Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

Rod Liddle: Would you?

Read one of his shit-on-a-stick articles, I mean? I mean, would you? Sure, he's as unattractive a man as it's possible to be - a grubby hangdog Churchill insurance dog face, smashed-crab teeth, eyes that somehow simultaneously suggest a boggle and a squint at the same time, folds of ruminant flab dangling under his neck like a scrotal sac, and then an albino candyfloss of straggly Carol Thatcher-style hair; all the time, that self-satisfied "Hey, do you know what, I've had a fuck a couple of times, lads" early-developer smirk on his chops. Like the Fonz, he thinks he's the epitome of cool, and can tell the younger kids he hands around with what it's like to feel a girl's chest round the back of the cycle sheds; but also like the Fonz, he's a tragic, laughable figure without any depth to his character. And, like the Fonz, he's just jumped the shark with this laugh-free cockwiping of an article over at the Spectator*.

Rod Liddle is for people who find Quentin Letts too highbrow and complicated. While Letts has had the same brainwave about British women politicians - "Ooh they're not as tasty as I'd like them to be, eh boys? Guffaw!" - and did a despicably shit job in making it (a) anywhere approaching funny or (b) insightful in any what whatsoever other than confirming in your mind what an atrocious bellend he really is, Liddle has gone a step further. No, not further. Lower. And he's not even being original. Letts beat him to it. Liddle's had ages to do a better job on exactly the same subject. But can he do it? Can he fuck.

Would you? I think you wouldn’t. I think you have more self-respect, a greater sense of self-worth, no matter how much you’ve had to drink.

I don't know Rod, you're the cock of the South. You tell us.

That’s the problem with Caroline Flint’s statement that Labour’s most senior women were used by the Prime Minister as ‘window dressing’. I mean, would you dress your window with Jacqui Smith, or Ruth Kelly, or Harriet? If you had a window? You might dress the window with Caroline Flint, who, we should all agree, is as fit as a butcher’s dog. But the rest?

And what of you, Rod? Are you as fit as a butcher's dog? Or as fit as an arthritic half-blind incontinent Labrador on its way to the vet for that final injection? Does it matter that you're as disgustingly ugly as hell - should that mean you shouldn't be allowed to write for the Spectator? Maybe that would be a better world, in which everyone should be judged solely on their appearance in order to pass some fuckability test by which they can be deemed to be capable at doing their jobs. In which case, Liddle, it's down the fucking Job Club you go my son. Or is it just women that should be judged this way, by any chance?

Bizarrely, Harman has been allowed to draft legislation based solely, it would seem, upon her hatred for men. Legislation to ensure that men who murder their wives are banged up for life with no recourse to a plea of provocation occasioned by the woman’s behaviour. And, at the same time, that women should henceforth be allowed to plead provocation when they murder their husbands and get a lesser sentence.

Lie. Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. Caught you with your fucking dirty skidmarked Ys halfway down your stubby legs, Liddle, and not for the first time. LIE! It is not legislation that is skewed against men, and it's easy to find that out. Sure, if you want to read the Mail you might get that impression, but even then if you read it fucking properly, looking at the words and so forth, you'd find out that wasn't the case. Or maybe you don't care whether it is the case or not, if it fits your 'Harman hates men' narrative?

And, to occupy her campus-ground for a moment, what about those other victims of discrimination — black people, homosexuals, the elderly, the disabled? Shouldn’t there be some sort of mechanism to ensure that they are represented in senior positions at the top of the party? This is not simply a facile observation: as black Labour activists will tell you, one of the biggest obstacles in the path of getting more black and Asian Labour MPs has been the party’s insistence upon all-women shortlists. Of the various communities exulting in multicultural Britain, it is whitey who, sadly, is most committed to the principle of equality for women; hence all-women shortlists tend to discriminate against black men.

Yeah, course it is, Rod. Hang on though, what's this? Someone called 'Harriet Harman' calling for all-black shortlists? That can't be right, can it? I mean, you'd've mentioned that, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you...? You, the wise man saying that Harman's dogma is 'furious yapping based upon a misconception' - I mean, you wouldn't do that, would you? I mean, you wouldn't write some furious yapping based on a misconception, would you?

Would you?

* Can I just digress for a minute? Anyone who makes you click five times to read something on the internet should be beaten with a scaffold pole until they learn how to do things properly and their raw wounds spinkled with pine-scented Flash liquid. Ooh, there's five pages, wow, four extra page impressions, cor imagine the online revenue! Fuck off! You'll piss more people off by doing that kind of lazy toss. Why not put other things on the website that are actually worth reading instead - that's a better way of getting more clicks than just making people keep turning electronic pages when there's room on their screens to scroll. Making money from online (I'm not going to use the word 'm*net*s*' because the only people who ever use that word are noncreative talent-free arses who spend their lives with flipcharts, whiteboards and Powerpoint presentations, desperately hoping their concocted bullshit will be obscure enough to fool someone) isn't about pissing off your online readers; it's about entertaining them. Isn't it? Oh hang on, they've given a job to Rod Liddle, what the fuck do these people know about entertainment anyway? Hmm. Fair point.