Littlejohn supports abuse of returns policy, wonders why shop changes rules

Last Friday, as pointed out by Uponnothing, Richard Littlejohn wrote a 'hilarious' imaginary discussion between a dumb American and a British person called Brit (I know, it's too much) about Gordon Brown, the Special Relationship and Baroness Scotland.

It included the American being bamboozled about an unelected, appointed Attorney General. The American says:

What a cockamamie country. They'd never get away with it in America.

Except, of course, they do. The Attorney General is appointed by the President.

He then goes on to ask why the relationship between Brown and Barack Obama had deteriorated (if it even has...). The response:

Because President Brown released the terrorist who murdered 270 U.S. citizens in the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie.

Really? Maybe Littlejohn hadn't noticed the SNP are in charge in Scotland now. He can just make it up!

Incidentally, if any of this 'dumb American Chad talking to British journo Brit about unelected President Norman Brown from Scotlandland on the eve of his visit to America' sounds familiar, it is. He used the exact same ruse (and jokes) back in April 2008.

Back to today, and Littlejohn drags out several of his favourite cliches including 'Mind how you go' and 'com-pen-say-shun'. The Transgendered Police Association get another mention. Of course, they're actually called the National Trans Police Association, but you can't expect Littlejohn to get anything everything right.

He also writes about the 'news' that Marks and Spencer have withdrawn their 90 day returns policy in favour of a 35 day one. The fact that this changed back in April but has only made headlines in the last few days says plenty about how 'controversial' (as Littlejohn refers to it) this really is.

He says:

I doubt whether many people wait the best part of three months before taking something back

but thinks it should remain a three month limit anyway. Brilliant.

And then he comes out with a classic bit of Littlejohn (non-)thinking which just leaves you baffled:

My mum swore by Marks & Sparks, largely because she could buy a frock on Friday, wear it to a dinner-dance on Saturday and take it back on Monday morning, no questions asked.

Does it really not occur to him that people abusing the returns policy, like his mum apparently did, may well be responsible for the change?

And because it was his mum doing that, it's totally legitimate:

The money she spent elsewhere in the store more than made up for her free dress hire.

Really? Well that's OK then. One of the comments people put it best:

Brilliant. Your old mum defrauds M&S and she's a plucky old gel, no harm guv, strike a light, it's just the blitz spirit! But a dog with five puppies is automatically on benefits...

What would your attitude be if it was an asylum seeker doing the M&S dodge?

Do you actually THINK about this 'journalism'?

- Paco, Madrid, 29/9/2009 8:44

I think we all know the answer to that.