Most hateful front page of the day competition
On any ordinary day, this bit of maiden-aunt pearl-clutching from the Telegraph would win. On any ordinary day, this
bit of sneery "Ooh, women are doing something that men are allowed to do, not sure if they should be allowed to, for some reason or other" picture headline would clinch it. On any ordinary day, that kind of "Do we really want gells to be being unladylike?" toss would scoop the prize with no need for a steward's inquiry. But this is Friday, and Friday means it's Littlejohn day in the Mail. So we get this:
If you thought WPCs in burqas were ridiculous (I didn't, thanks for asking) then how about the Transgendered Police Association? How about it! Eh! Eh! Well, since you want to know with the kind of witless rhetorical question the Telegraph tried up there ^^^ then I'll tell you. I imagine it's an association for police officers who are transgender, and as such is a perfectly legitimate body. I imagine it brings together police officers who have to put up with the kind of sanctimonious carping from smellyfaced cunts like Richard Littlejohn day in, day out; people who, because of their legitimate lifestyles are ridiculed and held up as some kind of freak by utter bastards like the foul stinky scumbag tosspieces who work for the Daily Mail. Just for being who they are. Oh yes, Littleman, let's all gather round and have a fucking right old laugh about PC gone mad - hey, see what I did there? - in providing support and assistance to people who choose to do one of the toughest jobs in the country, and do so despite sexual proclivities* that idiots like you, you fucking gobshited pig-eyed prick squatting in judgement over everyone's lives in Britain from your gold-plated Florida mansion, regard as being worthy of hysterical abuse and being singled out as somehow deserving of mockery. Well actually, WPCs in burqas is fine by me, if they want to wear them.** If people want to be police officers then I couldn't give a shit what religion or sexual orientation they are - and surely it's better to have a police force that reflects the community it serves. Isn't it?
Or shall we just have a titter about the transgendered police association, because we have an emotional age of nine?***
* Or simply the way people are born into the wrong gender. See comments, and apologies for giving the wrong impression.
** The article refers to a story the other day in which non-Muslim women police officers wore Muslim dress in order to get a better understanding of the issues affecting Muslim women. A simple and understandable bit of empathy which Littlejohn doesn't compute either.
*** With apologies to nine-year-old readers, who are probably more insightful than Littlejohn
Related posts:





August 14th, 2009 - 06:39
*claps* WOOO! Well that woke me up.
One small thing, and it's only something I have come to notice recently (having got it wrong myself in company that corrected me rather firmly) – gender and sexuality are very different. So perhaps you could consider changing 'sexual proclivities' and, further down, adding something about gender after sexual orientation (because I think SO is a legitimate thing to list there as well).
August 14th, 2009 - 06:53
Fine and fair rant except for one thing. Transsexualism isn't about which gender someone wants to boff. It is about having a different gender identity to the sex of the body genetics gave you.
It is an important distinction to make because to think that transgenderism is all about teh fucking is probably what Littlejohn wants.
August 14th, 2009 - 09:00
Well said
August 14th, 2009 - 09:18
I have to confess that I have given up reading littlecock's ramblings, it's just too painful. I fear nto just for my blood pressure but also that I may jump up and down on my lap top in a vain attempt to destroy that smirk of his.
And to think my parents, my parents that produced me, my parents that used to read the Guardian now think he's funny.
I need a drink.
August 14th, 2009 - 11:53
Your rage is valid rage, his vulgarity knows no bounds but what concerns me is that he is a source of opinion to adults in the UK.
August 17th, 2009 - 10:20
The female boxing made a sneery editorial in the Sunday Express too with a photo captioned 'The last thing we need is women hurting each other for "sport"'
Now men hurting each for sport well "Men knocking seven bells out of each other I can just about bring myself to accept but women? Never."
Dammit they'll crease their crimplene dresses and won't be able to cut straight cucumber slices for tiffin.
August 21st, 2009 - 00:04
Not to mention the main headline is bollocks too. I actually saw and checked the WHO website, and sure enough, there are many clinical trials for the vaccine, with the LATER trials being on young children. Seems like it's standard policy to try out vaccines on those who aren't children first, which is reasonable, and then test it on children after. But no-one in the general population will get it until it's been tested on all the relevant groups first.
Technically though, the headline is accurate. You see, clinical trials work by testing a jab on people. So the first children to take the jab will be as part of trial. No children before them will have taken the jab, so clearly they will be taking a vaccine that has not been tested on their age group.
And I'm sure that's exactly what the Mail meant with their headline… right?