble is that there are a lot of stupid people out there who genuinely think Littlejohn is great. Take for example a comment on this site a while back on a post about Littlejohn:

Now, I realise the commenter (Barry Faulkner) might find this a bit offensive, but it seems pretty clear that Barry is a bit of an idiot. You're probably thinking this is a bit presumptuous, but then I have some evidence to back up my claim: Barry linked to his blog. Wonderfully titled: 'Lies Damn lies enough is enough' this blog is the kind of semi-literate childlike ramblings that you would expect from the sort of person who thinks Littlejohn is a serious and worthwhile social commentator. He's the sort of person that could probably sit there with a straight face and argue that people interested in equality and fairness for all human beings are actually 'diversity nazis'.

Visit his blog, try to read some of his posts (it is written by someone who cannot use a full-stop, you could argue it is a modernist stream of consciousness, but I'm not feeling that generous today). Yet, he claims to have 'Started work at 15 in Advertising, onto some TV writing and script editing in the comedy field in the 80/90s', I shudder to think what his scripts turned out like.

I guess you could consider this a smug attack at another blogger, but I'm trying to make the point that Littlejohn is written for a certain audience and that although it is so easy to deconstruct his lies and point out how ludicrous some of his catchphrases are, some people actually share his worldview. This is the danger of myths and half-truths, debunking them doesn't stop everybody believing them, the only way to stop them gaining credibility is to not let tabloid hacks publish them in the first place, because pretty quickly the myth spreads around the world and Google only records the myth, not the reality.