Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: albitz on 27 March 2010, 20:24:01
-
This article is an extract from Littlejohns book on the subject. Dont let the fact that it has been serialised by the Mail put you off reading it. It sums up just about everything about the "New Labour project" better than I ever could. Its difficult to imagine anyone who isnt a dyed in the wool New Labourite disagreeing with much of the content. Its quite a long article but well worth the reading imo.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1261026/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-pygmies-sleazebags-whove-wrecked-Britain-I-nearly-Labour-MP.html
-
Excellent read
-
Excellent summary of this discredited, shameful excuse for a government. I cannot understand, for the life of me, how anyone could possibly vote Labour in the forthcoming election. >:(
-
So good I read it all through.
Don't do that often.
Just a shame he toned it down really!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Absolutely to the point!
But I'm a Conservative so I would say that! But, no really this article about sums up the dangerous and damaging charade which has made us all suffer since 1997 >:( >:(
-
I dislike this government as much as the next man, but that is a bit OTT.
-
Maybe, maybe not but bear in mind he has scrutinised New labour very closely since its inception.
He has closely followed the characters involved and noted their every lie, turn, u- turn,stealth tax etc. He has predicted much of what they have done before they did it. He had them sussed very early on, when everyone else was still humming "Things can only get better".Personally I think he hits the nail right on the head
-
Interesting in that he was a supporter and saw it from the inside
-
I have yet to meet a genuine supporter of the original Labour party who has a good word to say about New Labour.From their perspective their party was stolen from them. About the only connection they have with the original Labour party is John Prescott - a greedy, self serving, ignoramous. It was a coup de tat in the nineties, the party was hijacked by a load of unprincipled charlatans. ;)
-
the party was hijacked by a load of unprincipled charlatans. ;)
The party was unelectable so they had to improve their image. Still a bunch of winkers though >:(
-
aah - "the stupid person's Jeremy Clarkson" thought you'd be a fan albs ;D
Littlejohn always tries to be witty but i rarely find racist homophobes with a history of violence amusing, I do remember his god-awful, car crash of a chatshow with fondness tho :y
as usual he's deeply misguided about his own standing if he thinks he could of been elected ;D
-
aah - "the stupid person's Jeremy Clarkson" thought you'd be a fan albs ;D
Littlejohn always tries to be witty but i rarely find racist homophobes with a history of violence amusing, I do remember his god-awful, car crash of a chatshow with fondness tho :y
as usual he's deeply misguided about his own standing if he thinks he could of been elected ;D
I can see nothing racist or homophobic in the article. Are you sure you read the right one, or are you referring to something else? :-?
-
Littlejohn was a strong advocate of the the rights of gays/ lesbians to engage in civil partnership.
Hardly the actions of a Homophope ( I hate that word btw)
Although he did get upset over giving gay men the right to have sex with each other in public toilets. If thats "homophobic" count me in. :y
Being called stupid by someone who posts in so many threads but never actually puts up a counter argument against what he disagrees with, but simply types sweeping generalisations which by definition dont really say anything and cant really be argued with, thus presumably giving an appearance of having a clue what he is talking about - he make I larf.
::) ;D ;D ;D
If a big noise in a big union offer you a candidacy in a safe Labour seat you WILL be the next MP for said constituency, end of. ::)
I suspect Banjax didnt actually read the article, just saw the name of the author and reacted, I have a challenge for you Banjax - read the article, give your counter arguments on the issues raised therein point by point, back it up with some facts. ;)
-
aah - "the stupid person's Jeremy Clarkson" thought you'd be a fan albs ;D
Littlejohn always tries to be witty but i rarely find racist homophobes with a history of violence amusing, I do remember his god-awful, car crash of a chatshow with fondness tho :y
as usual he's deeply misguided about his own standing if he thinks he could of been elected ;D
I can see nothing racist or homophobic in the article. Are you sure you read the right one, or are you referring to something else? :-?
i'm not summing him up on the strength of one article, i keep my eye on mr Littlejohn - have done for decades, Nick. I can't believe a mainstream newspaper still employs the nasty wee nyaff :o
-
aah - "the stupid person's Jeremy Clarkson" thought you'd be a fan albs ;D
Littlejohn always tries to be witty but i rarely find racist homophobes with a history of violence amusing, I do remember his god-awful, car crash of a chatshow with fondness tho :y
as usual he's deeply misguided about his own standing if he thinks he could of been elected ;D
I can see nothing racist or homophobic in the article. Are you sure you read the right one, or are you referring to something else? :-?
i'm not summing him up on the strength of one article, i keep my eye on mr Littlejohn - have done for decades, Nick. I can't believe a mainstream newspaper still employs the nasty wee nyaff :o
OK, so kindly provide me with an example of his racist or homophobic views from elsewhere, then.
You made the allegation...now back it up.
-
aah - "the stupid person's Jeremy Clarkson" thought you'd be a fan albs ;D
Littlejohn always tries to be witty but i rarely find racist homophobes with a history of violence amusing, I do remember his god-awful, car crash of a chatshow with fondness tho :y
as usual he's deeply misguided about his own standing if he thinks he could of been elected ;D
I can see nothing racist or homophobic in the article. Are you sure you read the right one, or are you referring to something else? :-?
i'm not summing him up on the strength of one article, i keep my eye on mr Littlejohn - have done for decades, Nick. I can't believe a mainstream newspaper still employs the nasty wee nyaff :o
OK, so kindly provide me with an example of his racist or homophobic views from elsewhere, then.
You made the allegation...now back it up.
you need proof? ;D
jeesus - i gotta trawl thru his horrible little turds of wisdom....OK gimme a few minutes :y
-
you forget i used to read the Guardian: how about just one year for example - almost any column from 2004 will do it seems-
The Diary column of The Guardian newspaper annually documents the results of a "Littlejohn audit" — a count of the number of references Littlejohn makes to homosexuality in his columns.
In the past year's Sun columns, Richard has referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to 'homophobia' and six to being 'homophobic' (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to 'gay sex in public toilets', three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns — an impressive increase on his 2003 total of 82 mentions. There is, alas, no space for us to revisit the scientific study which found obsessive homophobes more responsive to gay porn. But Richard, we're begging you: talk to someone.
—Marina Hyde, The Guardian
Littlejohn has claimed he is opposed to discrimination against homosexuals. In his Daily Mail column on 10 October 2007, he said, in reference to British society in the 1970s: "Though homosexuality wasn't exactly my idea of a night out, I thought it outrageous that gays were subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment, housing and pensions." However Johann Hari provided quotes from Littlejohn's writing at the time showing he had linked homosexuality to paedophilia and that he had joked about gay-bashing. Ben Summerskill in the Guardian, and Brian Paddick in Attitude reflecting on a dinner he had with Littlejohn, have suggested Littlejohn talks so much about the subject because he is a repressed homosexual.
references and links from wiki here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Littlejohn
as for being racist - referring to Barack Obama as uppity in my view is racist, why use that particular word "uppity" unless you're implying the n-word to follow, Littljohn's columns are designed to provoke reaction but also curry favour with the lowest common denominator sadly. i prefer a higher standard that's all Nick >:(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1045090/Obama-President-Dont-count-chickens.html
-
I've never tried curried favour, what's it like?
-
I've never tried curried favour, what's it like?
cheap, nasty, goes well with lager but leaves a bitter aftertaste ;D
-
you forget i used to read the Guardian: how about just one year for example - almost any column from 2004 will do it seems-
The Diary column of The Guardian newspaper annually documents the results of a "Littlejohn audit" — a count of the number of references Littlejohn makes to homosexuality in his columns.
In the past year's Sun columns, Richard has referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to 'homophobia' and six to being 'homophobic' (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to 'gay sex in public toilets', three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns — an impressive increase on his 2003 total of 82 mentions. There is, alas, no space for us to revisit the scientific study which found obsessive homophobes more responsive to gay porn. But Richard, we're begging you: talk to someone.
—Marina Hyde, The Guardian
Littlejohn has claimed he is opposed to discrimination against homosexuals. In his Daily Mail column on 10 October 2007, he said, in reference to British society in the 1970s: "Though homosexuality wasn't exactly my idea of a night out, I thought it outrageous that gays were subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment, housing and pensions." However Johann Hari provided quotes from Littlejohn's writing at the time showing he had linked homosexuality to paedophilia and that he had joked about gay-bashing. Ben Summerskill in the Guardian, and Brian Paddick in Attitude reflecting on a dinner he had with Littlejohn, have suggested Littlejohn talks so much about the subject because he is a repressed homosexual.
references and links from wiki here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Littlejohn
as for being racist - referring to Barack Obama as uppity in my view is racist, why use that particular word "uppity" unless you're implying the n-word to follow, Littljohn's columns are designed to provoke reaction but also curry favour with the lowest common denominator sadly. i prefer a higher standard that's all Nick >:(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1045090/Obama-President-Dont-count-chickens.html
Because someone regularly writes often about homosexual issues, it does not make them either homophobic or a repressed homosexual (after-dinner conjecture is just soooo factual).
Is there a link between homosexuality and paedophilia? I don't know, but the question can surely be posed. Why should it be taboo?
My parents introduced me to the term "uppity" many decades ago to denote anyone acting arrogantly or "above their station". Is Obama uppity? I don't know. But even if I agreed, how can one extrapolate from that a hatred of blacks?
The trouble with all lefties is that they are so hyper-sensitive and looking for hidden agendas (because they have so many themselves, I expect) that they read all sorts of unintentioned meanings into things people say...especially if they suspect the person saying them is right of centre.
It's the reason why political correctness is indeed a scourge. For example, when I chair a meeting, I like to be referred to as "Mr Chairman" and, when I attend other meetings with a lady in the chair, I call her "Madam Chairman". Presumably, in your ultra-sensitive lefty way, you think I'm being "sexist" - yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Nothing you have written is evidence of Littlejohn's alleged racism or homophobia. It's merely tittle-tattle and supposition. :(
-
poovery
What's this :-?
-
you forget i used to read the Guardian: how about just one year for example - almost any column from 2004 will do it seems-
The Diary column of The Guardian newspaper annually documents the results of a "Littlejohn audit" — a count of the number of references Littlejohn makes to homosexuality in his columns.
In the past year's Sun columns, Richard has referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to 'homophobia' and six to being 'homophobic' (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to 'gay sex in public toilets', three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns — an impressive increase on his 2003 total of 82 mentions. There is, alas, no space for us to revisit the scientific study which found obsessive homophobes more responsive to gay porn. But Richard, we're begging you: talk to someone.
—Marina Hyde, The Guardian
Littlejohn has claimed he is opposed to discrimination against homosexuals. In his Daily Mail column on 10 October 2007, he said, in reference to British society in the 1970s: "Though homosexuality wasn't exactly my idea of a night out, I thought it outrageous that gays were subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment, housing and pensions." However Johann Hari provided quotes from Littlejohn's writing at the time showing he had linked homosexuality to paedophilia and that he had joked about gay-bashing. Ben Summerskill in the Guardian, and Brian Paddick in Attitude reflecting on a dinner he had with Littlejohn, have suggested Littlejohn talks so much about the subject because he is a repressed homosexual.
references and links from wiki here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Littlejohn
as for being racist - referring to Barack Obama as uppity in my view is racist, why use that particular word "uppity" unless you're implying the n-word to follow, Littljohn's columns are designed to provoke reaction but also curry favour with the lowest common denominator sadly. i prefer a higher standard that's all Nick >:(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1045090/Obama-President-Dont-count-chickens.html
Because someone regularly writes often about homosexual issues, it does not make them either homophobic or a repressed homosexual (after-dinner conjecture is just soooo factual).
Is there a link between homosexuality and paedophilia? I don't know, but the question can surely be posed. Why should it be taboo?
My parents introduced me to the term "uppity" many decades ago to denote anyone acting arrogantly or "above their station". Is Obama uppity? I don't know. But even if I agreed, how can one extrapolate from that a hatred of blacks?
The trouble with all lefties is that they are so hyper-sensitive and looking for hidden agendas (because they have so many themselves, I expect) that they read all sorts of unintentioned meanings into things people say...especially if they suspect the person saying them is right of centre.
It's the reason why political correctness is indeed a scourge. For example, when I chair a meeting, I like to be referred to as "Mr Chairman" and, when I attend other meetings with a lady in the chair, I call her "Madam Chairman". Presumably, in your ultra-sensitive lefty way, you think I'm being "sexist" - yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Nothing you have written is evidence of Littlejohn's alleged racism or homophobia. It's merely tittle-tattle and supposition. :(
this named as "fear for the unwanted" in psychology ;D :P
-
i guarantee he isn't referring to homosexuality in glowing terms in his hundreds of columns addressing it i'm afraid
as for his racism - it may seem tenuous to you but why use that word specifically, I don't know what age you are Nick but it brings associations with it, plus its an unusual word to use in that context, almost as if he's writing it from the 1950's
on a side issue I'm not one of these lefty-pc brigade tree huggers - i agree some of this word censorship is ludocrous "person-hole" instead of "manhole" for example (although if you dig a little deeper you usually find theres no truth behind these changes, i remember a course i was on a while ago and we were berated for the term "brain-storming" as it should be "thought shower" instead - i queried this and was told that that was the accepted term nowadays, who was it offending exactly? ridiculous
certain words have gladly passed into history as language evolves however and to dust them off and put them in a piece about a black president seems a bit contrived, a bit too much of a coincidence - but thats my opinion and like a-holes - everyones got one :y
-
An example of the so called "homophobia" you accuse him of BJ. :y ::)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1263796/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-hypocrisy-Lefts-hate-mongers.html
-
you forget i used to read the Guardian: how about just one year for example - almost any column from 2004 will do it seems-
The Diary column of The Guardian newspaper annually documents the results of a "Littlejohn audit" — a count of the number of references Littlejohn makes to homosexuality in his columns.
In the past year's Sun columns, Richard has referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to 'homophobia' and six to being 'homophobic' (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to 'gay sex in public toilets', three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns — an impressive increase on his 2003 total of 82 mentions. There is, alas, no space for us to revisit the scientific study which found obsessive homophobes more responsive to gay porn. But Richard, we're begging you: talk to someone.
—Marina Hyde, The Guardian
Littlejohn has claimed he is opposed to discrimination against homosexuals. In his Daily Mail column on 10 October 2007, he said, in reference to British society in the 1970s: "Though homosexuality wasn't exactly my idea of a night out, I thought it outrageous that gays were subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment, housing and pensions." However Johann Hari provided quotes from Littlejohn's writing at the time showing he had linked homosexuality to paedophilia and that he had joked about gay-bashing. Ben Summerskill in the Guardian, and Brian Paddick in Attitude reflecting on a dinner he had with Littlejohn, have suggested Littlejohn talks so much about the subject because he is a repressed homosexual.
references and links from wiki here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Littlejohn
as for being racist - referring to Barack Obama as uppity in my view is racist, why use that particular word "uppity" unless you're implying the n-word to follow, Littljohn's columns are designed to provoke reaction but also curry favour with the lowest common denominator sadly. i prefer a higher standard that's all Nick >:(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1045090/Obama-President-Dont-count-chickens.html
Well, they do provide some ammo for that argument.
http://www.petertatchell.net/
The "age of consent" section is full of argument for lowering the age of consent to 14.
When it was 21 they argued for 18. When it was 18 they argued for 16. Now its 16 they want 14. If they get 14 will that be the end of it ?
-
An example of the so called "homophobia" you accuse him of BJ. :y ::)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1263796/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-hypocrisy-Lefts-hate-mongers.html
i don't think it would unduly bother you if he were homophobic Albs, he does seem inordinately interested in the practice tho....certainly more than would be seemly ;D
Littlejohn gives me a headache - he appeals to the lowest common denominator, uses cheap points scoring, exaggerates, spins snidey little comments insinuating his little lies - you're a fan of his, Albs - I get that - brilliant at what he does - it's just what he does is the problem :y
-
An example of the so called "homophobia" you accuse him of BJ. :y ::)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1263796/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-hypocrisy-Lefts-hate-mongers.html
i don't think it would unduly bother you if he were homophobic Albs, he does seem inordinately interested in the practice tho....certainly more than would be seemly ;D
Littlejohn gives me a headache - he appeals to the lowest common denominator, uses cheap points scoring, exaggerates, spins snidey little comments insinuating his little lies - you're a fan of his, Albs - I get that - brilliant at what he does - it's just what he does is the problem :y
1. Thats a hell of an assumption ::)
2. I dont consider myself "lowest common denominator "(not quite anyway) but if you do I wont be losing sleep. ;)
3. Instead of yet more sweeping generalisations, why not just read the article in the link, and then admit you might be wrong. :y :)
-
An example of the so called "homophobia" you accuse him of BJ. :y ::)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1263796/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-hypocrisy-Lefts-hate-mongers.html
i don't think it would unduly bother you if he were homophobic Albs, he does seem inordinately interested in the practice tho....certainly more than would be seemly ;D
Littlejohn gives me a headache - he appeals to the lowest common denominator, uses cheap points scoring, exaggerates, spins snidey little comments insinuating his little lies - you're a fan of his, Albs - I get that - brilliant at what he does - it's just what he does is the problem :y
1. Thats a hell of an assumption ::)
2. I dont consider myself "lowest common denominator "(not quite anyway) but if you do I wont be losing sleep. ;)
3. Instead of yet more sweeping generalisations, why not just read the article in the link, and then admit you might be wrong. :y :)
1. you're right Albs it's an assumption. ;)
2. he appeals to the lowest common denominator, I didn't say everyone who buys his line necessarily is - you strike me as an intelligent fellow :y
3. i'm [size=12]never[/size][/i][/b] wrong Albs ;D