In an entirely predictable move, Littlejohn has linked the two stories in his column today. Needless to say, he adds absolutely nothing to either, but just comments on the Mail articles. Again.
On the hotel couple who offended a Muslim guest, Littlejohn has also decided, like the Mail on Sunday, that what these two said was not a problem. He admits:
We weren't party to the conversation, so we can't be sure what was said.
But he is sure it was all OK anyway. And then he adds:
But they're entitled to their opinion. Arresting them for 'hate crime' is a monstrous abuse of police powers.
Which is weird, because back when a small group of attention-seeking Muslim protestors were haranguing returning soldiers in Luton, he didn't think they were 'entitled to their opinion'. Oh no. He was livid that:
None of the young Muslim men inciting hatred were arrested.
So in his rant claiming it is one rule for Christians and one rule for everyone else, he proves the same. Just not in the way he thinks.
He moves onto to the Exeter nurse case and begins with a completely - and deliberately - false comparison:
Elsewhere, a nurse from Exeter has been ordered to remove her crucifix - on the weasel excuse of elf'n'safety - even though Muslim staff are allowed to wear headscarves.
As mentioned last time, the nurse was asked to remove her necklace because all necklaces are banned. The fact that hers has a crucifix on it is neither here nor there and the hospital have made it clear she can still wear her crucifix in other ways. So she hasn't, as Littlejohn knowingly, wrongly claims been 'ordered to remove her crucifix'. That is a blatant lie and not 'reporting the facts'. So once again, we find Littlejohn can make it up.
Littlejohn also has an entirely expected comment on the Calais 'Jungle' and the includes another throwaway exaggeration/lie:
There may already be as many as two million foreign nationals living here illegally. No one seems sure.
Of course, beginning the sentence 'there may' equally means 'there may not'. It's a get-out. But the two million figure seems hugely inflated.
Back in March the Mail itself reported on an LSE report saying there were likely:
between 524,000 and 947,000, with a 'central estimate' of 725,000.
These are figures that have also been used by the IPPR and by the Mail's old friends at Migrationwatch. So where does two million come from when the latest figures suggest that even the highest estimate is less than one million?
Surely he hasn't just plucked his 'fact' out of the air? Because we know he 'merely sticks to the facts'.
So he's done elf'n'safety, political correctness, evil intolerant Muslims, immigration and asylum - what's left? An attack on a council for what he deems a worthless job? Oh yes.
This time it's Lancashire County Council who are advertising for a 'Myth busting project worker'. Littlejohn calls it 'Manager', not 'worker' so he can't even cut-and-paste that correctly. He writes:
The successful applicant will be responsible for 'researching Lancashire communities' attitudes and responses to migrants and formulate and deliver a positive campaign to dispel negative myths and perceptions...'
After that, I lost the will to live.
Well what a surprise. This is a job to:
deliver a positive campaign to dispel negative myths and perceptions
That would be the very same 'negative myths and perceptions' that Littlejohn spews out twice a week. No wonder he thinks the post is a:
In fact, refugee groups and many councils have similar guidelines (see Mobiles, Money & Mayhem: The Facts and Fibs About Asylum or countless others). He asks:
However did they manage without one?
This is a game he played before when he said Gypsy and Traveller groups don't need media training and then called them all dirty, gun-toting criminals.
But instead of asking 'However did they manage without one?', he should ask 'how has the situation got so bad that they feel one is now necessary?' But that would take some real thought and maybe even an admission his columns, his paper are part of the problem.
Don't expect that any time soon.