And they illustrate this with a picture showing Argus Filch and Mrs Norris from Harry Potter… words fail me.
Newsflash: according to the Daily Mail, Serena Williams is a zombie.
No, really – I did a screen capture in case they correct their headline:
Oh, she nearly died then. I did think it might be a bit tricky to play tennis after you’re dead, but what do I know?
Jennifer Lawrence does something silly for attention. OK, must be Tuesday.
The DM then feels the need to refer to the Oscar-winning Lawrence – one of the highest-paid actresses in the world – as “the 27-year-old starlet”.
From the Collins dictionary:
A starlet is a young actress who is expected to become a film star in the future.
What the hell does it take?
Oh dear, poor DM. What can you do when you have to report on a story where both parties are people you loathe?
Out of curiosity, I typed “gypsies” into the DM search engine and got 134 results; they’re obviously not afraid of using the word. And yet this particular gypsy family is only described as “Catholic”; you will notice that nowhere in this article are they referred to as gypsies, only Roma. How unusually respectful for the DM; I wonder why…
Oh wait. Could it be that the gypsies are up against a gay couple, the DM’s other bête noire? So the gypsies get given a varnish of Christian respectability (or so the DM thinks) because hey, they may be terrible parents and probably thieves, but at least they’re not filthy sodomites!
Thank the Lord for small mercies and all that.
Why am I still reading this sad, miserable, squashed rag?
*sigh* here we go again. Point-by-point rebuttal alert! This is your last chance to turn around and run for the hills!
“But some gays, it seems, still feel they are the victims of discrimination.”
Oh, they feel that, do they? What an unfortunate statement to make today, of all days. And that’s only a very mild discrimination story, I could find much worse ones without looking too hard.
“Meanwhile Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, has circulated an email in which he announces a new series of training events for staff in primary and secondary schools this autumn ‘to equip teachers with the tools and confidence to tackle homosexual bullying’.
In fact, there’s no evidence of any homosexuals being bullied at any of these schools.”
You poor, naive man. Most bullying is invisible and/or ignored, even when the school has a self-proclaimed “anti-bullying policy”. There have been many cases of parents having to take their bullied child (for whatever reason) out of school, either because no one cared or because addressing the problem would have made the school look bad. The last thing an anti-bullying policy is supposed to do is unearth some bullying, because that would be awkward.
So please don’t say smugly “there’s no evidence, therefore it’s not happening” as this statement is truly laughable. An ostrich would be proud.
“None of these schools appears to be demonising homosexuals. Grace Academy, which runs schools with a Christian ethos in Coventry, Solihull and Darlaston in the West Midlands, is quoted by The Independent newspaper as saying: ‘The governing body will not permit the promotion of homosexuality.’”
Has anyone noticed that none of those people who go on about ‘promoting homosexuality’ ever explain what the hell that means? Because I for one would love to know.
Is it acknowledging that there are gay people in the world?
Is it mentioning homosexuality, in so many words, in public places?
Is it telling young people that no, they won’t go to hell for being gay, don’t be silly?
Is it allowing gay people to do, y’know, gay things, without putting them in jail?
Because all these things seem pretty normal to me. Replace the word ‘gay’ with ‘straight’ and ‘homosexuality’ with ‘heterosexuality’ in the above sentences and tell me, who would bat an eyelid?
“Not one school cited by campaigners denounces homosexuality, or suggests that gays are in any way reprehensible. They simply do not want to promote it on an equal basis with heterosexuality.”
Right. And yet he says…
“Most of us, I think, would abhor any educational establishment that encouraged its pupils to discriminate against homosexuals, or any other social group. Apart from being morally objectionable, such an approach would break a number of laws.”
So the overall message, I think, is “Listen, gay people: there’s nothing wrong with being gay – nothing whatsoever – but it’s still not as good as being straight.”
I am distinctly unimpressed. That’s what happens when you try to make an illogical argument sound logical: a severe case of cognitive dissonance.
“But shouldn’t parents who have reservations about the promotion of homosexuality on equal terms with heterosexuality be free to send their children to schools where their views are reflected, as well as respected?”
Is this a genuine question? Because my answer is a resounding NO. Parents should be prevented from filling their children’s heads with bullshit as much as possible. At worst it might stop the child from growing into an balanced, open-minded adult and at best, for all the unpleasantness it causes, it’s often a total waste of time and energy.
Case in point: I had a Catholic upbringing and a strongly homophobic father.
I know, right? I’m still wiping tears of laughter myself.
“Nonetheless, all things being equal, they would probably be happier if their children turned to be straight rather than gay.”
Then they are morons who don’t deserve their children. It’s that simple. Of course there are people out there who openly say “I hope my unborn kid isn’t ginger”, so never underestimate just how stupid mankind can be.
Out of interest, what is the point of starting this sentence with “All things being equal” when, according to you, they patently are not? Might as well have started with “I’m not a bigot, but…”
“Don’t such people have a right to influence their children’s values according to their own beliefs and consciences (…)?”
No! Absolutely not! I vomit on people who think it’s their right to indoctrinate their children!
Look, it’s very simple: either a kid turns out to be straight, or they turns out to be gay. There is nothing parents can do about it. There is nothing to promote.
If your kid is straight, gay people and things have no relevance whatsoever to their life, so why bother teach them to hate those people and things? You might as well teach them to hate Uzbek underwater basket-weaving.
If your kid is gay, you’ve just taught them to hate themselves. And you’ve also taught them that you hate them. Result. Be proud. One family ruined. Check!
“Gays should be free to live and work and play just as non-gays are (…)”
Why thank you, kind sir. You’re too good, you really are. I’m sure ‘gays’ (nobody says ‘straights’, do they?) are queueing up to kiss your feet as I speak, just look out of the window and see if I’m wrong.
“(…) and it is a credit to our society that at last they are able to do so.”
That’s no thanks to you though, is it? Please don’t take credit for what was achieved by people you despise and almost certainly opposed at every turn. It makes you look pathetic.
“They have been abominably treated in the past, and perhaps a few of them still are.”
I bet typing this was a real struggle. Did you have to go and lie down afterwards?
“But those gays and non-gays who believe in freedom of conscience should defend the rights of their fellow citizens so long as their own rights are not threatened.”
Oh wait, wrong country.
“But prejudice and intolerance live on. And they have a strange propensity to flourish among the people who were once their victims.”
Hello kettle, my name is pot. My, how black you are!
“Shane, 34, recalled the heart-breaking moment when his son Patrick saw a Spiderman toy in a shop window and told him it was too expensive and he couldn’t have it.
‘I remember my little fella Patrick looking in a shop window and going: ‘Daddy, look at that Spider-Man toy! Can I get that?’
I looked and it was £29.99. I was like: ‘That’s really expensive. We can’t get that now.”
Wrong answer Shane. The correct answer was “It’s not your birthday or Christmas, so NO. And next time, try saying please.”
It’s suddenly very clear why he’s bankrupt, isn’t it?
Cleavage… plunging… cleavage… curvy… dangerous decolletage (!)… cleavage… pizza.
Yup, I rest my case.
The pic captions are often a riot in the DM but I think we have a winner…
“The old team: The Doctor, played by Matt Smith, with his former assistant Karen Gillan, played by Amy Pond”
Now that’s research.
“We got our first medal, courtesy of cyclist Lizzie Armitstead. What an utter darling. According to commentators, she had ‘fresh legs in good shape’, which she used to batter heroically through a torrential rainstorm, only to come second to some bitch from Holland.”
Yes, “some bitch from Holland” is how she chooses to refer to the winner of a race where the Brit happened to come second. Isn’t sportsmanship a beautiful thing?
Dammit, I fell for it again! I just had to leave a comment under an article that was written especially to infuriate pet owners. Ah well, they probably won’t validate it so here it is:
What a rude article. Alexander McQueen left this money to his dogs to make sure they would be well looked after for the rest of their lives. I would do exactly the same thing; nothing to do with treating animals like people, it’s about acting responsibly towards helpless creatures that depend entirely on you. So it’s a large sum by the average person’s standards, big deal. He was a multi-millionaire, it’s peanuts to him! You even mention he left the bulk of his huge fortune to charity, the BULK, but it’s still not good enough, is it? You just can’t please some people. As for the famine in Somalia, when is there not a famine/drought/civil war/genocide somewhere in Africa? The continent is a bottomless pit that has already absorbed billions in aid, and still they’re dying! It is ridiculous to blame pet owners for this, and beyond insulting to call them inhuman. What about parents who buy their kids tons of overpriced plastic every Christmas? Are they human?