Littlejohn attacks the disabled - same publisher as Terry

[wolfmeister]

I just wondered terry if you would take some action at Randomhouse to mobilze the other authors with decent public reputations?

You yourself have talked about the stigma of Alzheimer's & support charities for disabilities. yet your publisher supports this aweful Littlejohn man who's openly mocking a disabled man with cerebral palsy.

Sorry to drag politics into it, and i dont know if Terry even reads this forum, but it's something to consider maybe?

or maybe mods will delete it cos it's toto difficult to deal with? I dont know.

cheerio and keep up the good work anyway.

 

[pip]

Sounds like quite a harsh accusation against Random House for something that has just happened.
They haven't made a statement supporting Richard Littlejohn in the aftermath of his awful statement nor has any of the authors who are related to random house.

I agree that the statment is a disgrace but your entry here is reactionary in the extreme.
Are you placing accusations and recriminations against everyone directly and indirectly associated with this man. Seems a pointless exercise to be honest.

 

[wolfmeister]

asking a simple question politely is hardly 'reactionary in the extreme' my friend.

i just asked whether some action might be taken after the event that's all.

Now that this man HAS said what he's said, (past tense) wouldn't some action be appropriate by the decent authors residing in the same stable, especialy when one author is directly involved in trying to improve public opinion about disability?

Hope that helps to clear up any misunderstanding.

 

[CJDobs]

I thought it was a reactionary post too. Mainly because the issue itself, whilst a distasteful remark, was only the authors sad attempt at satire and baseless wit to make a point.

But he has a right to say it . . just as I have a right to say, quite categorically, that the Daily Mail is a shameful little rag aimed at Middle Englands hidden Nazi thinkers. It plays into the small minds of its readership planting horrid thoughts about 'immigrants', 'political undesirables' and 'pinko Liberals' whilst asking you to love the Royal family like they are your very own . . . . yuk, not even fit for toilet paper . . .

Now, if I was lucky enough to be in print, I'd still want to say that because it's how I feel. Free speech, whether you like it or not and whether in good taste or not, works both ways I'm afraid . . . .

Oh, and not sure why the protest being made here either. Terrys publisher is a tenuous link to this at best.

 

[raisindot]

You literally just join this site today, obviously make no attempt to get familiar with any of the forums, its members, or its content, and just post your personal rant in the Terry Pratchett area when, if you had spent five minutes actually getting to know this place, you'd see that this area is for a discussion of PTerry in general, and that's it not a place for you to post your personal requests for him to do things for you.

If you had actually spent the time to get to know this place you would have understood that your message should only have been posted in The Broken Drum, the one area of the site amenable for general discussions, even rants like yours.

And then after people call you on your boneheadness, instead of apologizing for using this forum as a dumping ground for your selfish and off-topic rants you instead try to justify your actions.

What a great way to make friends and influence people.



J-I-B

 

[pip]

I stand by my statement about your reactionary approach.

You did not just ask a question.
You made accusations against the publisher.

As said i don't think the statements where at all tasteful but over the top reactions lashing out in every direction are counter productive.

As colleagues here have stated , firstly this is not the place for such a directed comment and secondly your approach is extremely misdirected and misguided.

yet your publisher supports this aweful Littlejohn man who's openly mocking a disabled man with cerebral palsy.

If this is not an open and unfounded accusation beyond your 'simple polite question' i'm sadly confused then.

 

[Tonyblack]

As far as we know, Terry Pratchett doesn't read this site. He certainly isn't a registered member, so it's unlikely that he's going to respond.

I have no idea who Littlejohn is or what he's reputed to have said - maybe a letter of complaint to Mr Littlejohn personally, would be more useful.

 

[wolfmeister]

I stand by my statement about your reactionary approach.

You did not just ask a question.
You made accusations against the publisher.

Oh you must have got the wrong end of the stick, sorry - when i said randomhouse "supports" Littlejohn, i didnt say they support his current outburst which is all over the media; i meant they support him as publisher.

clear now?

 

[wolfmeister]

As far as we know, Terry Pratchett doesn't read this site. He certainly isn't a registered member, so it's unlikely that he's going to respond.

ok cheers, i'll try and get his agents contact details then. Thanks for being polite btw.






and to raisindot. - One can easily flush out the underlying attitude and energy of people without recourse to lengthy and time consuming "getting to know people" nonsense.

I think you are confusing "getting to know people" with chimp-pack alpha male behavioural stuff.

cheerio

 

[Tonyblack]

I should comment here that this website is owned by Transworld, which is a company owned by Random House, which is in turn owned by German company Bertelsmann.

It's really not that easy to point a finger at a publisher these days are there so many companies owned by huge conglomerates.

 

[CJDobs]

"One can easily flush out the underlying attitude and energy of people without recourse to lengthy and time consuming "getting to know people" nonsense. "

This could be taken straight from the mouth of any landed gentry from a Thomas Hardy novel . . . .

"and if that doesn't work, then by george a stiff whoosh across the buttocks with my horse whip will sort them out, the cads!"

I'm genuinely amused . . . .

 

[pip]

"One can easily flush out the underlying attitude and energy of people without recourse to lengthy and time consuming "getting to know people" nonsense. "

This could be taken straight from the mouth of any landed gentry from a Thomas Hardy novel . . . .

"and if that doesn't work, then by george a stiff whoosh across the buttocks with my horse whip will sort them out, the cads!"

I'm genuinely amused . . . .

Brilliant

 

[poohcarrot]

I thought the Daily Mail rant was better.
Go CJ go!
I tactfully decided to keep away from this thread.

 

[pip]

I thought the Daily Mail rant was better.
Go CJ go!
I tactfully decided to keep away from this thread.

sadly couldn't resist it myself

 

[poohcarrot]

You'd have been crap in the Garden of Eden.

Or maybe not.

God: Where's my apple?

Pip: Pip!

 

[pip]

You'd have been crap in the Garden of Eden.

Or maybe not.

God: Where's my apple?

Pip: Pip!

Have to work on the nonchalant walk a bit more.

Bloody love apples though