Richard Littlejohn and his Interminable Hatred of Women

50 sHaDeS oF iDiOcY: pArT 2

Richard 'Upwards-of-£700,000-a-year’ Littlejohn can afford high class hookers if he so fancies and you'd have thought, for this, he'd be thankful.  

I'm not for a moment suggesting that prostitutes are a luxury that Dicky would want to spaff his filthy lucre on of course, far from it. I mean it's self-evident from his various poisonous prevarications that women from pretty much any background are among the most despicable creatures he's forced to endure, invariably invading his precious consciousness.

Here are a couple of this contemptible crank's jaw-dropping scribbles on the Daily Mail website that are well worth a leisurely perusal. For your delectation, as it were:

Firstly: "Spare us the 'People's Prostitute' routine..." was an article published less than a week before Christmas, 2006 and it outlined Mr Littlejohn's opinions regarding the victims of the Suffolk Strangler (who was still at large at the time). Then in 2011, following justice secretary Ken Clarke's "serious rapes" gaffe, came the execrable: "It’s not only rape victims betrayed by the system." 

The Mail's provocative and intentionally ill-judged editorial decisions to afford this 21^st century Julius Streicher a platform to honk his perverse opinions regarding subjects as sensitive as rape or the murder of young women, wrest you to the degree that you wouldn't even bat an eyelid if this deplorable rag published a free pull-out Home Improvements supplement entitled: "The Fred West Guide to Health & Safety on the Building Site."

Littlejohn is a ‘man’ who, during serial killer Steve Wright’s murder spree in Ipswich, felt compelled to snipe:

"In their grubby little existences [the victims]… death by strangulation is an occupational hazard... In the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss."

Yep, you did read that correctly. Try it again. It has the same impact the second time.

By about halfway through the Ipswich murders column you realise that it would pretty much come down to the flip of a coin to decide who despised the murdered girls the most – psychopathic serial killer Steve Wright or the shank-brained Mail columnist?

Littlejohn lasciviously dribbles: "These five women were on the streets because even the filthiest, most disreputable back-alley "sauna" above a kebab shop wouldn't give them house room. Some men are actually turned on by disgusting, drug-addled street whores." 

For some reason, somewhat uncharitably, he didn't sign the article off with Yuletide Season's Greetings to the victims' friends and families.

Following the gang rape of two British charity workers on the Carribean island of St Lucia in 2011, the Daily Mail again felt that a subject of such sensitivity would be best dealt with by their most obliging, misogynistic, compassion contravener... 

Littlejohn sets the scene for an odious diatribe by detailing the horrific and prolonged sexual assault of the two women before peculiarly stating that:

"No one would dream of suggesting that because they were camping on an isolated beauty spot overnight they were asking to be attacked."

He's right. No one would ever think that. It did cross his mind though, apparently - the sort of thing that no one in their right mind would ever conceive. It's good that he felt compelled to inform us of a truly awful notion that would have never occurred to anyone in the first place without his help.

"Let’s imagine for a moment that one of these unfortunate women had met a man in a Tiki Bar, got off her head on rum punch and invited him back to her hotel room for a drunken tumble..."

Yes, why not? That seems reasonable. Let’s equate ‘drunken tumbles’ with vicious sexual attacks. And while we're at it, rather than imagining a hypothetical woman, he wants to specifically imagine one of the traumatised rape victims for this disturbing fantasy scenario...

I presume she drunkenly stumbles into said Tiki Bar, hair tousled and matted with deep scratches and weeping gouges -

Apologies Richard, I’m getting ahead of you here. It's your fantasy:  

"The following morning, through her hungover haze, she was consumed by self-loathing. Would she be entitled to cry ‘rape’?"

Jesus Christ impatiently standing in a queue in Halfords clutching a puncture repair kit!

I've just realised that Mr Littlejohn doesn’t understand the literal meaning of the word rape. The contemptuous inverted commas adorning the word in his conjecture speak volumes. To help our Mailman out, here's the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of the word rape:

• noun

  [mass noun]
  • 1the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will.
    
    

Unhelpfully, Dicky goes on to inform us: "There’s a world of difference between a violent sexual assault at the hands of a complete stranger and a subsequently regretted alcohol-induced one night stand."

And d'ya know what? He’s not wrong. The main difference between a violent sexual assault at the hands of a complete stranger and a subsequently regretted alcohol-induced one night stand is that one is a violent sexual assault at the hands of a complete stranger and the other is a subsequently regretted alcohol-induced one night stand. Littlejohn seems to be so confused with the meaning of these very different phrases that I'd be surprised if he doesn't pepper those fucking Go-Compare-The-Meerkat-furry-fuckwits with repeated befuddled telephone calls all day long.

There is also a ‘world of difference’ between a violent sexual assault at the hands of a complete stranger and a violent sexual assault at the hands of a vaguely familiar face that an inebriated girl may have been dancing with at a party throughout the night. Either way, if she decided that she needed to go home because the room had started spinning and her bed was calling, regardless of whether Mr Familiar Face had accompanied her for the trek back and regardless of whether she'd invited him in for coffee and regardless of whether she'd snogged his face off on the sofa for half an hour, it's still her call to say: "Night night" or "Fuck off" if that's how she feels. 

It's her call.   

If said girl is physically overpowered and violated by a sex offender of any subdivision against her will then the consequences are undoubtedly going to be devastating. The perpetrator is a dangerous predator who should be clinked-up and forced to join the Government Facebook register. For good.

Twathead's reprehensible stream of misogynistic gobshitery putrefies, unceasingly:

"To the Boadiceas of feminism ‘rape is rape’, regardless of the circumstances, even if the woman was so sloshed she can’t remember whether or not she consented. These vengeful viragos insist that ‘rape is a life sentence’ in every case. No, it isn’t. In many instances, it isn’t even rape."

Well, it is. In this particular paragraph, the word rape must maintain its actual meaning as it was Mr Littlejohn who constructed the notion in the first place and we are obliged to prescribe to the laws of language in a newspaper article. By conceiving the 'Boadiceas’ ‘rape is rape’' lie, the word rape has to retain its literal definition otherwise the whole paragraph makes precisely as much sense as if he'd typed:

"Each morning, without fail, I ride to work on my bicycle. However, some mornings, it’s not actually a bike because it’s a knitted, turkeymonkey tea-cosy. And I haven’t got a job because I am in fact a slug languishing under a heap of salt, dying obtusely in a thick, gooey puddle of my own disgusting internal biology."

It just wouldn’t make any logical sense despite being a far preferable imagining.

So here’s a scenario that might help Richard Littlejohn to begin to understand the concept of rape a little more unambiguously.

I think it’s predominantly down to the logistics of the deed that he’s struggling with. I reckon a good way for him to begin to comprehend the damage caused by such a violation would be some kind of a switcheroo-type situation into the victim’s position. It matters not that Littlejohn is a heterosexual male for this to work.

Here’s the scenario…

'Let’s imagine for a moment that an intoxicated Richard Littlejohn got chatting with three muscular rugby lads after stumbling into a sweaty Tiki Bar alone. Out of his tiny squiff-faced noggin on rum punch, he’d invited the trio back to his hotel room for a sozzled scrum down when, without warning, one of the burly brutes seized him by the throat, thumbs crushing his larynx, as the other two violently wrenched his arms behind his back…'

I’ll spare you the horrific details of what ensued and skip to the end:

'…covered in blood in what was a veritable, knuckle-duster-clad, triple-fisting.

The following morning, through his hungover haze, Mr Littlejohn was consumed by self-loathing.'

Would he be entitled to cry ‘rape’?