First Broken Britain, Now Broken Blobby

I’m sure Daily Mail readers all over the country are again asking: ‘Is nothing sacred in this once-Great Britain’ as today they’ve been subjected to the harrowing, tragic dilapidation and destruction – at the hands of ‘ravers’ no less – of Noel Edmonds’ ‘Blobbyland’. The article – complete with 10 heart-wrenching photos – tries to imply that 10 years of total abandonment isn’t at fault for the overgrown trees, shrubs and general grubbiness of the place, but is actually the fault of ‘ravers’.

Naturally, the only evidence of ‘ravers’ is the fact that some furniture and stuff is broken and that the bed appears to be unmade, hardly conclusive. However, the whole article is a strangely mournful reminiscence of something unimaginably trashy and unfunny – this makes about as much sense as people getting misty-eyed about a stack of Richard Littlejohn articles rotting in a damp woodland. Blobby was hardly a national icon, and Blobbyland was never going to be a site of national importance to be protected and maintained by the National Trust.

Daily Mail readers seem torn between comments like:


Which seems to argue that before Gordon Brown took charge abandoned buildings didn’t decay and leaves didn’t fall off of trees and comments like this:


Which kind of marvel at the utter pointlessness of the whole article. It is interesting to note that Richard’s criticism could be equally compelling and accurate if you replaced ‘Blobby’ with ‘Littlejohn’.

The article also includes some quotations from a ‘Mr Blobby fan, Chris Bryant, 25’ who laments that:

‘I remember it being really good fun. It was amazing wandering round Mr Blobby’s house, and it’s a shame it’s now been completely wrecked.

‘The ravers should have more respect for Mr Blobby. He was a hero to a lot of kids and the thought of them taking drugs and having all-night raves in his house is completely disrespectful.’

As a commenter points out:


Others point out that perhaps it is Chris Bryant who is the only ‘raver’ here and much more besides. Of course though, no Daily Mail comments section would be complete without a dig about Gordon Brown:

I hope you die

Mr Blobby would have been proud of a punchline as predictable and painfully unfunny as that. I’ll leave it to another reader to sum up the Daily Mail and this story:

Summing Up

Mail Readers Think Britain is worst place to live in

Tabloid Watch points out that today’s Mail article claiming Britain is the worst country in Europe only actually considers life in 10 European countries and has a strange obsession with fuel prices and keeping our homes warm. Tabloid Watch points out that this might just be because the ‘survey’ was conducted by uSwitch, a website just happening to offer the service of finding you a cheaper energy supplier. Naturally the Mail – and many others who claim to hate the very country they long to save – pick up this article and churn it out even though it serves as little more than free advertising for uSwitch and a chance for the newspaper to show off more ‘evidence’ that Britain really is the worst country, ever.

Surely though, Mail readers – those people that complain about anyone moving into their precious Britain – would not support the claim that Britain is the worst country in Europe:

Worst, Country, Ever.

Oh. They do. Well, why don’t they all just do us a favour and fuck off then?

Littlejohn Strikes Again!

At the end of his column of bile 22nd September Richard Littlejohn included the following few lines:

Who you gonna call…?

While all the main parties now accept belatedly that there must be cuts in public spending, the message doesn’t seem to have permeated downwards.

Town Halls are still advertising an exciting array of lucrative, pointless non-jobs. Lancashire County Council, for instance, is desperately seeking a Myth Busting Project Manager on £30,000 a year, plus usual perks.

The successful applicant will be responsible for ‘researching Lancashire communities’ attitudes and responses to migrants and formulate and deliver a positive campaign to dispel negative myths and perceptions…’

After that, I lost the will to live. However did they manage without one?

When the money’s running out and it don’t look good, who you gonna call…? Mythbusters!

Now I have to admit that Lancashire County Council could probably have chosen slightly better phraseology for this job advert from a public relations point of view but then presumably, at the request of the Daily Mail, all the PR experts have been fired. Perhaps more to the point, I am suffering under the illusion that the job of newspapers is to inform their readers about what’s happening in the world and thus when faced with something like this, it is important for them to look beneath the surface and find out the truth.

Typically the Guardian has looked behind the headline and got somewhere nearer the truth of the matter. Firstly, it is a Conservative-led council that’s responsible for this and it’s a multi-agency post (including the Police and Fire Service), paid for from visa fees. In a community where leaflets have been circulated claiming that the Muslims are responsible for the drug problem, if I was a LCC tax payer, I’d want to know what my local government/police was doing about this! A mythbuster is clearly needed!

As a final irony, the Tax Payers Alliance, anxious to boost their profile, link to any media story in which they are mentioned on their website. So the Guardian story arguing that this is good use of tax payers’ money can be found on the Tax Payers Alliance website!

To return to RLJ, I wonder when we’re going to get a Littlejohn-Mythbuster. I don’t think there’s any doubt that it would be a full-time post. Speaking as a tax payer (and a higher-rate one at that…) I wonder why my government hasn’t started advertising for one yet?


It is always interesting when Richard Littlejohn – Salary over £800,000 a year for repeated the same made-up drivel twice a week – criticises the salary of others – in this case a significantly less £30,000 per year. As AFZ points out, ‘mythbusters’ only exist to counter the lies, distortions and hateful bile spouted by newspapers and we could easily employ a full time mythbuster to wade through the lies that Littlejohn swamps his readers with twice-weekly. Littlejohn this week had to apologise ‘unreservadly’ for his statement that most of the crime in the UK is conducted by ‘Eastern European gangs’, for a complete run down of how long the apology took to come forth and what a laborious process it is to get any response from the PCC or the Daily Mail read this blog post by Tabloid Watch.

With regards to The Taxpayers Alliance, wonderfully I heard on Twitter last night via Jamie Sport that one of the Directors of The Taxpayers Alliance lives in France, only spends two weeks in the UK each year and doesn’t pay tax. Now that, you really couldn’t make up.


A post about stupid racists

I know this is treading very old ground and it has been covered a thousand times by thousands of people, but I feel I must for cathartic purposes repeat it: ‘Paki’ is not the same as ‘Brit’ – not even remotely.

I’ll try and explain why.

Firstly, we don’t go around calling people ‘Brits’ or ‘Yanks’ or ‘Poles’ unless we definitely know they happen to be from that country – and of course, they have to be from a different country to the one we were born in, otherwise the term of ‘endearment’ doesn’t work. If you are the sort of person that does call an American colleague a ‘Yank’ all the time I’m sure everyone around you thinks you’re a completely unwitty arsehole, and they’re right. I would probably guess that the only reason for indiscriminately calling a person a ‘Paki’ is the fact that the person on the receiving end of this ‘jolly term of endearment’ has brown skin. Of course this person could be from any number of places and is just as likely to not be from Pakistan. When the person is white people are reluctant to shout out ‘Brit’ or ‘Yank’ because they don’t know where they hell they are from; when the person has brown skin they shout out ‘Paki’ because they don’t give a shit where they are from – they’re assumed to be all the same, so one term suits all.

Let’s for a moment take the argument at face value: ‘Paki is simply short for someone from Pakistan’. So, presumably, if they person on the end of the term is from Pakistan, they should not be offended, but what about the brown skinned people who are not from Pakistan, should they be offended? I would assume that a Welsh person in America would be pissed of if they were called English, because they’re not. I know for a fact that Australians dislike being labelled New Zealanders and vice versa, and that if you ever mistake a Canadian accent for American, then both parties are likely to hate you. I think the reason is that we all have a sense of identity, and even if we treat this arbitrarily and have no patriotic fervour I think we can all get pissed off if we are instantly judged to be from somewhere when we’re not. It seems to be simple rudeness: we wouldn’t presume to make other judgements about strangers, so why blurt out an assumed nationality?

I don’t seem to ever recall hearing someone in conversation saying: ‘You know that Bangladeshi over the road, he’s just bought a new car’. However, I do seem to recall numerous occasions where I’ve heard what ‘Pakis’ have been up to. Perhaps everyone only knows brown people that happen to be from Pakistan. Perhaps people from other nationalities (only brown people mind, we’ll continue to assume a white person could be from anywhere and find out through conversation) should display clear signs around them showing their nationality and how you shorten it into an affectionate bit of slang for them. If you are from Bangladesh, please have this clearly stated around your neck so anyone wishing to shout at you can do so using your correct nationality – you should consider phonetic spelling to make things easier.

Perhaps then, no-one could ever get offended because they’re only being referred to by nationality. I mean sure, this is pretty dehumanising, and anyone who constantly refers to someone purely by using their nationality is clearly a complete asshole, but what the hell, it’s surely better than us having our freedoms eroded by the ‘PC brigade’ isn’t it. In fact, if correctly labelling someone by national slang is completely PC, then surely the PC Brigade should be on the streets issuing labels to foreign-looking people to make sure we all call out only PC comments?

What if though, the foreign-looking person is actually British? I mean, thanks to poor labelling these people are sometimes wrongly identified as ‘Pakis’, imagine that, we insult our own national brothers by mistake, it’s almost as if just assuming that anyone foreign-looking is a Paki is a really dumb thing to do.

Secondly, unless you tend to prefix ‘Brit’ with ‘fucking’ then the two terms really aren’t comparable.

Finally, racism can occur when using nationalities because when prefixed by an insult or a generalisation the term becomes a racial judgement. If you say: ‘I’m sick to death of all those fucking Poles coming over here and nicking our jobs.’ Then you are being racist, because you are hating an entire nation based on something you believe to be happening – something which isn’t illegal even if it was happening. Furthermore, it is often more racist because it isn’t accurate, you could really be referring to Eastern Europeans in general, but you single out Poles because you just might have met one.

I might refer someone who uses the phrase ‘Paki’ as ‘good’ or I could use the equal phrase ‘Cunt’. It is my understanding that both are a four letter word that are designed to describe a personality, why should I give a fuck about the connotations? If I did, it would be PC gone mad.

I hope you die

Jema, and all 1234* of you that voted it green, are cunts – fucking stupid ones.

* Making it the highest rated comment under the article.

Best facial expression ever

Tabloid Watch has already pointed out what an utterly ridiculous attack the Daily Mail Reporter has made on Big Brother winner Sophie Reade for having ‘blubber’: ‘Sophie Reade strips to her underwear in the street but has not lost her Big Brother blubber’. Looking at the picture below and having it described as ‘blubber’ I think you can see why I really hate the way the Daily Mail portrays women:

Sophie Reade

And the Femail section of the Daily Mail wonders week after week why women are angry and depressed? If you want to read a considered dissection of the article go read the post at Tabloid Watch, because I want point out the best facial expression ever:

Best Face Ever

For those of you who didn’t spot it:

Best Face Ever

He certainly seems to be enjoying Sophie Reade’s figure, even if the Daily Mail Reporter isn’t.

Fit and Healthy

What do we assume the phrase ‘fit and healthy’ actually means? Do we assume it is a pretty general phrase used by people who, by and large, consider themselves fairly healthy, or do we take it to mean someone who has been medically verified as having no established health problems and is essentially a model specimen? I ask this because the Daily Mail and Daily Express have picked up the story about the ‘fit and healthy’ 25 year old female Louis Jones who has died as a result of contracting Swine Flu and I wonder if there is anything more to the story.

Naturally the first suspicious thing is that the Daily Mail headline puts ‘fit and healthy’ into inverted commas (the Express doesn’t bother, but probably because the concept is too complex for its readers), implying that this statement might not be entirely true. Reading the Mail article it soon becomes clear that there was an underlying medical condition: she had been diagnosed with Asthma as a child and doctors said that she was more vulnerable to the virus because of this – she died from a blood clot in the lung. The Express also state this in their article, whilst making the link a bit vaguer by adding that it ‘may’ have made her more vulnerable.

So, she wasn’t entirely ‘fit and healthy’ then. In fact, the only reference to her overall physical health prior to contracting Swine Flu is made by her parents, who, whilst they may have know their daughter extremely well, doesn’t make them medical experts to be quoted in the Mail and Express headlines. There is an important message here that cannot be overlooked – and it is the message that the parents are trying to get across to the public – is that even if you think you are relatively ‘fit and healthy’ if you think you have the symptoms of Swine Flu then do contact your doctor because you may not be as fit and healthy as you like to think you are.

A final point on the story and how the Daily Mail reporter works is looking at this article in the Manchester Evening News (which also puts ‘fit and healthy’ into the headline) which was published the day before the Mail article and then try to spot the difference between it and the Daily Mail article. It seems that working for Daily Mail you soon wear out the ctrl-c and ctrl-v on your keyboard.

Never mind that he’s dead, he was GAY for god’s sake

Daily Mail comments, always a hotbed for homophobia no matter what the circumstances, have today really excelled in tastelessly pointing out that gays cannot possibly marry: ‘Revealed: The lonely life of Matt Lucas’s ex-husband who killed himself because he never got over their divorce‘. Of course, Mail readers want to offer their sympathies, but at the same time they want to point out the horror that a gay can be referred to as a husband:

I do wish all these utter shit-stains would at least be honest and cut out the ‘I don’t mean to offend anyone…’ disclaimers and just get on with the offensive comment. Credit where it is due though, at least the comments are all highly in the red.

What if Richard Littlejohn was a TV program?

Today’s Littlejohn column is another chance for Richard to go: ‘what if X was a TV program’ and then make some really lame attempts at satire by slotting his topic into TV programs – the majority of which haven’t even been on TV for years so are hardly topical. If I were to attempt the same I would probably say that Richard’s columns are like My Family if it was to be repeated on UK Gold (it might actually be, I don’t know and am, like Richard, not prepared to Google it – but at least I’m honest about it). I say this because at one point My Family might even have been funny, but now it is just the most predictably infantile drivel that even if you’ve only seen one episode years ago you can watch any episode now and still get the same tired punchlines slapping you around the face every single time.

When you watch My Family you have the sinking feeling that you’ve seen all this before because good comedies have covered the ground, well. You don’t need to have it rehashed, badly, week after week. The repetition – one oddball character quits the show, only to be replaced by another, less funny to fulfill the same role – is like Littlejohn constantly relying on the same tired vehicles for his ‘satire’ – its almost as if he simply cannot think of any other way of getting his point across. I genuinely think that Littlejohn has a custom made dice that has one of his 4 or 5 ‘comedy / satire’ vehicles on each side and he just rolls it before writing each column. He has his ‘what it X was a TV program’ side, his ‘just imagine if…’ on another and ‘ignorant American interviews plucky Brit’ on another and so on.

Attempts at satire aside Littlejohn also brings up the story of the Lollipop man who has been forced to resign by the Health and Safety brigade for giving out chocolate and high fives. In many ways I think that this is an example of local councils perhaps taking things a little to far, but, and this is the important thing, they are only responding to public complaints. If a council doesn’t listen to public gripes, they get criticised, if they do listen to complaints and take action, they get criticised. Even if they satisfy a customer then they are still likely to get an ambiguous article in a tabloid newspaper. A few newspapers cover this, as do the BBC. What all of them mention – and Littlejohn leaves out – is that the Lollipop man did give a child with a nut allergy some chocolate which contained nuts; which, of course could have had very serious consequences.

This is said to have led to a complaint from the parent which also mentioned the fact they weren’t overly happy with all the high-fiving that was going on. The Council are not given a chance to comment on the nature of the warning given to the Lollipop, they merely get a throwaway line praising him for his years of service. Although you could think it is ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ gone mad, imagine the consequences for the council if the child with the nut allergy had died, which tabloid newspaper would be screaming loudest for the lollipop man to be publicly executed? What if it turned out he was a child molester and had been ‘high-fiving’ YOUR child. Which newspaper would be screaming out for the council ‘jobsworths’ to be publicly flogged for not spotting a monster.

The sad thing is if you work around children you must accept that you cannot have contact with them or even give them stuff because you risk your own neck every time you do so. As a teacher you do not touch a child, even if they are choking or having an asthma attack, because you run the risk of being sued – you are not trained or qualified to dish out medical treatment, therefore you do not. It might sound crazy, but part of being a teacher or working with children is learning to put up an invisible barrier between you and them. This is the only way to avoid accusations of abuse or otherwise harming a child. This is sad, but the tabloid agenda of generating an exaggerated threat of paedophiles is partly to blame for this culture. In this instance a lollipop man who had a great relationship with kids (according to all of the reports) has paid a heavy price with his resignation because he couldn’t accept that his job was to help children cross a road safely, not give them sweets or high-five them.

A council wouldn’t let a teacher have unnecessary contact with a child, stands to reason that they wouldn’t let a lollipop man either, especially around a road. Littlejohn uses this story to make an irrelevant link between this ‘harmless’ contact with children being punished and Birmingham Social Services presiding over the death of 8 children, as if there is a causal link between the two. As if councils are only interested in punishing the presumed innocent whilst child-killers run free. He goes on to point out that:

Incidentally, serial paedophile Vanessa George was given a clean bill of health by inspectors when she applied to work with children.

Sounds about par for the course for the ‘child safety’ industry – persecuting the innocent while the real monsters slip under the radar.

What Littlejohn fails to understand is that everyone who has regular contact with a child has to complete a CRB check which only reveals crimes that you have been found guilty of, if you haven’t ever been caught then your CRB is clean. This is why all teachers and those working with children have to follow clear guidelines about their conduct with and around children, with the rule of thumb being never touch a child or put yourself in a position whereby you are alone in a room with a single child. If you do behave inappropriately then sooner or later you will be caught. It is impossible to catch a child abuser until they have committed an act, in the same way that it is impossible to catch any criminal before they commit a crime (unless you think that a child abuser draws up detailed plans and sets a date in the same way a bank robber does).

Littlejohn’s whole point rests on there being ‘bad’ people and ‘innocent’ people with the presumption being that somehow people in authority should easily be able to spot which is which. This, in Littlejohn’s worldview, should be easy because one set – the innocent – consist of kindly men like the resigned lollipop man; whilst the other set – the bad – consist of ‘monsters’ like Vanessa George. The logical progression of the simplistic argument is that a monster is easy to spot and therefore how could they have been allowed near children etc. Whereas, what we need to understand is that they are not a monster, they are merely a human being who may have behaved monstrously. Their behaviours do not change their physical appearance so they cannot simply be spotted or weeded out at Littlejohn implies.

This is the difficulty of working with children, because of a minority the rest of us working in education will always do our utmost to avoid any physical or emotional contact with a child for fear of being labelled a monster; this is simply part of the job and we can either accept it, or resign. Either way, Littlejohn’s throwaway paragraphs add nothing but ignorance to the matter as usual.

Mail and Express jabbing readers with scare stories

The enemies of reason has already labelled this as one of the most disgraceful front pages of all time and I am inclined to agree with him. As he goes on to point out, the headline is not backed up by the content of the article and the sceptical doctor make no assertion that the jab is as dangerous as the cancer is supposed to be. Still, since when have facts ever got in the way of a good headline? In response to this front page the Daily Mail are still dragging out any scare stories it can find about the jab, and give passing reference to the Express front page as if somehow their ridiculous lies are somehow evidence. This is pretty much standard fare for newspapers, instead of linking to peer-reviewed science they just simply link to their fellow tabloids as if the lie can become fact if other newspapers are running similar stories.

Today’s Mail scare story revolves around a teenage girl who started having epileptic seizures days after being given the injection. There is no evidence to link the jab to the seizures, and the only people making the connections are the parents of the girl. Whilst I have every sympathy for them and can understand their need to seek a reason for their daughter’s problems, it doesn’t mean that they are qualified to give an opinion on the matter, and any reasonable person should know that such an emotional response is hardly going to add anything to the debate.

Mail  scare storyWhat we need to understand is that shit happens. We live in a world populated by billions of people. A few people amongst us will die suddenly and without explanation, a few of us might suddenly develop seizures and so on. It is natural for the families around the victims to look for reasons, for an explanation or understanding of what happened. If perhaps the victim had eaten a new food for the first time, this might be blamed, if the victim had fallen over and banged their head, this might be pinpointed – it matters not what it is, anything can be blamed and whether medical experts tell you it wasn’t responsible for what happened subsequently is irrelevant, you tend to cling onto blaming it. It seems to be case here, their daughter had a cervical cancer jab, a few days later she starts to develop seizures and ends up with brain damage. The jab is being blamed only by the family, there seems to be no evidence to suggest a link otherwise the Daily Mail would clearly give it here.

So the whole story is pointless scare-mongering, where the headline has little relation to the actual story and the whole thing is anecdotal.

Littlejohn ‘doesn’t make it up’

In recent weeks a number of blogs have consistently pointed out that Littlejohn keeps making stuff up in order to claim that something in British society has ‘gone mad’. Tabloid Watch has 27 posts on Littlejohn in 2009, most of them dealing with blatant factual inaccuracies – either because Richard Littlejohn cannot manage to use Google or attempt any research, or because he purposely skews stories to suit his own agenda, knowing his bovine readers will lap it up. Yesterday’s Littlejohn column was very interesting and although it has been covered elsewhere by No Sleep ‘Til Brooklands and Tabloid Watch I still think it’s worth covering here with a new link.

Yesterday’s column was interesting because it was given a large banner on the front page of the print edition that clearly implied that he was going to have another rant against the ‘bin police’ (in itself a completely fictitious Littlejohn organisation). This was very misleading as readers no doubt expected Richard to write yet another diatribe about councils not emptying his bin every-time he throws something in it. But it wasn’t, it was actually an column about how he had to contact the council in relation to his recycling not being collected and instead of getting the fight he wanted they arranged a special collection straight away. Richard, it turns out, has wasted columns of vitriol against ‘bin police’ that he now knows don’t exist, and that councils are there to serve the council tax payers.

So why did he still feel the need to give the column such a negative and misleading title? For me it kind of sums up the journalistic style of the Mail, the headline must be negative and attacking, even if the article demonstrates how completely false it is. As No Sleep ‘Til Brooklands puts it:

Littlejohn complains that his council are too damn reasonable about recycling and helpful with the bins. He ponders aloud how he’s supposed to run off one of his ironically recycled rants about the Bin Nazis, displayed a hitherto undiscovered sense of self-awareness. You can see that he’s suddenly struggling with his conscience; there’s just a glimmer of a hint of a thought there that maybe, just maybe, the world isn’t entirely run by morons without a shred of ‘common sense’, that maybe all these little pathetic one-off anecdotes he repeats about some unreasonable council official aren’t actually a fair representation of the world. That in some cases these stories aren’t even true, or that they’re exaggerated, or that even when they’re true they’re only newsworthy because they’re isolated incidents which you can’t extrapolate from. As I read it, I almost started rooting for him. “He’s about to get it! He’s finally fucking getting it! Go on Richard my son!”.

But of course, as No Sleep ‘Til Brooklands goes on to point out, he doesn’t get it at all and instead makes a lazy dig at Peter Mandelson for being gay before making up another non story about ‘PC gone mad’. The story is about a police force ‘replacing’ Alsatians with Springer Spaniels because Alsatians are too scary, of course the whole thing is made up as No Sleep points out:

Hmm, that seems odd. Attack dogs reduced in size to avoid hurting the nasty rapists and armed robbers? Must be human rights gone mad! So, donning my Sherlock Holmes hat, off I bravely go to Google to put in “springer spaniels” along with “Devon” and “Cornwall” to see if I can’t get my massive detective brain around it and try to get to the bottom of it. It’s amazing I go to this level of trouble unpaid, but what can I say, when duty calls I guess you gotta pick up that phone. And so, after upwards of 26 seconds of reading the BBC’s less rabid account, I finally get a glimpse of the truth…

They’re rescue dogs. No, genuinely, it’s literally as straightforward and almost insultingly simple as that. They’ve trained them to be rescue dogs, for rescuing people. People who probably haven’t done anything wrong and need rescuing. Devon and Cornwall police force have trained three (3!) springer spaniels and a Brittany to rescue people. So when Littlejohn asks “Isn’t frightening the whole point of police dogs?”, he means “Isn’t frightening the whole point of police rescue dogs?”. To which the answer, I would think most reasonable people would agree, is “no”.

So, in a column that Richard seems to face the fact that when he actually engages with reality it is very different to the fantasy world of ‘bin police’, ‘PC brigades’ etc he still cannot stop making stuff up to reinforce his skewered view of the world. The whole ‘I live in Enfield, honest guv’ repetition in the first article also seems to be an attempt to counter the many people in recent weeks that have commented on his normal residence in America – he is, allegedly not a UK tax payer – here we get a story that focuses on a run in with a real council, in England. Maybe this is really significant, maybe this is the point that readers of Littlejohn should finally have a Eureka moment: Richard Littlejohn constantly criticises Britain from a gated mansion in Florida, most of his stories turn out to be entirely fictitious and now the one time he actually spends some time in the UK and actually encounters the reality of the situation he has to write a column explaining that he wanted to complain, but he really couldn’t.

I honestly doubt any of his regular readers will be able to grasp this though, and I’m sure Richard will bugger off back to America where he can happily repeat the same lies about life in Britain without facing the awkward situation of bumping into a very different reality. Perhaps the most shameful thing about the whole piece is the fact that he still got over 900 words out of it, when will readers start to revolt against such laziness for such a salary? As Littlejohn points out in an interview:

‘I think that if people thought I was insincere, or I was making it up, or I was only writing it for effect. I’d have got found out…’

He has of course been found out by anyone with two functioning brain cells, but not his readership who can enjoy the cartoon pictures of his column with less.