This is, after all, the internet. This particular shitstorm brewed up hours ago, and is already old news, but fuck it, I've been in work all day, I'm feeling slightly misanthropic and here's a chance to thump an old enemy.
Doubtless you'e already read Jan Moir's massively upstetting and wrongheaded article. If you've not here you go. Pretty hate filled, huh? The bit about the "happy ever after myth of civil partnerships" is particularly choice. Her response is pretty funny, too, but i don't feel like generating more hits for the Mail. Needless to say no-one could possibly conclude that a phrase like the aforementioned could be construed as homophobic. It also falls back on the elderly defence of claiming that nobody kicking off actually read the article. Sorry Jan, I did, what with having a higher regard for checking one's facts first than, say, the Mail. Anyhoo, doubtless you're aware that a backlash is afoot, which is, of course, massively entertaining, what with the mail making lots of money by generating huge amounts of complaints to the PCC over oh, whatever they've been annoyed about of late (I think immediately of the Brand/Ross/Sachs/who gives a fuck farrago, a prime example of being annoyed at having to go into bat for tools on a matter of principle). Kind of delicious that they're on the receiving end eh?
So do read the article first, please, let us here at coastalblog maintain a higher intellectual standard. But when you've read it, the Press complaints commmission website is here. Bless 'em, they've set up a shortcut already. If you're in doubt as to the last box the breaches of the code of conduct the Mail have specifically made are articles 1, 5 and 12. Have fun!
Doubtless you'e already read Jan Moir's massively upstetting and wrongheaded article. If you've not here you go. Pretty hate filled, huh? The bit about the "happy ever after myth of civil partnerships" is particularly choice. Her response is pretty funny, too, but i don't feel like generating more hits for the Mail. Needless to say no-one could possibly conclude that a phrase like the aforementioned could be construed as homophobic. It also falls back on the elderly defence of claiming that nobody kicking off actually read the article. Sorry Jan, I did, what with having a higher regard for checking one's facts first than, say, the Mail. Anyhoo, doubtless you're aware that a backlash is afoot, which is, of course, massively entertaining, what with the mail making lots of money by generating huge amounts of complaints to the PCC over oh, whatever they've been annoyed about of late (I think immediately of the Brand/Ross/Sachs/who gives a fuck farrago, a prime example of being annoyed at having to go into bat for tools on a matter of principle). Kind of delicious that they're on the receiving end eh?
So do read the article first, please, let us here at coastalblog maintain a higher intellectual standard. But when you've read it, the Press complaints commmission website is here. Bless 'em, they've set up a shortcut already. If you're in doubt as to the last box the breaches of the code of conduct the Mail have specifically made are articles 1, 5 and 12. Have fun!
Comments
Post a Comment