The initial email response from the PCC must have put off so many people as I am sure was its intention. It is actually not true at all to say that only directly affected parties can complain and I find it disingenuous in the extreme to suggest this in the way this mail did. This really only refers, in this case, to intrusion into grief. Anyone can complain about the inaccuracy in the article.

I replied in email at first, then realised that this was not likely to be dealt with properly and complained again, this time as an affected third party and NOT to the special link for Jan Moir complaints, which is probably a dev/null location but via the normal channel.

I didn’t receive a response from them again, either to my renewed complaint or to my email, which I find a trifle worrying now I think of it.

jan.moir@dailymail.co.uk

In fact, send more than one email, you’ll feel so much better when you tell her *exactly* how you feel. I did! ];-)

I take your point (I toyed over this with the headline). What I was talking about was the tactics used to confront her. What I think about her is another matter.

There are lots of people who’ve read it and ‘don’t see the problem’ (ie my dad). So this means explaining how what she wrote was heterosexist. Quite a few writers have done this. Just calling her ‘homophobic’ without explaining is the issue. Substitute ‘racist’ and maybe it’s clearer?

“I don’t think Jan Moir is about fear, she’s about superiority. I think this because that’s what she wrote”.

I’m not defending her and loved your post, but I’m still unsure as to how to gauge the general response.

1. Mandates the death penalty for HIV-positive people who engage in sex with people of the same gender;
2. Calls for Uganda to withdraw from all international treaties and conventions which support the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals;
3. Introduces extradition arrangements for Ugandan citizens who perform ‘homosexual acts’ abroad
4. Includes legal penalties for people who fail to report alleged homosexual acts or individuals and institutions that promote homosexuality or same-sex marriage to the authorities.

The tabling of the bill has been accompanied by threats against any Ugandan media organisation that allows LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) Ugandans to air their views or publish press statements.

Full details can be seen here: http://bit.ly/9FFF4. The article also speculates about the motives for the bill, and is an excellent read. Please do have a look, when you have a moment.

Jan Moir has a valid point as we all know: heterosexual relationships never end in divorce
heterosexual partners never cheat on their wives or husbands
heterosexual partners never have ‘threesomes’
heterosexual partners are never subject to domestic abuse
heterosexuals never take drugs

In fact heterosexual relationships are just pink and fluffy

That’s all I have to say