This is quite an easy game to play. You can play it on your own or with friends, although some of Littlejohns material is quite extreme, so it’s probably best to check if your friends still want their human decency intact afterwards and it is not reccomended for children under the age of 12.
- A Richard Littlejohn article
- A highlighter
- Stopwatch (optional)
Take your Littlejohn article. If you are playing with friends make a copy for each of them and distribute them. Once everyone has an article and a highlighter you can begin. You can play against the clock or simply until someone reaches a pre-arranged target (a number between 8 and 15 is reccomended).
The person who finds the most racial stereotypes within the time limit, or the person who reaches the target first is the winner. There may be instances where a certain racial stereostype is repeated by Littlejohn throughout the article, these count as individual points.
As an example to show you how to play the game I’m going to use Richard’s latest article on gypsies:
Nowhere is there any mention of Toby’s father.
All gyppos come from broken families. 1 point.
If they were really striving for authenticity, Tess would be married, probably from the age of 14.
All female gypsies are slags. 2 points.
Tess makes her money at car boot sales, although the stories don’t elaborate on where she gets her merchandise. Car boot sales are notorious for the disposal of stolen property.
All travellers are theives. 3 points.
Here in the real world, Tess would be claiming welfare benefits while pocketing the cash without declaring it to the taxman.
All gypsies are benefit scrounging scum. 4 points.
He’d be a snot-nosed scruff begging outside the local pound shop
All gyppos are ugly and beggars. Double points bonus. 6 points.
to stay put once they’ve arrived in England, where a buffet of benefits is laid before them.
Benefit scrounging scum again. 7 points.
Wherever these camps are established, there is invariably an increase in crime.
Just to remid you that all gypsies are criminals. 8 points.
Even when they do move on, they leave behind scorched earth and piles of rubbish.
Travellers are horrible, filthy and destroy everything. Under no circumstances should they be mistaken for actual human beings. 9 points.
Others, though, are a menace to society, earning a living from dubious practice and outright criminality.
Criminals again. 10 points.
She would be driving a £50,000 Toyota Landcruiser (running on red agricultural diesel) with a stolen lawn-mower in the boot
Thieves. 11 points.
If I’ve missed any out feel free to point them out in the comments, but you get the picture. Unfortunately after playing this game, you may feel depressed and feel that there is no hope for human kind, although this is reported to be a normal reaction to a Littlejohn article.
There are many articles in Richard Littlejohn’s archives which are perfect for this game, although any of his articles can be used. His endless reel of racial stereotyping and bullshit can be found here and used to play the game.
Mind how you go.
Obviously not the Daily Mail.
- Woman changes hair colour
- Mother and daughter look similar
- Women jump into water
- Man gives woman lift to airport
Serious stuff, you’ll agree. But then again the Mail is a serious paper. And definitely not a tabloid.
On another note, Liz Jones has written an article titled “Sorry, some things are best left covered up”. Her mouth being top of that list.
The Daily Mail was at the forefront of the media scaremongering in the late 1990’s when Andrew Wakefeild set back the MMR vaccination in the UK by a decade with his false and baseless claims that the MMR jab could lead to autism in children, so when I saw this headline on their online site, I was immediately sceptical:
Simply by reading that headline, you get the impression that the girl died of mumps after having the MMR vaccination. Pretty shocking if true. Except it’s not.
The first sentence from the same article:
A four-year-old girl died of a mystery illness after being wrongly diagnosed as having mumps.
So she didn’t die from mumps. Making the headline a downright lie.
This kind of scaremongering perpetuated by the Mail to generate website hits or sales is not only dishonest, but cruel. You only have to look at the comments to see that some people have taken the headline at face value:
This parent will not allow her son to have the MMR jab, presumably because of this story in the Mail. Now this obviously displays an astoundingly stupid mindset, but as The Angry Mob points out, there are some spectacular fuckwits that read the Daily Mail. Surely if the paper had a shred of decency left in it, it would not publish stories like this which wrongly inflame people’s opinion against a harmless and life-saving vaccination?
But once again, common decency has been shoved into the corner in favour of scaremongering, sales and the Mail’s own twisted agenda. I sincerely hope that the children of the parents who choose not to have the vaccine because of this story are fine and never catch the diseases that can be prevented by the MMR jab, but if the they do fall ill, then their blood is on the Mail’s hands as far as I am concerned.
On the Mail frontpage today is the shocking news that doctors, the people who are responsible for caring for people and treating illnesses, are still earning less than Daily Mail columnists, who are responsible for writing utter garbage such as “The Great Wheelie Bin Revolt is long overdue” and “Bring back Arlene Phillips or I won’t pay my licence fee“.
The Daily Mail “investigation” (issuing freedom of information requests to PCT’s) revealed that there is one doctor only earning £380,000, not even half of Richard Littlejohn’s salary. However as you delve further into the article, the Mail reveals they might not even be earning this much, as their “investigation” was so shoddy that they didn’t actually have the figures for GP’s salaries, just the figures which were paid to GP’s practices, a position clarified by the British Medical Association:
‘These figures don’t tally with statistics based on GPs’ tax returns.
‘Primary care trusts have information based on the amount of income a practice receives but this is not what GPs earn, as clearly there are many expenses such as staff and rent to be paid.’
Nevertheless the ever present rent-a-quote Taxpayers Alliance are on hand to add their outrage to the story, with their chairman Matthew Elliot demanding that all GP’s “pays and perks” are made public. Although he declined to make his own salary public, one can only presume that he feels it would be insulting to compare the salary of low-life scum such as himself to that of doctors.
Fortunately this story was so badly thrown together that even the Mail readers can see through it, with the best rated comments including:
I would prefer to read about this subject in another paper before drawing any conclusions. Daniel Martins’s reports in the last few days have shown themselves to be wildly sensationalised and flawed.
Utter rubbish! How you can print this is beyond me.
Your story is eye-catching but lacks substance. You stated, “The investigation found one GP earning £380,000 a year and a number pocketing more than £300,000”. Then went further to state, the sum included out-goings. Perhaps you expected the Surgery staff to work for free.
Stop this sensationalism and report facts.
I can only hope that, maybe, just maybe the readers of the Mail are finally realising what a sack of shit the paper really is. How it’s “investigative journalism” is no better than issuing a few FOI requests and printing misleading facts to fit it’s own agenda.
I won’t hold my breath, but at least not all is lost.
Not content with merely hugging hoodies to get down with the kids (presumably whilst his shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, sneaks up from behind to pocket their mobile phones), David Cameron has launched a new offensive to win over the younger generation. During an interview on Absolute Radio he slipped in this hilarious one-liner:
The trouble with Twitter, the instantness of it – too many twits might make a twat.
One can only wonder how many sleepless nights his PR team spent before they came up with that gem.
Worrying that his use of the word “twat” might slip under the radar, just to be on the safe side Dave threw in:
The public are rightly, I think, pissed off – sorry, I can’t say that in the morning – angry with politicians
Therefore guaranteeing maximum Daily Mail outrage: “Cameron forced to apologise after swearing TWICE in radio interview” screamed the frontpage of the Mail’s online site. Despite the Daily Mail being forced to spray asteriks all over the article, the commenters were out in force to defend Cameron:
At least he’s speaking how we as a majority feel.
Believe me, I’ve used far more colourful language when being driven to vent politicians.
– Mark, Bournemouth, 29/7/2009 11:15
Any lingering doubts that I had about Cameron are now dismissed. I will be voting for him.
He is normal – thank god – a politician at last who is normal.
– TrevorH, OXON, UK, 29/7/2009 11:12
On the basis of this staunch defence of Cameron by the Mail’s prudish readership, all Gordon Brown needs to do to win over the electorate is come out and call Cameron a cunt and his popularity will go through the roof.
Go on Gordon, it’s not like we’re not all thinking it already.
In the Mail today: “ASBO for 14 year-old girl who drank 12 cans of strong larger every night” – the story of a child who was adopted at the age of 5, whose step-father died at the age of 10 and who now has an alcohol problem. You would think this story would be a Mail commenters wet dream. They could rage on for hours about how McDoom’s NuLabour have ruined the country and how this was a sorry inditement of “broken Britain”.
So I was surprised when there were no comments of that ilk in the ‘best rated’ section. Oh no, the best rated comment on this story was:
Ughhh! look at those stairs!!!
Thanks to Jodie from Sheffield for that one. Mind you don’t slip on the marble stairs in your mansion, it would be a shame to lose your valuable contributions to society. Same goes for the 753 twats who agreed with her.
This was the photo the Mail used to illustrate the story:
After delving a bit deeper into the comments, I did find: “Unfortunately, a product of today’s broken Britain. Thank you NuLabour for this wonderful legacy. Not” and “What is this country coming to..what is there to be proud of?……“. But not before having to sift through:
look at the state of that house
Keep drinking the way you’re drinking love and you won’t be ABLE to move out of the house….
At this point it is worth pointing out that comments on the Mail’s site are heavily moderated, so the moderators at the Mail are obviously happy with these nasty, snide comments and yet they refuse to publish even the slightest criticisms of Richard Littlejohn or comments which point out the inaccuaries of their articles.
In responding to this article the main response of the Mail readership, above even their hatred for all things Labour, was to mock the fact that this girl was less better off than they were. Which ultimately shows the snobbishness and general nastiness of some of the Mail’s readership. Characteristics which I can’t help but feel are fuelled by the Mail itself – especially since their moderators were all too happy to let these comments through.
As everyone knows; there are some laws that good, god-fearing readers of the Daily Mail need not adhere to. Laws like speeding and paying your TV licence. They’ve been deliberately invented by ZanuLiebor just to make your life miserable, and so it’s perfectably acceptable to break them. This pick ‘n’ mix approach to law and order is championed in yesterdays editorial from the Mail on Sunday. It begins with:
Anyone can tell the difference between breaking the speed limit and mugging a pensioner.
Which could just as easily have read: “Anyone can tell the difference between killing a small child as a result of speeding and pick-pocketing”. It’s a reverse polarisation of the crimes involved and brings about a completely different meaning to the next paragraph, which reads: “One is a regrettable offence against the law. The other is a shameful crime.”
You see, in the world of the Daily Mail reader there are some crimes which aren’t really crimes. The Mail tells you that it’s OK not to pay your TV licence if you don’t like what’s on TV, and that if you need to get somewhere quickly then you need to drive faster, regardless of any silly ‘speed limits’.
Speeding is not just inconsiderate driving – it contributes to the 36,000 serious injuries and 3,400 deaths that occur on Britain’s roads each year.
But nevertheless, looking at the world through Mail-tinted eyes, it is an outrage that people who break the law by speeding should be treated the same as people who break the law by thieving. As far as the Mail is concerned they are both completely different crimes, perpetrated by completely different people. Mugging, as the opening sentence of the editorial implies, is something committed by hooded youths who target frail elderly people, whilst speeding is committed by, and I quote, “the respectable and the employed”.
It’s almost as if the Mail is suggesting that there should one law for their Jag-driving, middle-to-upper class readership and another for everyone else…