Flynny Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 Littlejohn has always gotten on my tits to a degree, but this article is pure bile. The worst thing is that a more moderate version of this arguement would be interesting and thought provoking, even intelligent. Saying stuff like their deaths being "no great loss", though is just beyond the pale. He basically begins by saying he's saddened and upset and then totally contradicts himself in a similar manner to some of his "I'm not racist, but...." columns. I'm not a particularly sensitive person - I've made jokes about this situation that have made others wince, but to publish crap like this in a national newspaper is sheer c*ntery of the highest order. The Article
Head Honcho Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 Littlejohn has always gotten on my tits to a degree, but this article is pure bile. The worst bit is that a more moderate version of this arguement would be interesting and thought provoking, but saying stuff like their deaths being "no great loss" is just beyond the pale. I'm not a particularly sensitive person - I've made jokes about this situation that have made others wince, but to publish crap like this in a national newspaper is sheer c*ntery of the highest order. The Article He is a dickhead, but you have to agree with much of what he says! If I was his boss he'd be sacked for the "no great loss" comment because lets be honest most of us would say the same about him.
Flynny Posted 21 December 2006 Author Posted 21 December 2006 He is a dickhead, but you have to agree with much of what he says! If I was his boss he'd be sacked for the "no great loss" comment because lets be honest most of us would say the same about him. That's what I'm saying - he manages to make his hard nosed, nasty, selfish approach sound reasonable - and it's not reasonable at all, when you actually think about it. He's a complete turd, a shitstain on the smelly boxers of society.
l444ry Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 Littlejohn has always gotten on my tits to a degree, but this article is pure bile. The worst bit is that a more moderate version of this arguement would be interesting and thought provoking, but saying stuff like their deaths being "no great loss" is just beyond the pale. I'm not a particularly sensitive person - I've made jokes about this situation that have made others wince, but to publish crap like this in a national newspaper is sheer c*ntery of the highest order. The Article Littlejohn gets on my nerves as well but some of this article is just common sense It is only weak idiots who get hooked on drugs. Just look at some of the half-baked prats taking them in your local every weekend. Only the drug user him/herself can be to blame for using them and consequently be responsible for what results from taking them. Drugs are for losers....an unfortunate fact of life. It's just a shame so many have to ruin their lives, and others, before they realise.
Strokes Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 I must say i agree with this article in its entirety, he is in my opinion one of the few people left that wont bow to political correctness & should be commended for it. Having said all that, he is a spurs fan, so what a CU_NT.
Flynny Posted 21 December 2006 Author Posted 21 December 2006 Littlejohn gets on my nerves as well but some of this article is just common sense It is only weak idiots who get hooked on drugs. Just look at some of the half-baked prats taking them in your local every weekend. Only the drug user him/herself can be to blame for using them and consequently be responsible for what results from taking them. Drugs are for losers....an unfortunate fact of life. It's just a shame so many have to ruin their lives, and others, before they realise. No-one knows they were all on drugs. It's pure conjecture. Even if they were, are you saying that because people paid them for sex their murder was somehow less significant?
l444ry Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 No-one knows they were all on drugs. It's pure conjecture. Even if they were, are you saying that because people paid them for sex their murder was somehow less significant? I think you'll find they were complete and utter addicts. And, no, their lives were in no way less significant because of it. But if you play with drugs and use the sex industry to feed the habit...that's what might happen!! We're talking about the squalid fag-end of life in Britain today.
Webbo Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 No-one knows they were all on drugs. It's pure conjecture. Even if they were, are you saying that because people paid them for sex their murder was somehow less significant? that wasn't my understanding of the article. i think he was saying that this isn't all society's fault. the girls chose their own path in life and while no one is condoning their murder, the rest of us aren't to blame.
Flynny Posted 21 December 2006 Author Posted 21 December 2006 I think you'll find they were complete and utter addicts. And, no, their lives were in no way less significant because of it. But if you play with drugs and use the sex industry to feed the habit...that's what might happen!! We're talking about the squalid fag-end of life in Britain today. Yeah, I'm sure they went into prostitution fully aware of the fact that they might be murdered - sure they're murdered more often, either due to being easier targets or because the murders some sort of religious nutso who thinks their life is disgusting and they deserve to be killed, but it's not like prostitute murders happen every day. I also find this hilarious: That doesn't make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss. They weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur. The only kind of missionary position they undertook was in the back seat of a car. His job could be done by an angry gibbon with a bigoted streak and a typewriter - by this logic he deserves to be murdered too!
Steven Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 that wasn't my understanding of the article. i think he was saying that this isn't all society's fault. the girls chose their own path in life and while no one is condoning their murder, the rest of us aren't to blame. I thought he was making cheap journalistic points at the expense of those least able to defend themselves. He felt comfortable attacking his various targets because it is lazy and he knows his audience will agree with him. Whilst I am no Christian, there are some great words of wisdom in the Bible not least of which is Matthew 7:12 (English Standard Version)The Golden Rule 12"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. So Littlejohn would want the same kind of indifference from his own readers aimed at him as he has towards his various targets in that article. I think not. Where's the humanity because without it he will write another crap article like this one all too soon.
Flynny Posted 21 December 2006 Author Posted 21 December 2006 I thought he was making cheap journalistic points at the expense of those least able to defend themselves. He felt comfortable attacking his various targets because it is lazy and he knows his audience will agree with him. Surely you're not implying that the average Daily Mail reader is a right-wing knobhead!? Unless...
Webbo Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 Surely you're not implying that the average Daily Mail reader is a right-wing knobhead!? Unless... lets put it this way. he's a lot more entertaining than Ben Elton, Mark Thomas, Jeremy Harding. Right wing knobheads of the world unite.
Steven Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 I suppose drugs should be legalised..... Let us not go down that route, though this is an interesting read. In the case of Littlejohn, attitudes need to change as you yourself once said.
Thracian Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 I was a colleague of Richard Littlejohn in Peterborough and, while he was there, headed up an investigation into prostitution in the City which produced a week of double-page spreads for the local paper. It was a good subject because sex was a great seller of newspapers but even so, it was the only investigation I can remember doing which I wish had never been started. Reading his article I wish Richard had done that investigation, met the girls, seen how vulnerable, fearful, abused and desperate for friendship or support they were. Being a parent is easy if your sons and daughters shine at school, win awards, go on to University, get respectable jobs, enable you to stand in society and feel proud... Not so easy when they become AIDS victims, earn themselves a criminal record, get into deep debt or become involved and later dependent on drugs. Or, more simply and especially when they are young, are just easily influenced or easy prey for calculating and predatory liars. Our society is full of even mature women who've been conned by liars and manipulators. Prostitutes often start out as gullible, unhappy, poorly-supported or reckless girls who never found an escape route from such a situation. It is one thing to advise and set an example for kids. Quite another to be sure they'll take that advice or follow those examples. Besides, many prosititutes had parents who were vulnerable, deserted or in dire situations themselves. If, in the great scheme of things the Ipswich girls' deaths would be "no great loss" - neither would the loss of Tony Blair, George Bush, more religious clerics than I care to name and a raft of other supposedly upstanding folk. All have far more to answer for should the great scheme demand a reckoning than ever will those prostitutes. Between them the murdered girls had children and families the same as other people and if the death of someone is to be mocked or dismissed because they are vulnerable or weak let him the is without weakness cast the first stone. And why should Littlejohn be "missed" in the scheme of things?. At least those girls presumably satisfied some need for often vulnerable, lonely, weak, desperate or unwanted people in return for putting their lives their health and their self-respect at risk. Strip away his clever turn of phrase and Littlejohn is just a public entertainer who is prepared to trade on cheap shots against people who can't answer back. How low is that?. The pity is that, as a journalist, he has talent. Too bad he doesn't use it for some greater good.
Webbo Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 my in laws had a prostitute move next door but one to them a few years back. i can honestly say she and her clients were some of the most unpleasant people i have ever met. the tart with a heart only exists on televsion. i don't know if she was a drug addict or not, but i never saw her stoned.
Thracian Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 my in laws had a prostitute move next door but one to them a few years back. i can honestly say she and her clients were some of the most unpleasant people i have ever met. the tart with a heart only exists on televsion. i don't know if she was a drug addict or not, but i never saw her stoned. I certainly sympathise with your in-laws but I don't think prostitutes hold a monopoly on unpleasantness, nor is it necessarily a pre-requisite for doing their job.
l444ry Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 Yeah, I'm sure they went into prostitution fully aware of the fact that they might be murdered - sure they're murdered more often, either due to being easier targets or because the murders some sort of religious nutso who thinks their life is disgusting and they deserve to be killed, but it's not like prostitute murders happen every day. From bringing a good issue onto this Forum you now get silly!!! These girls had a severe drug habit. Whether they were the prey of some scummy drug pushers or not only time will tell. In fuelling this useless habit they have put themselves at risk to some of the sad lowlife types who are prepared to use them. They have paid a heavy price for that dependency. The main lesson from these killings is, surely, the need to reverse the drug culture which is so readily accepted by large parts of society today and squash the parasite drug pushers who are making money from misery.
Thracian Posted 21 December 2006 Posted 21 December 2006 Would that someone had the will and the strength.
Flynny Posted 21 December 2006 Author Posted 21 December 2006 From bringing a good issue onto this Forum you now get silly!!! These girls had a severe drug habit. Whether they were the prey of some scummy drug pushers or not only time will tell. In fuelling this useless habit they have put themselves at risk to some of the sad lowlife types who are prepared to use them. They have paid a heavy price for that dependency. The main lesson from these killings is, surely, the need to reverse the drug culture which is so readily accepted by large parts of society today and squash the parasite drug pushers who are making money from misery. You've told me I've been silly and then made some excellent points without disagreeing with a single word that I said. I don't disagree with what you've said, I disagree with the sentiment that because their line of work involves them having to put themselves in these awful situations, their deaths have less meaning. Just because I disagree with an extreme right-wing tosser doesn't make me a raving left-wing tree hugging hippy, either. I'm pretty central on most things. (Cheers Lisa - your post made no-one look silly bar yourself ) Oh and Thracian - dunno really what to say about your post other than to say it was pretty excellent. So yeah. That.
The People's Hero Posted 22 December 2006 Posted 22 December 2006 Surely you're not implying that the average Daily Mail reader is a right-wing knobhead!? Unless... Most people who get the Daily Mail don't even read it. They just feel they should get a newspaper of some sort and could not be seen buying a red top. They might then read the front page (to get their reactionary guff to guide their own opinion) and then place it proudly on their coffee table for all others to see - 'we read newspapers don't you know?'
Jay Posted 22 December 2006 Posted 22 December 2006 Most people who get the Daily Mail don't even read it. They just feel they should get a newspaper of some sort and could not be seen buying a red top. They might then read the front page (to get their reactionary guff to guide their own opinion) and then place it proudly on their coffee table for all others to see - 'we read newspapers don't you know?' once again The Peoples Hero hits the nail on the head or if you wanna go back a couple of years hit the Badger right on the Snout! I hovered over the link and saw Daily Mail and NEW exactly what to expect!!! The Daily Mail is tabloid Garbage the same as the sun and the mirror just with smaller words and less pictures to make the readers think they are intelligent individuals with an open mind and understanding when infact.....
Webbo Posted 22 December 2006 Posted 22 December 2006 Most people who get the Daily Mail don't even read it. They just feel they should get a newspaper of some sort and could not be seen buying a red top. They might then read the front page (to get their reactionary guff to guide their own opinion) and then place it proudly on their coffee table for all others to see - 'we read newspapers don't you know?' what a load of crap.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.