Richard Littlejohn

[Deleted member 63160]

I don't think messed up people like that should be let anywhere near kids.

Sounds like you are condemning all trans-gender people as being unfit to be near kids. What's your reasoning behind that?

I'm just old fashioned. I'm not suggesting they'd interfer with the kids.
I just think suicidal sexual deviants aren't ideal carers for young kiddies.
I can't see how a bloke that wants his genitals lopped off and dresses in ladies shoes before committing suicide can be classed as stable.
Don't claim to be correct. Just my op. No offence intended. I'd take my kids out of his class for sure.

 

[AronSearle]

There is no law against taking a photo in a public place. If the person can be seen from a public place then its allowed by law. The point is its morally wrong and the press doesnt have any morals.

Hi there, can I ask you a question, are you stupid?

If it is not against the law, then a press regulating authority won't stop them doing it.

Or they will unlawfully stop them doing it, due pressure from the government or an individual government minister.

Or it is against the law, in which case why do we need a quango, why not just ring the police?

I fail to see why i should be called a numpty, because its true what i said. I dont care what the politicians do, because im unable to do anything to affect their decisions or whatever else they are doing. I can vote on GE day, and the party i choose may get into government, but they are all capable, and often do, do things which we as the public dont like.

Tried voting out your local building control department, maybe the highway agency.

What's that, you cant?

But you can instantly choose not to buy a newspaper, and if they break the law you can set the police on them.

Oh what's that, if your local quango makes a mistake you can't do eff all, other than listen to them go "lessons will be learnt".

Yes, yes I can see how quangos will make everything better!

Why are you defending the press so much anyway?

Remember the expenses scandal.

Remember MP's tried to block information getting released.

See where this is going?

Im all for a free press

You are all for a free press, but you don't want them to be free.

And you ask why I call you a numpty?

 

[bhm1712]

Regulation wont prevent them taking a photo in a public place, but it may stop them from taking a photo in a public place of somebody sitting inside their own home and printing it in the paper or uploading it to the web, because its disgusting behaviour.

I may be considered a numpty, but ill stick by what i have said, because your arguments are also null and void. Your perfectly happy for the press to do whatever they want, and then blame the police for not reacting if they do break the law. the probem is, by the time they have broken the law the damage to the person or organisation is already done.

And you justify it because of the MP expense scandal - I dont blame the MP's for rinsing the system - it was obviously available and well known about for it to have gotten so rife amongst them. If it hadnt have been for the press getting wind of it, then we would never have known admittadly, but im sure there are many things we dont know about that the government is already well aware of, and allowing it to happen.

As for me being a numpty, its probably true, but im perfectly happy with what i have managed to achieve so far in my life which is more than i can say for alot of the scumbag brits out there.

 

[blondini]

I'm just old fashioned. I'm not suggesting they'd interfer with the kids.
I just think suicidal sexual deviants aren't ideal carers for young kiddies.
I can't see how a bloke that wants his genitals lopped off and dresses in ladies shoes before committing suicide can be classed as stable.
Don't claim to be correct. Just my op. No offence intended. I'd take my kids out of his class for sure.

At least you don't claim to be correct, but now you are suggesting that trans gender people are sexual deviants. That's about unacceptable sexual practices... Don't confuse trans gender with transvestites or cross dressers either. It's really not fair.

 

[LargeWrench]

Littlejohn is an absolute c**t. Why can he be allowed to hound and bully someone in a national newspaper when a normal person would never get away with it? Why is it different just because it's written in a newspaper by a supposed 'journalist'? What he did was miles over the top. He could've talked about it sensibly without resorting to outright bullying. The poor person had enough on their plate without the need for a national newspaper poking fun at them and a tonne of paparazzi and 'journalists' hounding them at their workplace and home 24/7. They were even hounding all the parents at the school trying to get them to dish some dirt. What on earth has that got to do with press freedom?

That is of course just one example, stuff like this is common place and happens daily. Unless you're a celebrity or extremely wealthy you've got no chance trying to stop them. A normal person has no hope of being able to sue a national newspaper. Then even if you do have the means to defend yourself, you end up with a bit of compensation and a meaningless tiny apology hidden away on page 47.

The press have proved time and time again they can't regulate themselves. It's laughable them complaining about a loss of press freedom. The only reason they're upset is due to the fact they'd have to reign in the disgraceful actions that they've got used to over the years. Not to mention the press complaints commission in headed by none other than Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail.

Littlejohn is a complete prat. He thrives on half truths and feeding the xenophobia of middle England. The majority of his columns are fabricated nonsense. The most ironic thing about the guy though is the fact that despite spending his life condemning immigration, the guy lives in a gated complex in Florida. I guess that's different though eh Richard?