You'll recall a couple of months ago Richard Littlejohn announcing what a big supporter of gay rights he was, calling on his unexpected love of Tom Robinson's Glad To Be Gay as evidence:
So, Littlejohn's position is clear: he doesn't think its right that cops be sent into toilets to entrap cottagers.
So why does he keep banging on - or, possibly, banging off - thinking about George Michael in that toilet? If he doesn't approve of entrapment, why does he keep dragging up George Michael falling victim to a pretty policeman being sent in? Littlejohn raised it at the end of his earlier piece, and today - in an article where the hateful little man suggests raping children, Fred West's crimes, consensual extreme sex and cottaging are all moral equivalents - he returns to those toilets again:
It's like Littlejohn knows he shouldn't keep going back, but he just can't stop picturing it in his head, like some sort of compulsion.
Richard trots out his 'ha, see, I'm not homophobic' get-out again:
The reason why nobody has ever answered the question, Dickie, is because it's a pointless question. What if a gay man had been caught cruising for sex in a women's a toilet? Why would he? Or do you simply mean 'what if George Michael had got his penis out in a ladies?' - but that's a totally different type of crime; you might as well ask 'what if he'd been double-parked during rush hour'. Generally, if you're a man who finds the sight of another bloke's penis disturbing, you probably wouldn't be in a public toilet in the first place, what with the tendency of blokes to get them out while in there.
The thing about cottaging is, while it might make some people feel uncomfortable - especially if you're British, having to politely murmur "it's very flattering, but... no, actually all I wanted was a wee..." can be so very awkward - it's consensual and, if you're not looking for it, chances are you'll never be aware it's going on in the first place. Which is why they have to send those pretty policemen in in the first place, Richard.