Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Banjax]

aah - "the stupid person's Jeremy Clarkson" thought you'd be a fan albs 

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 

as usual he's deeply misguided about his own standing if he thinks he could of been elected 

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 

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? 
jeesus - i gotta trawl thru his horrible little turds of wisdom....OK gimme a few minutes 

[Banjax]

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

[STMO999]

I've never tried curried favour, what's it like?

[Banjax]

I've never tried curried favour, what's it like?

cheap, nasty, goes well with lager but leaves a bitter aftertaste 

[Nickbat]

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.     

[ChevetteNick]

poovery

What's this :-?

[cem_devecioglu]

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 

[Banjax]

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 

[albitz]

An example of the so called "homophobia" you accuse him of BJ.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1263796/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-hypocrisy-Lefts-hate-mongers.html

[albitz]

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 ?

[Banjax]

An example of the so called "homophobia" you accuse him of BJ.
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 

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

[albitz]

An example of the so called "homophobia" you accuse him of BJ.
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 

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

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.

[Banjax]

An example of the so called "homophobia" you accuse him of BJ.
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 

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

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.

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 
3. i'm [size=12]never[/size][/i][/b] wrong Albs