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.

Maybe that's what he meant by 'lifestyle choice'. Clearly that makes it all her fault that her relationship with the father broke down, so her situation was entirely all her own making. He was just being all subtle, like. [size=85:where's a smiley with the right hand gesture when you need it?:[/size

What would be great is if the Daily Mail were now forced to replace his column with Jack's for 6 months.

You mean there's been research conducted that has backed up the 'Catholic girls are right nymphos' stereotype?

His English is significantly better than anyone on here by a big distance, he is clever enough to get a national newspaper to pay him big money for the use of said English!!

It depends on whether you actually take every word she says as being without bias? One thing I find strange is she didn't seem to have engaged the fire service in what the opportunities would be if she had a baby until after she had the baby and then complained about the lack of flexibility. Perhaps if she had engaged the fire service prior to pregnancy she maybe would not have got pregnant or she would not have been so surprised at the outcome?

I can understand why you sympathise with Littlejohn, he makes things up too.

Is this for real - are you seriously suggesting that the majority of single mothers have had a convent based education or come from strict Religious upbringing? Have you got any data that supports this argument not just a bias think tank with a point to try and prove.

We have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than more religious countries such as Italy, Spain and France how is that?

All children in the country have extensive sexual education as part of the national curriculum there is simply no excuse for getting pregnant. There is the morning after pill if they haven't got enough about them to get a coil fitted, take the pill or even demand the man wears a condom.

As I said on the Leeds thread to you - prove it!! As on the Leeds thread you can't yet you try take some moral high ground.

Like a child in a gang you act all tough when you're surrounded by the cliquey clan of keyboard warriors. You are like everyone else on here simply touting your opinion as fact as if it actually carried more gravitas it would be sad if it weren't so funny. At least Mintball quotes other people who can articulate her opinion for her.

You see, I can take the moral high ground. For a couple of very simple reasons:
1. The person making the assertion (you) is the person who has to provide evidence to backup those assertions, especially when there is little to no logic or common sense behind those assertions

2. You are factually (note fact, not opinion) wrong.

Now, do you wish to answer the questions anyone put to you on other threads on here? Like how much Ineos were paying Len McCluskey? Or since you've brought up the Leeds thread, you could tell us all how Gary Hetherington got Nigel Wood the role of Chairman of the RFL? A role he's never actually been appointed to.

Now, feel free to either answer the questions put to you, admit you were wrong, or what is most likely is do as you've done on the Leeds board (and regularly do on here after cocking up) and disappear again for a while.

Try to read what I actually wrote.

Including how what I mentioned was not a "think tank", never mind a 'biased' one "with a point to try to prove", which idea you have entirely imagined into existence.

Incidentally, look up [iThe Education of Shelby Knox[/i, a documentary on the US and this subject.



We also finally have rates that are declining. But on religion, see my previous post and the segment on the US, itself a rather religious country.



In theory. But that doesn't have to be anything like extensive.

As I said to Sal, try reading what I actually wrote.

I could suggest that 'clergy kids' are all reprobates, and that can mean a number of things.



That's actually a subject in it's own right, but every other clergy child I've met will tell you, in essence, the same thing, irrespective of whether their parents were fundamentalists or liberal. Which suggests that what creates the pressures and problems is actually a result of a kind of goldfish bowl experience and in part at least about how parishioners react to you as 'clergy kids'.

Blimey, I was only cracking wise.

Oh please ... his stuff will be sub-edited and it still comes out sounding like playground taunts.


Riiiiight, so we'll rely on Littlejohn to tell us the "truth" shall we?
I mean he obviously knows better than she does about her circumstances and has a deeply distinguished past record of considered, factual reporting.
A few slight flaws there ... can you spot them?


For crying out loud, read what she says rather than just dismissing the facts as bias ...
It was [uafter she returned to work[/u that her relationship broke down and she then explored ways in which she could work that allowed her to look after the child as well ... these were not be found in the Fire Service, even with the father doing his bit, because he worked shifts too.
BTW I don't see she "complained" about it, she is simply explaining the circumstances .... she got on with it and eventually found a job that fitted.
Isn't that what we want people to do?