This is because of the Sun’s constant support for the Tories in 92 - the Sun having the famous headline on election day: “If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain pelase turn out the light?” - with The Sun proudly boasting “It was the Sun wot won it” in the aftermath of the election.

MacKenzie apparently had a grip on the newsroom that only Sun owner Rupert Murdoch could overrule - to the extent where none of the staff dared to question his decision after the Hillsborough disaster, when 96 people died in a crush at a football match, to run a frontpage headlined “THE TRUTH”, claiming that Liverpool football fans stole from the dead. Despite this turning out to be bollocks, and despite circulation of The Sun dropping from over 200,000 to just 12,000 in the Liverpool area in response, MacKenzie has refused to apologise as recently as January 2007.

He was the man who established The Sun as the vile far-right bigoted organ it is today. He was the man who ran the jingoistic “GOTCHA!” headline after the sinking of the Belgrano, a retreating Argentinian warship during the Fawklands war.

In the early 80s, MacKenzie did sum up the readership of the Sun, with this rather blunt quote. It’s a good job the average Sun reader doesn’t know the meaning of the word “contempt”:

“You just don’t understand the readers, do you, eh? He’s the bloke you see in the pub, a right old fascist, wants to send the wogs back, buy his poxy council house, he’s afraid of the unions, afraid of the Russians, hates the queers and the weirdos and drug dealers. He doesn’t want to hear about that stuff (serious news).”

Perhaps the most famous O’Reilly moment was when he had the son of a 9/11 victim on his programme, Jeremy Glick, who was opposed to the war in Afghanistan - O’Reilly, not being able to accept this opinion, over the course of the interview shouted Glick down again and again, eventually cutting his microphone - going as far as saying he was telling him to “shut up” “out of respect for his father”. Really. In Bill’s word, if you’re anti-war, you’re insulting the memory of your dead father.

Similarly, just to pick another example, O’Reilly has on two completely separate occasions tried to defend American war atrocities, such as a massacre in Haditha, Iraq - by invoking the memory of the World War II Malmedy massacre where the SS executed 80ish American Prisoners of War. Unfortunately, Bill got a bit muddled - on both separate occasions - and claimed that it was in fact the Americans who slaughtered the SS. In other words, Bill was trying to cast the Nazis as the victims. And no, not some other Nazis - The Nazis. Rival news anchor Keith Olbermann rather took him to task about this.

He’s done much more than this that more than qualifies him as an Enemy of the People. I mean, they’ve had to dedicate an entire Wikipedia page to his wrongs, rather than just one section.

Phelps though, deserves his place on this website because he is a thoroughly awful man. Aside from his hilarious godhatessweden.com, a website celebrating the 2004 Tsunami apparently killing a lot of Swedes because they’re gay or something, and the newer godhatesireland.com (I assure you these are not a parody), and the original godhatesfags.com, Phelps and the Westboro Baptists are perhaps best known for protesting soldiers funerals. No, really. Not against the war (which would still be an awful thing to do at a funeral, obviously), but against gay people… even if the soldier wasn’t gay.

His bizarre justification for this, is as tenuous as his grip on reality - the logic is something like that the soldiers are American, and America is a country of “fag enablers”, and therefore… I don’t know what the “therefore” is, it exists completely outside of the bounds of reason. “Fag enabler“  being a term that was presumably coined by Phelps, as a synonymn for “normal people”.

Basically, Phelps and his family are about as close as nature can get to self-parody. The amazing thing though is that they’re not some great satire, and are a real, terrifying, hateful bunch.

The best way to understand why its easy to hate Phelps and the Westboro Baptist is simply to search YouTube or Google for them. If you have a funny link about them, post it in the comments, as I can’t get enough of them.

Taking power in the Conservative Party, Cameron has gained popularity by moving his party to the centre - which isn’t difficult when the “old” Conservative Party front bench featured the likes of Ann Widdecombe. This has hidden the fact that there still are a lot of the old Nasty Party on the backbenches of the Conservative party: Mark Pritchard and Nadine Dorries to name two. They’ll feature on here soon, no doubt.

The most irritating thing about Cameron though, aside from his plastic face, is his inability to utter anything but platitudes - in one of his party conference speeches, he set himself apart from Labour and the other parties by saying that “All families do a vital job, and they all need our support.” and that he’s for “Improving our environment and quality of life.” - shocking stuff, and diametrically opposed to Labour’s “split up families and shit on the environment” policies, and offering a nice counter to the new Clause 4 of the Labour Party consitution, that aims to “reduce quality of life”. Cough.

And besides all this, David Cameron has (allegedly) smoked Cannabis - whereas I haven’t. This means that the impossible has happened: the leader of the Conservative Party is actually cooler than I am.

Picture credit: here.

Green is perhaps most well known for having some all-round unpleasant opinions, opposing things like abortion and homosexuality - y’know, the things that society had agreed were alright years ago. In a recent Channel 4 Despatches documentary, he is seen claiming that God once “blessed” Britain, and now he isn’t because of all of this modernity - the typical rose-tinted-memory of something that never happened shared by people on the right (not unlike German volkische nationalism, really) - and worse still, he’s the sort of bore who claims that we need to “repent” to be “saved”.

Green, and his Voice are perhaps best known for being the people who wasted all that time protesting against Jerry Springer: The Opera, a musical parody of the Jerry Springer Show, in which Jesus and Satan play various roles. You’d think God, in his omnipotence wouldn’t really give a damn about mediocre musical (I got as far as the second act before concluding that the joke had worn thin), but I guess he must have been on the phone to Stephen and had a bit of a cry, as Christian Voice mobilised and protested against it - causing a cancer charity to reject a “four figure” donation from a charity performance. That was real Christian of you, Stephen.

He’s one of those people who are celebrated for being “politically incorrect”, and wear this label as a badge of honour. Its certainly an odd honour to have - it must be difficult trying to balance sticking it to the minorities, the foreigners and the environment, without coming across, as y’know, a hideous bigot. And everyone hates bigots. Especially other bigots. Coming over here, taking jobs from bigots.

To watch Clarkson’s reports on Top Gear, its always disconcerting once you notice that every time he mentions another country, he always does it with contempt in his voice - he clearly isn’t capable of saying “The Germans”, without emphasising the phrase, as if to say “Yeah, the Germans, y’know, the ones we beat in the war, eh, lads?”.

As you might expect, Clarkson, as the presenter of a motoring programme, and the man who props up an entire digital channel with repeats of his programme, is not just an enemy of the people, but an enemy of the environment.  He’d send flowers by post just for the thrill of killing plants,if it weren’t such a gentlemanly thing to do.  In his position as a popular figure, he is no doubt to blame for a lot of the “scepticism” towards climate change

Depressingly, he is also a popular author, having written books with titles like “The World According to Clarkson” which if excerpts like this are anything to go by, could also go by the name “The Wanker’s Manifesto”:

“David Blunkett spoke last week about relaxing the laws on immigrants, allowing people with a special skill to get a work permit in britain. Great, but the people coming over on those boats are not teachers and computer programmers. All they can do is strip down an ak47 and milk a goat.”

The only good thing he’s done for the world has been to punch Piers Morgan. More on that soon.

Phillip is only an “Enemy of the People”, because of his own doings - for the past few decades he’s been doing his best to become an enemy of almost every identity group.

Famous for his politically incorrect gaffes, his flaws are perhaps best illustrated with quotes:

He said that “If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?” in the wake of the Dunblane school shooting… which makes him approximately equally as tactful as Richard Littlejohn.

Speaking to a Scottish driving instructor, he asked “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?”. I wonder how many of the drinks at Balmoral tasted of urine that year?

Despite being a man of privilege, the Duke isn’t a spoilt brat - he knows how to respond to gifts. When a Kenyan woman gave him a present in 1984, he responded with “You are a woman, aren’t you?”.

“You managed not to get eaten, then?”, the Duke asked a student who was trekking through Papua New Guinea. No doubt this did wonders for Britain’s relations there.

“If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an aeroplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.”

There’s stacks of quotes like this - why not share your favourites in the comments below?

Oh, and also, he killed the Queen of our Hearts, Princess Diana. Allegedly.

Perhaps one of the most infamous Littlejohn columns, that really illustrate what an awful man he is, was his column shortly after the Ipswich murders, in which five prostitutes were killed. Richard, or “Dick”, as he may also be called, in his usual tactful style said that:

“in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.”

“They weren’t going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur.”

Because obviously Littlejohn was writing this just after getting back from Dafur, having set aside a couple of minutes on the flight back to carry out some pioneering research.

When you think about it, being a columnist is really no better than being a prostitute- the only difference is that Littlejohn (thankfully) isn’t selling his body, but is selling his bigotry - and terrifyingly, the Mail are willing to pay upwards of £700,000 a year for this “service”.

One of the most famous Littlejohn moments was during an argument with Will Self on Radio 5 Live, about their respective books. Self admitted to only having read half of Littlejohn’s book, and then they had the following exchange when Self criticised it:

LITTLEJOHN: But you haven’t read the book in its totality and you have to read the book in its totality.

SELF: Why?

LITTLEJOHN: In order to understand it.

SELF: Does it turn into Tolstoy at page 205?

LITTLEJOHN: No it doesn’t turn into Tolstoy. I don’t set out to be Tolstoy. It is a much more complex book than that.

Amazing.

Picture credit: here.

Reinforcing this apparent disdain for democracy, he dropped out of the Presidential race on February 7th, claiming that if he were to remain in the race, he’d be stalling the national campaign and making it easier for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democratic contenders for the Presidency - saying that “in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding surrender to terror.”

That’s right - he claimed his less conservative opponents are “surrendering to terror”. Whatever that means.

Now, its well known that politicians talk a lot of nonsense - Romney though, is perhaps responsible for the biggest fallacy since “there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq” - saying during a speech about religion, in which he defended his own Mormon faith - that “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.”

Clearly a man who is unfamiliar with the history of religion, and the events of, say, the French or American revolutions, and the works of Thomas Paine, is also unfamiliar with, er, the present. Clearly Mitt couldn’t have been thinking of Godless Europe or pious Saudi Arabia when coming up with his speech.

But at least he’s a man of principles, who’ll stand up for what he believes is right, right? During his time as Governor of Massachusetts, he was pro-choice and pro-gay rights - that’s pretty good, isn’t it? Oh, wait, as soon as he started to run for President he pandered to the far-right and changed his mind to oppose them instead.

It’s a good job he’s pretty much a political irrelevance now.

Picture credit: here.

The film, which derives its name not from the space between creationist’s ears, but from the treatment of people who “dissent” from Darwinian natural selection, centres around the argument that “evolution isn’t true because it hurts our feelings”, which is a logical fallacy as moronic as if I were to claim that Ben Stein doesn’t exist because he makes me incandescent with rage.

Obviously, the film has been debunked and proven wrong (using evidence, a concept unfamiliar with the creationists behind the film), by approximately 150 years of scientific progress. Considering that they started putting together the evidence for evolution by natural selection before the film makers were even born, that’s some considerable foresight on the part of the scientists.

What makes this film and Ben Stein a particularly acute target for hate, rather than just the gentle derisive mocking that the creationists on YouTube tend to receive, is that the film repeatedly links “natural selection” to the Nazis, and has Stein essentially trying to do some Holocaust-revisionism, trying to link Nazi atrocities to Charles Darwin. Obviously this is appallingly wrong, and because there’s not the time or space to explain why, here’s a link instead.

Its possible to sum-up why I’m so full of hate for Ben Stein in one anecdote. When the film was released, Stein appeared on a Christian chat show, where he claimed that “Science leads to killing people“. Really.

The only mitigating thing about this film is the hilariously poor way that they’ve promoted it - during one early screening, evolutionary biologist and one of the people interviewed in the film (apparently under false pretence) PZ Myers, was kicked out by the director - that’s right, he was expelled from Expelled, for having a contrary opinion. Irony is clearly dead. What makes this even funnier is that the director failed to notice and kick out PZ’s guest who he’d brought along for the ride… a man called Richard Dawkins.

Picture credit: here.