Jack the Ripper around? Just ignore him, he only wants attention.
Daily Mail
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
I desperately wish he wasn't being serious here, but sadly, I know he is. He's a man of stone is Al.
The best way to deal with any problem, is to completely ignore it and never mention it again.
I honestly believe that, in the wake of Leveson, the print media's actions in general are indefensible; or, more accurately, their methods. More saliently, we in the UK are hostage to the whims of these people - our police forces, with their numerous 'Media Advisors'; our politicians, desperate to avoid vote-losing bad press; even our monarchy, with their fear of salacious stories which would've gone unreported in a former age.
Granted, the institutions listed above owe a certain responsibility because we pay for them. Their conduct affects us all and so they should, ideally, set the rest of us an example; what example does the press set? And why does it seek to be excused from the duty of responsibility, time and again? Why? Because, in the final analysis, they control the country...and that conclusion is not as silly or exaggerated as it seems at first sight.
Granted, the institutions listed above owe a certain responsibility because we pay for them. Their conduct affects us all and so they should, ideally, set the rest of us an example; what example does the press set? And why does it seek to be excused from the duty of responsibility, time and again? Why? Because, in the final analysis, they control the country...and that conclusion is not as silly or exaggerated as it seems at first sight.
Should probably just all refer to him as "the murderer Richard Littlejohn" from now on. Or is that libel?
It must be easy enough to ignore issues when you're a white straight young man with money, education and connections.
"active homosexual male, John Littlejohn, perpetual bottom" would probably wind him up more than being thought of as responsible for the death of a trannie.
Newspaper circulation is quickly dwindling and the entire industry is making little to no profit (with the exclusion of the Times of India which actually makes decent amounts of money) so with any luck they'll just all slowly die.
By the way Al, you've been asked this a couple of times and not really answered but what are your feelings towards transsexuals? Would you care if one was teaching your children?
Anyone who cares, is a bell end IMO.
What affect does it have on their ability to teach?
What affect does it have on their ability to teach?
I think that some people, especially journalists, aren't giving children enough credit. Encountering all sorts of people in their lives expands their knowledge, informs their judgements.
And the Mail in particular can't rationally maintain a stance which on the one hand casts young people as guileless innocents and, on the other, as sexed-up lolitas and wastrels.
And the Mail in particular can't rationally maintain a stance which on the one hand casts young people as guileless innocents and, on the other, as sexed-up lolitas and wastrels.
My goal is more to destroy his career. Winding him up would just be a bonus.
No, we should exclusively refer to him as 'a man who works as a murderer'. He hates that.
The mail isn't going to fire him over this, they'd be more likely to fire him if people thought he was gay.
No, not a man that works as a murderer! A murderer.
I'm playing the long game. If the next time he's on Question Time people just called him "the murderer Richard Littlejohn", he'd be toast.
They'd better not put "May she rest in peace" on the grave, or he'll be getting the chisel out again.
I went on the PCC website and found these:
We also deal with the physical behaviour of journalists. This can include:
Persistent pursuit of individuals
Refusing requests to stop taking photos or asking questions
Both of which have been breached here.
I've just gone back and read the last few pages and there's only two possible explanations.
Either Alastair has a 10 feet tall poster of Michael Gove on his wall, or he literally is Michael Gove.
I suppose it might be both.
Either Alastair has a 10 feet tall poster of Michael Gove on his wall, or he literally is Michael Gove.
I suppose it might be both.
The Mail's issue, is as always, of some corrupting of the family system and they deem a transexual teaching children as capable of polluting their mind - not understanding children are the most accepting and understanding of all creatures on earth.
At first they'd quiz their parents why such and such is different, after a mature conversation, that acceptance would follow.
Sadly the Mail don't want this to happen. The white, middle class, family marriage is under threat and it must any threat eradicated. This was a witch hunt - pure and simple.
At first they'd quiz their parents why such and such is different, after a mature conversation, that acceptance would follow.
Sadly the Mail don't want this to happen. The white, middle class, family marriage is under threat and it must any threat eradicated. This was a witch hunt - pure and simple.
And they then have the most populist, gossip-pushing, voyeuristic website that a national paper could hope for.
It's for the Mail to decide. They clearly think that he's useful because he spreads their name around and gets hits on their website, much in the same way as Samantha Brick. Hence why I think, on this individual occasion, we should ignore his cries for attention.
I have no issue with them at all. In fact, I've worked in a shop specialising in trans-gender clothing(yes, they exist) so I'm well aware of that community. But obviously I'm a closet Nazi so I'd rather we rounded up and shot anyone who wasn't white middle class and straight.
I understand the Mail's concern that traditional family life is under threat. I share it. The issue with people like Littlejohn is that they treat people who don't belong to that life-style as sub-human, which is the issue.
'they exist' tickled me for some reasonAnd fair enough, just thought It'd be fun to ask because you didn't answer it before.
For others, it is a fundamental right itself. What happens when the government decides that criticizing religion incites hatred and bans that? What if people feel that reading Christopher Hitchens in a newspaper telling them God is fake feel that they can't live a satisfactory life?
These questions have been addressed in the United States, where freedom of speech is a fundamental right.
Incitement is only restricted if the speech is both intended and likely to cause violence.
Judges are able to issue gag orders on those involved in the trial but the rest of the country is free to say what they like.
I knew it! Death to Lord Snooty Al and his Oxbridge chums!
*lights torch*
Ah bugger...set fire to my smock now.
Those examples are shit. Criticizing things is fine, no is saying it isn't. It's rather when you use freedom of speech to take away other rights of individual people that it becomes questionable.
If Christopher Hitchens picked out a random Christian and questioned weather or not they should be around children because of their beliefs it would be different, don't you agree? Especially with a shitstorm following that person and ruining their life.
Freedom of speech doesn't cover bullying and abuse because those things are illegal in their own right.
They aren't bad examples, you are just missing the point. We can sit here as reasonable people and agree that they are different situations and would be treated differently. The problem is that the people in power aren't always going to be reasonable people and then they are going to ban things that obviously shouldn't be banned, like my example above. The only way to stop that is to have a fundamental right to free speech that is more important than the administration in power.
Freedom of speech is fine, but what is currently happening is that the print media is entirely above the law - that should not be the case. When someone breaks a law, weather it's in real life or a newspaper they should be prosecuted.
It does, otherwise you'd get a lot of United fans getting arrested for shouting "paedo" at Wenger. This is all a very tough area where you can absolutely know that what someone is saying is detestable, and it can have these hugely tragic consequences, but banning it from being said or having criminal prosecution if it is said would be extremely dangerous territory.
You'd usually be able to rely on the person's employer to take the appropriate action, but in this case he's paid by bigots to write for bigots. They'll quite happily screw up someone's life if it gets them a few more page views.
A newspaper is real life. I don't understand why you keep acting like they are separate. I'm not trying to create different rights to speech for columnists and everyone else. You are the only one focused on that.
I'm not trying to debate whether people who break laws should be prosecuted, I'm discussing whether such laws are a good idea.
Yep, there is another good example.
Well the issue for me, more than anything, is the abdication of journalistic responsibility. People are free to have their issues with homosexuality based on religious belief or, as you feel, the deterioration of family values. As the point has been made many times in this thread before, people are free to believe in what they want as long as it is rational.
What journalists must do, however, is be respnsible for the words they pen and their editor for running the piece. My feelings for Littlejohn can't get any lower. But the Mail, who spiked the story at the first sign of trouble, then blamed a conspiracy for the backlash, are the real ones the ire should be directed at.
fecking terrible, terrible paper under the remit of Dacre. Awful man.
Do you want to rephrase that?
Good point, I guess the logistics alone there would be a nightmare for the police. I'll have to think about that one.
I don't think it is. Pint media is seen as untouchable, whereas if I persued a witch hunt against a local transsexual I would be persecuted, and quite rightly.
These laws already exist. Bullying is illegal. Abuse is illegal, both emotional and physical. Print media is however, always above them.
Persecuted or prosecuted? You might be persecuted but that wouldn't be covered in free speech. If you were prosecuted, you would be able to make a case that your right to free speech had been violated. If you were in the US, the ACLU might even defend you.
What does their existing have to do with whether or not they are a good idea? Didn't we just have a 300 post thread on legalizing drugs?Actually I do. I meant presented in a rational manner. I'm on my phone.
Prosecuted, sorry, typo.
And much like the drug debate I tend to base all my opinions on what causes the least harm to normal people wanting to go about their everyday life. As it happens, freedom of speech to the extent where people can be singled out is harmful, that's not to say it will lead to a slippery slope where we're living in North fecking Korea.
And much like the drug debate I tend to base all my opinions on what causes the least harm to normal people wanting to go about their everyday life. As it happens, freedom of speech to the extent where people can be singled out is harmful, that's not to say it will lead to a slippery slope where we're living in North fecking Korea.
Gender Identity is one of the 9 protected characteristics under the 2010 Equalities act in the UK, along with Age, Disability, Religion, Gender, Marriage/Civil Partnership, Pregnancy/Maternaty, Race/ethnicity and Sexual Orientation. Crimes can be classed as hate crimes against any of these area's and thus added time in terms of sentences will be added if found guilty of a hate crime.
I would point out that the Mail, for all it's declarations for "traditional values, familiy life etc." are really hypercritical. All you have to do is look at the website and 90% of the pictures to see where they really stand. Again another trans story of a young trans girl in America, and they ran a story of this 10 year old, because in an interview some one asked her over boyfriends. I mean, here's to creating family values and they are sexualizing a 10 year old girl. They are no better than the red tops really, but some how have managed to keep a repuation above them.
As I said previously I don't think Littlejohn is worthy of a place in any paper, he wasn't much cop as a tv hack on the Sun all those years ago and his attenpts at moving into the tv world was a failure, with shockingly bad appearances on 80's daytime quiz shows. Still if he thinks he's the voice of Britian so be it, though if it's true he lives in Florida, how he can claim to know what is going on in this country are comical.
I would point out that the Mail, for all it's declarations for "traditional values, familiy life etc." are really hypercritical. All you have to do is look at the website and 90% of the pictures to see where they really stand. Again another trans story of a young trans girl in America, and they ran a story of this 10 year old, because in an interview some one asked her over boyfriends. I mean, here's to creating family values and they are sexualizing a 10 year old girl. They are no better than the red tops really, but some how have managed to keep a repuation above them.
As I said previously I don't think Littlejohn is worthy of a place in any paper, he wasn't much cop as a tv hack on the Sun all those years ago and his attenpts at moving into the tv world was a failure, with shockingly bad appearances on 80's daytime quiz shows. Still if he thinks he's the voice of Britian so be it, though if it's true he lives in Florida, how he can claim to know what is going on in this country are comical.
I don't see how they are above the law. A number of high profile industry figures are currently awaiting prosecution for a range of alleged crimes.
More to your point, if I were to have written that article about Lucy Meadows on the caf, I would not have done anything illegal, nor would I be prosecuted. You are not claiming that newspapers are 'above the law' in the sense that they don't have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us, you're in fact asking for laws that apply only to them.
Physical harassment (such as is being alleged against photographers in this instance) is a separate issue from the article, and they can be prosecuted if they have broken any laws.
I don't think anyone with an ounce of common decency would have wrote that, Mike. Whether on an internet forum or in a national paper.
Thankfully the standards applied to anonymous internet forums differ to the print media and those who write such stuff have a code to stand behind.
Maybe I'm getting it wrong here, but are you excusing what was wrote? If so why?
Defending journalists is fine. If they are prepared to defend what they write themselves. Spiking a story is just cowardly.
Thankfully the standards applied to anonymous internet forums differ to the print media and those who write such stuff have a code to stand behind.
Maybe I'm getting it wrong here, but are you excusing what was wrote? If so why?
Defending journalists is fine. If they are prepared to defend what they write themselves. Spiking a story is just cowardly.
I'm saying it wasn't, and shouldn't be, illegal. And also that the subject matter itself wasn't unreasonable, even if the actual article was a detestable personal attack...
...
I agree it was cowardly to pull the article from the website after her death.