1 vote for Guido

While I admit Guido's campaign against Hague's SpAd Christopher Myers, complete with a lot of speculation about sexuality, may not be the most important political issue of the day and he should be relaxing on holiday, he is ultimately, right

Now the boy has quit, Hague's crying about miscarriages and Iain Dale is a very angry homosexual

Firstly, I think Guido is bang on for questioning why an inexperienced personal friend was parachuted into a plum SpAd role over other, more qualified candidates, and the fact that they shared a room only serves to lend weight to the theory that his appointment is personal, not professional, regardless of whether there was anything going on or not

Secondly - if this was a 25 year old woman, would it be, as Guido says, heterophobic? It's perfectly legitimate to question the scenario, and in fact surely this is the way forward for homosexuality - to be seen as usual, if we expect a politician to be bonking his male assistant as much as his female one surely that's a good day for equality?

It's her again

Last week, Allison Pearson got on my tits a bit with her claims of how great marriage is for society

On that entry I received a comment (anon) that pointed out she herself is divorced, and has children with a man she isn't married to

Wikipedia confirms this, as much as it can confirm anything (it also states she is my near-neighbour - so many annoying media types seem to take up refuge in my dear city)

So while I cannot claim certainty on the matter, I do have to question this article

My husband would kill to defend our family... so why has Munir Hussain been jailed for protecting his? [italics mine, of course]

Far be it for me to suggest she is lying, I have no proof of that, but I do have to question the headline, and would ask her to confirm her status, perhaps on her wikipedia entry - considering how she slammed unmarried mothers last week I would hate to think she is a hypocrite, or indeed, misleading the public on this issue

He kissed a boy!...Get the shotgun

Some bloke called Adam Lambert, who may or may not have won American Idol, I really don't care, has caused outrage in the US after kissing *a man* on stage

Shock horror!

Pity it's only 1500 complaints - I was sure there would be more prudes in the US, the Mail could whip up those numbers easily - the yanks got half a million for a nipple!!

Of course women would be fine - hardly a show goes by without a lesbian kiss these days (Heroes, Stargate Universe) - seriously, it's not shocking anymore, if it ever was

Bruno ruffles feahers

Bruno at the MTV awards

Hehe - he just had to hit Eminem didn't he? He, and his large, surly entourage, were not impressed with a naked Austrian homosexual landing on them

Lighten up, boys

Feminism is against my beliefs...do I have to obey Hattie?

Why do I do it? Why do I even look at the Fail? All it results in is me arguing against a poorly argued article with ridiculous bias for no reason

But I can't help myself - naturally I expect nothing less than a sensationalised article utilising flawed logic, but bad arguing pisses me off

(and talking of bad arguing, Labour using PMQs to support the Equalities bill and attack the Equal opportunities bill, calling it an attack on equality, was disgusting)

I have my own beefs with the BAAF, because believe it or not I've actually been involved with them as a reference, and I oppose their ridiculous 'same race' policy, although the case I was in was actually a white couple adopting a black child...so go figure on that one...

And I do actually think this is one time where a bit of PC wouldn't be out of place - a public body calling anything 'retarded' is a tad out of order, especially one that insists on using such strong rules on sexual and racial equality - some of us may use 'retarded' in everyday speech, and I don't object to it, but it's really an insult these days and has no place in such a publication

So that's that cleared up, now onto the Mail's reporting - one particular thing stuck out, the segment with 'it's against our Christian beliefs' inserted

I ask: SO? All you had to do is sign the form that assured you were happy with the equalities rules, you didn't even have to invite the gays round for drinks

This is of course the same paper that will wail on muslims the second they say something in British culture is against their beliefs, but if it's the other minority: Chrisitians, oh no, they must be respected

My arse they must be, a lot of things are against religious beliefs - presumably Judaism is against their beliefs too, should Jews be allowed to adopt?

We live in a secular democracy - that means our laws are based on secular, logical ideas, not one minorities' fairy-tale book, and it means they have been approved by a democratically elected government (however much I disagree with them) - the people have spoken as it were

Nobody is asking these people to 'promote' homosexuals (if they actually are, I will happily apologise) - presumably it's just one of those silly check box 'I agree to xxx policy' things, it doesn't impact on you!

What really bugs me is that the Mail will happily tell the brown skinned people in dresses that their religion is a private matter, but if it Christians - "they must be respected!!1!1!"

Oh and then there's the stock comment about Christians being 'marginalised' - right, so you get positive press in one of the largest newspapers, have a benchful of Bishops in the Lords, have a disproportianely high amount of Christians in the Commons, get your own state-funded faith schools...need I go on?

The hypocrisy of both the Mail and Christian groups is stunning, but sadly, not unexpected - I remember the last time Ruth Kelly angered me was when the surprisingly high amount of Catholic Labour MPs nearly derailed the abortion laws thanks to their beliefs - did a society, with what, a 7% Catholic population, really want their representatives to change a law based on their own personal beliefs? If you want to vote based on religion then you should stand on a religious ticket (as Ann Widdecombe did)

In the Interests of Fairness

Don't say I only focus on the mad ravings of the Right - oh no, the Gruniad can in fact piss me off before I even get to the bottom of an article

Take this from Zoe Williams about Chris Moyles and that 'gay' bit he did a few months ago

Now the irony is I actually agree with her sentiments - I don't like banning words, or giving protection to 'communities' who we draw a big line around

What I do have a problem with is her assumptions

"I think he probably is homophobic, in the broadest, most traditional sense of the word: that he esteems his own status more highly than that of gay men, presses them without conscience into his own hamfisted comic structures, makes the world a little bit meaner a place to be gay in."

Why does it always have to be some sort of unconscious prejudice with you peoople? People make jokes, we all get mocked at some time or another - usually it is for being different, say what you will about society from that - but don't accuse someone of sending up Will Young as subconsciously attempting to put gay people down, Moyles even has a gay producer with whom they talk about his relationships (and I'm sure that is somehow further proof of his prejudice..)

Meanwhile she is perfectly happy for Matt Lucas' gay/Welsh character Dafyd - because there isn't a victim involved, Lucas is of course gay himself - so it's ironic, not hurtful, apparently the Welsh are not yet a protected species

This is the same logic that allows only the Jews to mock Jews, and the Blacks to mock Blacks (and yet also Whites, Chris Rock)

Like I say - her analysis of the legal situation is fine, it is completely foolish to legislate hate speech - but her reasoning is all messed up and is typical of the many people who disapprove of 'louts' like Moyles

It is curious that he is often referred to as a 'lout' by the listeners of Radios 2 and 4, who I'm fairly certain have never heard much of him apart from the odd news story where he laughs a bit coarsely or might have said something rude and yet he remains popular with 7 million+ people

While he does drink quite heavily, I don't really see why he's a lout - he was quite impassioned over his latest Comic Relief adventure, and many of his songs are quite witty and appreciated by millions - of course the term 'lout' is subjective and one that is designed to pass judgement from the over-40s, but I've never seen any reason to call him a lout, far as I can tell he is a lout because he's a bit tubby, and gobby (all DJs are gobby, that's their job)

Isn't that fattist?

If you need any further proof of how out of step with reality people like Zoe are, here it is:

"It's certainly true that "gay" as a playground insult has taken off in the past five years, and I blame Moyles again, rather than the more ambiguous Little Britain taunting"

Is it? I left school over five years ago and believe me, 'gay' was a perjorative back in primary school in the early 90s - she clearly blames the one incident where Moyles called a ringtone 'a bit gay' in 2006 as some sort of flashpoint - truth is Moyles probably picked that up from school himself, it's a pretty common term for the under 35s

But no doubt having just heard her own precious snowflakes come back from school and call a certain TV show, or popular product, 'gay' she has placed the blame solely at the feet of current DJ Chris Moyles - I would love to know how she blames Moyles for making me and my classmates, who finished before he was even put on the show (we had Sara Cox, yawn), for making us go around calling everything 'gay'