Daily Mail RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: I've always admired Linda Bellos, and it's outrageous that she should be dragged to court for vowing to defend herself against violent trans activists

[Stickerladiesoftheworldunite]

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6116899/LITTLEJOHN-outrageous-Linda-Bellos-dragged-court-violent-trans-activists.html

I'm sorry if there is a thread for it but am about to turn in.... I'm sure I did see one about asking for people willing to go and silently protest and support. Was thinking some may be unwilling as fearful of reprisals etc. So thought, why not go as mimes of a sort? Or wear a mime mask? Probably a daft thought.....

I have woken up in upside down world. Richard Littlejohn, I agree with every word. Oh this is so wrong!

I'm sure I did see one about asking for people willing to go and silently protest and support.

If you mean, STOP #silencingwomen the thread has been removed on request of OP - I assume the FB page for that is still up but I don't know.

Ucantarguewistupid

It was about supporting Venice and Linda. With a silent protest. Details below.

www.facebook.com/events/303482357125787

I disagree with Richard Littlejohn on just about everything. That article, however, demonstrates exactly why he is the Mail’s star columnist. It is a perfectly crafted, concise, beautifully written and cleverly argued piece of popular journalism. I wish I could write half as well.

Datun

But, it did go some way to making me accept gender dysphoria as something very real. And definitely distinct from cross dressing/fetish.

Yes, I'm sure it absolutely is real for a very small number of people. The TRAs are doing those people, who mostly just want to go about their lives, no favours at all.

And whatever you think about all-women parliamentary shortlists, it’s clearly absurd that a biological woman should have to give up her place to a bloke with a seven o’clock shadow in a frock and Jimmy Choos, just because he’s decided to ‘identify’ as a woman that morning.

Oh my.......

If anyone is remotely concerned that Richard Littlejohn is a friend of women's rights can I remind you that he said feminists had gone too far and were all shaven headed dykes. Very unpleasant man www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/presenters-censured-for-radio-insults-1433145.html

He said that in 1994. And it wasn't even a particularly nasty comment.

Interestingly the under the line comments on the Mail article are largely sympathetic to Bellos.

Welcome to the transactivists who come out at night....

In general the BTL comments on DM articles horrify me, but not always. Sometimes it's a good dose of common sense.

In this case it's the latter. When the DM is standing up for the black, left wing lesbian - you just know the other side is in the wrong. You know what I mean?

And Guiliana and the private prosecutors who are supporting Guiliana need to FTFO.

Perhaps Guiliana feels the nation and good sense is behind Guiliana? No. The majority can see this is totally wrong.

Nobody here is under any illusion that Littlejohn is any friend to women’s rights, silly!

That’s the entire point: the threat to women’s rights and free speech is so profound even somebody like Littlejohn who generally thinks women rights have gone too far can see it. Yes?

No we're not allowed to talk to those children entropic. Mummy says they are scum.

If anyone is remotely concerned that Richard Littlejohn is a friend of women's rights can I remind you that he said feminists blah blah blah

Yeah, that is the point of the CAPITAL LETTERS in the title and the whole thread.

Glad you finally got it.

When even RICHARD LITTLEJOHN is aghast at the whole thing...

didn't do that, I don't know of anyone who's ever done that and I assure you nobody needs to bother conspiring to make you look bad.

Why do they do it then?

The tone of his article just sums it up for me. Fair play that’s a great article.

I disagree with Richard Littlejohn on just about everything. That article, however, demonstrates exactly why he is the Mail’s star columnist. It is a perfectly crafted, concise, beautifully written and cleverly argued piece of popular journalism. I wish I could write half as well.

I thought this exact thing as I was reading it. It is so well written. It's such a breath of fresh air in an age where most 'journalism' now consist of copying and pasting large swathes of text from other sources, multiple typos and a level of syntax usually seen amongst primary age children.

even somebody like Littlejohn who generally thinks women rights have gone too far

Bit of a derail but this is a comment that gets made often on here about the likes of Littlejohn, Peterson, Shapiro, Liddle ' - that they don't support women's rights/ are bad for women's rights/ think women's rights have gone too far.

Do any of them say they don't support education, voting rights, equal pay and opportunities? Shapiro and Peterson are anti- porn (I'd guess they don't see prostitution as a valid career choice) Littlejohn supports abortion rights and approves of relaxing the law in Northern Ireland.

I grant they all will find things they disagree on in a discussion with radical feminists but this tarring of anyone who isn't a self proclaimed leftie as "anti- women's rights" is nonsense.

Compare and contrast this right - on leftie's minimisation of child rape (from the Glasgow thread about child abuse) with Littlejohn's comment about hatchet faced dykes. There is no contest about which one couldn't give a flying fuck about women and children.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/10/roma-again-scapegoats-for-ills-of-society

That Kevin McKenna article is appalling, Lass. You’d think they’d have learnt from the last time they published an article minimising child sex abuse - Rotherham, I think it was.

Daily Mail online is today leading with the story of American child brides.

It’s the left wing press really letting women down at the moment at that’s very sad to see.

Observer is leading on Thai child brides to be fair.

I found the Mail article about American child brides genuinely shocking.

A bit like Rotherham, or forced marriages, or FGM. Some very very bad things are happening to significant numbers of girls, yet the focus, and the money are going to a small number of articulate people. Yes there are issues raised by Me-too or by TRAs, but the shocker is that there are girls out there with no voice to whom awful things are happening.

The Mail on line has a big US readership so hopefully there story will have an impact. Perhaps in the US it is seen as a liberal newspaper?!

Well said Lass.
And yes, need and lurk, the American child brides articles are shocking, genuinely shocking.