The Pink Princess
When Stephen Gately’s death was first announced in hushed reverential tones on the BBC news, my first reaction was Stephen Who? Never heard of him.
By the time the ‘breaking news’ announcements had given way to long deferential reportage over the course of the evening, I had gathered that he was some sort of Pop Star. Hardly of the same standing as Michael Jackson, but his death apparently receiving the same coverage. I idly speculated that his coffin would be laid out for the adoring crowds on the fourth plinth at Trafalgar Square. You could sense the mounting hysteria.
I had, of course, missed the vital ingredient of this story. Stephen was Gay. A Pink Princess. That changes everything.
Heterosexual Princess’ can die in Parisian underpasses and the world may speculate as to the cause of their death, the nature of their sexual relationships, their last menstrual cycle; no need to cloak any claim in innuendo, the raucous cry of ‘free speech’ precedes every last intimate detail as it is chewed over by the rabid blogs of war.
A Pink Princess returns from a nighclub with her husband at 4.30am, accompanied by a third party, she so drunk that apparently the only solution is to climb into her pyjamas (that drunk, huh?) and sleep alone on the sofa whilst husband and third party take to the marital bed. She is then discovered 9 hours later squatting in a ‘praying position’ with her lungs full of fluid. This is a ‘natural death’ and any further speculation is greeted with hysterical outrage.
Jan Moir of the Daily Mail, not someone I habitually read, was brave enough to face down the pink posse and point out that had this been a heterosexual couple, none of this would have been described as normal. She is paying a high price for her temerity this morning. Marks & Spencers, mindful of the pink pound, has demanded that their advertisements be removed from the page on which her article sits bravely defending her right to free speech. They are not alone.
Free speech has its limits, and mightily politically correct limits they are too.
I well remember a crowded London dinner party some years ago at which at least half the couples present were openly gay. The exquisitely masculine half of one such couple began, uninvited, to discuss the recent claims from California that homosexuality was ‘genetic’.
Prawn cocktails lay half eaten as we listened in polite homage to free speech, to a monologue on how ‘even aged 7′ he had known that that the ‘taste and smell’ of a woman’s vagina would be ‘disgusting’, and he could never countenance entrusting his precious penis to such an orrifice. At 7? No one argued. No one queried the ‘taste and smell’ of the orrifice he did entrust his precious penis to, nor attempt to stop him or his fellow ‘believers’ as they gleefully extolled the delights of their chosen lifestyle, which memorably included insight into the world of voyerism otherwise known as ‘the window on the world’ carefully chiselled into the wall of our local public toilet, or cottage, as we were now educated. We all knew we would be dennounced as ‘homophobic’ if we dared to even change the subject, much less term it ‘gynophobic’. I’ve never been really keen on prawn cocktail since.
Jan Moir’s free speech has apparently attracted ‘record complaints’, after an extraordianry internet campaign, led by Stephen Fry and Derren Brown who have a million plus following on ‘Twitter’. Over 1000 of their devoted followers have complained to the PCC regarding alleged homophobia. The details of advertisers on her page were posted on a Facebook group called ‘The Daily Mail should retract Jan Moir’s hateful, homophobic article’. Jan Moir’s home address was posted, in a disturbing act of cyber-bullying.
Today, Jan has been forced to issue a ‘clarification’ of her words.
“When I wrote that ‘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,’ I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended to a stranger,” she said. “Not to the fact of his homosexuality. In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.”
It would seem that ‘the internet’ only wishes to support ‘free speech’ for certain views.
It is quite willing to suggest that censorship should be supported, nay encouraged, for views which may well represent the majority of citizens, but do not accord with the world view that the shrillest voices wish us to hold.
Unlikely though it is, were I ever to return from a Majorca nightclub at 4.30am, sober enough to put my feet into the right legs of my pyjama bottoms, but drunk enough to countenance my husband taking a perfect stranger to our marital bed, leaving me to unsuccessfully fend for myself on the sofa, I trust Jan Moir will still be brave enough to point out that regardless of the coroner’s decision, that there is something ‘abnormal’ about this definition of ‘normal’ marriage.
October 20, 2009 at 22:07
-
Saul October 19, 2009 at 1:28 pm
After the death of Stephen Gately at his Spanish Villa, stars of stage and
screen have been paying tribute. Ronan Keating said he was gutted, Louis Walsh
said he was devastated and Michael Barrymore said he was innocent.
****
OUCH!
- October
20, 2009 at 21:09
-
Totally off topic I love that raccoon pic.
- October 20, 2009 at 16:53
-
I haven’t been able to stop laughing my head off since I started reading
this post. Thank you for making my day.
- October 19, 2009 at 13:28
-
After the death of Stephen Gately at his Spanish Villa, stars of stage and
screen have been paying tribute. Ronan Keating said he was gutted,
Louis
Walsh said he was devastated and Michael Barrymore said he
was
innocent.
- October 18, 2009 at 17:51
-
Iain Dale pulls…..Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
- October 18, 2009 at 17:35
-
Oh look, Iain Dale pulls the homophobe card, mentioning the Mail AND
Gately.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2009/oct/17/my-week-iain-dale?showallcomments=true
- October 18, 2009 at 16:24
-
Gately was Irish, Dublin born and bred … where, may l add, homosexuality is
tolerated at best.
lf it wasn
- October 18, 2009 at 14:31
-
When Stephen Gately passed away he immediately became property of the
media. Like a pod of Killer Whales with a seal pup, he will be tossed around
(look, I’ve warned you about that sniggering at the back) until the next
celebrity death.
- October 18, 2009 at 14:32
- October 18, 2009 at 12:49
-
I notice Boring and Demented are calling for a boycott of the Daily Mail
and their advertisers.
In other words, they want to censor the Daily Mail. They want to turn it
into something THEY would like to read. And stop it printing what they don’t
want to read.
Every day, I see pseudo Libertarians who really, really should not be
abusing the name.
http://www.boatangdemetriou.com/2009/10/theres-never-been-better-time-to-fuck.html
- October 18, 2009 at 13:05
- October 18, 2009 at 05:18
-
So its cos he is gay, because its a credit crunch and because the PC
brigade are agenda pushing.
You numskulls make it so hard to be right wing.
- October 18, 2009 at 00:15
-
No offense but isn’t he Irish?
I have nothing against them but I hate the hypocrisy… very proud of being
Irish (thats cool) but also likes to jump into the being ( British / part of
the UK ) chair… and as we know Ireland isn’t part of the UK!
It is a shame when anyone dies, famous or not, straight or gay, whatever
race or nationality etc. but what annoys me is him being hailed as a national
hero and like I said, he was Irish… not English or British.
It is up to the individual to who their idols and heroes are but come on I
think I have a point…
I agree if he wasn’t gay then it wouldn’t be such big news. The band he was
in isn’t as big as it used to be – I wouldnt say he was specifically current
and was pretty much out of the limelight – people forgotten about who he was.
Most fans were listening to very old music from a decade or so ago.
Surely a way of selling papers in the credit crunch?
-
October 17, 2009 at 23:52
-
Jailhouse. Wit would let you get away with it maybe. Alas.
- October 17, 2009 at 23:03
-
Don’t be fooled …. Gately is just spending a year dead for tax
purposes.
- October 17, 2009 at 20:20
-
In our prisons which are not mixed sexed, there is in all likelihood that
same sex partnerships will occur. I have heard themselves describe this as
only being prison queer.
I don’t judge this. It’s a fact of life. I accept this. And laugh at
absurdity. A gallows sense of humour…(Allow the hang em and flog em brigade to
enter stage left…)
- October 17, 2009 at 20:03
-
I have taken the time to find and read again the offending column. During
that time I came across (stop sniggering at the back) lots of articles
vilifying Jan Moir. The main argument seems to revolve around the words
“natural” and “unnatural”. This in my opinion is the crux of the matter. If
two people, regardless of their sexual preferences decide to live together and
then cement that relationship with a civil ceremony, then that is their right.
That the gay community promote it is fine and dandy as well. The problem
arises, as in Ms Moir’s article, when sex is talked about. I would hazard a
guess that the vast majority of heterosexuals consider gay sex as being
unnatural. It is the sex act itself that the gay community struggle to make
acceptable. Whatever two consenting or even three adults get up to is their
own business, however in this case it can hardly be called natural. Perhaps
Stephen Fry and his co complainers are more concerned with keeping their nice
cosy sensitive image as opposed to the hedonistic alternative reported by Ms
Moir. I am not for one moment suggesting that all gay couples behave in this
manner, merely that drawing attention to the sex itself, is what landed Ms
Moir in trouble.
- October 17, 2009 at 20:21
- October 17, 2009 at 19:39
-
Should I be found on our sofa in a foetal position with my lungs full of
fluid, I do hope that mr bin asks questions if it is said that I died of
“natural” causes.
An unusually good piece from Jan Moir and an excellent one from you,
Anna.
- October 17, 2009 at 19:06
-
Rodger Dodger: As Stephen Gately is in attendance I won’t bother going
myself. I wonder if the mortuary attendant gave him a stiff seeing to?
- October 17,
2009 at 18:35
-
I put the news on this morning and his funeral was all I saw! I had heard
of him “vaguely” but being a heavy metal fan, am obviously not into boy bands.
I think the coverage was unnecessary, distasteful and hardly newsworthy. As
I read the details of his death, the first thing I thought was, something
fishy going on here…
- October 17, 2009 at 18:15
-
Brilliant way to exercise your free speech Jailhouse. His funeral is going
on right now.
Charming old school manners. Pre-PC, I don’t think so.
- October 17, 2009 at 18:10
-
So, there will be no cum back performance from Stephen Gately?
- October 17, 2009 at 17:27
-
Anna: Not wishing to be pedantic, given the subject matter, shouldn’t
“incoming” be cumming in?
- October 17, 2009 at 17:40
- October 17, 2009 at 16:54
-
Yeah lets all go back to the days before ‘PC’.
Jan Moir’s article would still fail on grounds of being terribly bad
mannered, illogical and issued within an indecent time frame.
You don’t need some bullshit Havard, NLP, thought policeman to reject that
nonsense. I’ve never been called PC in my life and yet I felt her article was
unconscionable.
- October 17, 2009 at 16:50
-
Okay, Pete. I definitely agree with you.
Roger Dodger. Her comments were insensitive at this time.
Jimmyriddle. Wash your mouth out with soap.
Some homosexual couples are not faithful. Guess what? Some heterosexual
couples are not faithful. And I don’t particularly want to discuss in detail,
what any of them get up to. Buggery against a woman is still an offence if the
woman objects. So I can only presume that not only does it happen, but that
some women object.
And that some women don’t.
And yes, I am a prude. I don’t know if I am frigid, but it remains a
possibility. It is much more likely that I would rather not be subjected to
what our so called Stars get up to.
Jan who was it? She pisses off most of the population. Yet
another
person who probably has a degree in Humanities, and no knowledge of
people.
- October 17, 2009 at 16:36
-
I think Witterings has hit the nail on the head – the homosexuals have
changed the name to gay because using homosexual makes them feel ashamed and
we can’t have that now can we?
What is wrong with calling a spade a spade or a homosexual a homosexual? I
know such bluntness is frowned on in our present PC society therefore we need
to change society not have PCism change us.
Anna, your ending picture is inspired.
-
October 17, 2009 at 16:33
-
As I understand it, Gately was 33 – and he died of “natural causes”? The
only natural cause of death is one or more of the many problems that occur
through old age. Since when has old age started at 33?
This whole episode
is definitely Dodgy.
I didn’t know there were new laws about free speech,
and why they apply only to Jan Moir.
- October 17, 2009 at 16:13
-
there was a wee singer named gately,who hasnt been singing much lately
after a bottle of rum, a c–k up the bum,his trip to the sun ended fatally
- October 17, 2009 at 15:56
-
Ok Anna, the goalposts comment is fair.
I have never found myself on this side of the argument. I hate the mass
hysteria brigades, I puked when Elton sang at the funeral. I want all hate
crime laws considered thought crime and abolished. I am with Mark Steyn on the
CHRC. I told many a Jade Goody joke and I happily accuse the MSM of
paedonecrophilia with their policy being ‘as long as the victim is pretty and
blond enough’.
However I still think there is something amiss here. I unfortunately don’t
seem to have the linguistic prowess to explain exactly what I mean.
How about this: I get when there is the defence of truth in an argument. If
people were to find metrics demonstrating that homosexual adoption was
definitely (or even possibly) screwing up the prospects of the those kids
being adopted, then I would never call an objection to the adoption
‘homophobic’. Nor would I criticise it. (The phobia being by definition
irrational or innate. Nobody would call my fear of crazy people with knifes a
phobia.)
However when something is transparently bollocks. And also insensitively
timed. one can perhaps call such a thing homophobic (just a word, hateful,
nasty, or whatever else will substitute). Her article seemed to display an
irrational or innate dislike. That is wrong surely? Certainly irresponsible to
express in that format/context.
When others feel it is wrong and hateful surely they should seek to oppose
it. Oppose it because it is irrational and dishonest.
If this is free speech then let her really say what she means, go for it
great guns. But no she hedges and skirts. Maybe Saul is right. Maybe she isn’t
stupid. Merely cowardly. But she is surely one of those. That civil
partnership connection was either retarded or a mask for her lack of sack to
say ‘I hate benders’. It can’t be neither.
I guess in short. If she was really exercising the free speech you think
she should be able to, then the article would look different. What it is the
article sounds like to me should be opposed as it has no place in rational and
honest debate.
I am taking up too much of your blog with this.
Jailhouselawer: Since you brought it to this level. I think the alternative
to vagina is the taste of cock. Which if someone tells me tastes better I
would not disagree with, it probably makes sense for ventilation reasons
alone. Rim jobs and ATM’s are equally available to both types of
relationship.
So again. Why don’t you just say ‘I hate gays’ rather than
make a leap of logic you know to be false.
- October 17, 2009 at 15:53
-
Hi Anna, I love your blog and your writing. As a 29 yr old gay lad, I
completely agree with you. There is obviously something very fishy about the
whole circumstances surrounding the death. As the story came out, it became
even more suspicious.
I personally think the whole situation makes a
complete mockery of civil partnerships, and the taking of a third party to any
marital bed is just plain wrong whether consented or not – actually even worse
when consented, as in this case. It is distasteful.
Tragic all round. Jan
Moir is only voicing what everyone else is thinking!!!! I would hate this to
affect freedom of speech any more
-
October 17, 2009 at 15:40
-
Certainly she’s coming out with all guns blazing…. on second thoughts,
perhaps not.
-
October 17, 2009 at 15:34
-
OOPs, SHE!!!
-
October 17, 2009 at 15:33
-
Re: saul
Perhaps he’s a forward scout, out on a raccie?
- October 17, 2009 at 15:28
-
Saul: Very good!
- October 17, 2009 at 15:25
-
The Royal Draccoon Guards..
- October 17, 2009 at 15:25
-
I am riveted. My poor brain is fast curdling.
You are all right, of course. Or is that a bit too subtle?
- October 17, 2009 at 15:21
-
Anna: Some people do not have a very good sense of smell and there is the
no accounting for taste…
Love the photo of the fighting raccoon.
- October 17, 2009 at 15:56
- October 17, 2009 at 15:18
-
Homosexuals have renamed themselves with the acceptable sobriquet “Gay” and
relegated us heterosexuals to the rather boring “Straight”. Why can’t we have
a better label? I quite like “Jolly” or “Happy”
Suggestions on a postcard to, Chateau Raccoon at the usual address
please.
-
October 17, 2009 at 15:07
-
If I was a homosexual (which I am not), I would be absolutely petrified at
the thought of being “embraced by the Gay Community”.
Just because I was
sexually attracted to members of the same sex, doesn’t mean that I would wish
to be owned lock stock & barrel by a “Gay Community”.
I am
heterosexual, I am not embraced (literally or otherwise) where ever I go by
the “straight” community.
- October 17, 2009 at 15:03
-
Good stuff, Anna.
If ever one wants to see an example of groupthink one need only read the
-
October 17, 2009 at 15:03
-
No idea! I’ve been having my Thora Hird perm re-crinkled.
-
October 17, 2009 at 14:58
-
Perhaps Mr G hammered a nail through it???
- October 17, 2009 at 15:00
- October 17, 2009 at 14:50
-
I had no idea that Miss Moir was a ” nasty and borderline retarded cow “. I
thought she was an informative and often very funny columnist.
- October 17, 2009 at 14:46
-
I would further point out that what I have written has been in response to
the comments.
I think your article’s drawing parallels between the uses of Twitter is
insightful.
It is further proof of your reliability in coming up with meritorious
comment pieces. Pity you don’t write for the Mail.
- October 17, 2009 at 14:41
-
Not that offence should be an issue in a case of public interest. Moir’s
article does not qualify.
- October 17, 2009 at 14:41
-
What?
If one accepts that it was hurtful;, mistimed and ill thought out. What is
wrong in expressing a wish that it should not be published. I express my
opinion that Jan Moir should use her judgement and would therefore like to see
the nasty and borderline retarded cow suppress herself.
Having the right to unpopular speech does not mean that the act of making
it is in itself virtuous.
Me wanting you not to write something, me asking people to ask you not to
publish is not the same as me getting a judge to stop you. You asked what the
difference is. There it is.
This can go round and round. I mean are you therefore trying to suppress
the speech of Charlie Booker, Stephen Fry and Derren Brown? It seems you would
rather they did not say what they said about Jan Moir.
A further difference: Public Interest.
What is the public interest in printing the insensitve tripe now?
Where is the public interest in comparing a suicide and an accidental death
by ridiculously saying Civil Partnerships are the link?
Where is the public interest in learning of corporate activities like those
featured? A clear one. Who will it offend? Nobody.
Also, a further difference is that one is a newspaper the other is
Parliament. That is another debate however.
- October 17, 2009 at 14:49
-
An interesting discussion Roger, but you repeatedly move the
goalposts!
I don’t seek to stop Stephen Fry saying what he did, I support his right
to do so. I don’t complain to the PCC.
I reserve the right to criticise the ‘internet’ crowd en masse, as a
homogeneous group, for jumping up and down with glee one day as an attempt
to stop someone saying something bites the dust by using Twitter, and then
the next day using Twitter in an attempt to bully someone else into silence.
We can split hairs all day regarding who used legal means and who published
authors home addresses as a method of acheiving their aims, and who was
trying to suppress parliament and who was trying to silence a newspaper, but
to me, the salient point is that one day the Twitter crowd wished to be
hailed as heroes for facilitating free speech and the next day they were out
in force trying to punish free speech.
You can’t begin to compare the
public interest in the two articles. Again, as you say, that is another
argument.
- October 17, 2009 at
14:51
-
Oh Roger, shoot me down in flames by all means, but please don’t
condemn me to write for the Daily Mail – that is too cruel!
- October 17, 2009 at
14:53
- October 17, 2009 at 14:15
-
Ola Anna
Left your e address and land line no blightyside sillymost. Could you text
please?
07771 872298
Danada
J
- October 17, 2009 at 14:14
-
Except take legal action.
What Carter-Ruck attempted was genuine suppression.
M & S removing advertising is their choice. If they consider something
immoral they can make the case. Wishing and asking someone not to publish is
not the same as telling them they legally can’t.
Therein lies the difference.
I am surprised you don’t see it. Or perhaps there are more articles for me
to read, perhaps you could highlight one that is the equivalent to the goings
on of Trafigura.
- October 17, 2009 at 14:22
- October 17, 2009 at 14:10
-
Good morning Anna; This is a splendid piece of writing, written with an
eloquence and an analytical precision that is admirable. I hope that it
receives the widest possible coverage – doubtless you’re prepared for the
onslaught that will inevitably head your way. I too had never heard of the
late Mr Gately nor of his fellow musicians. So the resulting furore found me
somewhat bemused. Having then read Ms Moir’s piece in the Mail, it seemed to
me measured and very much to the point. The hysterical response articulated
and led by the wretched Mr Fry (a gentleman somewhat passed his sell by date)
seems to dictate that freedom of speech may only be so – if sanctioned and
approved by both the homosexual and islamic communities. Somewhat ironic that
the ladies and gentlemen of both persuasions should find that they have so
much in common. Doubtless the wretched Mr Fry and colleagues can look forward
to a cordial welcome and fraternal greetings the next time they visit to their
local islamic bookshop or local mosque. Such are the blessings of
multiculturalism.
“Twitter”. I’m afraid that I don’t know how to twit, but
I shall be attempting to offer some sort of support to Ms Moir on the Daily
Mail web site – if the moderator so allows.
All good wishes to you.
Blessings
Jez
- October 17, 2009 at 14:06
-
Surely, the taste and smell of an arsehole is even more disgusting?
- October 17, 2009 at 14:10
- October 17, 2009 at 14:05
-
Sorry Anna. How have they tried to suppress it?
- October 17, 2009 at 14:09
- October 17, 2009 at 14:05
-
The agenda; thou shall not criticise me or my lifestyle, thou will respect
me based solely on my sexual preference(s), thou will not compare me to you
for I am special, thou will not call me misogynist or misandrist, thou will
overvalue interior design and hairdressing?
- October 17, 2009 at 13:58
-
The comments on this article only serve to prove yet again, that I don’t
actually have a valid opinion of my own on just about anything.
I always
find myself agreeing with absolutely everybody.
“Yes, yes, I agree with that” …….. “Oh, er, sorry, yes you are right”.
It’s a terrible cross to bear. I hope you all feel sorry for me.
- October 17, 2009 at 13:52
-
Christ that’s funny Holborn. First good one I have heard.
‘…posturing by the gay community’. I am not gay and I found the article
pretty grotesque. ‘
What ‘agenda’ are they pushing. That people shouldn’t sell illogical and
poorly written tripe less than week after a young person with a family has
died? Some agenda that is. Those evil conspiring pink bastards.
- October 17, 2009 at 14:00
-
October 17, 2009 at 13:47
-
What we need is a nationwide mass debate…
Sorry Anna.
- October 17, 2009 at 13:31
-
Why is it called Homophobia? I am not afraid or intimidated by homosexuals.
What is there to be scared of? I find all this posturing by the gay community
as nothing more than agenda pushing.
- October 17, 2009 at 13:28
-
What’s pink, square and goes round and round?
Stephen Gately’s suitcase on the luggage belt at Palma de Majorca
- October 17, 2009 at 13:26
-
Is the contents of her article suitable so very soon after the event?
IMO no, this is a comment piece and too early to start refuting grieving
mothers.
Is the connection between one person in a civil partnership committing
suicide and another dying accidentally on a night that sounded for them a
helluva lot of fun relevant or useful in anyway?
IMO no. The ONLY connection was that gay people were involved and it
resulted in a death. This link can only be the result of homophobia as there
is no link whatsoever between a death of natural (sleazy or otherwise) causes
and a suicide. What sort of logic is that.
About the most erroneous logical connection since the great Rev. Falwell
blamed 9/11 on the gaylords. Tell me again how sheep’s bladders are employed
to prevent earthquakes?
The only aspect of that opportune and rather thick article having perhaps
some validity is that if they were hetro, the addition of a third person
(recently picked up) might be examined more. It would have IMO been considered
‘sleazy’. There does seem to be an assumption here that ‘that’s just something
gays do’. Perhaps that assumption is itself homophobic? I really don’t know.
I do however know I would be shocked if you were ever reduced to writing
something that low on a blog Anna let alone in a national daily newspaper.
Personally, all I care about what goes on in peoples bedrooms is that they
have as sordid and fun a time as possible. As for poor Stephen Gately, I
wouldn’t have dreamed of ever listening to his 5th rate output, nor did I
follow a moment of his career. However that article, especially spewed as soon
as it was is pretty spiteful and something that should be drummed out of our
discourse. Typical of the Daily HateMail.
Oh, and what was the hidden vice behind poor Heath Ledger’s death?
- October
17, 2009 at 13:25
-
Hi Anna, glad you posted this, as ever eloquent, Article – I was going to
comment on the doublespeak interpretation of “freedom of speech” demonstrated
by the recent Twitter campaigns, but felt uncomfortable about the almost
inevitable “homophopic” bricks that would be lobbed in my direction. I dislike
the Daily Fail and Jan Moir’s usually irrelevant drivel, but an important
point was raised – the freedom to discuss the lifestyle of a vocal minority in
an open and frank way, from a ‘straight’ perspective. As opposed to the usual
case; homosexuals forcing their rights of self expression down the majorities
throat (sorry). Jan was simply amplifying the thoughts and questions that went
through many of the silent majorities mind. If my husband had behaved that way
he would be playing with his danglies; once I had extricated both of my legs
out of the one pyjama leg.
-
October 17, 2009 at 13:09
-
Or socialists despising wealth creating capitalists.
-
October 17, 2009 at 12:53
-
eventually
-
October 17, 2009 at 12:52
-
The ultimate irony is, without us “Breeders”, their community would
evetually become extinct….
- October 17, 2009 at 12:56
- October 17, 2009 at 12:03
-
Anna,
Afterthought: Sorry should have said nice article – again!
- October 17, 2009 at 12:02
-
Anna,
I find the subject distasteful to be honest and query the need of the
homosexual community to continually thrust the subject into the media. The
need to use a word meaning happy to cover their ‘lifestyle’ also annoys me –
what is wrong with the word ‘homosexual’? Do they feel shame – is that why
their community will not use it?
It is peoples choice how they live and what they do in private – I just
don’t believe it right that I should be confronted with outrage because I will
not use the word ‘gay’ instead of ‘homosexual’.
Jan Moir should be congratulated, not vilified, for raising and writing
about a topic that is in most normal peoples minds. The fact the ‘outrage’ has
been organised by those amongst us with queer values speaks for itself!
- October 17, 2009 at 12:20
- October 17, 2009 at 11:48
-
Good morning Anna.
Reversed discrimination.
Reminds me of a
door-to-door salesman, long ago in Amsterdam, who would say every time someone
wasn’t interested in his goods: “That’s because I’m Black.”
The reaction
invariably would be: “Oh no, of course not! Do come in…”
BTW how’s your shower, eh, toilet?
- October 17, 2009 at 11:51
{ 79 comments }