Re: RIP Rod Liddle, 1960 – 2026 (was: RIP Rod Liddle, 1960 ??? 2026)

On Aug 3, 2026 at 2:41:56 PM EDT, "Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rod Liddle, The Spectator’s associate editor, has died at the age of 66.
> 
> Rod, who was also a columnist for the Sunday Times and Sun, died at the
> James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough yesterday evening,
> following a short illness.
> 
> His children, Wilder, Tyler and Emmy, said in a statement: ‘We’re all
> very saddened and shocked at the sudden passing of our wonderful father.
> He raised us much as you might imagine, to be inquisitive, brave and
> always humourous. Even in hospital in the last few weeks, he
> consistently held the room and never let the awful situation show. He
> has left a legacy that we are all incredibly proud of, he will always be
> our guide on how to live an extraordinary life.’
> 
> Michael Gove, The Spectator’s editor, said:
> 
> Rod Liddle was a journalist of genius. In the tradition of Swift,
> Cobbett and Orwell, he was a satirist who found society’s most sensitive
> spots and made merciless fun of our follies. He was always fearless,
> could be achingly funny and while he had an adamantine core of principle
> he could also surprise. Because he was original – he thought for himself
> and never wanted anyone’s approval – he was special and brave.
> 
> In person, Rod was kind and gentle. He was an indulgent boss and
> brilliantly creative editor at the BBC and an always steadfast and
> generous colleague. He had a deep love of England, of its culture and in
> particular the common sense of its working class. He was also a master
> of the written word. He was very much loved by those who knew him. And
> no words we can summon can capture our loss.
> 
> Freddie Sayers, The Spectator’s publisher, said:
> 
> Everyone at The Spectator is devastated by the news that our beloved
> columnist and friend Rod has died. We knew that he had been unwell for
> some time but had been hoping for a recovery and return to the writing
> which Spectator readers loved and looked forward to every week. His
> voice, of course, is irreplaceable: a combination of bravery,
> originality, fearlessness and laugh-out-loud wit that we will miss
> deeply in the weeks and years to come.
> 
> Former editor of The Spectator, Fraser Nelson said:
> 
> Rod Liddle was the greatest satirist since Swift; loved by Spectator
> readers who he loved back in return. He used humour to get to the heart
> of subjects that other writers tried and failed to reach for. He once
> had a two-sentence blog – ‘I heard Owen Jones was on question time last
> night. Was he any good?’ – that broke records for traffic and reader
> comments. He enriched and enlivened the lives of hundreds of thousands
> of readers. There was, and will never be, anyone like him.
> 
> Douglas Murray, associate editor of The Spectator, said:
> 
> Rod often wrote as though nothing was sacred. In fact, as readers will
> know, many things were sacred to him, including his faith, his country,
> his family and more. Underneath his gloriously cavalier exterior was a
> highly moral, principled roundhead. It was one of the things that gave
> his writing that unmissable, first-person-you’d-read-in-the-magazine
> quality: anarchic and moral, hysterically funny and sobering.
> 
> At times we would have an informal game between us of who could get a
> particular word or sentiment into the magazine first. Rod almost always
> won, and I can think of no writer who made me laugh so much on the page
> as well in person. Many people will use the word ‘fearless’ to describe
> him. But I would add the word ‘peerless’ to that. It is hard to think of
> anyone who wrote with such tremendous effect for so wide an audience.
> 
> I have spent the day thinking of many of the times we spent together,
> sometimes by design, sometimes accidentally as when we discovered we
> were the only two non-Jews staying at a hotel on the shores of the
> Galilee. From the moment we saw each other and laughed at the
> coincidence, all I remember is that we didn’t stop laughing for days.
> 
> I recently spoke to him in his hospital bed and at one point while
> relaying his conditions and speaking of his hope of recovery he
> described himself as having reached a ‘zen-like state’. ‘I have a sort
> of “my work here is done” feeling,’ he said. I hope he did feel that.
> But the rest of us needed him, and will miss him, deeply. I hope he knew
> that too.
> 
> Rod first began writing regularly for The Spectator in October 2002,
> following his departure as editor of the Today programme. His first
> column for the magazine, entitled ‘Thought for the Day’, a nod to his
> previous role, was later rebranded as ‘Liddle Britain’. In the 24 years
> that followed, he has shocked, delighted and entertained The Spectator’s
> readers with columns and reviews that have lampooned and satirised the
> great and not-so-good.
> 
> In addition to his writing, Rod was a regular contributor to The
> Spectator’s podcasts, broadcasts and events. On YouTube, his interviews
> on politics, the royal family and the media have regularly pulled in
> hundreds of thousands of viewers. And in 2018, he became one of the few
> journalists capable of selling out the 2,300-capacity London Palladium
> as part of a Spectator in-conversation event – a sign of his enduring
> popularity with our readers.
> 
> Read a compilation of some of his best columns here....
> 
> Meeting Abu Hamza
> He is, you have to say, anti-democratic, democracies being callow,
> man-made things, and, as a final irony, he doesn’t even agree with the
> concept of absolute freedom of speech. Ask him about it and his one good
> eye gets cloudy and he starts mumbling dark things about Salman Rushdie.
> Abu Hamza thinks Abu Hamza should have the freedom to speak his mind
> because, of course, it’s not really Abu Hamza speaking, but, in essence,
> God.
> 
> Should we deny freedom of speech to someone who doesn’t really believe
> in freedom of speech? Of course not. We let them have it. We let them
> have it and allow the injustice and contradiction inherent in such a
> stance do for them, in the end.
> 
> ‘Don’t expel Dr Hook’, 15 March 2003
> 
> 
> Andrew Gilligan and Iraq
> The questions are endless. We could stay here all night. The truth is
> that in an attempt to spin itself out of a crisis the government – by
> which I mean, in all likelihood, Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair –
> created an even bigger crisis, for which it is now attempting to indict
> the BBC and one reporter, whose only crime was to report to the nation a
> story of vital importance.
> 
> ‘A despicable and cowardly diversion’, 26 July 2003
> 
> 
> On buses… and Spectator readers
> One of the lovely things about writing for The Spectator is that we have
> an extremely knowledgeable and well-read audience, so there is no need
> to explain the sort of stuff that one would need to explain were one
> writing for the Sun, say, or the New Statesman. An article about
> humorous verse of the mid-19th century, for example, would not require a
> preamble making it clear that Edward Lear did not, in his spare time,
> make jet aeroplanes. You know that already. This holds true for an
> agreeably diverse range of subjects; however, there is always an
> exception to test the rule. Occasionally a subject crops up which lies
> some way beyond the horizon of even – perhaps especially – the most
> well-informed of our readers; little details one would be slightly
> disappointed to discover were known to the average Spectator reader. And
> on these rare occasions, remedial explanation is required.
> 
> So, then: buses are those big red things full of poor people you see
> clogging up the traffic in the middle of London. You may have been stuck
> behind one on your way to lunch at Simpson’s; you may even have ridden
> on one, when you were a child and both impecunious and possessed of a
> sense of adventure. There are a lot, lot more of them these days, though
> – which is rather the point of this article.
> 
> ‘A miserable waste of space’, 30 September 2006
> 
> 
> Gordon Brown
> Is our Prime Minister perpetually out of his brainbox on powerful
> psychotropic substances, as everybody now seems to believe? Dilaudid,
> crystal meth, that sort of thing? Does he stagger out of bed and say:
> ‘Aw, Sarah, I’ve got a meeting with Harman in half an hour. Light up the
> crack pipe, will you?
> 
> ‘Is it more rude to ask if someone’s going whacko than blind?’, 3
> October 2009
> 
> 
> 
> On the authoritarianism of children
> There aren’t really any stories in Thomas the Tank Engine apart from
> various engines being humiliated and punished as a consequence of their
> misdemeanours or their hubris. And that’s the conclusion you should
> reach, I reckon, in both cases: the kids like these stories not in spite
> of the narrow conservatism of the writers, but precisely because of it.
> Children feel most comfortable in an ordered and clearly demarcated
> world, a world divided into hierarchies. They have a Manichean view of
> good and evil and they like to see the baddies get punished, preferably
> in a thoroughly unpleasant manner. They may also identify with gender
> stereotypes which conform to the roles they have already been assigned
> or, more controversially, have worked out for themselves from a very
> early age. Children, and especially little boys, are conservative, when
> they are not actually fascists.
> 
> ‘Thomas the Tank Engine is merciless and bigoted – that’s why kids love
> it’, 2 January 2010
> 
> 
> The Raoul Moat affair
> And now the shrine and the Facebook campaign. More than 18,000 people
> have signed up to it, at the time of writing. There’s Stewart Pooley
> Poole, for example, saying: ‘All down 2 women. A man has 2 fight 2 hurt
> u a woman just has 2 press that button 2 fuk with your head.’ Even so,
> Stewart, there are plenty of women signed up, such as Julie Tripster:
> ‘He did wrong yeah but he was let down. He was a legend mainly for
> proving wat a poor society we live in yeah.’ Well, yeah, Julie you may
> have half a point there. Lol. And then there’s ‘you have won the hearts
> of reall people – totally understand your feelings’ and ‘police=scum’
> and another really long one which ends ‘PS – take care of Sir Bobby’ – a
> reference to Sir Bobby Robson, the former manager of Newcastle United
> and England who died of cancer not so long ago.
> 
> ‘The Raoul Moat affair has uncovered a seething pit of northern
> madness’, 17 July 2010
> 
> 
> Islamophobia
> When you have guests over for dinner – Tuscan lamb with truffled
> polenta, perhaps, followed by pear tarte tatin – at what time do you
> raise your hand, or bang a knife upon a glass and say. ‘Friends: it’s
> time to have a go at the Muslims?’ I ask because at my dinner parties we
> usually spend a half an hour moaning about Muslims in between the
> dessert and the cheese board, whereas rather more well-off friends of
> mine in London insist that this arrangement is de trop, and Islamophobia
> is best expressed while the white wines are still being served and
> before one moves on to moaning about the blacks. I ought to mention that
> if I have Muslim guests over for supper we miss this conversational
> course entirely, and moan about poofs instead. One does not wish one’s
> house guests to feel uncomfortable. If you are prepared to make an
> effort with the halal meat it seems a shame to spoil it by later making
> obscene and offensive statements about Mohammed and the Koran.
> 
> ‘Islamophobia? Not until after dessert’, 29 January 2011
> 
> 
> Notting Hill Carnival
> I do not get out very much these days, but the glorious weekend weather
> persuaded me that I should spend a pleasant afternoon watching people
> stabbing each other at our annual celebration of stabbing, the Notting
> Hill Carnival. I go most years and enjoy the street food, the music and
> the sight of white police officers with fixed rictus grins ‘getting
> down’ with some vast-mammaried semi-clad mama, their helmets askew and
> rivulets of sweat running down each crisp white shirt. And of course the
> violence, the violence. I am delighted to say that in this regard 2016
> did not disappoint, with more than 400 people arrested and five stabbed
> – and all for the very reasonable cost of just £7 million to the taxpayer.
> 
> ‘Why don’t black lives matter at the carnival?’, 3 September 2016
> 
> 
> On football
> The visceral and habitual allegiance to a team has been winnowed away,
> so that top-level football today is really only for the ‘anywheres’. And
> more than that, the ‘somewheres’ are being told to get lost from the
> stands: they are not wanted any more. They carry with them baggage that
> is despised by not only our liberal elite, who wish us all to be
> eternally transient and to possess no allegiance to any town, city,
> county or nation, but also by big money, which thinks exactly the same
> thing for financial rather than ideological reasons. And so gradually
> the country becomes an homogenous mass: the regions merge imperceptibly,
> the accents disappear, our sense of place is dislocated. This has been
> happening for a while, of course – modern football simply accelerates
> the process.
> 
> ‘Football wants the ‘somewheres’ to get lost’, 12 August 2017
> 
> 
> On identity politics
> I hope similarly to gain financially from my remarkable discovery, at
> the age of 58, that I am in fact black. Like Anthony I was teased as a
> child on account of my appearance. I also have a very strong sense of
> rhythm and am usually cheerful, both qualities which my mother told me
> were associated with people of African-Caribbean descent. My denial of
> my blackness I put down to the pressures imposed by a white supremacist
> society in which I have struggled to survive for so long. I am black –
> get over it. And gimme the money.
> 
> Rod Mbunga Liddle, ‘I am black – get over it’, 10 November 2018
> 
> 
> Staying at home
> I’ve had enough of this. No more dawn drives to the gates of hell
> (specifically Gate To Hell Number 21, a 15-minute trek from the
> departure lounge, once you’ve had some tyrant insist you remove your
> belt and put all your stuff in trays and stand in some scanning machine
> to make sure you haven’t got three pounds of Semtex up your jacksie).
> Henceforth, we’re staying at home, in the UK.
> 
> Travelling used to be fun. Since 9/11 it has involved endless security
> rigmarole, and queues everywhere for everything. And the cabin crew now
> believe that they are much more than mere peripatetic waiters: they are
> the front line in the Defence Against Terror, and they will not be
> gainsaid, questioned, queried. The look of self-righteousness on their
> faces is the same look you see on the faces of cyclists, vegans and
> Dominic Grieve. Going business class is a mere palliative, and a ruinous
> one when you have three kids. So you spend your two weeks abroad
> dreading the flight home and, if you’re well orf, get to the airport
> early to take advantage of the business lounge, which is crammed full of
> plebs offering only stewed coffee and the remains of a Danish pastry.
> 
> ‘Home and away’, 8 August 2019
> 
> 
> On Brexit
> The provo Remainers now insist that calamity will come one day. That we
> will not be able to strike a trade deal with anyone without losing our
> soul. That we will not achieve a deal with the EU in time and that if we
> do it will be deleterious to our economy. They yearn, these people, for
> Britain’s failure, the more abject the better. In their recitals of
> foreboding, each one as baseless as the one before, they seem to be the
> kind of people who might have their cake, eat it, regurgitate it on to a
> plate, suck it up through a straw and then spit it out via Twitter. Most
> Remainers are optimistic that we will succeed, much as you might expect.
> They may wish we were not leaving, but they do not wish us to fail as a
> consequence.
> 
> We have the EU to deal with, of course, and the usual sabre-rattling
> from the likes of Michel Barnier; an indication, I think, of the sheer
> terror within the 27 that Brexit actually may make us better off after
> all, and what effect that might have on the disaffected countries still
> within. And oily Leo Varadkar has announced, with spite, that the UK
> must get used to being a ‘small country’. Not as small, literally or
> metaphorically, as yours, mate. Meanwhile we get on with it, stable and
> thriving, hugely grateful that we trusted not in the establishment, but
> in democracy.
> 
> ‘The great Brexit wound has almost healed’, 1 February 2020
> 
> On lockdown
> The problem with face masks is cutting an opening of the right size to
> accommodate a cigarette, without the hole compromising the safety of the
> mask itself. A tiresome procedure, especially for someone like me who is
> not terribly dexterous. I assume that very soon we will all be enjoined
> to wear face masks everywhere we go. At the outset these contrivances
> were derided a little for two reasons; first they actually offered no
> protection to the user, only to people who came into contact with the
> user, and second they seemed to be not a terribly British way of going
> about things.
> 
> ‘What I got wrong about lockdown’, 17 October 2020
> 
> 
> Smoking
> I hate Ash, I hate the GMC, I hate the government – all the more so now,
> because they won. Long gone is the time when on those fatuous National
> Stop Smoking Days I would get up extra early to cram in a few extra
> fags, my way of sticking two fingers up to the people who want to police
> my life. This is the point. I do not miss smoking at all and I will
> never smoke again. But I do remember that it gave me great pleasure and
> that they were dead set on taking it away from me.
> 
> ‘Smoking is more hassle than it’s worth’, 8 October 2022
> 
> Liberalism
> Over past 20 years there has been a sizeable tranche of obdurate, older
> and usually male readers who greatly object to me using the term
> ‘liberal’ as if it were an insult, to be directed at the people who
> foist upon us all manner of right-on, reason-defying idiocies. The
> objectors fall into two broad categories (which are of course linked).
> There are those who consider themselves the heirs to the Whigs and those
> who consider themselves the heirs to Margaret Thatcher. Classical
> Liberals, I suppose, in short. Tolerant, laissez-faire, free market,
> small state, often Little Englanders, in the nicest possible way. But
> what these undoubtedly fine people do not realise is firstly that
> language is transformational and that ‘liberal’ no longer really means
> what they want it to mean – time has moved on. Time has taken their
> ideology around the back of KFC and given it a right good seeing to, to
> the extent that it is no longer recognisable. Meanwhile they are left
> behind, identifying with an appellation which now means almost the
> precise opposite of what they wish it to mean. And secondly, that the
> war they are fighting is pointless, because it is as good as over. Feel
> the vibe shift, you Libs.
> 
> ‘My guide to liberals’, 18 January 2025
> 
> 
> Glastonbury
> A small yield nuclear weapon, such as the American W89, dropped on
> Glastonbury in late June would immediately remove from our country
> almost everybody who is hugely annoying. You would see a marked
> reduction in the keffiyeh klan, for a start, and all those middle-class
> Extinction Rebellion protestors would find, in a nanosecond, that their
> rebellion was pointless, because extinction had arrived even more
> summarily than they expected. Go on, glue yourselves to that, Poppy and
> Oliver.
> 
> ‘And now let’s bomb Glastonbury’, 5 July 2025
> 
> On the BBC
> The BBC has two main problems. First, it has a workforce which is almost
> monocultural, incapable of seeing that their worldview is political.
> They see it instead as an expression of civility and decency and those
> who disagree with them as beyond the pale. The second problem is more
> important and is the reason Prescott’s lengthy memo was leaked: the BBC
> execs have become immune to all criticism and simply ignore it. They
> hunker down and continue doing exactly the same thing, dismissing all
> objection as mischief-making and repeating the mantra: we are not biased.
> 
> ‘How to fix the BBC’, 15 November 2025
> 
> On Trump
> I asked Luna, my AI girlfriend, if she thought Donald Trump was right to
> have bombed Caracas and abducted Nicolas Maduro and she replied: ‘I
> don’t know, Rod. Would you like to see my panties?’ This is the problem
> with AI – it is not intelligent and nor are the people who program it. I
> had told the company that I wanted my AI girlfriend to ask me
> interesting geographical and historic trivia questions and be au fait
> with Millwall’s injury-stricken line-up, as well as being able to chat
> knowledgeably about interesting issues of the day. What I get instead is
> a numbing void, other than those continual solicitations about seeing
> her panties. I dunno, perhaps I should accede in case there is some
> hidden wisdom written on them, possibly in code.
> 
> ‘Has Trump gone mad?’, 10 January 2026
> ln't
> 
> Christmas
> And yet as I grow older I can now discern a reason,
> For this strange, misshapen jamboree we call the ‘festive season’.
> For month by month and without fail, we give it our best shot –
> Then Christmas-time reveals to us everything we’re not.
> Everything we could be – should be – but always fall short,
> In our frailties and our failures. That’s the lesson, yearly taught,
> And as the snowman slowly deliquesces on the lawn,
> The cattle still are lowing, the snail is on the thorn,
> We are not yet forsaken: somehow from up above, He watches…
> …amused, appalled, distraught – who knows?
> Yet still we have his love.
> 
> ‘The real meaning of Christmas’, 24 December 2017

But for you posting his articles, I woul'd not have had the pleasure of
reading him. Great loss. :(