This thread needs no other explanation of how that opinion-paper known to all as "The Daily Mail" actually works other than to read the first of these two links ...

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2482111/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Ah-Pesto-Meet-poverty-poster-girls.html[/url

Yes, we know its Richard Littlejohn, pinnacle of all tanista's and a self parody of right wing politics so that you wonder if even he believes half of the stuff he writes, but still, some editor at The Mail read his column this week and thought it worthy of publication, it being representative of the readership's own opinions - and what better to get them suitably outraged than a tatoo'ed woman on benefits, nay, a lifestyle choice on benefits and yet daring to speak of things such as "pesto" and "kale" in recipes as if the unemployed do not deserve such foodstuff ?


OK, so now read the truth from Jack (female) in fine detail ...

[urlhttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard-littlejohn-wrong-about-jack-monroe-daily-mail[/url


There is more than a smattering of two newspapers having a bitchfight there but the response tells you everything you need to know about the story and everything you need to know about how much research Littlejohn did into the story before he wrote his vile piece and got it published, zero research is the answer.

Such a pity he did no research because he missed something that would have REALLY got his faithful lunatics frothing at the mouth, Jack is a lesbian too, that one fact would probably have got his spiteful writing onto the front page.

And don't forget, the [iMail[/i is one of the leading lights of the campaign for newspapers to continue to self-regulate – because they're doing such a jolly good job.

Incidentally her blog has some nice and simple recipes too ... [urlhttp://agirlcalledjack.com/[/url

Aye, but don't forget: kale and pesto aren't for poor people, and they can only have pasta if they get spaghetti in tins.

Nay, EAT spaghetti OUT OF tins, saves on plates and other middle class accoutrements.

Comprehensive ownage of the odious prick. Well played Jack.

And managed to avoid dropping to his level in response to the "footballers arms" line. Even better. Well played indeed.

Where is the Footballers Arms by the way?
Is it a nice pub, or one of those sleezy dives populated by lesbian scroungers?
Shudder!

Whoa !

STOP THE PRESS

"Daily Mail in Making Sh1t Up - Shocker !"

That's just above the story about a bear doing something in the woods, and defining the Pope's religion.

Thing is, its not "news" they're making up and presenting as fact, its an opinion piece, fomenting the kind of apoplexy that DM readers get off on, and it's about as far wrong and inaccurate as it could be.

I wouldn't wipe my 'arris on the rag

That article is little more than character assassination, in fact isn't it libellous?

If so it just shows where the power lies. Isn't it Lord McAlpine who has been suing various people for re-tweeting a libellous tweet first sent by Sally Bercow including Alan Davies (as in QI's Alan Davies)?

He is quite within his rights to do so but the important point is he also [ican[/i do so.

Jack on the other hand is reduced to posting a blog reply that while it certainly destroys Littlejohn's credibility (if he had any anyway beyond the Mail's readers) does nothing to elicit a retraction from the Mail or compensation similar to what Lord McAlpine has been able to extract.

If this imbalance in the ability to extract some form of meaningful compensation which would therefore act as a deterrent against libel is not an indication of why it ought to be easier for ordinary folk to go after papers that print such tripe to the extent it actually hurts the papers significantly I don't know what is.

Its a badly researched article by a newspaper columnist, which I'm sure the Guardian's lawyers will be over it like a rash. There will possibly be a grudging apology buried at the bottom of page 24 in due time, and that appears to be the norm for Fleet St nowadays.It's perfectly obvious that the lass had very limited options after the birth of her child, and breakup with the father. I also wonder just how hard the Fire Brigade tried to help in finding a solution to the fix she found her self in.

Apparently, in our household, pesto sauce goes into the spaghetti bog. I am none the wiser, so am unable to add to the furore.

Littlejohn was right about one thing,..... those tattoos on an attractive young woman are horrendous. Whatever her sexuality.

It always amazes me the number of people who claim to hate the Mail but also scrutinise every detail of its website.

To understand the fookwittery of some of our fellow citizens you have to seek their source material, have a look at some of their readers comments and you'll wonder as I do how the hell their minds got into that state.

Kale... Kale... hmmmm... AH, yes, the birds that rich people get their eggs from...right?

Why would they be? It's not for them to sue. They were not the victim of any libel.

As she probably could not sue what the Guardian did is publish the rebuttal the Daily Mail never would unless forced to do so.

Well indeed.

And it's not just the [iMail[/i.

Some further examples of rampant stupidity [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/a-sensible-decision-and-outbreak-of.htmlhere[/url, on a different subject. Read and weep.

Hmmmmm, *shakes head*

I think its probably fair to identify that there is a section of society that can only be politely named as "religious nutter" and its this sector that are normally responsible for providing such comments and rather scarily are sometimes responsible for influencing the lawmakers in decisions.

To be fair to all churches and to the majority of "people of faith" its not usually their fault and whether you agree with their beliefs or not most people of faith go about their daily lives in a way that is not dominated by religious text, but their are religious nutters out there who's every minute of existence is dedicated to applying a religious text to every situation they encounter every day, and part of their illness is that they believe that it is their duty to inform everyone else about what they are doing.

I once knew one such religious nutter, he ran a one man business in the same line as me in the same city and so occasionally we would meet and would chat although not if I saw him coming before he saw me - anyway one day the Yellow Pages rep came to see me and told me that she'd been to see my competitor the day before (they used to work each category in the book), and that after her sales pitch he had seemed to be tempted to buy a bigger advert this year but then had hesitated and told her that he'd have to speak to his business partner first, she said that she'd thought that his was a one man business and he'd replied that yes it was but that The Lord God guided him on all matters of his business, his life and more frighteningly his family and how he treated them and that he would not make a decision on his Yellow Pages advertising until he had spoken to God.

Now he was just our local religious nutter but the really scary thing is that both George Bush and Tony Blair freely admit to having taken immensely important decisions that led to a loss of life numbering millions, only after they too had spoken to their God.

Know thy enemy - Sun Tzu

I'm not sure that the small unhappy band who have an attack of the vapours at the mere mention of "The Daily Mail," would have The Art of War anywhere on their reading list. Not for them a detailed spiritual classical preparation for warfare and its consequences which still resonates millennia later. No, I suspect there would be a pursed lip complaint that he actually preyed to his God for guidance prior to committing his forces. Much more expedient to simply toss a coin surely?

I think it a fair bet for those heirs of Mary Whitehouse to have wedged in the bottom of their handbags and manbags the collected Thought and Pledges of Nick Clegg,.... possibly the more Politically orientated would have a dog eared Little Red Book......or a well thumbed paperback rejoicing in the title Pack lunches for the Proletariat.

Who can really know? As they say here in Yorkshire,....."There's nowt so queer as Folk!"

Personally, I find von Clausewitz much more interesting than Sun Tzu.

And in a different mood, there's nowt wrong with a spot of Sade.

Littlejohn writes the occasional humorous article but on te whole his writing is one dimensional, poorly researched fodder.

However he does tap into the the under current of sentiment amongst many in the country. This is an example - poorly written - but many people consider that single mothers use pregnancy as a career choice. In my wife's family there are six yes six single mothers, one has children to three seperate fathers. Let's face it there is no justification for not taking contraception in this day and age.

Next week when he talks about Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed many on here will be suggesting he is a racist as well as biggot a bully and his English isn't upto scratch!!

For clarity: I deliberately included some that were not obviously religious – and there were plenty more of both varieties – because I didn't want to suggest that it was just religious nuttiness.

And also, there were people saying: 'Call yourselves Christians? Not in my name', in effect.

"Tap into" or 'fuel'?



Sounds obvious, but is far from the reality.

There are still plenty of schools where sex 'education' is 'don't do it! It's a mortal sin!' etc. There are still parents who do the same – and many who do nothing at all.

So-called 'abstinence education' and, indeed, the entire religious 'chastity' thing in the US has been seen to be counterproductive, producing more pregnancies and STD diagnoses than where 'abstinence education' is not the mantra of the day.

Research done some years ago by a group of children's charities found that:

• children where the parents were very open about sex were the group that started sexually experimenting with others later than any other group and were most likely to use safe sex/contraception;

• children in families where sex was viewed from a moral/religious perspective were likely to start sexually experimenting with others at a younger age, and were less likely to use safe sex/contraception;

• children in families that simply didn't give a toss (so to speak) were most likely to start experimenting with others sexually the earliest, and the least likely to use safe sex/contraception.

I remember another survey from a year or so ago where some children believed a range of myths like not getting pregnant if you have sex on a copy of the [iYellow Pages[/i (and no, I'm not making that up).

Anecdotally, I'd say that the girls I am aware of who have got pregnant as teenagers are all from Catholic families – contraception good, yes?

Or, as is the case of my sister, who got pregnant (bloke told her he'd had the snip), brought up in a family where sex and sin were synonyms.

There's a reason that the Netherlands has such a low rate of teenage pregnancy – and some of it at least is down to very open and proper sex education. We still have let parents withdraw their children from sex education (imagine being able to withdraw a child from maths) and allow entire whole schools to get away with whatever nonsense and superstition they want to spread.

Why wait until then, based on his past oeuvre I already think he's a racist as well as bigot and a bully and his English isn't up to scratch.

But I think you've missed the point here, it's not a generalised comment on the topic, it's a virulent slagging-off targeted at one particular woman and the accusation is that it is chockablock with shamefully invented lies.

I'd have said bigoted $hite instead of fodder.

And how much of the "undercurrent" is caused by hysterical DM "reporting" and opinion pieces? The majority of people in this country (and I include myself in many areas) know the square root of feckall about a lot of stuff, yet feel the need to spout complete garbage about issues.

For example, 75000 people have apparently signed the Express's petition about the EU (0.001% of the population) yet it's front page news and means we must leave now. WTF? How many of those 75000 understand what the EU is? How they and their communities benefit? How and why the "bad" EU things happen? I'd guess at 0.001% of that.