ChatterBank0 min ago
Calls For The Sacking Of Richard Littlejohn.
97 Answers
http://
Regardless of what some may think of the Daily Mail or their columnist Richard Littlejohn, should he be forced to resign over this matter?
Regardless of what some may think of the Daily Mail or their columnist Richard Littlejohn, should he be forced to resign over this matter?
Answers
I read the Daily Mail every day, and I never read Littlejohn's column because I find him abrasive and unpleasant - which is his stance, and I choose not to indulge him in his platform. On this issue, I feel he was essentially correct in his view It would have been better for all concerned, the individual involved, the children, staff and parents, if the teacher...
16:57 Sat 23rd Mar 2013
Certainly not....the facts of the suicide have not been established.
Same as the Duchess of Cambridge episode and the Australian DJ's over the suicide of the nurse.
The psychiatric history of this unfortunate "transgender" is not available and hence one cannot come to any conclusion regarding the motive for suicide.
Same as the Duchess of Cambridge episode and the Australian DJ's over the suicide of the nurse.
The psychiatric history of this unfortunate "transgender" is not available and hence one cannot come to any conclusion regarding the motive for suicide.
///It would have been easy for him to disappear quietly at Christmas, have the operation and then return to work as 'Miss Meadows' at another school on the other side of town in September. No-one would have been any the wiser.///
I'm inclined to agree with the above statement, the article states she insisted on returning to the same school, I don't think that was right at all, but by returning to work elsewhere she would just have been a 'new' face, I don't think anything RL wrote was in any way derogatory, and there must have been a lot more going on behind the scenes than we know to bring about the suicide.
///"The school shouldn't be allowed to elevate its 'commitment to diversity and equality' above its duty of care to its pupils and their parents./// is also a very true statement imo.
I'm inclined to agree with the above statement, the article states she insisted on returning to the same school, I don't think that was right at all, but by returning to work elsewhere she would just have been a 'new' face, I don't think anything RL wrote was in any way derogatory, and there must have been a lot more going on behind the scenes than we know to bring about the suicide.
///"The school shouldn't be allowed to elevate its 'commitment to diversity and equality' above its duty of care to its pupils and their parents./// is also a very true statement imo.
I am inclined to agree wih Richard Littlejohn's comments that this unfortunate lady should not have returned to the shool as a completely different person which would have been very confusing to small children, but should have made a fresh start at another school. Maybe had she chosen this course she would still be alive & enjoying life to the full. I agree with sqad that no blame can be laid to the Mail reporter for pointing out commonsense facts.
WR.
WR.
I loathe Richard Littlejohn. Sincerely, deeply loathe him. In my opinion, he is one of the nastiest, most venomous and destructive columnists in the English language.
I also loathe what he wrote about Miss Meadows. I can't say I have any sympathy with the idea that the set-up has any kind of corrosive effect on children's 'innocence' (even ignoring the fact that most children are not anywhere near as innocent as Littlejohn seems to think they are). The school had no problem with it - the only person, apparently, who did was Littlejohn and presumably some of his readers. It would personally delight me for Littlejohn's career to be torpedoed and sunk.
Having said that, however, I can't bring myself to believe that there's yet sufficient evidence for such action to be taken. Littlejohn did not break the law in his original article, and there simply isn't conclusive enough evidence to suggest that had he not written it, Miss Meadows would still be alive. So, based on the evidence available at this point (which if I'm honest I'm not sure will change all that much), no - he should not be forced to resign.
This doesn't make his original article any less shameful a piece of cynical and manipulative gutter journalism, however.
I also loathe what he wrote about Miss Meadows. I can't say I have any sympathy with the idea that the set-up has any kind of corrosive effect on children's 'innocence' (even ignoring the fact that most children are not anywhere near as innocent as Littlejohn seems to think they are). The school had no problem with it - the only person, apparently, who did was Littlejohn and presumably some of his readers. It would personally delight me for Littlejohn's career to be torpedoed and sunk.
Having said that, however, I can't bring myself to believe that there's yet sufficient evidence for such action to be taken. Littlejohn did not break the law in his original article, and there simply isn't conclusive enough evidence to suggest that had he not written it, Miss Meadows would still be alive. So, based on the evidence available at this point (which if I'm honest I'm not sure will change all that much), no - he should not be forced to resign.
This doesn't make his original article any less shameful a piece of cynical and manipulative gutter journalism, however.
-- answer removed --
If anyone wants to read Littlejohn's piece themselves, you can find it here:
http://
You can also see the comments up to the point it was pulled (you have to scroll down past an unrelated Jimmy Savile article). Note that the majority of them - and those that receive the most 'upvotes' are the ones critical of the piece.
http://
You can also see the comments up to the point it was pulled (you have to scroll down past an unrelated Jimmy Savile article). Note that the majority of them - and those that receive the most 'upvotes' are the ones critical of the piece.
Kromovaracun
Thank you Kromo for supplying us with that now withdraw article.
I had only heard and read various portions of the article until now, and now I have read it I can see little wrong with Littlejohn's sentiments, (except of course the headline), taking into consideration also that the article was written before the untimely death of the teacher.
Bearing in mind that the pupils at the school were between 7 & 11 it must have been a little disturbing for their young minds, as this piece explains.
/// Parent Wayne Cowie said the news had left his ten-year-old son worried and confused. ///
/// For the past three years he has been taught by Mr Upton, but has now been told that he will be punished if he continues to call ‘Miss Meadows’ ‘Mr Upton’ after the Christmas holidays. ‘My middle boy thinks that he might wake up with a girl’s brain because he was told that Mr Upton, as he got older, got a girl’s brains.’ ///
All far too much for young minds to absorb, I even head on the radio that the head stated that 'counselling' was available for any pupil that had a problem.
Why put the young through this, better for the teacher to have given up her job at that particular school and to have taken up teaching at another school.
Thank you Kromo for supplying us with that now withdraw article.
I had only heard and read various portions of the article until now, and now I have read it I can see little wrong with Littlejohn's sentiments, (except of course the headline), taking into consideration also that the article was written before the untimely death of the teacher.
Bearing in mind that the pupils at the school were between 7 & 11 it must have been a little disturbing for their young minds, as this piece explains.
/// Parent Wayne Cowie said the news had left his ten-year-old son worried and confused. ///
/// For the past three years he has been taught by Mr Upton, but has now been told that he will be punished if he continues to call ‘Miss Meadows’ ‘Mr Upton’ after the Christmas holidays. ‘My middle boy thinks that he might wake up with a girl’s brain because he was told that Mr Upton, as he got older, got a girl’s brains.’ ///
All far too much for young minds to absorb, I even head on the radio that the head stated that 'counselling' was available for any pupil that had a problem.
Why put the young through this, better for the teacher to have given up her job at that particular school and to have taken up teaching at another school.
First of all Littlejohn.
I think his whole column was wrong, children tend to cope with such changes (as their teacher coming back different) remarkably easy and usually better than adults. Schools are not there to cosset and protect children from the realities of life. Rather than a problem, it was an opportunity to educate the children on something they are bound to encounter in their later lives (if handled properly). Unfortunately, they will be educated on another hard lesson in life, the death of someone they know and like. So littlejohn's column was nasty and politically biased and in the most part just plain simple wrong.
Should he be sacked for this?
No he shouldn't. The suicide was not his fault. We have no proof the writings contributed to his state of mind or even if he had read it. Suicide is a personal decission, and no on else can be blame for it.
Littlejohn was just doing the job he is paid to do. At times it is a grubby enterprise, but someone has to satiate the Mail's readers lust for outrage, and Littlejohn is rather good at doing that.
I think his whole column was wrong, children tend to cope with such changes (as their teacher coming back different) remarkably easy and usually better than adults. Schools are not there to cosset and protect children from the realities of life. Rather than a problem, it was an opportunity to educate the children on something they are bound to encounter in their later lives (if handled properly). Unfortunately, they will be educated on another hard lesson in life, the death of someone they know and like. So littlejohn's column was nasty and politically biased and in the most part just plain simple wrong.
Should he be sacked for this?
No he shouldn't. The suicide was not his fault. We have no proof the writings contributed to his state of mind or even if he had read it. Suicide is a personal decission, and no on else can be blame for it.
Littlejohn was just doing the job he is paid to do. At times it is a grubby enterprise, but someone has to satiate the Mail's readers lust for outrage, and Littlejohn is rather good at doing that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.