I wonder if this will get through:

Good to see she is still getting a good kicking. That column is a total pile of pig turds. Does anyone seriously belive her?

Also why is that people convinced they are 'the silent majority' never shut the fuck up?

And given that the "silent majority" seem to share many of the beliefs of the BNP, how come they aren't in Government with a massive majority?

Indeed the same could be said of UKIP and the Tories.

God she really is making it worse isn't she? And she can't even see it.

For the last time Moir, NO ONE is trying to stifle "free speech" or the freedom of the press: It's your judgmental attitude people are angry about.

No one is saying she shouldn't have the right to write any article she wishes, or that the paper shouldn't have the right to print them, but this isn't an attack on free speech, it's an attack on journalistic lack of responsibility.

Like Chris Rock says: "You could probably drive a car with your feet if you wanted to, but that doesn't mean you should do it".

Just because there is freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has free reign to print anything no matter how vile, or that just because you know you could write something so hurtful and it would be accepted by your editor that you therefor should.

With rights comes responsibility, and if you are fortunate enough to live in a place were you are free to say whatever you wish, it is up to you to use your mind and basic sense of human morality to decide how you can do this without hurting others.

She can say all she wants about gay relationships at home, or among friends who can tolerate her, but in public (and I for one consider a newspaper article to be "public") she must understand that there is a difference between speaking about your concerns on a certain issue, and just been blatantly rude, ignorant and hurtful, and in this case not to mention deeply disrespectful to him and his loved ones.

Yet if her latest article is anything to go by, not only can she still not see that, but she can't even acknowledge how her words could have been taken in that way, and instead chooses to hang on the freedom of speech issue, no doubt knowing that it's an issue that will cause a Pavlovian response from the Mail's core readership and many others.

If she was really misunderstood and her article was taken the wrong way then she had every opportunity in the one that followed to explain herself and put things right. Instead what she wrote just proves that she meant every word of it.

What a bitch, and that's me been generous.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ators.html

Now she can't write anything without...






Along with the statutory:

What a load of ill informed paranoid shite.

What do you think are the odds of me getting this in?

You were expecting something better?

Submitted feedback signed "CUthbert N Thomas"

Let us know if you see it

Made it, and I'm one in the green so far.

Result!

Back of the net!!!

She's desperately trying to regain face by writing something pro-internet. It's quite sad.

Well I don't put anything past Plymothians so I checked this out on the local paper. Surprisingly they didn't mention any advert-related details, except right at the end, which appears to have been written by a journalist rather than a quotation. Hmmmm.

A nice little award for the lovely, terrifically pro equality Jan

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/11/06/da ... ear-award/