Moir's second non-apology

For an ex-restaurant critic - she really does take the biscuit.

It's all still sleazy apparently...

Jan Moir apologises for timing of Stephen Gately article.

With the threat of a PCC complaint in the wings she's in with a 'quick' bit of damage limitation. So an apology for the timing - uh? in anyone else plain old common decency would have meant she'd have held off with the slander before he was buried - but there you go... and a somewhat late apology to Stephen Gately's friends and family. Although she now adds that she still thinks Gately's lifestyle was 'louche'. So that's nice of her. *Eyebrow raise*

But being disingenuous doesn't help:
"If he had been a heterosexual member of a boy band, I would have written exactly the same article"
um? Exactly? Word for word? Even the bit about civil partnerships - and their 'myth of happy-ever after'? and the tying in of the suicide of Kevin McGee - just to hammer the point home (with just the two examples) that somehow gay marriages end in tragedy and death?. Exactly? and then she further 'apologises' with: "I thought it a louche lifestyle; one that raised questions about health and personal safety."

Huh? What is she saying here? So don't have threesomes boys and girls - because that too could end in tragedy and death...

"I can't help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged? Or was it a failure of communication on my part?"

No, there's no compulsion Moir - it was there - your bigotry and social intolerance was plain for all to see. 'Was it failure of communication?' - well, either you were pandering to your readership (which after all is exactly what you're paid for - since you are SO NOT in any way a campaigner for tolerance and understanding, I have read some of your other sneering articles) in which case -job well done. Your silent majority which you imagine must be out there - somewhere - will be very happy with you. Or you *have* failed to communicate - in which case then you're not fit for purpose in your job - the proof being you've had the opportunity to 'explain' (there's been no real apology yet) your original article not once - but twice. And STILL caused righteous indignation - because you still can't see what it is you've done wrong. How callous can one person be?

Oh wait - no matter - my opinion doesn't count: because according to Jan 1. I'm either part of an orchestrated rent-a-mob, OR 2. simply determined to be outraged by an article I've never read (cough - splutter) OR 3. Not part of this 'silent majority' that supports her views.

I wonder if she is so apologetic that she wouldn't mind contributing the fees she received for her original article and the two following articles to the Caudwell Children Charity? It might be a step in the right direction for once.

posted a version of this as a comment on the Guardian website - and lo! it got put up without moderation - quick! - read it in situ before it gets pulled.

No comments: