Melanie Phillips and the 'gay agenda'

Yesterday, an article on the Mail website claimed:


The article, by Kate Loveys, stuck closely to a story by Jasper Copping that was posted on the Telegraph website the day before.

The Mail's version was a classic example of the truth being revealed slowly but surely. It starts:

Young children are to be taught about homosexuality in their maths, geography, science and English lessons, it has emerged.

'Are to be'. So that's clear then, right? Well, the next sentence suggests maybe not:

As part of a Government-backed drive to ‘celebrate the gay community’, maths problems could be introduced that involve gay characters.

Ah, now it's 'could be'. Next:

In geography classes, students will be asked why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities – and words such as ‘outing’ and ‘pride’, will be used in language classes.

Back to 'will be'. So it's definite then, for kids aged four, as the headline suggests?

The lesson plans are designed to raise awareness about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual issues and, in theory, could be used for children as young as four.

No. Only 'in theory'. It certainly seems unlikely children that young would be asked questions about the reasons people move to the city.

And then, three sentences later, the big revelation:

Although the lesson plans are not compulsory, they are backed by the Department for Education and will be available for schools to download from the Schools Out website.

And towards the end of the article:

A Department for Education spokesman added: ‘These are optional teaching materials.'

So from children 'will be taught' and 'are to be asked' to 'these are optional' and 'not compulsory'.

Today, in her Mail column, Melanie Phillips takes on the story but, unsurprisingly, those facts about 'not compulsory' and 'optional' have disappeared:

schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and ­science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.

Phillips chooses not to mention that these lesson plans are optional at any point. It's just a bombardment that cannot be stopped. Why? Because:

Alas, this gay curriculum is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the camouflage of education. It is an abuse of childhood.

And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour.

It's hard to know where to start. Why is it Phillips, Littlejohn and their ilk believe educating children about LGBT issues - issues they may be trying to come to terms with personally - is 'brainwashing'? It is quite ludicrous, ill-informed rhetoric. And, as Jonathan at No Sleep Til Brooklands says:

How can you top the claim that mentioning gay people in passing in a textbook question equates to "an abuse of childhood"?

And then there's her view that homosexual sexual behaviour is not 'normal' about which little needs to be said.

She goes on:

As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory.

So she not only redefines 'normal', 'bombarded' and 'abuse' but also 'joke'. But what is she on about? How does she think homosexuality is becoming 'mandatory'?

And then she laments the:

...values which were once the moral basis for British society are now deemed to be beyond the pale.

What was once an attempt to end unpleasant attitudes towards a small sexual minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse.

Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into lawbreakers.

Notice how she downplays homophobia. To her, homophobia isn't disgusting, or hatred or even bigotry. It's just 'unpleasant attitudes' held by 'upstanding people', although in her final sentence she finally admits gay people can be the 'victims of prejudice'.

She makes no mention of homophobic bullying, which may be tackled if children are educated about these issues. A 2007 Stonewall survey said:

Almost two thirds of homosexual pupils in Britain's schools have suffered homophobic bullying...Almost all of those had experienced verbal bullying but 41% had been physically attacked, while 17% said they had received death threats.

Does she not consider such bullying important?

She goes on to repeat yesterday's nonsensical Mail on Sunday splash which was deconstructed by Atomic Spin. And, of course, she refers to Peter and Hazelmary Bull - the B&B owners who were fined for denying a gay couple a double room. It's not that they had broken the law, Phillips says, but that they had:

fall[en] foul of the gay inquisition.

Moreover, she says:

It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda.

Has the 'gay agenda' (whatever that is) stopped her writing her column today? Or stopped it being printed in the daily newspaper with second-biggest circulation in Britain? No.

Seems that 'gay inquisition' isn't quite as powerful as she claims, let alone 'McCarthyite' as she so hyperbolically states. And yet:

the seemingly all-­powerful gay rights lobby carries all before it.

Sigh. To quote David Schneider:

Melanie Phillips' latest article. Blimey. Can we build a paywall round the Daily Mail website to keep the articles in?

(For more, try the Melanie Phillips' Quiz of the Day from The Media Blog, and see posts from Press Not Sorry and Forty Shades of Grey)

The PCC and Littlejohn (cont.)

As the Press Complaints Commission launches an investigation into Richard Littlejohn's remarks about Jody McIntyre (see here, here and here), the regulator has ruled on yet another complaint against the Mail columnist.

On 23 November, Littlejohn wrote:

When I went to Sunday school, a million years ago, we were taught to love our neighbour.

I don’t recall ever being told that we should take an ‘eye for an eye’ literally. Or that the punishment for homosexuality was death.

Aged six, we didn’t even know what homosexuality was, even though we’d been warned to steer clear of that chap who was always hanging round the swimming pool.

Three people complained to the PCC about this insidious remark. Here's their ruling:

The complainants were concerned that the article implied that homosexual individuals were paedophiles.

The Commission acknowledged the complainants' concerns that the columnist had equated homosexuality with paedophilia. However, while the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) prevent newspapers from making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's sexual orientation, it does not cover generalised remarks about groups or categories of people. Given that the complainants were concerned that the article discriminated against homosexual individuals in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors' Code of Practice on these grounds.

So while the PCC do 'acknowledge concerns' about the remark they decide to do nothing about it. Why? Because the Code only refers to discrimination against the individual. As one of the complainants told this blog:

'I expected them to clear him by saying that he hadn't specifically said that homosexuals were paedophiles, and that was just our interpretation. Instead they acknowledge the slur, but say discrimination is totally fine if it is against all the people in a group rather than just individuals.'

Making a link

From today's Richard Littlejohn column:

When I went to Sunday school, a million years ago, we were taught to love our neighbour.

I don’t recall ever being told that we should take an ‘eye for an eye’ literally. Or that the punishment for homosexuality was death.

Aged six, we didn’t even know what homosexuality was, even though we’d been warned to steer clear of that chap who was always hanging round the swimming pool.

PCC takes stand against pejorative language...sometimes

The Press Complaints Commission has upheld a complaint from Clare Balding about an AA Gill column in the Sunday Times.

Gill had 'reviewed' Balding's TV programme Britain by Bike and referred to her as a 'dyke on a bike', said she looked 'like a big lesbian' and he also indulged in some crude innuendo. She complained to the paper but an obnoxious reply from Sunday Times editor John Witherow compounded the problem.

So Balding wrote to the PCC, arguing the comments breached Clause 12 of the Editor's Code of Practice, which says:

The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

The paper issued a feeble defence:

There was no reason why – in an age where homosexuality carried little social stigma – the reviewer could not discuss the sexuality of a TV presenter who had no problem with being openly gay.

Calling someone a 'dyke' and a 'big lesbian' is not 'discussing sexuality' but hurling crude insults. Can the Sunday Times really not see the difference?

Thankfully, the PCC has ruled in Balding's favour:

The right to legitimate freedom of expression is a key part of an open and democratic society and something which the Commission has sought to defend in the past. In this case, the columnist was clearly entitled to his opinion about both the programme and the complainant. As the paper had pointed out, the Commission has previously upheld his right to offer such opinions in his columns.

Of course, freedom of expression is – and should be – appropriately restricted by the Editors’ Code of Practice. Clause 12 of the Code is clear: newspapers must avoid prejudicial, pejorative or irrelevant reference to (amongst other things) an individual’s sexual orientation. The Commission itself has said that the use of pejorative synonyms for homosexual individuals would represent a certain breach of the Code.

In this case, the Commission considered that the use of the word “dyke” in the article – whether or not it was intended to be humorous – was a pejorative synonym relating to the complainant’s sexuality. The context was not that the reviewer was seeking positively to “reclaim” the term, but rather to use it to refer to the complainant’s sexuality in a demeaning and gratuitous way. This was an editorial lapse which represented a breach of the Code, and the newspaper should have apologised at the first possible opportunity.

If Clause 12 is to mean anything, the PCC has got this one right.

But there still seems to be a problem with the inconsistency of the PCC.

It has said that the use of 'dyke' in this article was pejorative, demeaning and gratuitous.

Yet only a few weeks ago, when two readers complained about the Sun's use of 'bender' to refer to a gay man, the PCC hid behind its 'third-party' rule to ignore the complaint. It didn't reject the complaint, it didn't even consider it.

But who could argue that 'bender' wasn't also pejorative, demeaning and gratuitous?

PCC refuses to take on Sun over use of 'bender'

On 27 July, The Sun ran the headline 'Bender it like Beckham' over an article about Louie Spence attending a party thrown by the Beckhams.

The paper has also called Spence, among many other things, 'master mincer', 'camper than Christmas', 'fruity' and 'Louise' because it feels the need to highlight his homosexuality every time it writes about him, apparently.

But as No Rock and Roll Fun said at the time:

You can't throw a word like "bender" into a headline about a gay man. Not in a newspaper that still pretends it has any sort of standards. Homophobic name-calling isn't the same as a witty headline.

Two people complained to the Press Complaints Commission about the Sun's headline and one of them, James, has sent all his correspondence with the PCC to this blog.

James complained under Clause 12 of the Editor's Code of Practice which says:

The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

He argued that calling a gay man 'bender' was clearly pejorative.

The PCC's Administrator, Simon Yip, responded with a standard reply regarding so-called third party complaints:

I should emphasise that the PCC will normally only consider complaints from people who are directly affected by the matters about which they are concerned. Indeed, only in exceptional circumstances will the Commission consider a complaint from someone not directly involved. For the PCC to take this matter forward, we would generally require a complaint from Louie Spence or his representative.

In this instance, an initial examination of your case suggests that you are a third party to the complaint. However, if you believe our normal rules should be waived to allow us to take your case further (or if you do not consider yourself to be a third party in this matter) we would be grateful to hear from you in the next ten days.

James replied, pointing out that the use of the word 'bender' in this context affects many more people than just Spence:

I hope the PCC would see this language is not acceptable, see that there is a wider point of principle about the use of such terms and therefore take forward this complaint.

Yip replied:

We will now ask the Commission whether it wishes to waive its third party rules and take your complaint forward. If this is the case we will ask the editor to deal with your complaint.

After several weeks of silence, James asked the PCC what was happening. The reply he received from Complaints Officer Elizabeth Cobbe was unsurprising:

The Commission has now considered your complaint about an article in The Sun and decided that it was not possible, in the circumstances, to examine your complaint further under the Code of Practice.

As we pointed out to you in our earlier correspondence, the Commission usually deals only with complaints from those directly involved. On this occasion, it did not consider that it could waive its rules and investigate your third party complaint further. Its decision on this matter is attached.

Here's the PCC's decision in full:

The complainants expressed concern that the article was in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice as they considered that the headline “Bender it like Beckham” was offensive and homophobic.

Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination), newspapers must avoid making a prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s sexual orientation. While the Commission acknowledged that both complainants considered the article to be offensive on a personal level, it made clear that it generally only considers complaints from those directly affected by the matter about which they complained.

In this instance, it noted that the term “bender” had been used by the newspaper in direct reference to a particular individual, Louie Spence. The Commission considered that it would require the involvement of a party directly affected by the matter – be it Louie Spence or a person acting formally on his behalf – in order to establish that he considered the article to be discriminatory.

As the Commission had not received such a complaint, it was unable to comment on the matter further.

Is Louie Spence really the only person who is affected by the Sun referring to gay men as 'benders' and the only person who can say whether that term is discriminatory?

After all, a 2007 Stonewall report on homophobic bullying concluded:

Homophobic bullying is almost endemic in Britain's schools. Almost two thirds (65 per cent) of young lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils have experienced direct bullying. Seventy five per cent of young gay people attending faith schools have experienced homophobic bullying...

Ninety seven per cent of pupils hear other insulting homophobic remarks, such as “poof”, “dyke”, “rug-muncher”, “queer” and “bender”. Over seven in ten gay pupils hear those phrases used often or frequently.

James did not think the Sun's use of the word could go unchallenged. And he feels the PCC have now helped legitimise this insult by not tackling the Sun over its use.

He told the PCC:

If the PCC can't hold the newspapers to account for publishing such derogatory terms and disgraceful name-calling as 'bender', I'm not sure who can. I think it is very regrettable that the PCC has felt unable to take a stand against this behaviour.

A couple of weeks ago, the Sun was subject to a complaint over its use of 'schizo'. The PCC accepted a pledge from the paper that it would use its 'best endeavours' not to repeat the word. Yet in that case, the PCC did accept a third-party complaint.

James wrote to the PCC:

It appears from the wording of this resolved complaint that the 'first party' in that case did not complain, only third parties did, and yet the Commission still went ahead to seek assurances from the Sun that it would not use the pejorative word 'schizo' again.

Could you explain why that case was different to this one?

Cobbe replied:

In the instance of Rethink, Shift and others v The Sun, the Commission has previously issued particular guidance regarding terminology when discussing mental health issues, with specific reference to the use of the term “schizo”. This can be found here.

When dealing with complaints regarding the description of mentally ill patients, it can often be difficult to obtain their permission. The Commission is, therefore, prepared to relax its third party rules in such instances. However, there does not appear to be a reason why Mr Spence would be unable to complain on his own behalf.

Given the earlier guidance note on reporting mental health it seems odd the PCC did not, therefore, come down harder on the Sun rather than just accept its 'best endeavours' over 'schizo'. It is this type of inconsistency which does the PCC few favours.

At the very least the PCC should have tried to extract a 'best endeavours' pledge from the Sun over the use of 'bender'.

The PCC should have set aside their third-party rule for this case, as they will in other cases, when it suits them.

If this was a complaint on some matter of accuracy, then it is not unreasonable to prioritise a first-party complaint.

But the complaint made by James was essentially asking the PCC to say whether, as a point of principle, it considered 'bender' pejorative and discriminatory.

The PCC decided it didn't want to answer.

Hopefully Clare Balding's first party complaint about the Sunday Times' use of 'dyke' will fare better...

You wouldn't be able to tell that Littlejohn is a highly-paid journalist

This blog has avoided detailed mention of Richard Littlejohn for a while, but his column on Tuesday was too bone-headed and obnoxious to ignore.

Here's one of his absolutely side-splitting attempts at humour:

Coalition is the new majority. In Australia, where neither of the two main parties won enough seats to form a government, the next Prime Minister is going to have to rely on the support on a handful of eccentrics from the Outback.

The future of Upside Down Land appears to depend on a swagman, Crocodile Dundee and Skippy the Bush Kangaroo.

Makes the Lib Dems seem almost sensible, doesn't it?

'Upside Down Land' and decades-old cultural references? Cutting edge satire, isn't it?

But his main focus was on a HM Revenue and Customs booklet called 'Taxes and Benefits: Information for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender customers'. It's not hard to work out why he'd be writing about this.

So which of his (alleged) journalistic skills did he use to find out about this publication? A Freedom of Information request? Hours of detailed research? Err, not quite:

My copy was forwarded by an Essex-based, Daily Mail-reading accountant, who was lost for words when he received it.

Oh.

Littlejohn links the publication of this booklet to the case of Christine Timbrell, thus managing to crowbar in the obligatory use of 'yuman rights'.

He writes:

This was a landmark case, which could affect several hundred people every year and cost taxpayers millions of pounds. It has prompted the Government to overhaul the services it provides not just to transsexuals but also other sexual minorities.

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, in conjunction with the Department of Work and Pensions, has published a glossy guide containing 'information for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender customers'.

In fact, that ruling and this booklet are not related. If he'd bothered to turn to the back page, he would see it says:

Issued by HM Revenue & Customs
June 2009

Ah. It's not the only time this week the Mail has been writing about year-old 'stories' as if they're new.

Somewhat bizarrely, he admits that such a publication might be necessary:

I can understand the Revenue might want to publish a pamphlet on the tax implications of civil partnerships. That is only right and proper.

It's a strange admission, given he's written over 800 words belittling the booklet, the organisations that produced it and everyone who might find the information useful.

Indeed, only one sentence later he asks:

...why go to all this trouble?...in what other ways do the tax affairs of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered differ from anyone else?

Because there are 'tax implications of civil partnerships', maybe?

If Littlejohn had bothered to actually read the six relevant pages of the book he'd been sent, he'd see information mainly for people in civil partnerships and same sex relationships about tax credits, capital gains tax, pensions, inheritance tax, National Insurance and income tax.

The booklet is doing exactly what Littlejohn thinks is 'right and proper'. So what's the problem?

Well, it's all diversity and political correctness gone mad, innit:

The job of HMRC is to collect taxes. Full stop. It doesn't exist to further the cause of social engineering and 'diversity'.

Actually, the job of HMRC isn't just to collect taxes.

But quite how telling people about inheritance tax thresholds amounts to 'social engineering' isn't clear. Presumably he doesn't think it's 'social engineering' when the same information is giving to people in heterosexual relationships.

Last week, there was an actual new news story about the treatment of minority groups by some staff at HMRC:

Seven Revenue and Customs staff have been sacked for deliberately under-paying benefits to ethnic minorities.

It follows an internal investigation into nine men based at the HM Revenue and Customs call centre in Belfast.

Two resigned after it began and seven were dismissed on Tuesday.

They are believed to have tampered with computer records to ensure ethnic minorities living across the UK did not receive the benefits they were entitled to. All have now been fully reimbursed.

He would have seen this story in the Mail, where 'ethnic minorities' became the rather more inflammatory 'non-nationals' (the Mail's article was churned from PA). But he wouldn't want to talk about that, would he?

He goes on:

Of course, all taxpayers should be treated courteously and efficiently, regardless of their race, gender, religion or sexual proclivity. But that's no excuse for this kind of expensive, time-wasting gesture politics...

So it's gone from 'right and proper' to 'expensive, time-wasting gesture politics' within a few paragraphs. And he's not done yet:

Try to imagine all the time and money wasted - not just in Whitehall but throughout local government, the police and the NHS - on this type of fatuous nonsense...

HMRC had no need to produce this glossy brochure simply to address the sensibilities of transssexuals.

As he well knows, this wasn't 'simply' produced for transsexuals, but by targeting them it makes easier for Littlejohn to rile up his readers.

But his reason for making that last statement was just so he could show what a 'wit' he is with this nasty little gibe:

HMRC had no need to produce this glossy brochure simply to address the sensibilities of transssexuals. All it had to do was ensure that all letters sent out by inspectors continue to be addressed: 'Dear Sir/Madam...'

And it's not just transsexuals he's desperately trying to belittle:

There is also a picture of someone who may or may not be a transsexual. Difficult to tell. Could be bisexual, I suppose. Who knows? It's just been revealed that the actress Vivien Leigh was bisexual, though you wouldn't have been able to tell just from looking at her.

It's also been claimed that Richard Littlejohn is a 'journalist', though you wouldn't be able to tell just from reading the drivel he writes.

You wouldn't know she was bisexual just from looking at her. What an enlightening remark that is.

When he wrote about Chris Huhne's affair with Carina Trimingham in June, he said:

I recognised her from the days we both used to work for Sky News.

Funny, I thought to myself, I always had her marked down as a lesbian....

If you asked a cartoonist to draw a comedy lesbian from central casting, Carina Trimingham is what you'd get - all spiky haircut and Doc Martens.

And he's got another group he wants to use his national newspaper column to pick on too:

Intersex? Nope. Me neither.

Littlejohn clearly thinks this is funny. As he did when he said much the same thing in 2009:

...intersexuals (whatever the hell they are)...

And in July 2010:

...intersexuals - whatever they are...

We know Littlejohn rarely does research, but it's extremely doubtful he doesn't know what an intersexual is.

But, as Angry Mob has written, it's his need to dehumanise people that makes it easier for him to insult them.

Deriding people who aren't like him is Littlejohn's default position. On Tuesday, it was the LGBT community that bore the brunt of his snide remarks, on the basis of a fourteen-month old leaflet he thought was 'right and proper'. Who will it be next time?

(Hat-tip to 5CC)

'Legitimising name calling'

On Wednesday, the Daily Star reported on research from Staffordshire University that '93 per cent of fans believe homophobia has no place in football.'

The editorial that accompanied the story said gay footballers should come out:

Yes, there are still isolated incidents of hate. But the vast majority of modern supporters would not bat an eyelid. There is nothing to fear.

Yet this is the same paper that, in an editorial a few weeks ago, said:


Yes, it was a reaction to a story about gay asylum seekers but the stark wording of the headline suggested the Star was giving a wider view.

And this is the same paper that, in December 2009, was reporting the views of Max Clifford that gay footballers should not come out:

He said: “It’s a very sad state of affairs. But it’s a fact that homophobia in football is as strong now as it was 10 years ago...

Max now believes any star would be unwise to follow the example of Welsh rugby star Gareth Thomas who has come out as gay. He warned: “If he did, it would effectively be his career over.”

Of course, one reason why gay footballers might not wish to tell everyone about their sexuality is so they can avoid childish 'jokes' such as this one. From the Daily Star:


That article claims homophobic supporters sang a 'sick song' which the Star then goes to the trouble of repeating, just so any other bigot who might want to sing it will know all the words.

And several years ago, when Steven Gerrard had topped a 'sexiest footballer' poll of gay fans, the Star ran a picture of him with a handbag photoshopped onto his arm.

On Tuesday, the Star's right-wing, red-top rival proved calling homosexuals crude names is hardly a thing of the past. The Sun's Gordon Smart wrote a (fascinating) article about Louie Spence being at a party hosted by the Beckhams.

The headline:


Clause 12 of the Editor's Code of Practice says:

The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

As No Rock and Roll Fun points out:

You can't throw a word like 'bender' into a headline about a gay man. Not in a newspaper that still pretends it has any sort of standards. Homophobic name-calling isn't the same as a witty headline.

Moreover, Smart also said:

Pineapple Dance Studios star Louie, or Louise as I like to call him.

No Rock and Roll Fun again:

Do you see? Because he's gay, Gordon has given him a woman's name.

And it's not the first time - Smart said the same thing on 9 June:

Now Pineapple Dance Studios hero LOUIE SPENCE - Louise as I call him.

A couple of weeks ago, when Spence had done a dance routine with Vernon Kay, Smart renamed him Vernon Gay:

On other occasions, the Sun has called Spence 'flamboyant', 'master mincer' and a 'fruit'.

This isn't confined to Spence either. When Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe said he wasn't gay in an interview in early March, the Sun decided to go with the headline:


The story said Radcliffe had:

been plagued by speculation he is more Botter than Potter.

And the Sun isn't the only Murdoch paper using such unacceptable language. Carrie Dunn at The F Word reports that in last week's Sunday Times, tiresome controversy-seeker AA Gill said:

Some time ago, I made a cheap and frankly unnecessary joke about Clare Balding looking like a big lesbian. And afterwards somebody tugged my sleeve to point out that she is a big lesbian, and I felt foolish and guilty. So I’d like to take this opportunity to apologise. Sorry.

Now back to the dyke on a bike, puffing up the nooks and crannies at the bottom end of the nation.

Balding, unsurprisingly, was offended and wrote to editor John Witherow. His response was as ignorant and arrogant as it could have been:

In my view some members of the gay community need to stop regarding themselves as having a special victim status and behave like any other sensible group that is accepted by society. Not having a privileged status means, of course, one must accept occasionally being the butt of jokes.

A person’s sexuality should not give them a protected status. Jeremy Clarkson, perhaps the epitome of the heterosexual male, is constantly jeered at for his dress sense (lack of), adolescent mind-set and hair style.

He puts up with it as a presenter’s lot and in this context I hardly think that AA Gill’s remarks were particularly 'cruel', especially as he ended by so warmly endorsing you as a presenter.

So he doesn't think there's anything wrong with calling someone a 'dyke'. Balding, rightly, wasn't impressed:

When the day comes that people stop resigning from high office, being disowned by their families, getting beaten up and in some instances committing suicide because of their sexuality, you may have a point.

This is not about me putting up with having the piss taken out of me, something I have been quite able to withstand, it is about you legitimising name calling. ‘Dyke’ is not shouted out in school playgrounds (or as I’ve had it at an airport) as a compliment, believe me.

It may be your job to defend your writer and your editorial team but if you really think that homophobia does not exist and was not demonstrated beyond being ‘the butt of a joke’ then we have a problem.

Balding has now made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission under Clause 12.

To repeat what No Rock and Roll Fun said: 'Homophobic name-calling isn't the same as a witty headline.'

So isn't it time the PCC made it clear that using derogatory terms such as 'bender', 'fruit' and 'dyke' does indeed 'legitimise name calling' and simply is not acceptable?

(Hat-tip The Sun - Tabloid Lies)

No room for tolerance

Writing for the Independent, freelance journalist Samuel Muston says:

The news that two gay asylum seekers fighting deportation have been given leave to stay in UK by the Supreme Court, is a welcome one.

The men, from Cameroon and Iran respectively, sought to challenge the previous government’s contention that they had no grounds for asylum as they could move “elsewhere” in their home states and be “discreet” about their sexuality...

This, then, is a good day for justice, a good day for compassion.

The tabloids, of course, weren't quite so sure this was a 'good day':



It's really, really hard to know where to begin. It's like wading into a stinking cesspool. Thankfully, Anton Vowl (here and here), Jonathan at No Sleep 'Til Brooklands and Dan Hollingsworth have already written blog posts about the coverage and they're all well worth reading.

But here's a few other observations.

First, Lord Roger admitted in his ruling that his comments about gay men going to Kylie concerts and drinking cocktails were 'trivial stereotypical examples'. But perhaps he should have been more media savvy and known that the intolerant, racist, homophobic tabloid press were going to leap on this point as a way of making the asylum system seem absurd - just as they did with that lie about the man who was (not) saved from deportation solely by his cat.

'Now' asylum seekers get to stay because of Kylie! You couldn't make it up!

The Express emphasise this point by saying 'Now...', which tabloids use at the start of a headline as shorthand for 'Look what stupid thing is going to happen now...'

Second, the Express' jumbled headline - and the tone of the other coverage - is totally misleading. The judgment doesn't mean every asylum seeker who is (or, in the tabloid mindset, claims to be) gay will be allowed to stay automatically, no matter how strong their actual case is.

The Express' ludicrous poll asks: 'Should you get asylum just for being gay?' This isn't the issue at all - as the writers of this muck well know. The issue is that certain countries are persecuting, imprisoning, flogging and executing homosexuals and that is a perfectly reasonable basis for them to seek asylum elsewhere.

And, as Jonathan says:

It's a thorny issue, so instead of arguing with the decision on moral or ethical grounds, which they can't really do without looking like they might have some kind of problem with gays and foreigners, just moan about how it obviously means that by 2015 the country will be sinking into the sea under the sheer weight of Iranians ostentatiously brandishing Scissor Sisters albums to try and pass as gay.

Third, the newspapers, the people leaving comments on the articles, and the two gobshites who pop up - tabloid favourites Andrew Green from Migrationwatch and MP Philip Davies - all suggest this ruling will, to quote the Star, 'open the floodgates'.

On the Sky News press preview last night, presenter Anna Botting suggested this would mean asylum seekers would now arrive in Britain and 'pass the gay ticket over' - whatever the hell that means.

But there's something deeply troubling about this view because behind it is the idea that asylum seekers are somehow looking for an angle. It's a belief based on the assumption that since asylum seekers aren't really fleeing persecution, they'll come to Britain and come up with any excuse going to be able to stay. It says: 'Now' they're all going to pretend to be gay if they think it'll work. This says much about the ground on which the asylum debate takes place.

Fourth, the attitudes of these newspapers are, of course, rooted in an anti-immigrant viewpoint.

So the Mail editorial says:

For at this time when our public services are strained beyond endurance, it means Britain must now, in a dramatic reversal of policy, give a home to all gay asylum-seekers who are prevented from displaying their sexuality openly in their home countries.

Where are we to draw the line? This is all about numbers and a small island’s ability to absorb an ever-increasing population.

But the Express is rather more blunt:

Of course homosexuals across the globe should be able to live free from persecution but their right to do so should not take precedence in British law over the right of the British people not to have their country overrun by foreigners.

And not just overrun by foreigners but overrun by 'gay' foreigners.

The Express' sister paper, the Star, managed to top that and came up with a depressing, and disturbing, headline:


This really is grotesque. There are many, many reasons why Richard Desmond is a completely unfit person to be running two national newspapers and that putrid headline can be added to the list.

Given the history of the Star - who have very obviously labelled Muslims and immigrants as not 'us' - it would be generous to think this headline is only about yesterday's judgment. You can't help but feel it is aimed a little more widely than that. As Refugee Action tweeted:

The Daily Star thinks their headline 'No room for gays' is acceptable in 21st century Britain. We think not.

The editors of these tabloids know articles such as these - inflammatory, scaremongering, intolerant - push the buttons of their readers. Unfortunately, most have been so brainwashed by the daily drivel they are fed by these wretched publications that they believe it all at face value. Reading their comments is a disheartening experience and any number of them could have been highlighted here. But we'll stick with two.

This one, because it gives an idea of the cluelessness of many of them:


And this one because it highlights the dangers and possible consequences of such coverage:

Not time for Littlejohn

Richard Littlejohn began his column on Tuesday with this eye-catching claim:

To be honest, I've always considered all Liberal MPs to be homosexuals unless furnished with concrete proof to the contrary.

A tiresome attempt to be deliberately controversial? The latest example of his stupidity? Or, more likely, a bit of both.

Two comments on the Guardian site reacted appropriately. Here's scaryduck:

To be honest, I've always considered all Daily Mail columnists to be morons unless furnished with concrete proof to the contrary.

And Spoonface:

To be honest, I've always considered Richard Littlejohn to be a bigoted little halfwit, and he constantly furnishes me with proof that I'm right.

Today, another column, this one carrying the headline This was a tragedy, not time for Plodspeak.

It's not time for Littlejohn's petty attempts at point-scoring against the police either.

He couldn't really avoid writing about the tragic events in Cumbria, but obviously needed a hook. So while most of his comments are rather bland platitudes about the shootings, he added his bit of controversy by launching an attack on the police, which is something he does in his columns all the time anyway.

And he really does have the dirt on the Cumbria force:

I was surprised by the tone of the press conference given by Cumbria's Deputy Chief Constable, Stuart Hyde, at tea-time on Wednesday, in which he kept referring to the man who had just killed 12 people and wounded another 25 as 'Mister' Bird.

Yes. Whether we call the killer 'Mr' Bird, or not - that's the really big issue that comes from Wednesday's shootings, isn't it?

He goes on to criticise the police for their statement which had a few sentences at the end to say Cumbria was going to try to carry on as normal:

"Cumbria prides itself on being a safe place to work, play and visit. Cumbria is a tightly knit community covering some of the most beautiful countryside in the land, its strength is as much its people as its geography.

"It remains one of the safest areas of the UK and is very much open for business and tourism despite the tragic circumstances of the last few hours."

Why is this a problem? Similar sentiments were expressed by the police after the London bombings in 2005.

But that's not good enough for Littlejohn:

He sounded like a junior tourism official...

Did Hyde not realise how tactless and crass it sounded...?

I shuddered to think of the reaction of a bereaved relative who had just been told that a loved one had been shot dead and had turned on the TV to hear a police spokesman banging on about the effects on tourism.

...it struck a jarring, insensitive note at a time of terrible tragedy.

All of which shows what a nasty little hypocrite Littlejohn is. As these two comments point out, it was Littlejohn who, only a few weeks after the murder of five women in Ipswich, dismissed the victims as:

disgusting, drug-addled street whores

And added:

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

But today, Littlejohn suddenly pretends to care about people being 'tactless and crass' and striking 'jarring, insensitive' notes that might upset 'bereaved relatives'.

It's doubtful anyone will be convinced.

(Angry Mob has an excellent, thoughtful post on today's Littlejohn column, explaining how he dehumanises his targets to make it easier to attack them. His take on Tuesday's column is here)

We should feel a little sad for Mail readers

Back on 8 April, the letters page of the Daily Mail included a debate about B&B owners and homosexual couples in the wake of comments by Chris Grayling.

Under the headline 'Was B&B ban on gays simply bigotry?' they published four letters, three of which supported a B&B-owning couple who refused to honour a booking by a gay couple.

'And I would say that's the majority feeling,' claimed John Garner from Cornwall.

But his intolerance was outdone by Yvonne Lacey from Rye in East Sussex, who wrote:

I have nothing at all against homosexuals: they are born gay and, if anything, we should feel a little sad for them.

How the anti-immigration agenda works

The Mail was running this story prominently on its website earlier today, the latest in a torrent of recent anti-immigration stories from the paper:


Although the Mail didn't name the girl, she was named in the Sun, Star and Express versions of the same story.

The Sun said:

A gang of immigrant yobs who molested a girl of 14 escaped prosecution - because it was 'not in the public interest'.

Ria George was 'mauled' by eight Slovakian gipsies aged between eight and 12.

The Star, under the headline 'Migrant gipsy boys mauled me but the courts did nothing' said:

A gang of gipsy boys who molested a 14-year-old girl have escaped prosecution because it is 'not in the public interest' to take them to court.

Ria George was walking to a pal’s house when she was set upon by eight Slovakians, aged between eight and 12, who 'mauled' her in the street.

The Express went with 'No justice for girl molested by migrants':

A schoolgirl who was molested by a gang of east European boys says she has been 'treated like a liar' by the justice system, which has refused to prosecute her attackers.

Ria George was walking to a friend’s house when she was set upon by eight Slovakian louts who groped, touched and humiliated her in the street.

Several things stand out.

One is the prominence of the (alleged) offenders' (alleged) migrant status and/or race.

The Mail says they are from 'Slovakian gipsy' and 'Romany migrant' families who 'settled in the city [Coventry] in the late 1990s', although it's not clear how the paper knows this.

After all, if that timeline is right and if some of the boys are eight, they were probably born in the UK and aren't migrants at all.

So are they definitely Gypsies? Over at Mailwatch, 5CC reports that:

a spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said that although it would be accurate to say the boys were Slovakian, “some reports have called the boys ‘gypsy migrants’ which would not be accurate language to use,” and not something the CPS would have said.

This is because the information the CPS has comes from the question on the police’s arrest form, which is self-reported by the suspect. It doesn’t include information like ‘gypsy’.

Secondly, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty seems to have gone out of the window. It would be surprising if this wasn't related to the boys (allegedly) being migrants/Gypsies.

Thirdly, having made clear their view that this attack was definitely committed by migrants/Gypsies, the papers heavily imply that it is because they are migrants/Gypsies that the CPS is not moving forward with the case.

The CPS are accused of 'refusing' to prosecute because it would not be in the 'public interest'. This allowed a flood of comments to appear on the Mail website to complain about 'one rule for 'them'' and other such unpleasant, but predictable, views.

But later in the day, a slightly different view emerged from the CPS, although it was ignored by the nationals. The Evening Telegraph in Peterborough reported:

A gang of boys arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in Coventry did not face charges because of a lack of evidence, prosecutors said...

The Crown Prosecution Service refuted reports that it decided to drop the case because it was not deemed to be in the public interest. A spokesman said all decisions to press charges are based on two "tests" outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

He said: "The first is the evidential test where we have to be satisfied that there is enough admissible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

"If the evidence satisfies the first test, then we have to consider the second test - the public interest test. A prosecution will usually take place unless the public interest factors against prosecution clearly outweigh those in favour of prosecution.

"In this particular case, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction before a criminal court and so the public interest test was not considered."

Why is it this version is only reported in the local media?

Indeed, in the Coventry Telegraph's report on the case, there is no mention of the boys' race at all. So why did that become the focus when the story hit the four right-wing national tabloids?

And did they report on the case because they were concerned that a gang of youngsters were not being prosecuted for an assault, or because they thought there was an anti-immigration angle?

Well, the CPS also announced today that they would not prosecute anyone in the case of James Parkes, the trainee PC who was left with a fractured skull after being subject to a homophobic attack.

Why?:

Detectives arrested 15 youths during the inquiry but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has now decided there is insufficient evidence to charge them.

So two assaults and two cases where the CPS doesn't prosecute because of a lack of sufficient evidence.

But the one allegedly committed by migrants/Gypsies gets reported in four anti-immigrant national newspapers.

The one committed by people of unknown race, where the victim is a gay man, gets ignored by those same four national newspapers.

So, that question again: did they report on the first case because they were concerned that a gang of youngsters were not being prosecuted for an assault, or because they thought there was an anti-immigration angle?

(For another take on the story, please read 5CC's article over at Mailwatch)

'The straights'?

The Mail's article on a schoolgirl who died of a heroin overdose saw a spat break out in the comments between 'Cheeky' and 'Unbelievable'.

At first, comments were moderated, then they all disappeared, then returned unmoderated. Some of the insults that passed between these two have since been deleted, but this one hasn't:



Even if that has got through because the comments aren't being moderated, there's no excuse for it to still be there some eight hours later.

(Hat-tip Guy Kelly)

Why is it so relevant?

When Brittany Murphy died, the Mail never ran a single headline along the lines of 'Straight actress found dead in her home at 32'.

So why this?:

Striking a blow for the likeable Mail columnist myth

Mail columnist Jan Moir has decided to give everyone the benefit of her opinions on Tiger Woods and his 'transgressions'.

Weirdly, as several of the comments point out, she hasn't decided that the single case of this married father-of-two having an affair

strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of heterosexual marriage.

Which, of course, she did say about civil partnerships in her infamous column about Stephen Gately.

She also declares that Woods is:

not in any position to lecture anyone at all about principles.

But the hatred-spewing Moir is. Apparently.

A round-up of Mail fail

A slightly different post, which is going to round-up several links to great posts elsewhere, and also take a very quick look over some of the other stories that haven't been mentioned here, despite best intentions.

Last Friday, the Express' disgraceful scaremongering front page and vile BNP-style rhetoric seemed on course to be the worst article of the day. But then up popped Sue Reid with the putrid Mapping out the strain on your NHS: 243 sick babies treated in one London hospital ward.... and just 18 mothers come from Britain.

It riled up the Mail readers in precisely the way that she and the Mail wanted. Health tourism, scrounging immigrants, look what they're getting instead of you - it's classic anti-immigrant fodder. It just wasn't true. Rather than some startling new report or any kind of reliable research, the story was based on the stickers on a map pinned to the wall of a hospital. Brilliant.

When first published, the article contained no statement from the hospital. When it was updated later to include this, the spokesman's words completely destroyed the story. So naturally it was stuck at the end in the hope no one would notice.

So eventhough the hospital said the stickers represented not just mothers of babies, but also of hospital staff, the Mail continued to claim it was about '243 mothers'.

Despite the hospital saying only 2 out of 550 admission this year were recorded as 'overseas admissions' the Mail continued to claim British babies were massively outnumbered.

In any case, as the Mail's graphic shows, the British Isles are completely covered by stickers, which would more than likely put people off adding yet another to that area.

And of course there's the basic decency of referring to sick babies as a 'strain' on the NHS.

Five Chinese Crackers covered the story fully, including background on Sue Reid's anti-immigration views.

5CC also asked Why 70 million anyway? as he wondered why the tabloids are so obessesed with that particular figure in the immigration debate. And in the latest 'PC gone mad: Xmas edition' saga, how the Mail reports on Scrooge police 'ban' Christmas carol singers because of stranger dangers'. Which, of course, they haven't. But you knew that just from the headline anyway.

Still with the Mail, Jonathan at No Sleep til Brooklands has done an excellent job destroying Jan Moir's latest idiotic column, called The madness of lessons in wife-beating. She deliberately misleads on what the 'lessons' actually are but thinks that teaching kids not to beat up women is, generally, a 'bad thing'.

She also, brilliantly, wants thanks for not invading Poland.

Jonathan has also looked at yet another Mail attack on the BBC over climate change, which was one of several non-stories about the Beeb that Dacre's rag couldn't resist.

Another was BBC radio presenter sparks complaints by playing When Harry Met Sally 'orgasm' clip on school-run show. DJ Steve Harris from Radio Solent played the 'I'll have what she's having' clip from said film. There was just one slight problem with the headline, which was revealed in the last paragraph (as usual):

Last night the BBC said: 'We've had not a single complaint or comment.'

Oh.

Talking of Mail obsessions, it's been rather quiet on the Kim Kardashian front recently, but she roared back into the Mail's good books when she posted a picture of her 'astonishing new figure', clad in a bikini, on Twitter.

And despite Twitter being evil and Kardashian being a nobody for most people in the UK, the Mail happily reprinted it. That was one of only four appearances in November, compared with eleven in October. Is she falling out of favour with the Mail Online 'newshounds'? Not quite - they've even given her her own section where all articles mentioning her are nicely date-ordered. Bless.

Of course, the Mail is fascinated by someone else now - Suri Cruise. The Daily Quail has done an superb job of rounding up the obsessive and genuinely creepy Mail coverage of this three year old.

Last week, this blog noted that in the last two months, Muslim graves in a Manchester cemetery had been desecrated three times. In that period, the Mail has run around 20 articles on Suri Cruise. It hasn't mentioned the graves once.

Still on the subject of Mail Online paparazzi garbage, there was a curious, but rather telling headline about last year's X Factor winner: Spotty Alexandra Burke braves her fans without any make-up.

So a 21-year old has spots. What news! And let's all point and laugh at her. But what the hell does the Mail mean by 'brave'? Being a soldier or fireman is brave. Going outside without make-up, err, isn't. Unless, like the Mail, you believe that women have to be covered in make-up and dressed flawlessly before they should be allowed out. What a hateful view the Mail has of women.

Still, at least Mail Editor Paul Dacre is the very pinnacle of fashion and grooming and would never be seen with a ridiculous hair style.

Here's a question for the Mail - why is it when two male musicians kiss it is 'crude' and 'provocative' and yet when two twentysomething actresses kiss it's (nudge, wink) 'naughty'?

Not that the Mail could ever be homophobic - the PCC has said so. On 4 November, the PCC ruled on Ephraim Hardcastle comments that Iain Dale was 'overtly gay' and implied something along the lines of a 'gay mafia' when he stated:

Isn't it charming how homosexuals rally like-minded chaps to their cause?

Dale called the Mail 'hateful' and 'homophobic'. Apparently, he'd only just noticed...

The PCC seemed to agree that the comments were 'snide and objectionable' but did not consider the piece:

an arbitrary attack on him on the basis of his sexuality.

As usual, that's totally puzzling, because without the references to Dale's sexuality, there would have been no article. The Commission concluded:

While people may occasionally be insulted or upset by what is said about them in newspapers, the right to freedom of expression that journalists enjoy also includes the right – within the law – to give offence.

To all the people who complained about the Jan Moir article, your might find a clue as to how the PCC will rule in that sentence.

Not that Hardcastle was in any way worried. A few days before the Dale ruling, he wrote:

Europe Minister Chris Bryant, who once posed in Y-fronts on a gay website, is wheeled out by BBC2's programme for chronic insomniacs, Newsnight, to promote Tony Blair as 'EU President'.

He ridiculed his Tory opposite numbers, Mark Francois, and William Hague, as 'Dastardly and Muttley' - the villainous characters in The Wacky Races TV cartoon.

With Bryant as the show's pink-car-driving beauty, Penelope Pitstop, presumably?

Pink. Girl. Because he's gay. Do you see?

In the same column, Hardcastle wrote this totally inane comment:

The performance of Peter Capaldi as a Number 10 spin doctor in TV's The Thick Of It, written by literary flavour-of-the-week Armando Iannucci, is nothing like the man he's meant to represent, retired Blair mouthpiece Alastair Campbell.

Yet it's praised to the rafters. How puzzling.

It's hard to figure out exactly what point he is trying to make, or what the point is of any of that drivel. He thinks it's 'puzzling' that an actor gets praised for a superb performance?

What?

Daily Star sets on 'good taste'

There has been much media coverage of the homophobic attack that left trainee policeman James Parkes in hospital, fighting for his life, with:

multiple skull fractures and fractures of his eye-socket and cheek bone.

It comes just a couple of weeks after Ian Baynham died from injuries sustained in a homophobic attack in London.

The headlines on the stories of the latest crime vary slightly. The BBC's Homophobic attack on trainee Pc and Independent's Police officer fights for life after homophobic attack are straightforward.

Both the Mail (Gay off-duty PC left fighting for life after horrific assault by mob of homophobic teenage thugs) and the Sun (Gay policeman is beaten up by teenagers for being homosexual) feel the need to emphasise 'gay' eventhough a homophobic attack would hardly be on anyone else.

Yet it is encouraging to see the papers covering the story. Compare that to the disgraceful way the murder of Michael Causer, also gay, also from Liverpool was hardly mentioned at all by the media.

And there's always one paper which shows the old prejudices still exist. The tabloids show these prejudices all the time and, as Jan Moir proved, even a tragic death doesn't usually stop them.

But can there really be any excuse for the Daily Star to write about the attack on Parkes under the headline:


Tasteless, unpleasant, stupid. Yes, you don't expect much else from the Star, but can they really not even accept a 'gay' might exist without putting quote marks around the word.

The last time they wrote about a yeti/Bigfoot they didn't feel the need to put quote marks around the words. So why do it with gay?

Of course, given that it was a homophobic attack, the fact of Parkes' sexuality inevitably becomes part of the story.

Yet if an ethnic minority police officer - trainee or otherwise - had been assaulted, would the Star write: Yobs set on 'black'? OK, with the Star you never know, but it's highly unlikely.

But such wording - and such a use of quote marks - serves only as an on attack minority groups, to emphasise that they are 'different'. And the attacks on Baynham and Parkes show why this daily vilification of minorities is so dangerous.

Jan Moir makes her position clear - she's an unrepentant bigot

So after a week of prevarication, Jan Moir has used her (advertising free) column today to clarify what she wrote about Stephen Gately last week.

Well, not clarify, exactly. Repeat all the same baseless, innuendo-heavy stuff for a second time. Claim she was entirely misrepresented, the victim of an orchestrated campaign (by who?) and complained about by people who hadn't read the article (proof?).

One of the most dismal aspects of this piece is the apology she gives to the Gately family:

I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral.

Right, so she's not sorry for what she actually said, just when she said it. Charming. She just doesn't get it.

To everyone else, there is no apology. She only says:

I regret any affront caused.

In other words: stuff you. Because if she really regretted causing affront, she wouldn't repeat many of the same allegations for a second time. She writes:

if drugs were somehow involved in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest?

We were told that Stephen died of 'natural causes' even before toxicology results had been released. This struck me as bizarre, given the circumstances.

Circumstances of course which Moir didn't really know, apart from some newspaper reports. Toxicology results which she didn't know either. But rather than wait, she decided she knew best - and clearly she still does. Better than the coroner, in fact. Sadly she didn't explain how the drugs she seems to know he took caused the fluid on his lungs which killed him.

She then claims she never said something which she did say:

I have never thought, or suggested, that what happened that night represented a so-called gay lifestyle; this is not how most gay people live.

Odd, given she said this:

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.

Now assuming she picked the example of George Michael because of his antics in public toilets, then she is saying not everyone is like him in 'many cases'. Not most.

She fails to clarify why the death of Kevin McGee was in any way relevant to Gately. Probably because she knows it isn't. She pretends that her vile observation that Gately's death:

strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships

was that:

there was a 'happy ever after myth' surrounding such unions was that they can be just as problematic as heterosexual marriages.

But this was a myth she seemed to invent for her column. Whoever said that no civil partnership would ever end in separation? Who claimed there were never going to be unhappy civil partners?

Indeed, when she writes:

If he had been a heterosexual member of a boy band, I would have written exactly the same article

it's a blatant lie. She would not have written about the myth of happy-ever-after heterosexual marriage. She would not have mentioned whoever she thinks the straight version of George Michale might be, or suggested they were representative. She wouldn't have referred to 'straight activists'. And she almost certainly wouldn't have referred to a:

very different and more dangerous lifestyle.

She lies:

Absolutely none of this had anything to do with his sexuality.

And:

Anyone who knows me will vouch that I have never held such poisonous views.

Well, the article last week was poisonous, and if she really thinks people will believe her saying his sexuality had nothing to do with it, she's totally deluded.

She writes:

To be the focus of such depth of feeling has been an interesting experience, but I do not complain.

Followed by:

This brings me back to the bile, the fury, the inflammatory hate mail and the repeated posting of my home address on the internet.

And:

To say it was a hysterical overreaction would be putting it mildly

And:

I can't help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged?

All of which sounds a lot like her complaining.

And a 'hysterical overreaction'? Clearly she's so repentant she's calling everyone who was offended 'hysterical'. Not in the least like the Mail-orchestrated Sachsgate affair, of course, in which Moir played her miserable role.

That applies to her point about people 'determined to be outraged'. The default position of the Daily Mail is to be 'determined to be outraged' day in, day out.

The fact is, people saw bigotry and social intolerance because it did exist in her sorry little rant.

And there are other contradictions. Last week she described Gately as a:

founder member of Ireland's first boy band, he was the group's co-lead singer, even though he could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk...popular but largely decorous.

Whereas this week, he was:

a talented young man

And of her claim that there was 'nothing natural' about his death, she says:

My assertion that there was 'nothing natural' about Stephen's death has been wildly misinterpreted.

What I meant by 'nothing natural' was that the natural duration of his life had been tragically shortened in a way that was shocking and out of the ordinary. Certainly, his death was unusual enough for a coroner to become involved.

When any 33-year old dies suddenly, a coroner would almost certainly be involved. This does not make it 'not natural', nor does it support her original claim.

And her attempts to explain 'nothing natural' is just bizarre. Here's what she said:

Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this.

In her original response, she backtracked, saying:

Anyone can die at anytime of anything

But now she seems to be suggesting they can't, again.

She claims she was showered with support too:

I also had thousands of supportive emails from readers and well-wishers, many of whom described themselves as 'the silent majority'. The outcry was not as one-sided as many imagine.

Really? So homophobic Mail readers sent supportive emails. What a surprise. But as there were over 25,000 complaints, that's a lot of emails to receive if she is to justify the claim it wasn't one sided. How many thousands was it? Even the comments on the Mail website were hugely against her. That's how 'silent' they were.

Oh, and is she sure all those 'thousands' of supporters read the article? Because she repeats her claim that her piece was:

unread by many who complained.

Can she provide the slightest evidence for this? How can she possibly know that they didn't read it? What proof does she have?

It's also an odd claim for someone who spoke out about the BBC Sachsgate affair, where the tens of thousands of people who did complain only did so after reading about it in the Mail, not having heard the radio show live. Moir included. So add hypocrite to all the other charges.

She also tries to re-state her view that this was all:

an orchestrated campaign by pressure groups and those with agendas of their own.

In fact, as she isn't on Twitter, she wouldn't have a clue. What was noticeable was watching the sheer number of people taking an entirely natural reaction against her column. After having read it.

Who does she think is the conductor of this orchestra? What agenda does she think is behind it? Naturally, she doesn't explain. And, of course, she's not complaining about it.

And then she admits:

I accept that many people - on Twitter and elsewhere - were merely expressing their own personal and heartfelt opinions or grievances.

Oh right. So a cynical, orchestrated campaign by non-readers and mischievous gay activists was also heartfelt and personal grievances. Last week they were 'mischievous', now they are 'heartfelt'? What is she on about? Have the Mail executives been adding bits to try and take the heat off? Because it hasn't worked.

Towards the end she sets up a straw man to knock down:

Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling.

Who has suggested you can't question? She entirely misses the point of what people found so offensive.

And frankly, if you have to spend 890 words explaining what you really meant in a 917 word article, you clearly ain't much of a writer anyway.

No doubt the Mail - and Moir - will expect this to be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, they will be wrong. This is not an apology, but someone who is in a hole and continuing to dig. There is nothing in here that corrects the egregious errors of judgement in her homophobic rant last week.

In fact, by playing the victim, stating she has been entirely misunderstood (yes, over 25,000 people all misinterpreted the words in the same way), saying the complainers haven't read what she wrote and then repeating claims that there was something untoward about Gately's death means this will rumble on.

Jan Moir: Twitter trending topic, for a second consecutive Friday.