Littlejohn.Yet Again.

I shouldn't read Richard Littlejohn. He just pisses me right off. But I do, and as soon as I do, I feel the need to vent on this blog.

So let's take a look at what the ever ignorant Littlejohn has got himself into a tizzy about today - some nurse being kicked in the teeth for offering to pray for patients. He asks what her crime was, before noting that none of the outrageous crimes he offers were actually the problem:

No. Her 'crime' was to offer to say a prayer for one old lady on the ward. It's what we used to call an act of Christian charity.

Yes, we used to call it that. However, times have moved on. And an evangelical zeal for an outmoded and out of date fictional religion isn't quite as smiled on as it once was.

Mrs Petrie, a committed Christian since she was aged ten when her mother died of breast cancer, routinely offers to pray for her patients' speedy recovery. Many of them find it a great comfort.

What fucking difference does it make that Petrie's mother died of breast cancer when she was 10? Nothing - unless you are cynically trying to create sympathy for a supposed carer who said the wrong thing. And as we shall see, Petrie doing this routinely is part of the problem.

In this case, 79-year-old May Phippen said: thanks, but no thanks. No offence given or taken. But when Mrs Phippen mentioned it to another nurse, all hell broke loose.

How do you know no offence was taken? Have you asked May Phippen? And perhaps the other nurse was offended that Petrie was using and abusing her position as a carer to push her evangelical Christian beliefs onto a sick woman. I know I fucking well would be offended by that. Or does the opinion of the other nurse not count? Because, perhaps, she is a nurse and not a patient.

Mrs Petrie had previously been warned about her conduct after she asked a male patient if he would like a prayer card. He thought nothing of it, but his 'carer' threw a wobbly and reported her to hospital authorities.

Oh, ok, so Petrie has previous form for pushing her beliefs onto others. And has been warned about it before. To push her beliefs onto someone once could be classed as ill-thinking ignorance. To do so again shows a contempt for anyone who does not believe the same thing as Petrie. A contempt that should not be present in a nurse.

Administrator Alison Withers wrote to her: 'As a nurse you are required to uphold the reputation of your profession. Your NMC (Nursing Midwifery Council) code states that "you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity", and "you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health".'

So as a nurse, Petrie has to adhere to a particular code of conduct - as so many people have to do when holding down a job. If she breaks those rules, she gets herself into trouble. As she might have picked up from her first fucking warning. For fuck's sake.

(Withers) didn't explain how innocently volunteering to pray for a patient brought the game into disrepute or how it compromised Mrs Petrie's discharge of her professional duties.

Yes she did. In the letter. Petrie can't push her religious beliefs onto others. Petrie did so, and brought her profession into disrepute. Really fucking simple.

If I was in hospital, I'd be flattered if someone wanted to pray for my recovery. It wouldn't matter to me what God they believed in.

If you were in hospital, Littlejohn, you fucking cunt, you'd be lucky if someone wanted to pray for your recovery.

they could draft in a Red Indian to perform a raindance at the end of my bed if it meant I got home sooner. I wouldn't care less about my nurse's religious belief, provided it didn't involve blood-letting and human sacrifice.

Red Indian? Ah, casual racism, our old friend.

The power of prayer has long been acknowledged as part of the healing process. That's why hospitals have chaplains and there are Bibles in bedside cabinets.

No. That is palpable bullshit. A positive mental attitude is seem by some as part of the healing process, and some would argue (in an extremely unconvincing way) that prayer forms part of that positive mental attitude. But it has not been acknowledged that prayer is part of the healing process. Atheists get better too. And the reason why there are Bibles in bedside cabinets is down to the pushiness of evangelical Christian organisations. Prayer is about as likely to improve your health as blood-letting and human sacrifice.

The truth is that Christianity forms no part of the 'diversity' agenda.

True. I'd agree with that Christanity is fundamentally intolerant. They don't *get* diversity. They never will. Their pious, sickening belief that they are absolutely right will always hold them back from embracing the ideas of beliefs of those who believe something different to them.

As I wrote on Friday, in relation to the gay adoption scandal in Edinburgh, the only religion that official Britain recognises is 'diversity' itself.

Diversity isn't a religious, you fucking moron. It is a means of making sure that the different types of religion in this country are allowed to flourish, without being oppressed by a rival religion. This is basic, basic stuff.

Just imagine how they would have reacted had Mrs Petrie been a Muslim offering to pray to Allah for a patient's recovery. Anyone who objected would be accused of a 'hate crime' and dumped in a skip at the back of the mortuary.

No, that's not correct. There would be an outcry (rightly so). Probably led by you, Littlejohn.

What's really chilling about this case is that neither of the patients complained. It was only when news reached the ears of another nurse and a 'carer' that the full inquisition swung into action.

So the opinions of nurses and carers - who may be acting on the concerns of their patients - aren't allowed to have opinions? Fuck that. If I encounter racism in my working environment, I will challenge it. The same for those who try to foist their religious beliefs on others.

What kind of sick society have we become where self-righteous sneaks can ruin someone's career?

What kind of sick society would allow an evangelical Christian to push their beliefs onto others - including sick patients in their care?

This is what the small print at the bottom of all those public sector job adverts means in reality. 'Diversity' is just another way of persecuting decent people trying to go about their daily business. This is 'investing in diversity' in action. What else do you think all those equality managers do all day?

Diveristy is not used for persecution; it is used to prevent persecution. And those who follow the diversity opinions of their workplaces - largely by keeping their beliefs to themselves in the workplace - don't have an issue. It is those, such as Petrie, who are too socially maladjusted or too ignorant to keep their private views private, who run into problems.

And as for those diversity managers - well, they have to deal with the likes of Petrie all day, I'd imagine.

The most intolerant people in Britain are always those who preach 'tolerance' most loudly.

No. The most intolerant people in Britain are those who read The Daily Mail. Closely followed by religious zealots.

How does victimising Mrs Petrie square with not promoting 'causes that are not related to health'? Isn't that exactly what the hospital authorities themselves are doing?

No. They are penalising Petrie for promoting causes that are not realted to health.

Why should Mrs Petrie, or anyone else, have to 'demonstrate a personal commitment to equality and diversity'? She can harbour whatever beliefs she likes, provided it doesn't interfere with her professionalism.

It does interfere with her professionalism if colleagues, carers and potentially patients are being exposed to a religion that they don't with to be exposed to. Imagine if a Muslim nurse offered a prayer to Allah for Richard Littlejohn. Despite his protests to the contrary earlier in his article, I think he would die - right there and then - from an indignant apoplexy.

There's only one word to describe hatchet-faced harridans like administrator Alison Withers and the tell-tale creeps trying to get a dedicated nurse such as Caroline Petrie sacked for dispensing a little Christian kindness.

Sick.

The old school yard taunt of "takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Littlejohn Strikes Again

From Richard Littlejohn's column about children being adopted by a gay couple rather than their grandparents. After strongly implying they have been kidnapped and the distressing thing is that there hasn't been mass hysteria about this "kidnapping", he writes:

Why? Because they’ve been taken by social workers, not paedophiles. So that’s all right, then.

Well, frankly, yes. It is far better that they have been taken by social workers rather than paedophiles. What the fucking hell is Littlejohn saying here? That he would rather have them taken by paedophiles? Or that all social workers are paedophiles? What fresh insanity is this? Does this man even think before he spews this sort of crap from his stupid, stupid mouth?

Oh, sorry, I know the answer to that question...

Just so everyone is clear...

...Hanging bankers from lamp posts would do no one any good - but this bonus gravy train is just an insult to us all

It is worrying that The Daily Mail feels a need to clarify that hanging bankers wouldn't so any good for their readers...

Calm, reasoned commentary on dirty paedos

The Daily Mail has an article about two unpleasant, evil individuals with a predilection for underage rape. Of course, this being The Daily Mail, the article also manages to be unpleasant, not least because it appears to be at pains to point out that the paedophile couple were also gay. Like that makes a blind bit of fucking difference; unless, of course, The Daily Mail is happier with heterosexual paedos. It is certainly difficult to imagine then starting the headline to this article with the phrase "Heterosexual paedophile Lovers..."

But as angry, incoherent and unpleasant as the article is, it takes the comments from readers to really drag us into an insane alternate universe, where anger and hate are the only emotions. Yet we’re going to start with a surprisingly restrained example:

Claire:
Why were their human (if you can even call this pair human) rights more important than the children's?

Well, let's hope these amoral perverts get a very long time in prison

Amoral? Come on, Claire, you can do better than that. I think you can go the whole hog and call them immoral.

Political point-scoring is also on the agenda:

R. F.
One more reason why we must pull out of Europe

I can think of many reasons to pull out of Europe, R.F.; this isn’t one of them. Unfortunately, pulling out of Europe is going to do nothing to stop paedophiles in Blackpool.

Lalla:
Well this in England! Thank God I don't live there anymore.

I’m thanking God for that as well, Lalla.

This excerpt from a comment also made me raise my eyebrows and shake my head in weary disbelief:

John:
And they 'wept as they were convicted following the trial'. Self pity? Another reason to lock them up for life

I love that. Assume they were weeping out of self-pity. Rather than shame, or guilt, or fear of having their dicks ripped off in prison by other convicts. And once you have made that assumption, condemn them more for it! Yeah! YEAH! Had they not have been crying in self-pity (possibly) then I dare say John would have let them off with a thirty year sentence. But as soon as he got a whiff of (possible) self-pity, that was them fucked. Lock ‘em up for life.

But the best comment, the most pungent turd on the pile of effluent crap attached to this sewer of an article, is this one:

Eileen:
This appalling, criminal behaviour is now openly tolerated, even enouraged in today's pc, Human Rights Act Britain. Will we ever get wholesome, decent government again? I am no coward, but I fear for the future and I definintely fear the State!

We’re going to have to assume that Eileen meant “encouraged” when she wrote “enouraged.” Big assumption, I know, but maybe Eileen was so consumed by self-righteous rage that she was thumping the keyboard rather than typing. But I’m intrigued that she thinks paedophilia is being tolerated and encouraged here in the UK – especially since this article is about paedophiles being convicted for their crimes. Maybe she knows something we don’t. Maybe she has seen Gordon Brown and David Cameron secretly teaming up to cheer paedos on as they go about their child rape. And I wonder when we will get wholesome, decent government again. If only that nice Mr Macmillan was still in power, he’d sort it all out. And as for Eileen fearing the state, well, I can see where she’s coming from but seriously, she needs to get her priorities straight. She should fear the gay paedos first, then the state. Those paedos; they should be the really scary ones. Even for shrill women venting on shitty websites.

The crimes described in the article are horrific; the article and the comments show nothing more than unfocussed, impotent rage. I don’t know what The Daily Mail wanted to achieve with this shrill, tasteless article – all they have done is give an outlet to those whose more important emotion is hate.

Robin Page and Prince Harry.

I don't really have anything to say about the Prince Harry debate - racist comments happen all the time, and this isn't the first (nor will it be the last) time that a member of the armed forces or the Royal Family makes a random racist comment. Harry shouldn't have said what he said; but seriously, I find it difficult to get worked up about this sort of thing. That is until I read the words of Robin Page.

I've already commented on Robin Page; however, I think he is going to be the gift that keeps on giving here at The Daily Mail Tendency. His contribution to the debate seems to show his customary intellect and sagacity:

In a private video that has taken two years to surface, you and your Metropolitan friends believe that the use of the word "Paki" - short for "Pakistani" is offensive and unacceptable. Even though it was said in a completely inoffensive way and as part of normal conversation.

So, an offensive word said in an inoffensive way as part of a normal conversation is ok? In that case, I'm going to call you a total fucking moronic piss bastard shit of a moron, Robin. But that's ok. Because the way I said it was inoffensive.

My view is simple - as far as the ordinary people I met yesterday are concerned,far more were offended by the politically correct reaction to Prince Harry,than they were by Prince Harry and his use of the word"Paki".

Would that be your family, Robin? And your friends in your local boozer? Did you see anyone yesterday other than yourself? Who are these ordinary people? Because I can't help but feel that they are the kind of people who repeat "political correctness gone mad" over and over again, like a broken record. On speed.

"And does all this PC nonsense mean that we can no longer use the words Ozzie, Kiwi, Paddy, Jock, and Taffy;"

Uh-huh. Good work, Robin, you are starting to understand the basics of racism.

"...and should I become offended if I am called a "Brit."

As an aside, that sentence should have ended with a question mark. But I have to say I will be offended if I am called a Brit, if only because it might mean people are mistaking me for the utterly revolting Robin Page.

"Interestingly it is the politically correct themselves who are quick to label white South Africans as "Boers".

I have never, ever seen or read of any politically correct person referring to the South Africans as Boers. I'd love to know where Robin gets his facts from; I suspect it is all third-hand hearsay.

Perhaps too Dave, you don't have any friends with nick-names, in the sterile world you clearly inhabitat. Among my friends there are "Biggles" (he wears a crevat), "Gay Boy the Second" (he went to public school), "Wing Nut" (he has prominent ears), "Silage" (his feet hummed when he was at school), "Sooty" (he had jet black hair - now white), "Dingle" (nobody can remember how Dingle got his name - not even Dingle), and then there is "Badger" (who has got a fixation on badgers and behaves like one).

Presumably by "inhabitat" Page means "inhabit". Unless he is accusing Cameron if living in a posh furniture store.

And "Gay Boy the Second"? Homophobia doesn't seem to be a concept that Robin understands. Mind you, that isn't surprising since he hasn't quite grasped the concept of racism yet. As he goes on to prove:

"Oh, and I forgot, "Jock"; you'll never believe this - he's Scottish."

Nothing racist there at all. Except the friends I have from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would all be offended if I referred to them by terms of racial abuse; in fact, if I went on doing it, they would cease to be my friends. But maybe my friends have more self respect that Mr Page's.

Golly (oh sorry, I shouldn't have written that in these sensitive times)

No, you probably shouldn't.

- there's plenty in all this to keep the "hate crime", "thoughtcrime" and race relations industry going for some time - and make no mistake - race relations has become an industry, to gain publicity; to gain advantage and to gain financial reward for some perceived and obscure slight.

Or some actual and deliberately offensive insult.

Interestingly as a countrymen, simply defending the countryside and my culture, I am regularly abused - sometimes by the politically correct themselves. In multicultural Britain our own rural culture seems to be excluded from the outrage industry that is plugged in so effectively to the word "Paki".

Probably because you rural culture contains people like you, Robin; and you come across as a racist homophobe. I can't think why the politically correct aren't rushing to defend you and your ways, Robin. Maybe it's because whenever they approach you, you shove a shotgun in their face and shout "Gerroff my land."*

But there is a personal ancedote (that most reliable of sources) to back up this accusation of intolerant "politicall correct" people:

Once I received a letter saying "I hope you and your family drive over a cliff. You c....". The writing was not joined up and the author claimed to be a teacher from London. Almost certainly he would have been politically correct.

Why do you think he's politically correct? Because he's from London? Because he claims to have been a teacher? Because his writing wasn't joined up? What? Judging by how your personality comes across, Robin, he could just have been someone who met you. And really really hates you - and genuinely wants you to drive off a cliff. Nothing to do with political correctness...

But he ends his article with a stirring call to arms (if you are Compo from Last of the Summer Wine):

So come on Dave get real - one of the ways to show "real" is shed political correctness.

That leaves me quite unsure about what "real" means in the world of Robin Page. But, like most people who both read and write for The Daily Mail, "real" probably means "what I think and do and nothing else!" Which is why Cameron (as he full well knows) would be well advised to ignore the like of Robin Page - it is pandering to that sort of person that lead William Hague to electoral oblivion in the 2001 election.

*Yep, this is abusing someone coming from the country. But having been raised in the countryside myself, it is of lasting shame to me that walking, talking fuckwitted cliches like Page actually walk this earth.

Take a look at this article in The Guardian, which deals with Sir David King's attack on, amongst others, The Daily Mail.

Of course, I enjoy reading anything that has a pop at The Daily Hate. But there is a very interesting comment in the article from King:

King said the Daily Mail had waged a "brilliant campaign" on GM food. "The use of the word 'Frankenfood' by the Daily Mail I would have to say was a piece of brilliant journalism. It brought through all of the fears, these gut fears, about tinkering with the genetic code and these mad scientists in their laboratories."

We can attack The Daily Mail and other hatemongers in the media for their angry, poorly researched ignorance, but actually they know exactly what they are doing. They very carefully, very clinically, provoke people to rise to their ignorant, ugly campaigns.

Which is what makes them all the more dangerous.

Foxy Knoxy and the Presumption of Guilt

Being innocent until proven guilty is a central platform of many justice systems, not least in this country. And, of course, our media is more than happy to adhere to this. Unless the case happens to involve the brutal murder of a photogenic, female, English student abroad and the suspect(s) happen not to be English. And have committed the fatal flaw of having MySpace and Facebook pages filled with photos.

Meredith Kercher’s murder was pretty horrific, and just a preliminary reading of any article about the killing will give you such terrible words as "raped", "held down" and "throat slashed". However, to date, no-one has been convicted of this crime, and so much of the coverage of the suspects is completely irrelevant. And perhaps inevitably, The Mail is leading the way with inane, judgmental shite printed in the toilet paper that constitutes that hate rag.

Much of the focus is on Amanda Knox. It is difficult to know why, although I rather suspect it is because Knox herself looks good on camera and, more crucially, gave herself the punchy online name of "Foxy Knoxy."

For the Mail is now incapable of Amanda Knox anything other than Foxy Knoxy. And if you type the words "Foxy Knoxy" into The Daily Mail’s search engine, you come up with a massive 82 results. Which is not bad going for a suspect in a murder committed just 12 fucking days ago!

And look at some of the neutral, non-judgmental headlines:

Foxy Knoxy: Inside the twisted world of flatmate suspected of Meredith's murder

Which contains such gems as:

"In a series of meandering short stories, she outlines a string of scenarios which includes two brothers discussing the drugging and rape of a young girl."

Because, of course, writing bollocks stories on line is a sure sign that you are a foaming mouthed, evil rapist murderer just waiting to strike. And:

"Last night a fellow student said she had not liked Knox. "I never really liked her on a personal level. Me and a friend found her a bit brash. When she introduced herself to the class she just went up to one random guy and didn't go up to anyone else. She talked a lot and laughed at her own jokes.""

Fucking hell, what an evil cow. Not liked by fellow students. A bit brash. She must have done it!

But the second headline is more compelling, and insulting:

Foxy Knoxy, the girl who had to compete with her own mother for men

The summary of the story reads:

"Her father walked out when she was only four and her mother then married a toyboy... the disturbing past of the student accused of killing her British flatmate."

Disturbing past? Coming from a broken home is disturbing? Marrying a toyboy is disturbing? Fuck me, don’t let anyone from The Mail watch Hollyoaks, Eastenders or Coronation Street. They’ll be utterly traumatised!

And then we have:

Meredith's father says she found Foxy Knoxy flatmate 'eccentric'

Because Meredith’s father, a distraught, bereaved father and secondhand source, is a completely honest and open, reliable contact simply because his daughter was killed. But even if Meredith did find Amanda Knox "eccentric", "sure of herself" and had been "entertaining men "within a week of arriving" in Italy", so the fuck what? How many other students are eccentric, full of themselves, and sleep around when at university? Hell, you could’ve described me as "eccentric" and "full of myself" when at university. And I would have slept around too, given half a chance.

And I could so on and on and on, highlighting more and more judgmental ignorance and ill-founded attacks on a girl not because she is guilty of murder, but rather because she had the misfortune to become part of a murder investigation at the same time as having an online, accessible identity.

But then I read something at the bottom of the last online article that gave me just a momentary flash of optimism. The first comment reads:

"Perhaps in a case of this seriousness, the media should stop calling her 'Foxy Knoxy' at every opportunity and stick to her real name. She's a murder suspect, not a celebrity."

Then we have:

"This woman - neither convicted nor charged with any crime - is being demonised simply because of her nickname and (alleged) reputation for having fun."

And finally:

"I agree with the others. It is unfair to refer to the suspect as Foxy Knoxy."

Maybe, just maybe, there is some hope for The Daily Hate if the comments on their website are willing to criticise the paper from some of the more outrageously insulting and bullying behaviour.

I Am Spartacus!

Tim Worstall goes through a detailed deconstruction of The Daily Hate's attack on blogger Owen Barder.

Go take a look.