Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
he's really outdonw himself here
All gays are monsters and social workers are paedos! RIGHT ON.
i've lost all faith in the people of this country.....
As I am sure just about everybody who reads that rag is!
my grandfather fought a war for you!
well did some military logistical work.
my mother did something good, once
i'm sure she did
"Just because she’s a recovering addict, it doesn’t mean her views should be ignored in such callous fashion."
drug addicts > gays
I've commented, but I'm thinking that might not post it :(
is that you? i gave you a ^, but its already on v5
I wasn't abusive at all. I was agreeing with him. Think I may have gone too far though, and they realised I wasn't actually a Daily Mail-reading homophobic cunt :(
should be interesting.
considering Daily mail readers deem state intervention to be akin to fascism, moderating the comments on a website seems a little extreme, does it not? They're all for free speech, as long as it's right-wing bigoted bullshit. Apparently. I've commented too. I guess we'll see.
Not just censorship, but manipulation. Interesting.
this shouldn't make me angry. But it really does.
"...two gay men, living together in an Edinburgh suburb, who suddenly start playing Happy Families with a five-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl..."
"Why? Because they’ve been taken by social workers, not paedophiles. So that’s all right, then."
Well, yes. It's like saying "but it turned out he wasn't trying to rape me he just wanted to sell me a timeshare. I suppose that's alright is it?"
their "craft". i'm having that one.
in some adoption cases it's deemed the last thing that is good for the child is contact with family. There's obviously a lot more to this story that the Mail aren't letting on. But why let that get in the way of a good scare tatic eh?
we shouldn't give more power to the people.
have the power of the people as it were. Honestly, I really seriously do not get why folk read the Daily Mail. Seriously, is it becuase they're too embarrassed to be seen with a red top sitting in the back of their Volvo?
"We read the Daily Mail becuase although it's the same old scurrilous shite, at least it doesn't look COMMON"
What's worse is that thousands of equally ignorant readers are going to agree with him. It's so frustrating. Likening social workers to paedophiles is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard, even coming from that shitrag of a paper. Social workers never remove children from their families unless they are at great physical or mental risk. It's not like they go grabbing them willy-nilly, as the tabloids would have us believe. What about the narrowly avoided child abuse cases? What about all the saved and happily re-homed children. What about a gay couple being able to offer a liberal and safe environment in which to raise children who would have suffered at the hands of their straight, but incapable parents? This is all swept under the rug while people like Littlejohn get on their hobby horse and rant about things they are too ignorant and short sighted to truly understand.
I mean, I don't want to generalise, but it seems people are easily persuaded by this guy, and are unlikely to do the wider reading to find out what's really going on. If he's not ignorant himself, he's playing on the ignorance of his audience. But it seems he is, because if he truly understood the intentions of the social services, and the apparent shortcomings of the natural parents, then surely there would be no need for this unfounded rant.
my stepdad used to be a religious mail reader. By 'reader', I mean he looked at the headlines and the pictures, then attempted half of the crossword. What annoys me most about those people is that they confuse the word 'opinionated' with the word 'ignorant'. Easy mistake to make, apparently.
my auntie occasionally reads the mail and she really is lovely.
Except, of course, he does.
"The question do social workers have grandparents poses another question?, do they have parents.
DEW, Lincoln, England, 30/1/2009 9:44"
And likening it to paedophilia is just horrendous. You've gotta love Littlejohn.
They seem to keep clinging to the idea that it's ok to be 'outraged' because a child should be raised by a mother and a father. What about single fathers? I don't see articles being outraged that a child raised by a single father doesn't have a mother figure, so how is this any different other than these children will have two parents rather than one, which surely makes for a more stable family anyway.
Richard, I am sure if these loving grandparents need help to fight these evil Social Workers, I and others will donate money to take them to court. Please is there a way for us to know who made the decision, so that court action can be taken against each individual in this case. It is about time, the normal hetrosexual, commonsense, middle of the road rightwinger stood up and shouted from the roof tops that enough is enough. Britain has sunk to a cesspit and it started with Harold Wilson and his pathetic gang with their tree hugging ideas and the left have slowly taken over townhalls, governmental departments and the government. There needs to be a clean out, or Oliver Cromwell's reincarnation needs to get up and lead the Brits out of these stupidity.
Social Workers, have always been a waste of space, they are similar to probation officers, and charties related to government quangos..........
"Here is a simple rhyme on a simpleton
What a clown is Gordon Brown
With other people's money
The stupid scot has spent the lot
And ruined the eko-nomy
Alan Jackson, Billericay, Essex, 30/1/2009 10:44"
please help to vote against this comment, just for artistic purposes
I can imagine him typing it and then sitting back in his chair, smug grin on his face at his own wit.
"family campaigners say they have amassed a huge amount of made-up evidence which proves that children raised by gays will turn into violent morons and drug addicts, just like the heterosexual parents they were taken from"
then decided to stop cos his articles always make me so ANGRY
"I have no objection to gays being equal as regards the general law, but I do not believe that they should be allowed to aggressively promote their craft"
Lewis Prothero from V for Vendetta when I read one of his articles...
The guy is a complete turd and a hypocrite.
"powerless against the sadistic, Stalinist might of the social services system and the family courts."
Re: baby P
"A quick glance at the news is all it takes to confirm the worst. In Haringey, North London, the child of a dysfunctional ‘family’ is tortured to death under the noses of social services."
If the kids died due to neglect from the heroin addict mum he would be going mental against the social services.
"a homosexual couple biologically incapable of having babies of their own."
AS OPPOSED TO ONES THAT CAN?
this guy flips between his dual roles: Captain Obvious and Captain I've Got A Degree In Getting Dumb People Riled Up
I think we all knew what his opinion on this issue was going to be. This is the man who once wrote...
"Does anyone really give a monkey's about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them."
Unfortunately he's only reflecting the opinion of those Daily Mail reading fascist shit cunts.
or is he dictating?
is DiS censoring free speech in league with the Daily Mail? Or is my browser just malfunctioning?
as far as i can tell
DiS is censoring libel. that cool with you?
I was just wondering as I hadn't seen that happen before. I'll let you know if it starts to bother me :)
"At least the kids weren't given to bigoted Daily Mail readers. That definitely would be cruelty.
Its madness gone incorrectly political."
what it's like to feel that indignant all the time?
these comments are fantastic.
Had another thought before sleep overwhelms me---Hey Richard the potential for a Gordon owned Nulabour Littlechef restaurant offers great potential for one of your pieces.
Menu devoid of meat ( to help save the planet) but each course comes with 5 fruit and veg options.
Special Offer -" The Global Meltdown " ( melted cheese over a veggie burger)--originally developed in the USA
Bankers breakfast--served with humble pie
Bailout Broth--tastes bitter and too much tends to stick in the craw
Boom and Bust baguette ( back by unpopular demand)
Prudence Pie--( off the menu)
Sleaze Soup ( available for an additional backhander)
Mandelson muesli--( difficult to swallow)
Prescott Pizza--with an unbeleivable taste that smacks you in the jaw
"Jack" Cheese Straws
Pension Hotpot-( only small portions available)
Member of HM forces, Daily Mail readers and OAP'S not welcome
Staff to reflect local diversity mix
Menus printed in 24 different languages
Come on readers help me.
I like a nice veggie burger
out to their deity and international police force- richard littlejohn.
Isn't this the man who once wrote "It's a shame someone's cutting up prozzies in Ipswich, but come on, everyone knows whores are sub-human at best"?
It's interesting to know where drug addicts and gays are relatively ranked in Richie's little universe at any rate
about the Stalinist, censoring might of the Daily Mail internet admins
Everything is pre-moderated, and there's generally a massive backlog of comments - only pretty uncontroversial remarks that are broadly in line with the Mail's world-view will be allowed up on the site. Some mild criticism and dissent might be allowed, but that's about it.
Just like he'd never say "ethnic minorities are all backwards" or "Muslims are predominantly western-hating terrorists."
He wouldn't be allowed to. He has to imply it with innuendo instead.
"Hell in a Handcart" I think it's called, one of the main villains is a "bent" (ho ho ho) copper, who gets his kicks through truncheon/bottom centric sex games. Teensy bit homophobic I thought.
In today's article, the opening vingette portrays this "homosexual couple biologically incapable of having babies of their own" as potential paeophiles.
where the children were snatched to order for a homosexual couple, and then contrasts with the actual case saying that it's a legit adoption thing and nothing to do with paedophiles. Why even bring paedophilia into it? It's anti-gay innuendo.
Read it again.
"It emerges that the brother and sister are believed to have been stolen to order and handed over to a homosexual couple... (But) they’ve been taken by social workers, not paedophiles. So that’s all right, then."
dont argue with it just accept it or your racist 2
the suggestion that children have been snatched by paedophiles for the benefit of a homosexual couple.
also,I'm not too keen on the 'playing happy families' phrase.
readers analytical skills/endeavours here. Most people who read the mail do not do so to critique society or anything so 'noble'. Most do it just so theyve got something to chat about other than the weather.
"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."
adopting those two children is absolutely disgraceful.
They've already said they want to live with their grandparents who have been deemed unsuitable to look after them - but are being stuck with a couple who for some mental reason, want the kids.
The couple's sexuality doesn't come into it. It's more the idea that they've been raised by their mum who, fair enough, can't look after them. But now instead of them going to the next of kin, they're going to a couple of strangers.
Babies don't really give a shit who they're with because they can't tell. But sticking these kids with people they don't want to live with is completely not on.
The social workers did the right thing. The child should not have been placed in the family circle if the family circle is a destructive environment for the children. It’s clear that is what happened here and the rights of the children come first over the rights of the grandparents. They might be innocent per se, but their daughter is not and as such the children need to be safely housed away from all that mess. The social workers were doing their job to the best of their ability and, contrary to what the Daily Shitehole may say, with full respect to the children.
this is nothing to do with social services and all about gay adoption and you know it. There would be no fuss about this if it was a straight couple.
and some websites are censored by the great firewall of communism. which usually means i can't look at utube. but today it means that richard littlejohn is persona non grata or even better his opinions are frowned upon.