She's sorry... but, she's not....

One week after she self imploded by writing an article about the death of Stephen Gately, which was simply shocking for it's tastelessness and insensitivity, Jan Moir wants us to know that she is very sorry... but, she also wants us to know that, "to say that [our reaction] to it was a hysterical overreaction would be putting it mildly."

In other words she's sorry, but it was really our fault for over-reacting; not hers for being insensitive enough to declare that there was something "sleazy" about this young man's death, a charge which she repeats again in this week's article.

And, exactly as she did in last weeks article, she continues to make claims that she can have no possible way of verifying.

Certainly, something terrible went wrong as my column ricocheted through cyberspace, unread by many who complained, yet somehow generally and gleefully accepted into folklore as a homophobic rant.

How does she know that those complaining hadn't even read her column? Why would anyone have gotten so angry if they hadn't read what she had written? Again, she just doesn't get it that what she said was intolerable, so she assumes - she literally just pulls it out of nowhere - that people can't have read what she wrote.

It's the same kind of fact free assertion which got into such terrible trouble last week, where she decided - whilst citing no proof at all - that the coroner had got it wrong and that this was not a natural death.

And then there's this ridiculous claim:

Absolutely none of this had anything to do with his sexuality.

Really? Then why did she feel the need to tell us that "he was effectively smoked out of the closet"? Indeed, why was his death "another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships"?

Then she plays the Nixon card:

Yet as the torrent of abuse continued, most of it anonymous, I also had thousands of supportive emails from readers and well-wishers, many of whom described themselves as 'the silent majority'. The outcry was not as one-sided as many imagine.

It's strange that this "silent majority" didn't feel the need to defend her on The Daily Mail's own website where comments were running about 99-1 against the views which she had expressed.

But, of course, she lets herself off with the knowledge - gleaned, again, from God knows where - that "much of it was an orchestrated campaign by pressure groups and those with agendas of their own."

Like Nick Griffin, she has decided that everyone's picking on her, so it must be orchestrated.

That's the problem when you publicly express odious views, a majority of people will quickly denounce you. It doesn't need any orchestration. And the fact that Moir thinks it does, shows that, in reality, she has learned nothing at all from the fireball of fury which erupted around her last column.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Jan Moir, Daily Mail