Perhaps his invitation is in the post, airmail to America can often be very slow.

What exactly could Littlejohn tell Leveson about journalism? I don't get the impression that he spends that much time in the Newsroom at the Mail. Is formula for writing a story seems to be take a story from the Mail's website spice it up a bit, insert the term Elf n Safety and add a couple of references to 70' TV shows. Job done.

Perhaps his invitation is in the post, airmail to America can often be very slow.

What exactly could Littlejohn tell Leveson about journalism? I don't get the impression that he spends that much time in the Newsroom at the Mail. Is formula for writing a story seems to be take a story from the Mail's website spice it up a bit, insert the term Elf n Safety and add a couple of references to 70' TV shows. Job done.

This apparently, is what Littlejohn's appearance at the inquiry would look like:



Apparently the inquiry would relocate to a parallel universe of surrealist monotone art.

FTFY, Gary.

maybe littlejohn does't like Johann Hari because he wiped the floor with him in a televised debate ....see utube - marrer, sunny wigan, 13/1/2012 9:45 ++++++++++++++ If that were the only reason I am sure he would also be roundly condemning Michael Winner as well!
- Dick Fleischer, Nr. Ullapool, 13/1/2012 11:14

Even though you haven't received your invitation to the Leveson inquiry I'm sure Leveson would be more than happy for you to submit written evidence. Perhaps you could write to him and set the record straight. Leveson seems to believe that journalists just sit at their computers all day surfing the web and picking up gossip from twitter. Serious journalist like your good self need to contact him to point out all the hours of effort you put into researching articles, door stepping witnesses and following paper trails in order to expose corruption and wrong doing by politicians, businessmen and crooks.
- C Fisher, Chesterfield, 13/1/2012 11:51
Click to rate Rating (0)
Report abuse


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1jLS9mowP

I love how the re-employment of the discredited Johann Hari (a mistake for sure, I agree with Littlejohn there) and the Guardian reporting what WikiLeaks released (but not actually being responsible for the leaks or the publication of material in itself) is being passed off as a "balance" for everything morally bankrupt that the red tops have done, as if it somehow makes it alright and/or that they now shouldn't report the sleazy practices of the tabloids. Yes, the broadsheets have made and do make mistakes in judgment too. But two wrongs don't make everything alright, and if anything, it's MORE evidence more press regulation is needed, not less. And it's not really on the same scale, is it? A review of the transcripts of the Leveson inquiry show just how morally bankrupt the tabloid owners, journalists and editors are - much of their behaviour is simply disgusting. So please don't suggest that just because the Indy foolishly re-hires someone that we should now ignore everything else.
- CM Burns, Windscale, 13/1/2012 9:06