What’s the betting that they manage to mention Clegg’s wife is Spanish and his Russian/Dutch roots at some point amongst the “think of a number and double it” acrticle.
Synthetic fury at anti-Catholic feeling in the last day or so they have been ready to point up Mrs Clegg being a Roman Catholic as if this were something to be held against her.
Perhaps I missed it, but the Mail story appears to omit mentioning that the author of this unfortunately worded document was educated at a public school. I wonder why?
If, on the other hand, a junior civil servant had come out with similarly disrespectful comments to do with some senior Islamic cleric (say for example Ken Livingstone’s mate Sheikh Qaradawi) then what would your response have been? Most of you would be spluttering with indignation, shouting ‘Islamophobia!’, accusing the civil servant in question of being a BNP supporter and calling for his immediate dismissal.
When it comes to rank hypocrisy you lefties can hold your own against the ‘Daily Mail’ any day.
Well put Neander,their hypocrisy knows no bounds.And ,by the way, it was a papal aide who mentioned dark forces. Also just look at what John Cowan has said on his blog. Now that’s hypocrisy!
That’s right Neander; no doubt you can find lots of examples to back up your theory, and will be happy to post the links to prove that “lefties” routinely accuse civil servants of being BNP supporters, shout “Islamophobia” and call for their dismissal. Until then, I reserve the right to regard you as an ill-informed, cliché spouting troll.
Some might consider that actively suppressing the proper invetigation of child abuse is a more serious matter than preparing an ill-advised memo about a Papal visit, but you have your priorities in order as you see them.
“Also just look at what John Cowan has said on his blog. Now that’s hypocrisy!”
That will be the John Cowan who is alleged to have posted offensive comments on messageboards (NOT on his own blog), and who has already been suspended from the Labour Party, and is facing expulsion. Not the most compelling example of so-called Left-wing hypocrisy then, is it?
Neander: funny thing was that I was going to add something along the lines that the Mail (rather than your tired ‘most of you’ – it’s Mail Watch see – not Comment Watch) should be upset by Islamogag emails in just the same way, but wouldn’t be. But then what with the Catholic abuse cases and all being current, and teh Pope is visiting, and your Islam thing being, well, just the same old boring shite.
Islam is just as crazy as Catholicism. Paedo jokes are easier. Can’t wait for the new Chris Morris film.
Lady Burglar: Crisis what crisis? Your recollection of events are somewhat odd.
‘Perhaps I missed it, but the Mail story appears to omit mentioning that the author of this unfortunately worded document was educated at a public school. I wonder why?’
-er probably because it’s not relevant or even very interesting seeing as most of us have never heard of the school
‘I knew one of our regular trolls would come in and trot out the hoary old ‘You won’t insult any religion bar Christianity!’ chestnut. Zzzzz………’
I’m sure you did but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
‘Some might consider that actively suppressing the proper investigation of child abuse is a more serious matter than preparing an ill-advised memo about a Papal visit,’ –
Indeed they might – but that didn’t stop some almighty cover-ups over the Islington and North Wales child abuse scandals. (or are you all too young to remember them?)
‘ Not the most compelling example of so-called Left-wing hypocrisy then, is it?’
No not when there are so many to choose from
‘Indeed they might – but that didn’t stop some almighty cover-ups over the Islington and North Wales child abuse scandals. (or are you all too young to remember them?)’
Presumably those were fiendish left-wing orchestrated cover-ups!
@the_voice_of_reason……“lefties” routinely accuse civil servants’ etc. What I actually said was that if a senior Islamic cleric had been ridiculed by a civil servant in this way, then that would have been the likely response of most visitors to this site. And speaking as somebody who has visited this site many a time I can say with confidence that Islam gets a far easier ride from most of you than any other religion (JSwindle being an honourable exception to this rule). What intrigues me about this is that several of the regulars on this site have openly acknowledged that they are gay (which I don’t have a problem with) and yet they are still respectful towards Islam, a religion that, even in its milder forms, is extremely homophobic. Yes, okay, the Pope is homophobic too, but even he doesn’t advocate that gays be put to death. Maybe certain of the contributors to this site should form a new group, ‘Gays for Sharia’.
Neander: Kindly do not assume what may be my, or any other commenter here’s “likely response” to a hypothetical situation. This site is called “Daily Mail Watch”, and people are therefore commenting upon the front page of the “Daily Mail”.
Incidentally, as a lifelong atheist I reserve the right, should i see fit, to regard Islamic beliefs and practices as every bit as preposterous as Christian ones, or, for that matter, belief in Zeus,Amun-Ra, Odin, the Hindu pantheon or any other deity for whose existence there is not a scrap of evidence.
Finally though, if you’re opposed to Sharia law, do you propose that we abolish the parts of Common Law that can trace their origin back to post-1066 Norman Law, given that much of that was derived from the teachings of the Sharia jurists of Norman Sicily?
“[Me ]‘Perhaps I missed it, but the Mail story appears to omit mentioning that the author of this unfortunately worded document was educated at a public school. I wonder why?’
[Kario] -er probably because it’s not relevant or even very interesting seeing as most of us have never heard of the school”
No, it’s very relevant since the omission achieves the desired result, viz multiple comments on the Mail website saying that this just shows how bad education has become under Labour.
Likewise the story about the unauthorised extension being demolished: no mention of the make-up of the council (in particular that it has *no* Labour councillors) leading to lots of comments show that the tactic has worked, e.g. “There they go again, the lie-bour thugs beating up on old age pensioner”, The Mail, of course, disassociates itself totally from the comments made, but is more than happy to see ones like this posted.
I’m a disgusting left-wing atheist and I don’t have much time for either Catholicism or Islam. I see the point you make about lefties not wishing to upset high ranking islamic types and I wish that people like me would be more consistent in their lack of faith.
Matt Hurst, perhaps you have not had the temerity to question their agenda. If you had you would know how vindictive they can be. Mandleson is a prime example!
Just to add to my previous comment, 4 above, we’ve had the multiple wheelie bins (Conservative-controlled council but this not mentioned), illegal extension demolished (do.), woman prosecuted re cardboard and recycling bin (do.) and today “In a case costing the taxpayer thousands of pounds, he was pursued with the full force of the law by his Labour-run authority”. And they think we don’t notice …
JSwindle, there has been numerous well documented occasions when Labour have rounded on those who question their values.Yesterday’s debacle concerning Groan Brown and the Rochdale lady who ventured an opinion on immigration is a case in point. Q.E.D.
Lady Burglar – I don’t get what you mean, especially since you’ve come here to round on those who question the values of the Daily Mail. Which is what this site is more about than being pro Labour, if it is at all. Not liking the Mail does not a Broonite Nu-Liebour drone make.
I haven’t seen anything you’ve written that couldn’t be said against polititions in general, nor have you said where you really got that Crisis No Crisis thing from since it clearly wasn’t when you were at an airport hearing it first hand. Not wanting to be Paxman about this, but you can be a fine example of the exact same thing you go on about. You seem very much my party right or wrong,
I’ve never voted Labour, also, and come from a famlily of conservative party members going back generations, working and middle class.
JS-well, thank goodness you were brought up nicely.Although i can offer you no concrete proof,believe me “crisis” not chaos was the word used. Crisis is a common accountancy term for impending doom, and boy was it dire.Please do not try to close down debate as it is not worthy of you.
Lady B, I bet you don’t get how patronising that ‘nicley’ bit was. Maybe you do. I’ve found it’s a conservative thing, by and large.
And by all sources bar you chaos was the word used, not crisis, and the one historians quote. Lefty historians with their agendas, probably. No, The Sun just twisted it. Papers do that, on all sides. I’m up for learning different if you can find the footage, it would be interesting.
“Please do not try to close down debate as it is not worthy of you.” – Eh? I’m just asking that you don’t just make stuff up to point score. It might work in a pub or at a coffee morning or if you are talking to a child, but not on the ‘net. You can’t have a debate if one side is living in fantasy.
Did you hear the Paxman interview last night? Brown said that Paxman has misunderstood the phrase”no more boom and bust” Err- a bit like Brown misunderstood Mrs. Duffy. Never believe the Labour party.
I did watch the interview last night and thought Brown did OK and that Paxman actually accepted the difference between the global/country boom/bust thing which I guess you don’t.
Not that this has anythng to do with anything, hence ‘touche’.
Complementing me on saying you had made a point by mentioning something irrelevant – politition lies/ fudges truth? Well OK.
Global financial meltdowns were not part of the discourse because nobody saw one coming since the one we are in is the first to be a result of globalisation, so could not have been part of an original boom/bust meaning – which he explained was about interest rates. Paxman did not argue against this point.
Paxman wouldn’t as he’s left wing anyway.If Brown was such a financial wizard he would have seen it coming,an awful lot of people warned him. I thought, when you said “touche” you were admitting I was scoring a point,(as in fencing).
Yes, the touche bit was a ’sarcastic’ fencing line because you made no point by going off on about Brown. Not your ‘thanks’ I’m sure that was genuine.
So, no, the Paxman interview with Brown did not make Labour out to be evil, or any less like any other politicians I’ve ever seen interviewed. The old joke is that you can tell how any one of them is lying because their lips move and they, as a bunch, are not famous for their direct answers as Michael Howard so brilliant demonstrated. Brown admited he failed to put in place a global system, boom & bust was in reference to a non-global economy.
Please demonstrate Paxman having left wing bias, or just forget that you bothered mentioning the interview since it’s really not helping Labour look particulaily evil or helping you make a point. I’m not convince his ego would take not being able to grill anyone and everything no matter how he votes.
My point was that whatever the Labour party mouth they always deny they said it if things do not go their way.As for evil, I stand by my convictions. I have had many a run in with them,on various committees, and their concept of right and wrong beggars belief.30 years ago they were trying to introduce explicit sexual lessons for 7 year old children and I managed to scotch that,and were they vindictive! There are many more examples I could give but I will not bore you.
And we now have the highest teenage pregancies in western Europe and yet are still incredibly awkward about anything to do with sex. Better for seven year olds to get their lessons from porn wound in playing fields, eh? Right and wrong, pa-lease, and in an anecdote from 30 years ago? Fine.
I’ll just end with this; anything you seem to be saying about Labour can easily be said for politicians in general but you, like a football fan, have picked your side. I’m more interested in the game in general, and why people read the Mail without being able to see through it – which is why I come here.
Do you not think there is a correlation between the statistics you have quoted and the laxity around teaching such things to chilren who have neither the maturity or wisdom to deal with it? You will probably find it amusing, but I was 27 before I found out what a homosexual was.I don’t think it did me any harm
If you were a homosexual then not hearing about homosexuality would have done you a lot of harm, possibly self harm. If you were a young and impresionable lad in a group with others who started shouting homophobic stuff in the street, then I’d say you’d be ill equipped to… I hope you get my point. It’s not about you and you can’t catch homosexuality by knowing it exists.
And going from Labour being evil to sex ed to homosexuality is just plain weird because being gay isn’t just about doing people up the wrong one. I don’t find it funny that you were 27 any more than I find it funny that it used to be a crime that you could be locked up for, ironically – with other men.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mailwatch. mailwatch said: Front Page: Mail: http://bit.ly/bNNS14 #media #dailymail [...]
That would be really tragic if the homophobic old git couldn’t come here.
“Dark Forces” a junior Clerical Officer somewhere in the Foreign Office who thought he had a sense of humour.
BTW has Clegg had a sex change?
“Fury” from both the Mail and the Express today but about different things. Sometimes it’s difficult to know what to get angry about first.
@Phil
Well they both have some “fury” at Clegg, so clearly Nick is doing something right (although not far right obviously).
What’s the betting that they manage to mention Clegg’s wife is Spanish and his Russian/Dutch roots at some point amongst the “think of a number and double it” acrticle.
Synthetic fury at anti-Catholic feeling in the last day or so they have been ready to point up Mrs Clegg being a Roman Catholic as if this were something to be held against her.
sorry second comment of mine above in the wrong thread.
For a moment there, I thought they’d misspelled “Dark Faces”.
How dare anyone say anything in humour about that foreign paedo enabling blood drinker.
Perhaps I missed it, but the Mail story appears to omit mentioning that the author of this unfortunately worded document was educated at a public school. I wonder why?
Nick Clegg drags up nicely doesn’t he?
As I said comment 3
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268780/Steven-Mulvain-Oxford-graduate-Pope-condom-memo-job.html
If, on the other hand, a junior civil servant had come out with similarly disrespectful comments to do with some senior Islamic cleric (say for example Ken Livingstone’s mate Sheikh Qaradawi) then what would your response have been? Most of you would be spluttering with indignation, shouting ‘Islamophobia!’, accusing the civil servant in question of being a BNP supporter and calling for his immediate dismissal.
When it comes to rank hypocrisy you lefties can hold your own against the ‘Daily Mail’ any day.
Some people really ought to keep it shut.
“Dark forces”……hmmmmm, whatever could they mean?
A joke internal circular in an office?
My idea of ‘dark forces’ would be a bunch of child molesters they have knowingly (including the Pope himself) shielded for decades.
Well put Neander,their hypocrisy knows no bounds.And ,by the way, it was a papal aide who mentioned dark forces. Also just look at what John Cowan has said on his blog. Now that’s hypocrisy!
That’s right Neander; no doubt you can find lots of examples to back up your theory, and will be happy to post the links to prove that “lefties” routinely accuse civil servants of being BNP supporters, shout “Islamophobia” and call for their dismissal. Until then, I reserve the right to regard you as an ill-informed, cliché spouting troll.
Some might consider that actively suppressing the proper invetigation of child abuse is a more serious matter than preparing an ill-advised memo about a Papal visit, but you have your priorities in order as you see them.
Well said the voice of reason
Lady burglar:
“Also just look at what John Cowan has said on his blog. Now that’s hypocrisy!”
That will be the John Cowan who is alleged to have posted offensive comments on messageboards (NOT on his own blog), and who has already been suspended from the Labour Party, and is facing expulsion. Not the most compelling example of so-called Left-wing hypocrisy then, is it?
Well said again, the_voice_of_reason!
I knew one of our regular trolls would come in and trot out the hoary old ‘You won’t insult any religion bar Christianity!’ chestnut. Zzzzz………
I have been at many official meetings involving the Labour party and believe me 99% of them are evil
@ lady burglar:
Evil? LOL! You do make me laugh sometimes!
Neander: funny thing was that I was going to add something along the lines that the Mail (rather than your tired ‘most of you’ – it’s Mail Watch see – not Comment Watch) should be upset by Islamogag emails in just the same way, but wouldn’t be. But then what with the Catholic abuse cases and all being current, and teh Pope is visiting, and your Islam thing being, well, just the same old boring shite.
Islam is just as crazy as Catholicism. Paedo jokes are easier. Can’t wait for the new Chris Morris film.
Lady Burglar: Crisis what crisis? Your recollection of events are somewhat odd.
‘Perhaps I missed it, but the Mail story appears to omit mentioning that the author of this unfortunately worded document was educated at a public school. I wonder why?’
-er probably because it’s not relevant or even very interesting seeing as most of us have never heard of the school
‘I knew one of our regular trolls would come in and trot out the hoary old ‘You won’t insult any religion bar Christianity!’ chestnut. Zzzzz………’
I’m sure you did but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
‘Some might consider that actively suppressing the proper investigation of child abuse is a more serious matter than preparing an ill-advised memo about a Papal visit,’ –
Indeed they might – but that didn’t stop some almighty cover-ups over the Islington and North Wales child abuse scandals. (or are you all too young to remember them?)
‘ Not the most compelling example of so-called Left-wing hypocrisy then, is it?’
No not when there are so many to choose from
Nick Clegg looks like he’s ready to get into bed with Gordon Brown.
“I have been at many official meetings involving the Labour party and believe me 99% of them are evil”
Defeated by your flawless logic and superlative punctuation, my post above now just looks stupid. Incidentally, how can an official meeting be “evil”?
‘Indeed they might – but that didn’t stop some almighty cover-ups over the Islington and North Wales child abuse scandals. (or are you all too young to remember them?)’
Presumably those were fiendish left-wing orchestrated cover-ups!
I do love the anecdote evidence backed up by a unplausible statistic.
I’ve been to many Official Labour meetings also and the only evil one I’ve come across was when someone forgot the water.
@the_voice_of_reason……“lefties” routinely accuse civil servants’ etc. What I actually said was that if a senior Islamic cleric had been ridiculed by a civil servant in this way, then that would have been the likely response of most visitors to this site. And speaking as somebody who has visited this site many a time I can say with confidence that Islam gets a far easier ride from most of you than any other religion (JSwindle being an honourable exception to this rule). What intrigues me about this is that several of the regulars on this site have openly acknowledged that they are gay (which I don’t have a problem with) and yet they are still respectful towards Islam, a religion that, even in its milder forms, is extremely homophobic. Yes, okay, the Pope is homophobic too, but even he doesn’t advocate that gays be put to death. Maybe certain of the contributors to this site should form a new group, ‘Gays for Sharia’.
Neander: Kindly do not assume what may be my, or any other commenter here’s “likely response” to a hypothetical situation. This site is called “Daily Mail Watch”, and people are therefore commenting upon the front page of the “Daily Mail”.
Incidentally, as a lifelong atheist I reserve the right, should i see fit, to regard Islamic beliefs and practices as every bit as preposterous as Christian ones, or, for that matter, belief in Zeus,Amun-Ra, Odin, the Hindu pantheon or any other deity for whose existence there is not a scrap of evidence.
Finally though, if you’re opposed to Sharia law, do you propose that we abolish the parts of Common Law that can trace their origin back to post-1066 Norman Law, given that much of that was derived from the teachings of the Sharia jurists of Norman Sicily?
“[Me ]‘Perhaps I missed it, but the Mail story appears to omit mentioning that the author of this unfortunately worded document was educated at a public school. I wonder why?’
[Kario] -er probably because it’s not relevant or even very interesting seeing as most of us have never heard of the school”
No, it’s very relevant since the omission achieves the desired result, viz multiple comments on the Mail website saying that this just shows how bad education has become under Labour.
Likewise the story about the unauthorised extension being demolished: no mention of the make-up of the council (in particular that it has *no* Labour councillors) leading to lots of comments show that the tactic has worked, e.g. “There they go again, the lie-bour thugs beating up on old age pensioner”, The Mail, of course, disassociates itself totally from the comments made, but is more than happy to see ones like this posted.
Out of my depth on this thread, lost track of it, can any one summarise?
Neander –
I’m a disgusting left-wing atheist and I don’t have much time for either Catholicism or Islam. I see the point you make about lefties not wishing to upset high ranking islamic types and I wish that people like me would be more consistent in their lack of faith.
Cheers.
Matt Hurst, perhaps you have not had the temerity to question their agenda. If you had you would know how vindictive they can be. Mandleson is a prime example!
Just to add to my previous comment, 4 above, we’ve had the multiple wheelie bins (Conservative-controlled council but this not mentioned), illegal extension demolished (do.), woman prosecuted re cardboard and recycling bin (do.) and today “In a case costing the taxpayer thousands of pounds, he was pursued with the full force of the law by his Labour-run authority”. And they think we don’t notice …
Madnleson = vindictive = evil. Mandleson = Labour. 99% Official Labour Party meetings therefore evil.
Can’t fault that logic.
JSwindle, there has been numerous well documented occasions when Labour have rounded on those who question their values.Yesterday’s debacle concerning Groan Brown and the Rochdale lady who ventured an opinion on immigration is a case in point. Q.E.D.
LB – “Groan Brown”.
Ha ha. That’s very clever.
How’s that working out for you? Being clever?
Andy, are you are Labourite too? Because your reply would be absolutely typical.Not reasoned but just shouting down.
My politics? I’ll vote for whoever gives me the greatest licence to do what I like and damn the consequenses. Can’t deal with it? Wimp!
And a blowjob and £100,000 tax free.
And a massive yacht.
Or maybe – just maybe – I think that lazy puns on people’s names show a certain level of desperation.
Andy-your reply, once again Q.E.D.
Lady Burglar – I don’t get what you mean, especially since you’ve come here to round on those who question the values of the Daily Mail. Which is what this site is more about than being pro Labour, if it is at all. Not liking the Mail does not a Broonite Nu-Liebour drone make.
I haven’t seen anything you’ve written that couldn’t be said against polititions in general, nor have you said where you really got that Crisis No Crisis thing from since it clearly wasn’t when you were at an airport hearing it first hand. Not wanting to be Paxman about this, but you can be a fine example of the exact same thing you go on about. You seem very much my party right or wrong,
I’ve never voted Labour, also, and come from a famlily of conservative party members going back generations, working and middle class.
The Lady Burglar is not for turning.
JS-well, thank goodness you were brought up nicely.Although i can offer you no concrete proof,believe me “crisis” not chaos was the word used. Crisis is a common accountancy term for impending doom, and boy was it dire.Please do not try to close down debate as it is not worthy of you.
Lady B, I bet you don’t get how patronising that ‘nicley’ bit was. Maybe you do. I’ve found it’s a conservative thing, by and large.
And by all sources bar you chaos was the word used, not crisis, and the one historians quote. Lefty historians with their agendas, probably. No, The Sun just twisted it. Papers do that, on all sides. I’m up for learning different if you can find the footage, it would be interesting.
“Please do not try to close down debate as it is not worthy of you.” – Eh? I’m just asking that you don’t just make stuff up to point score. It might work in a pub or at a coffee morning or if you are talking to a child, but not on the ‘net. You can’t have a debate if one side is living in fantasy.
Did you hear the Paxman interview last night? Brown said that Paxman has misunderstood the phrase”no more boom and bust” Err- a bit like Brown misunderstood Mrs. Duffy. Never believe the Labour party.
Touche.
thanks JS I appreciate that
See, that was sarcastic.
I did watch the interview last night and thought Brown did OK and that Paxman actually accepted the difference between the global/country boom/bust thing which I guess you don’t.
Not that this has anythng to do with anything, hence ‘touche’.
I relly did mean it as acpmpliment, But then I take it back.Brown is trying to wriggle out of his original meaning.
Complementing me on saying you had made a point by mentioning something irrelevant – politition lies/ fudges truth? Well OK.
Global financial meltdowns were not part of the discourse because nobody saw one coming since the one we are in is the first to be a result of globalisation, so could not have been part of an original boom/bust meaning – which he explained was about interest rates. Paxman did not argue against this point.
Paxman wouldn’t as he’s left wing anyway.If Brown was such a financial wizard he would have seen it coming,an awful lot of people warned him. I thought, when you said “touche” you were admitting I was scoring a point,(as in fencing).
Yes, the touche bit was a ’sarcastic’ fencing line because you made no point by going off on about Brown. Not your ‘thanks’ I’m sure that was genuine.
So, no, the Paxman interview with Brown did not make Labour out to be evil, or any less like any other politicians I’ve ever seen interviewed. The old joke is that you can tell how any one of them is lying because their lips move and they, as a bunch, are not famous for their direct answers as Michael Howard so brilliant demonstrated. Brown admited he failed to put in place a global system, boom & bust was in reference to a non-global economy.
Please demonstrate Paxman having left wing bias, or just forget that you bothered mentioning the interview since it’s really not helping Labour look particulaily evil or helping you make a point. I’m not convince his ego would take not being able to grill anyone and everything no matter how he votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJIjTviLLTs&feature=related
Because Blair doesn’t seem to get off easy.
My point was that whatever the Labour party mouth they always deny they said it if things do not go their way.As for evil, I stand by my convictions. I have had many a run in with them,on various committees, and their concept of right and wrong beggars belief.30 years ago they were trying to introduce explicit sexual lessons for 7 year old children and I managed to scotch that,and were they vindictive! There are many more examples I could give but I will not bore you.
And we now have the highest teenage pregancies in western Europe and yet are still incredibly awkward about anything to do with sex. Better for seven year olds to get their lessons from porn wound in playing fields, eh? Right and wrong, pa-lease, and in an anecdote from 30 years ago? Fine.
I’ll just end with this; anything you seem to be saying about Labour can easily be said for politicians in general but you, like a football fan, have picked your side. I’m more interested in the game in general, and why people read the Mail without being able to see through it – which is why I come here.
Do you not think there is a correlation between the statistics you have quoted and the laxity around teaching such things to chilren who have neither the maturity or wisdom to deal with it? You will probably find it amusing, but I was 27 before I found out what a homosexual was.I don’t think it did me any harm
I’m not a statistician, but I do find it amusing that many people who hate the idea of kids being told how babies are made are often the same who say the government has done shag all to stop kids getting pregnant.
Also: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5208865.ece
If you were a homosexual then not hearing about homosexuality would have done you a lot of harm, possibly self harm. If you were a young and impresionable lad in a group with others who started shouting homophobic stuff in the street, then I’d say you’d be ill equipped to… I hope you get my point. It’s not about you and you can’t catch homosexuality by knowing it exists.
And going from Labour being evil to sex ed to homosexuality is just plain weird because being gay isn’t just about doing people up the wrong one. I don’t find it funny that you were 27 any more than I find it funny that it used to be a crime that you could be locked up for, ironically – with other men.