Friday night fun… lol.

You spelt his name wrong. His surname is TWAT.

@ Jennie

I thought his surname began with a ‘C’.

lol @ Jennie.

lol, Jennie.

Leaving to one side the wisdom of allowing oneself to be baited by Letts in this way, I should point out that Quentin Letts was the clear model for the sketch writer-turned-rapist in David Hare’s Gethsemane. I wonder where he got the idea of Letts being a misogynist from?

Quentin Letts – face like a sack of lukewarm shite.

You really are going for the tough targets aren’t you.

Who’s next? Christopher Biggins?

But you can see where Letts is coming from…
It is thought that Paul Dacre’s policy at the Daily Mail is to hire ONLY absolue male hunks as ‘journalists’.
Here at Hagley Road to Ladywood there’s a nice pictorial collection for you guys.
http://mymarilyn.blogspot.com/2009/03/hello-handsome.html

Interesting debate with a range of, er, comments so far…

Lett’s should be congratulated for trying to revive a traditional debate and is actually more liberal and inquisitive than the professed lefties here.

Proffering his judgement as a stimulus isn’t misogyny, it’s for you to disagree with and explain why you disagree. Denigrating his contribution as misogyny is to avoid engaging with the legitimate debate.

Does the perception of a politicians public persona reflect upon their ability to do their job?

What does that say about our society if there is, in fact, an inverted class-system based on looks? Is that equality, or the pretence of equality?

Are our female politicians also failing to set an adequate example as role models for the next generation (fitness, healthy eating etc)? In how far should we accept this?

Should ‘ugly’ people defend body fascism in order to protect an industry for themselves by creating additional barriers for entry?

Why is the line that ‘politics is fame for ugly people’ such a truism? Isn’t this a bad thing?

Wouldn’t our politics be in a healthier state if our politicians were too?

Which article are you reading thomas? Letts seems to be saying that our women politicians are ugly compared to European women. Perhaps you could point to the missing part of the article that poses those deep philosophical questions.

Adam,
in his first line Letts makes it clear that he is trying to make a political point (in his populist tabloid manner).

Letts goes on to report the factual basis of the story, an opinion poll. He then hastily jumps to his conclusion that there is a cultural reason for this disparity.

I think Letts is wrong because he is being politically selective. He uses opinion to compare only British women politicians who are all over 46 yrs old have and spent a whole career getting to those positions, whereas all but one of the foreign female politicians are under 40.

I think it is an entirely valid and inescapable debate about whether our politicians set a good enough example and what that should be.

Thomas, you’re talking shite. Utter shite, rendered all the more stinky by your bizarre need to perform apologetics for Lett’s drivel.

Doubtless you’;; believe now that you’ve been somehow vindicated because I’m not “debaing” your “philosophical questions” – but that’s because you’re talking shite.

When someone talks shite, whether they are on a comments thread or shouting at me from behind a bottle of cider in a park, I feel no need to “debate” with them.

Except to tell them they’re talking shite.

Quentin Letts – the Lidl Boris Johnson…

Col. Richard Hindrance (Mrs.),
these ain’t philosophical questions, but political ones.

And I’m not suggesting you debate them with me, rather use them to point out how and why conservatives are wrong.

You are mistaken if you think I’m apologising for Lett’s, I’m attacking ‘lefties’ for not shooting him down adequately .

In shouting baselessly at what I’ve said how do you add a positive contribution? I think you’re missing a wide open goal because you’ve forgotten the object of the game.

And I think you´re talking shite. Pretentious shite, to boot.

Letts comes out with a pile of sexist drivel for one of Britain´s most hypocritically prurient newspapers. To dignify it by pretending it´s “starting a debate” is ridiculous.

And I´m not typing in caps, so it ain´t “shouting”, Tommyboy.

if you’re not shouting, you’re not charming my socks of neither.

If you think your undignified comments gives you enough credibility to describe the dignity of others,go ahead, please make our days.

I don’t think it’s very democratic to disengage from opinions you may disagree with.