The Daily Mail and the Gay Agenda

/* This post originally appeared on my old blog on 30 April 2009. As part of the migration of content from my old blog I may occasionally post them here as a current post if I feel they are relevant. Due the the constant themes / narratives in the Daily Mail old posts often cover ‘new’ Mail articles. */

‘If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.’
Malcolm X

The Daily Mail has contained quite a few articles on ‘gays’ recently and the tone, content and spin of the articles is uniformly depressing – whilst the comments underneath the offending articles are shameful. Today’s effort skewers an incident so once again the ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’ lobby are the aggressors, and the intolerant and bigoted are the victims of some kind of ‘gay agenda’.

It is an idea fomented by – amongst others – Richard Littlejohn; who sees teaching diversity in schools as a mission to ‘peddle’ or ‘force-feed’ ‘gay propaganda’ to children. So, in the world of the Daily Mail the very act of reaching for equality is seen as an act of aggression – in simple terms the gay agenda is not seeking equality but is actually intent on banishing heterosexuality and converting us all to homosexuality.

This article, like many others, pitches a god-fearing Christian teacher against an evil homosexual preaching ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’. The headline, naturally, is designed to raise the blood pressure of any Daily Mail reader: ‘What makes you think it’s natural to be heterosexual?’: Christian teacher suspended over gay rights promotion row.

The basic story is:

A senior teacher has been suspended from his £50,000-a-year job after he complained that a training day for staff was used to promote gay rights. Kwabena Peat, 54, was one of several Christian staff who walked out of the compulsory session at a North London school after an invited speaker questioned why people thought heterosexuality was natural.

Now, this is essentially the crux of the ‘gay rights promotion row’, Sue Sanders appears to have asked a philosophical question: ‘what makes you think it’s natural to be heterosexual?’. Now, without context this does seem to be an odd question, but consider for a moment the question being used as a discussion point, which as this was training, seems likely.

The question seems to be designed to get participants questioning what is ‘natural’ – what does the concept mean and does the concept of natural differ based upon individual perception? The point probably being made is that for a gay person, to them being gay is perfectly natural; consequently, from the perception of a gay person, heterosexuality – for them – would be unnatural.

The important thing to remember is that this is a question, it is not a statement decreeing that heterosexuality is abnormal and homosexuality is normal. However, to properly engage with the question a person needs to be free of the common misconceptions about homosexuality. This is the difficult part for a Daily Mail reader as they are constantly being told that homosexuality is a perversion, a choice made by perverted people (hence the fear of education in schools, tell more people, more will choose to be gay).

Richard Littlejohn – as just one example – has grouped homosexuality with fetishes, and as I said at the time:

He… does not seem to understand that being gay isn’t really a choice. ‘Why a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, anyway?’ he argues, ‘Why not a Foot Fetishists, Spankers, Sadists and Masochists History Month?’. Littlejohn lists these fetishes for two main reasons: one; to make Gay, Bisexual or Transgender people sound as perverted as Mail readers assume those who practice those fetishes to be, and two; to make it seem as if being Gay is a behaviour that one can choose not to indulge in – with the implicit assumption that to indulge in such a behaviour is a perversion.

Littlejohn clearly wants to ferment the idea that homosexuality is a perversion and as we all know, a perversion is something considered outside of ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ sexual practice. Therefore, when the notion of what is ‘natural’ is placed in front of a Mail reader, they already harbour a strong prejudice against homosexuality.

Therefore the question allegedly asked by Sue Sanders will be met with horror, as homosexuality has already been labeled unnatural, so in the eyes of the Mail reader the perversion in this instance is the philosophical questioning of why heterosexuality is considered natural.

This is not the only problem with the. The article is also constructed to make the Christian teacher the victim, yet in many ways he seems to be the aggressor:

According to Mr Peat, Ms Sanders, herself a lesbian, said that staff who did not accept that being gay was normal had ‘issues’ they had to deal with.Mr Peat, a history teacher who is also a head of year, said he was upset that people who disagreed on religious grounds had no chance to respond.

He wrote privately to the three staff members who organised the session, complaining about Ms Sanders’ ‘aggressive’ presentation. In his letter, he cited the Bible and warned that practising homosexuals risked God’s ‘wrath’.

But the staff complained to the school’s principal that they felt ‘harassed and intimidated’ by the letter and, after an investigation, Mr Peat was placed on paid leave.

It does not seem unreasonable to state that staff who do not accept homosexuality as normal have issues they need to deal with. As we have already discussed the question asked by Sue Sanders seems a perfectly valid discussion point – that if properly considered by an adult mind helps to tease out why the concept of normality can apply to both heterosexuality and homosexuality. What does seem unreasonable is the response of Mr Peat, the supposed Christian.

You’d have thought a devout Christian would turn the other cheek, be tolerant or do unto others, but instead he preaches violence and intolerance as a perfectly acceptable solution to a problem he has. It seems to be significant that although the Mail claims that Kwabena Peat ‘was one of several Christian staff who walked out of the compulsory session’ this is never elaborated on; whilst what is a fact is that Mr Peat has been suspended after the complaints made against him by staff.

The Daily Mail sets Mr Peat up as the victim, yet the truth seems to show that he is an intolerant Christian being wheeled out as a martyr to the ‘gay agenda’. Not that this seems to have been realised by the majority of commentators on the article:

In answer to Ms Sanders, “What makes you all think that to be heterosexual is natural?” It’s bloody obvious, you’re here on the planet! If it wasn’t normal then the human race would have become extinct as it had failed to reproduce. Or would you even twist science and history around?

Again,the public are being force fed left wing political correctness, just to keep so called minorities ‘happy and in control,’ The scarey part is that they are allowed to be in schools to preach their views!!!!!

– David ex-pat, Perth, Australia, 26/4/2009 4:39

David – he is not alone, but I dare not copy and paste reams and reams of ignorant Mail commentators for the sake of some brevity – again, thinks that normal cannot ever apply to a homosexual. His argument is a biological one: homosexuality doesn’t allow for reproduction, therefore it is not natural. Yet, what he hasn’t the intelligence to consider, is that people are born gay.

It isn’t – as Littlejohn likes to believe – something we can be forced into or converted to by interacting with gay people, or by attending diversity or awareness sessions. Therefore, can it be concluded that as sexual preference is not a result of nurture, it must be the result of nature? This conclusion would mean that homosexuality is perfectly natural and must be biologically determined – making David ex-pat’s argument as bad as his spelling.

The point I am trying to make is that gay people are not making a choice about their sexuality anymore than a straight person is. What equality is trying to achieve is the freedom for a person to be comfortable with whatever biological attraction they are born with. The message that being a homosexual is normal is being delivered because as a society we do not want people wandering around suppressing their nature in fear that they will be victimised or ostracised for simply being who they are.

In particular the issue is important in schools because we want to let children know that whatever they are feeling is OK. If they have an attraction to the same sex they should not feel like a freak, and they should not feel scared. Instead they should be given the opportunity to understand and embrace their biology, embrace what is for them natural and normal. The insidious implications in recent Daily Mail articles that ‘promoting homosexuality’ in schools is damaging children is to deny them their biological right to be happy.

It is assumed by bigots that children would all be happy heterosexuals if they didn’t hear about homosexuality through the ‘gay agenda lobby’, when in fact if they deny their basic urges or desires because they feel uncomfortable expressing them, is surely a recipe for unhappiness.

There is no such thing as a ‘gay agenda’ or ‘gay lobby’ that works on behalf of all gay people. To give gay people one voice is to homogenise, judge and dehumanise them. We are all individuals doing our best to make some sense of the world around us and our own emotions, it makes no difference whether an individual is gay, straight or bisexual.

Unless of course, you read the Daily Mail and other tabloid newspapers.


It seems to be a week in which Daily Mail headline writers are competing with each other to create the most offensive headline. Earlier in the week we had that headline on depression, yesterday we had Jan Moir giving her message to students in receipt of EMA:


And today we have a story about how Jonathan Ross’ family are ‘peculiar’ and ‘bizzarre’ as a follow up to him outing one of his daughters as gay:


Maybe I am being oversensitive or reading too much into that headline, but it just sounds as if the writer is taking one ‘peculiar’ behaviour – being gay (in the eyes of the Mail, this is not me speaking) – and then digging deeper to expose the rest of the family as also leading an odd lifestyle – because being gay is a lifestyle choice as far as the Mail is concerned. The full headline is not any better: ‘They talk to each other at home on Twitter, keep sheep and pigs in the garden and have a remote-controlled loo seat. After Jonathan Ross outs his daughter as gay, the bizarre truth about a very peculiar family…’.

Sure, write about the family life of the Ross’ if you want, but why do you feel the need to build it around his gay daughter, as if she was the tip of the ‘peculiar’ iceberg?

Spot the swastika

Compare and the contrast the two images below. The first is a picture of the gay couple turned away from a hotel, who recently won a discrimination case against the owners. The second is the Daily Mail cartoon by Mac, who is covering the story in his own unique style. See if you can spot the swastika in the Mac cartoon and then challenge yourself to try and come up with an innocent explanation for why he decided to add it.

Siding with the enemy

This is part one of ‘Richard Littlejohn: The cloaca series

In August 2006 Richard Littlejohn in an article about Muslims entitled ‘If they hate us so much, why don’t they leave?‘ wrote about Muslims that a:

sizeable minority… have no desire to adapt to Britain. They want Britain to adapt to them. For a large number of Muslims, their faith is incompatible with Western freedoms and democracy.

This being the case, Littlejohn argued, why don’t they simply bugger off?

In 2007 Littlejohn produced a short ‘cut-out-and-keep guide to the two dominant branches of Islam‘:

Sunnis are the peace-loving, Saudi-backed wing who brought you Al Qaeda. Shias are the peace-loving, Iranian-backed strain behind Hamas and Hezbollah. I hope that helps.

Very helpful and very tolerant towards Muslims I’m sure everyone would agree.

In 2006 Littlejohn in an article entitled ‘Is it any wonder Britons are leaving in droves?1 wrote that:

You don’t have to be a card-carrying BNP neanderthal to worry about the consequences of this sea-change in our society. It is simply impossible to absorb and assimilate this many people from a myriad of cultures in such a short space of time – that’s always assuming they want to assimilate, which in the case of many Muslims they don’t.

So the trend tends to imply that Muslims are bad, they don’t integrate in the UK, don’t like us and should really just bugger off back home.

Yet in spite of this, Littlejohn in 2009 wrote a column in support of the intolerance of some Muslims simply because those Muslims (and Christians – but Littlejohn doesn’t seem to hate them) were being intolerant of the right thing: gays.

However, do not think that Littlejohn is going soft as he slowly approaches his eagerly awaited death, he still finds time in the same column to laugh at a devout Muslim for having a funny beard.

Littlejohn’s primary column seems to argue that young people today are uneducated and ignorant2 (the majority ‘think Auschwitz is a brand of beer’) because they are having:

lessons ‘celebrating’ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month… smuggled in under the radar in the guise of ‘history’.

Some parents decided to withdraw their children from such lessons, and it is these parents Littlejohn bravely defends because:

these aren’t the usual feckless mothers and absentee fathers content to let their children bunk off school. They are deeply moral and religious people who object to their children being force-fed homosexual propaganda in the classroom.

One wonders if these ‘deeply moral and religious people’ were arguing for lessons on Islam Littlejohn might be screaming ‘PC gone mad’ or ‘to hell in a handcart’ before trying to force-feed those same parents his favourite word: ‘integration’ (‘or go back to your own country’, he sometimes adds).

Leaving aside Littlejohn siding with his traditional enemy against the gays, it is worth examining exactly what Littlejohn finds so abhorrent about the teaching of diversity. Littlejohn is obsessed with the idea that teaching diversity is actually a propaganda mission determined to turn all of our children gay:

Regular readers may remember these fairy stories from a couple of years ago, when they were part of a £600,000 government-sponsored project designed to peddle gay propaganda to children as young as five.

‘gay propaganda’? Littlejohn seems to have such a paranoid and warped mindset that he even states that ‘this isn’t education, it’s cultural fascism.’

He also does not seem to understand that being gay isn’t really a choice. Why a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, anyway?’ he argues, ‘Why not a Foot Fetishists, Spankers, Sadists and Masochists History Month?’. Littlejohn lists these fetishes for two main reasons: one; to make Gay, Bisexual or Transgender people sound as perverted as Mail readers assume those who practice those fetishes to be, and two; to make it seem as if being Gay is a behaviour that one can choose not to indulge in – with the implicit assumption that to indulge in such a behaviour is a perversion.

His arguments are linked to a basic ignorance of what it is to be ‘gay’ – it could of course be that I’m talking rubbish as I am not gay – but I understand that people are born with a predisposed sexual preference; therefore no amount of propaganda is going to make a gay person straight or a straight person gay. No doubt Littlejohn still believes that gay men could be turned straight if only they were made to play rugby or visit a lap-dancing club.

Teaching diversity is important because it demonstrates to children that we live in a tolerant society where they can grow up and be accepted for who they are. The gay child in the classroom who is battling with desires he or she may not understand is relieved to find out that he or she is not alone, not perverted and won’t be ostracised or shunned by his or her fellow citizens for simply being whom he or she is. The straight child in the class will realise that being gay isn’t some horrific crime or perversion, something to be hidden or worse, scorned at by others. Teaching tolerance of others regardless of perceived differences is an important part of defeating fascist ideology; not – as Littlejohn stupidly argues – fascism in itself; nor is it ‘propaganda’.

That Littlejohn can pretend to understand the concerns (intolerance) of devout Muslims when those concerns (intolerance) align themselves; yet underneath in the very same column completely mock devout Muslim faith is astonishing – if it only highlights the moronic sycophancy of his readers.

PC Javid Iqbal (sub-heading: ‘Shiver me timbers – it’s Cut-Throat Pete’) is a PC who alleges racial abuse, from the routine mocking of his beard to being called a ‘fucking paki’ and left on patrols without a lift back to the police station. However, Littlejohn, as he makes clear in his sub-title is only interested in mocking the way that he looks:

I’ve never seen a dafter beard than the one sported by PC Javid Iqbal.It’s less a beard, more a privet hedge. If he entered it in a Best-Kept Village competition, he’d win a gold rosette.

It resembles those fake pirate beards we used to cut out of comics. PC Javid is a dead ringer for Captain Pugwash’s adversary, Cut-Throat Pete.

I wonder if it’s real, or comes off with his glasses, like one of those Groucho Marx masks. No wonder his colleagues couldn’t help poking fun at it.

Littlejohn, after this mocking introduction, mentions that ‘ PC Javid says the beard is part of his Islamic religion’ but mocks this reason immediately: ‘But surely a Jeremy Beadle or a Manfred Mann would have done the job just as well.’

For good measure Littlejohn makes a mockery of his claim for compensation:

Needless to say, PC Javid is suing for com-pen-say-shun and claims to be suffering from depression. In case that argument is laughed out of court, he also claims to have been called a ‘f***ing Paki’, which is usually worth about 50 grand.

Before using the magic but to imply that he is unlikely to have actually suffered racist abuse:

If he has genuinely been racially abused, fair enough. But Bedfordshire Police is one of the most ‘diversity-sensitive’ forces in Britain, especially when it comes to its large Muslim population.

And finally concluding that he was probably a rubbish policeman, and is better suited to being a ‘garden gnome’:

And the official line is that PC Javid was sacked because he was ‘not cut out to be a police officer’. Sounds about right.

A garden gnome, maybe, just not a copper. Last time I saw a beard like that it was sitting on a toadstool, holding a fishing rod.

I find it difficult to comprehend how Littlejohn has the audacity to write a piece showing solidarity with  ‘deeply moral and religious people [Muslims – photographed next to article] who object to their children being force-fed homosexual propaganda in the classroom’ and immediately following it with a piece completely mocking a Muslim who is presumably just as ‘deeply moral and religious’.

I guess it is clear to see how Littlejohn picks those to vilify and those to support: intolerant of gays = support; growing a beard that looks a bit funny but for the same religious belief but no mention of intolerance towards gays = vilify and mock.

Perhaps I just can’t believe that such an utter cloaca exists.

1. The logic of Littlejohn’s argument (there are so many foreigners in the UK, Brits are being forced to emigrate) is hysterical. If people dislike other cultures and foreign people that much, how can moving abroad, to a different culture full of foreigners, possibly be the answer? The whole article is staggeringly hypocritical; on the one hand Littlejohn finds it ‘profoundly depressing that so many energetic, qualified young people feel they have no future in the country of their birth’ and therefore choose to move abroad for a ‘better life’. On the other hand, foreign people moving to the UK, many precisely for the same reason as those bright young things leaving the UK, are a terrible thing.

Littlejohn really makes it clear that he values British people above people of other nations. How can he understand emigration (living as he does, mostly in Florida, USA) but not understand immigration? They are the same thing.

2. The irony of Littlejohn complaining about education standards… whilst simultaneously writing absolute drivel for a specifically targeted audience of morons.

This article first appeared on Angry Mob back in March 2009.

I am getting married in 23 days and have entered a competition to try and win my bride an amazing holiday. To win the competition I need your support, I am currently in 7th place and need you to vote for me to win. Voting takes less than 30 seconds and you can vote every 24 hours. Please vote, share, tweet and do whatever you can to spread the word, I cannot win this without your support. Thank you.

The Shameful Daily Express

Utterly, utterly appalling.

Cannot quite bring myself to really go into this right now. Words just somehow don’t feel like enough in cases like this.


The Enemies of reason has two posts on this, both of them well worth reading, so go here and here for those.

Left Outside has a brilliant post on this frontpage and an issue that you will be reading about on this blog shortly.

The incomparable Tabloidwatch has now posted on this.

And the infrequent but always eloquent and thoughtful No Sleep ‘Til Brooklands has also covered it.

All of which means I do not need to add any further to this terrible day for tabloid journalism because they have all said it much better than I could have managed anyway.

I am getting married in 23 days and have entered a competition to try and win my bride an amazing holiday. To win the competition I need your support, I am currently in 8th place and need you to vote for me to win. Voting takes less than 30 seconds and you can vote every 24 hours. Please vote, share, tweet and do whatever you can to spread the word, I cannot win this without your support. Thank you. (Click here for more details)

‘These comments have been moderated in advance’

Bearing the title of this post in mind, imagine what kind of comments didn’t make it through on this article: ‘Cameron to host No.10 party for gay celebrities in bid to woo ‘pink vote’‘:

Gay 1Gay 2Gay 3Gay 4

And in the red corner:

Gay 5

Not surprisingly only one comment has passed moderation on this article: ‘‘Immigrants are making our country dumber’: Anger as board member of Germany’s central bank cites ‘ample statistics‘.

Melanie Phillips Defends Anti-gay preacher

Melanie Phillips has for a few years now been writing in defence of ever more untenable positions, largely as far as I can tell because she seems to have no connection whatsoever to reality. Today’s article is no different, in that where see shes outrage and Orwellian dystopia, I imagine the majority of people see decency and modernity.

Her article – titled: ‘The Orwellian logic that’s turning the faith Britain was built on into a crime‘ – is attempting to be a defence of Christianity, but in reality it is a defence of intolerance and hatred, the very things that Melanie argues are causing the destruction of Christianity in Britain. It is a favourite theme of Melanie’s and today’s example is particularly unpleasant:

Terrifying as this may seem, the attempt to stamp out Christianity in Britain appears to be gathering pace.

Dale McAlpine was preaching to shoppers in Workington, Cumbria, that homosexuality is a sin when he found himself carted off by the police, locked up in a cell for seven hours and charged with using abusive or insulting words or behaviour.

It appears that two police community support officers – at least one of whom was gay – claimed he had caused distress to themselves and members of the public.

Under our anti-discrimination laws, such distress is not to be permitted.

I find it pretty incredible that anyone would want to openly defend a preacher raving about the evils of homosexuality in public. I really cannot understand how anyone could think that this is a good thing. Yet Melanie wants to defend the right of this preacher to shout out his beliefs based on a constantly evolving book of dubious origins and irrelevant messages. But she does, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Melanie was still keen on burning people who suggest that the world is round and revolves around the sun. She really is that backward.

She drivels on about ‘intolerance’ in an attempt to allow this christian preacher to preach intolerance, yet she doesn’t seem to realise what the real intolerance is. However, if my previous post highlighted the dumbest kind of person that posts comments on the Daily Mail website, then let me redress the balance by posting something really quite wonderful that I read underneath Melanie’s article:


I really cannot add anything further to that, accept to say that is something that the utterly insane Melanie Phillips will never understand and that this comment received over 100 negative ratings.

The ‘semantics’ of climate change

A new year, same old Littlejohn. Littlejohn is now recycling his columns to such an extent that he is beyond parody. Today’s column (Mandelson to run the Jubilee? God save the Queen!) makes his normal crass, prejudiced stereotypes: Peter Mandelson is called ‘Mandy’ is drawn as camp as possible in the obligatory crap cartoon – because he is gay you see; wherever the Queen visits happen to run into brown-skinned people they are carrying out ‘ritual beheadings’, making shoe-bombs or have just returned from fighting in Yemen – because all brown people are terrorists you see… And so on, I’d have to copy and paste the whole column to get all of the prejudices from the column here – and they are so familiar I don’t see the need to.

As if this tour-de-farce wasn’t enough Richard Littlejohn tackles climate change – again – and makes the point that as it is cold outside climate change is therefore a conspiracy concocted to victimise honest taxpayers. This is par for the course (Littlejohn mentions saving the Polar Bears yet again in this column) but it is interesting to see that this time Littlejohn actually attempts to tackle the criticism he gets in his comments:

Ah, say the ‘experts’, there’s a difference between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’. They are forced to resort to semantics to sustain their insistence that the science is settled, even though they are all sitting there shivering like brass monkeys. They’d still cling to their belief in man-made warming if Hell froze over.

So there you have it: the only difference between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’ according to Littlejohn is semantic. I wish everything in life was as simple as Littlejohn makes out, but sadly things are a little more complex than that and the cold weather outside today says nothing about climate change or the climate in general. I guess this is why Littlejohn rarely engages in criticism of his points, because when he does he looks feeble-minded, rather than just ignorant.

He also finds time for a quick ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ gone mad story:

On Wednesday, in Stranraer, local residents decided to take advantage of a frozen pond in Agnew Park. They included former Scottish Ladies Curling champions, past presidents of the local ice rink and two serving police officers.

Needless to say, when word reached the Town Hall, an official was dispatched to tell them to stop immediately…

Until the boxes were ticked and warning notices erected, skating and curling was banned.

A quick Google search shows a Flickr photo stream of the people curling along with the following description:

Curling on a frozen pond at Agnew Park Stranraer. Interestingly the council came along and told them to stop until they had “risk assessed” the curling on the ice……the game continued

Bravo Richard, you’ve just been paid for another terrible column.

Jan Moir in the Daily Mail: Sickening Homophobia

Hagley Road to Ladywood announced it last week: anti-gay propaganda is back at the top of the Mail agenda.

Since Stephen Gately’s death last week, the Daily Mail has been desperately trying to dig up some dirt.

In spite of official confirmations that the Boyzone star died of natural causes, the Mail has decided that the unfortunate death of an innocent 33-year-old man is fair game (see, for instance, Paul Scott’s unashamed hatchet job the day after Gately’s death).

The lowest point was hit today by Jan Moir with her article “Why there was nothing natural about Stephen Gately’s death”, where this overpaid munter spurts industrial amounts of venom and homophobia. Look at this bit here (our emphasis):

“Another real sadness about Gately’s death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. 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. It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death.

As a gay rights champion, I am sure he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine. For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see”.

How do you call that? This appalling vulture takes two tragic cases: a young man who died in his sleep and another who hanged himself, to give off the most homophobic shit ever written in about a decade. What the hell has their sexuality got to do with their “hedonistic lifestyle”, let alone their death?

How obnoxious would it be if, the day after Jan Moir finally pops her clogs, opinion columnists start pontificating about “the dangerous lifestyle” of eating too much and earning too much money for writing shit articles in tabloids?

Is Jan Moir really that thick not to register that scores of heterosexual celebrities engage in the same “hedonistic lifestyle” she stupidly assumes Stephen Gately and Kevin McGee were leading?

And yet she should know better. Half of what her newspaper is about is that sort of sordid stuff. The Kerry Katonas and the Jordans, the Amy Winehouses and the Russell Brands, the Ashley Coles and the Steve Joneses…Or how about the list of heterosexual celebs who killed themselves? What stuff are you on, Jan Moir, to be capable of writing such a low, vile, judgemental little story in the wake of a personal tragedy?

How can such levels of intolerance be printed on one of Britain’s most popular brands of arse paper a mere two days after the news of yet another homophobic murder in London?

Is there a limit to the shameful, distasteful, hate-soaked drivel the Daily Mail can put into print?

This post originally appeared here on Hagley Road to Ladywood.

Never mind that he’s dead, he was GAY for god’s sake

Daily Mail comments, always a hotbed for homophobia no matter what the circumstances, have today really excelled in tastelessly pointing out that gays cannot possibly marry: ‘Revealed: The lonely life of Matt Lucas’s ex-husband who killed himself because he never got over their divorce‘. Of course, Mail readers want to offer their sympathies, but at the same time they want to point out the horror that a gay can be referred to as a husband:

I do wish all these utter shit-stains would at least be honest and cut out the ‘I don’t mean to offend anyone…’ disclaimers and just get on with the offensive comment. Credit where it is due though, at least the comments are all highly in the red.