Thursday, December 28, 2006

Those Dreadful Attacks

It hardly bears thinking about. Five separate, brutal attacks on a despised class, defined by what they are forced to do to earn a living in Blair's Britain.

Whether the attacks are the work of one person or of many (a theory which shows how widespread in society is this hatred), the perpetrators are obviously deeply disturbed individuals, almost certainly confused about their sexuality, ill at ease and unable to come to terms with a modern Britain which has increasingly shown that old attitudes to what used to be called "the Daily Mail problem" are no longer relevant.

What do these self-appointed moral Tsars (and didn't Peter Sutcliffe claim to be "cleaning Bradford up" ?) think they will have achieved with their senseless assaults ? Like it or not, there have always been Daily Mail columnists - and, despite the best efforts of pursed-lipped, judgemental liberals, there probably always will be.

Poor Richard Littlejohn was merely trying to earn a living the best way he knows how. He doesn't deserve to be brutally attacked in this horrific manner, no matter what his lifestyle.

Were it not for all those 'aren't I liberal' people writing about the murdered girls as plucky little street heroines, he would not have been driven to write what he did.

Society is to blame. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at a husband and father struggling to fill those column inches to buy Christmas gifts for his little ones.

He may be only a 'Daily Mail columnist', despised and disposable, to the curtain-twitching social worker brigade, but he's Daddy to those children, and we should never forget that in our rush to define him purely by what he does in order to put bread on the table and make those little children's eyes light up.

Which, I ask you, is the greater danger to society ? Mr Littlejohn's scribbles, which only harm himself, or the Archbishop of Canterbury's illegal war in Iraq ?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh Laban, Laban, when will you see beyond this stereotype of victimhood? Daily Mail columnists are not 'victims', as you seem to think; they are feisty, post-modern rebels challenging the cultural hegemony of the establishment. Sob-sisters are doin' it for themselves! Mrrrl power forever!

JuliaM said...

/applause

Nicely done, very nicely done....

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised Littlejohn allowed so many scathing comments about his column to be published. He only usually lets through posts like 'You should be Prime Minster you should.'

JuliaM said...

"I'm surprised Littlejohn allowed so many scathing comments about his column to be published."

A very quick scan down the list shows it's about 50-50 negative to positive.

I guess he's happy with that, I would be, given how internet blog posts usually go.....

Voyager said...

Tony Blair

Anonymous said...

Cheers this is one of the more witty rebuttals I've ever seen to one of my posts- I don't think I'm ever going to see Littlejohn as a victim, I presume he doesn't have to starve- but even so this is a very good humoured post. Thanks for the honour of being mocked! Happy belated Christmas and New Year.

Laban said...

Why thank you Gracchi - and a Merry Christmas to you !

Little Black Sambo said...

"Let him", not "let he".

Larry Teabag said...

Quite wrong Laban.

In Littlejohn's chosen field of "work", being repeatedly brutally attacked is an occupational hazard.

Not that makes it justifiable of course, but in the scheme of things if he's brutally attacked every time he sets pen to paper, for the horrid, hateful bastard he his, then it's no great loss.

Squander Two said...

> "Let him", not "let he".

Idiot.


Anyway, Laban, I'm at a loss to reconcile your usual Christian reverence for life with a defense of someone's writing "in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss."

My own problem with Littlejohn's column is that the attempts at humour are so tiresomely lame.