Lewisham Councillor backs News Shopper's anti-gay rant prize

This week, one of our local papers, the News Shopper, chose to give the prize winning "star letter" award, to this bizarre homophobic rant by one of its Lewisham readers.


It is reasonable to assume that the News Shopper editorial staff don't actually agree with the views in the letter, but by giving it star status, they gave the impression that they did. Local blogger Daryl Chamberlain challenged them on their decision and speculated pretty convincingly about why they might have done this.

At the time, we thought it was a gross error of judgement by the News Shopper, but a forgiveable one, especially at an understaffed newspaper. We all make mistakes. However, the News Shopper's response to the criticism was abject, instead of contrition, they offered sarcasm and retweeted the one or two tweets of support they got (as opposed to the mountain of critical ones they received). Londonist has a good account of the early exchanges. This behaviour is not forgiveable, in our view. But even then, we probably wouldn't have waded in to the argument, were it not for the fact that one of the few people to leap to the Shopper's defence, was Lewisham Central Councillor, Mike Harris, who wrote:

The idea that my local paper the @NewsShopper should not publish a letter because it's bigoted, is far more offensive than the letter itself... No2censorship!

In doing so, the self-proclaimed campaigner for Index on Censorship, demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what censorship and advocated the sort of balanced debate you can find on Fox News.

Giving someone an unchallenged platform to abuse gay people and awarding them a prize is not exercising freedom of speech, it's an abuse of power. No one is asking for these views to be "brushed under the carpet" or imagining that they will go away if we don't talk about them. We are asking that the foam-flecked homophobia not be actively celebrated.

To borrow a phrase from Cllr Harris, his defence of the News Shopper's decision is far more offensive than the letter itself.

86 comments:

The Cat Man said...

Hmm ok. well, as a gay man I completely agree with the councillor. Its not an issue to tolerate those who are bigoted, it is their right to free speach. It is an issue, however, to allow the bigoted comment to go unchallenged.

And besides, what is bigoted to one person is not bigoted to another.

Brockley Kate said...

To spell it out again, for anyone who is hard of thinking, the point is not about the News Shopper's decision to print the letter, it is about their decision to firstly award it their weekly 'star', and secondly, to defend their decision vigorously and irrationally when challenged.
All props to Cllr Mike for actually engaging in the debate on Twitter (unlike a helluva lot of local politicians I could name!), but he has got the wrong end of the stick on this one.

Tamsin said...

There must have been other letters to choose from. Even doing a Blue Peter and writing one themselves would have been preferable.

Anonymous said...

I'm not too sure you can call it a bizarre rant really - she's just relaying what our national church has preached for centuries. I'm sure you'll find there are plenty of respected clergy out there who would agree with every word of it (though rather less vocally).

Awarding it the weekly star was a weird move though.

darryl said...

I think Kate's point need putting in bold. The point is not about the News Shopper's decision to print the letter, it is about their decision to firstly award it their weekly 'star', and secondly, to defend their decision vigorously and irrationally when challenged.

Unfortunately, I think Cllr Harris was so determined to prove himself as a champion of free speech against nasty Twitter mobs, that he misunderstood the whole row - not before the News Shopper used his tweet as an endorsement of their stance, sadly.

Cllr Mike Harris said...

As Brockley Central refuse to publish a longer response (go on- change your mind!), I'm going to have to surmise a complicated issue in a few characters.

It’s clear from the huge angry response that local people (at least, those on Twitter), like me, reject homophobia entirely. Good.

However, I don’t think the News Shopper was wrong to publish such an incendiary letter. I think the writer isn’t alone in her views, and although we may find them offensive and dated, homophobia exists in our community.

As for awarding a prize - I wouldn’t have. But, frankly, I felt by highlighting the letter it punchered the bigotry of the writer and hosted them by their own bigoted petard. And I think the journalists at the News Shopper know that.

Many on twitter are attempting to misrepresent my position. It's very unfair - and makes me look homophobic, which is a strong slur.

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon - there are lots of bizarre ranters in the churches, yes.

Brockley Nick said...

@Cllr Mike - I didn't refuse to publish your quote, I offered to publish it if you sent it to me, which you haven't yet. Send me your quote and I'll add it to the original article.

I don't think you're homophobic, nor does the article say you are. I think you are ideologically incoherent - at best.

Cllr Mike Harris said...

Well, I didn't see that tweet.

I haven't got your email address - mine is: cllr_mike.harris@lewisham.gov.uk

darryl said...

Cllr Harris - you think you're being misrepresented?

from you on Twitter: "I don't think people should try to bully a papers' editorial line"

Next time Labour Party members complain about the bias in the Murdoch press, will you tell them to shut up because it's all about your notion of free speech?

Cllr Mike Harris said...

The News Shopper isn't the monolithic global media corporation that News Corporation is. That said, pointing out (using new media) where papers toe a particular line is useful.

The News Shopper may have overstepped the mark. But as Nick confesses - the decision to award Star letter was one likely to push the boundaries and cause debate. I have no problem with that. Especially as the response will allow people to examine the real homophobia that does exist.

Monkeyboy said...

It real isn't difficult is it? a "star" suggests a reasoned, new, or coherent contribution to a debate. It was bile and and in no way informed the argument.

The fact that Cat Man cannot grasp this is no surprise. Why not give record tokens for blatant racism? It's highlighting an "issue" after all.

Nick, any chance you could ask Joan Ruddock for a comment? She's been unforgivably quiet since the election. If this isn't something she should comment on I don't know what is.

Mark said...

@Cllr Mike Harris: I think you're completely wrong on this. The newspaper has no obligation to publish any letter, let alone award it a prize. It is not an issue of free speech or censorship; it is one of responsible community journalism. I find it disappointing that a Labour councillor cannot understand the difference. Nigel Fletcher has got it right on this one.

And the News Shopper's protestations that "Star" status does not denote quality are disingenuous to say the least.

Brockley Nick said...

@Mike - I don't think the News Shopper is pushing the limits of debate, no. I think they are desperately trying to chase traffic by provoking online debate among the tiny audience that use their website. Meanwhile, a malicious letter is awarded a prize by the paper, with no editorial balance and distributed free to every household in the area.

It will go to a good many households where this letter will reinforce existing prejudices and as far as they can see, is praised by their local paper.

How is that exposing bigotry to the sunlight of debate?

darryl said...

Cllr Harris -

The News Shopper isn't the monolithic global media corporation that News Corporation is. That said, pointing out (using new media) where papers toe a particular line is useful.

Well, weren't we pointing out the News Shopper's rather distasteful line?

Oh, and as for the News Shopper being a plucky little paper... it's owned by Newsquest, the UK arm of Gannett Inc, which runs over 100 US newspapers and USA Today.

Anonymous said...

It's only a malicious letter because you disagree with it. For the record I do too, but people need to be able to stand back and have a more balanced view on these things. A lot of people on here are every bit as bigoted as this woman, you all think you're right and you refuse to change that opinion.
I guarantee there will be more articles and letters in the press supporting homosexuality than condemning it so maybe their readers will have more sense than you're giving them credit for and one ranting woman won't reinforce any prejudices at all?

Brockley Kate said...

:facepalm:

Anonymous said...

@Cllr Harris
"The News Shopper isn't the monolithic global media corporation that News Corporation is..."


Newshopper is operated by Newsquest wich is part of Gannett which had $7.6bn operating turnover in 2005

NEWSPAPERS: Gannett is the USA's largest newspaper group in terms of circulation.

BROADCASTING: The company owns and operates 23 television stations.

Mb said...

I want to support labour, I really do, but Jesus! (who hates gays apparently)

REWARDING A READER FOR WRITING A BARELY COHERENT STREAM OF HATRED IS NOT ON!

Nothing to do with censorship.

Really said...

Kate - if that's your angle you may as well just shut off the comments here. Nobody is going to deny that they shouldn't have given it a star or defended it so pointlessly, but a bunch of people all with exactly the same view doesn't make for much of a debate does it?

Anonymous said...

Cllr offers a lengthy response, you offer to publish, he doesn't send it to you but accuses you of not publishing it.

I might start attending council meetings for entertainment.

Cllr Mike Harris said...

News International is monolithic in a way that Gannett (it seems) isn't. That's my point.

Mb said...

Really, the news shopper is defending giving it a star. Cclr Harris is at best indifferent to that. People are discriminated, alienated, beaten up because of who they choose to sleep with. This local paper appears to thing that the hatred displayed in the letter is helpful.

*bangs head against thewall*

Monkeyboy said...

I've emailed our Joan. Hopefully she'll take some time off buttering up the various leadership contenders for a shadow job long enough to voice an opinion on a matter concerning her constancy.

Cllr Mike Harris said...

MB: "People are discriminated, alienated, beaten up because of who they choose to sleep with."

It's appalling - stopping a paper highlighting a letter of pure bigotry does nothing to stop this.

And Nick I don't agree that publishing the letter will increase homophobia. I think not publishing such material feeds a form of warped world view that Fox News lives off (the liberal establishment censor us).

I don't have Nick's email address, and so I can't send across my response.

I leave for Belarus on Sunday, on a human rights mission, to promote free speech. One group, the Belarus Free Theatre lost their licence to perform, for, amongst other things portraying homosexuality. Apparently, there is no homosexuality in Belarus.

A no platform policy in any context is dangerous.

Monkeyboy said...

Ok, will you at least condem the fact that they gave a prize? They could have published the letter without confusing the point with a nice pen. Others without your nuanced understanding of free speech may see that as a reward.

Brockley Nick said...

Mike, my addess is on the site as I encourage readers to contact me and I have also sent you a direct message on Twitter with my address, but for the record, it is nick.barron@gmail.com

Brockley Nick said...

And Mike, no one is trying to censor anyone, they are saying that the News Shopper shouldn't give bigots prizes. And then shouldn't act so discourteously to readers who are upset by their cack-handed decisions.

? said...

who cares

Anonymous said...

Me. Next....

Tom said...

As a Lewisham resident and Labour voter I find Councillor Harris's comments extremely depressing. And as such this is a long comment. Apologies.

As I've pointed out elsewhere (http://bit.ly/bLVozz), choosing a letter as the "Star" is a tacit endorsement. I know this not only because I know what "star" means in the non-celestial sense, but also because I'm an editor and sorting out letters pages was, for years, part of my job. As another editor (@adambanksdotcom) succinctly put it on Twitter today, "That's what it means".

By making this letter the Star Letter - not a "Have Your Say", or any such content - the NS has implied endorsement for it. And yes, I do believe that the perceived endorsement of bigoted views by the media gives support to those who share them. Any homophobes reading this letter, and seeing the award of a prize and the Star Letter tag, could be forgiven for believing that the paper supports their opinion. Will a reply from another reader lost on its website, or buried in the letters page next week, change that? I'm not sure it will.

But the councillor's original comment on Twitter didn't concern the Star Letter, it concerned whether it should be published at all ("The idea that my local paper the @NewsShopper should not publish a letter because it's bigoted, is far more offensive than the letter itself").

As I noted on my blog, I don't believe in a total no platform policy for offensive views - I can see occasions where publishing such a thing could be justified. One that springs to mind is to provide an opposing viewpoint to editorial content.

But that's not to say that I think that justification necessarily applies here. The News Shopper cover last week was hardly a positive piece about gay culture - rather a ridiculously sensationalist story about a cottaging website, presumably dug up via a Google Alert for "Lewisham" (and note that the version online of the story now appears to have been changed since the print copy). Not exactly the kind of glowing piece that might justify the publication of a "right of reply" letter from those with a bitter, miscellaneous grudge against gay people.

Instead, the NS's only justification seems to be that it's generated an online debate. With this conducted out of view of many of the paper's readers, I'm not sure that cuts it. Put this letter side by side with another of an opposing view – perhaps one bemoaning that ridiculous cover story – and it might have been fair.

Moreover, as anyone who's ever had to dig through the kind of garbage that's bulk-mailed to media outlets alongside genuine reader letters will know, the idea that choosing *not* to publish any letter because it's offensive is some sort of act of malicious censorship is just daft.

Newspapers, magazines and other publications attract offensive letters – often sent by email, en-masse to many publications, none of which the sender reads. Many are libellous, while some items might even count as criminal under incitement laws. Should editors be obliged to publish them all? Or perhaps a representative sample of racists and homophobes every week, month, or year?

Of course not.

Choosing which letters to print, and which to discard is not censorship: it's professional, ethical journalism. I think most people here agree that the News Shopper hasn't done terribly well on that score here.

Lou Baker said...

I hate to agree with a Labour councillor but Mike is absolutely right - and so is the News Shopper.

This letter has generated debate. Not just because of its content but also about the way the paper has dealt with it and because of the wider question of freedom of speech. Very few letters to local newspapers make such an impression.

The woman's views are misguided and wrong. But she has a right to express them. The paper has a right to publish them. And you have the right to disagree with them. This is how things should be in a free country.

You do not have the right not to be offended. And if you are offended, tough. That's your issue. A bit of offence now and then is a small price to pay to make sure we remain a free and fair society.

Anonymous said...

And it deserves a prize? Can you not see why that was, at the very least, misguided?

Lou Baker said...

@anon

No, it's not misguided. It's a letter to a local newspaper which has sparked a huge debate. You don't agree with the content so you don't think it should be a star letter. But the very fact that it's generated so much controversy demonstrates that you're wrong.

Anonymous said...

Oh look, Lou Baker manages to be crass and insensitive. How unusual.

Jimmy said...

Another prize this week was awarded by a school to a child dressed as Hitler. The school has since apologised, but presumably this is perfectly reasonable to raise awareness of Nazi atrocities.

Have a look at the 'star letter' and replace the references to homosexuals with 'Blacks' or 'Jews' and see if you feel the letter would have been published let alone awarded a prize. Publishing such letters and awarding prizes encourages intolerence, normalises extremist views of homosexuality, and will offend many people including teenagers and government ministers who will find it harder to deal with their own sexuality.

The NewsShopper should do the same as the principle of the school and publicly apologise for the offence caused by awarding this prize to an offensive letter.

Anonymous said...

Nailing a kitten to a tree would provove a reaction, therefore its a steller move...discuss.

Lou Baker said...

@jimmy

What tosh. Publishing such things does not encourage intolerance and normalise extremist views.

It demonstrates that the woman who wrote it is an idiot. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anonymous said...

by extension, nothing anyone writes has an influence on anyone....now that IS tosh.

Lou Baker said...

@anon

But you assume people are stupid enough to accept all they read and believe it. That's simply not credible.

The vast majority will read that letter and realise it's cack. A handful may agree with it. But will it change
minds? Will it suddenly turn swathes of
mild mannered folk in to raging homophobes? No.

You do far more harm by pushing this hateful rubbish underground than you ever do by having it out in
the open.

Anonymous said...

Sigh........ Lou and Cat Man on the same page. Quiet sweet really.

Brockley Nick said...

@Lou - please stop arguing with straw men. No one is saying hateful rubbish needs to be pushed underground. They are saying that it doesn't need to be rewarded with star status and a prize. And they are saying that if you really care about debate, then there are better ways to do it than an unchallenged, context-free letter in the News Shopper.

It's no surprise that you and Mike have never once addressed the key point raised - the prize-winning status of the letter.

To suggest that the Shopper is at once fighting homophobia and championing free speech is, frankly, incredibly thick.

Anonymous said...

yes lou, some pople are thick. Some 15 year old gay boys may pick that paper and decide not to come out for another year. Who knows? people are not all blessed with your brilliance.

Lou Baker said...

@nick

I have addressed the star letter point. I have no
problem with it.

The letter has sparked a huge debate covering a range if issues. Not many letters to local newspapers do that.

You are all struggling with this because you don't like the content of the letter.

@anon

I am sure there are scores of gay 15 year olds who spend their time reading the letters page of the local rag. Oh no wait, there aren't.

Monkeyboy said...

People don't change their minds but the letter sparks debate. 15 year olds don't read papers, but the letter sparks huge debate. Make up your mind.

Of course the media, no matter how low rent, alters perceptions.

As usual your arguments just don't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.

Name said...

This is a really disgraceful hatchet job on the Councillor and the Newshopper and hope when the dust settles apologies are forthcoming.

Mb said...

hope you're the patient type.

Lou Baker said...

@monkey

Sigh.

The letter won't change minds. The debate it's created isn't about the content of the letter. No one has been discussing whether it's good or bad to be gay. We're discussing whether it's right or wrong to publish it and award it star letter status. No one has agreed with the homophobic content. Which demonstrates those of you
who favour censorship are misguided.

And I'd wager a positive comment about the East London Line that no gay 15 year olds have joined the debate.

Monkeyboy said...

I can just see the editorial meeting, the luke warm coffee is being guzzled as the deadline approaches, the trainee has been sent out for scotch eggs - the editor loves them.

Slow news day chaps, we need a big issue. What about this, a lady has written in with the rather startling view that homosexuality is repellent and against biblical teaching! My god! why has no one debated this before? Not only is this a new issue, the letter is well argued, sober and raises some questions. Don't know about you chaps but our readers need to be aware of the risk of eternal damnation. Its startling....no its STARtling. Publish it, give it the coveted star award and give the lady a pen, assuming they allow sharp objects in the institution..you phone the hospital.

Roll the presses.... another scotch egg anyone?

Name said...

"Should homosexuals face execution? "

This was a headline on a prominent BBC webpage in the last year. The debate on that headline parallels the response to the letter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/controversial_debate.html

Anonymous said...

A similar debate but this is about a local paper giving an award and prize to a letter that is horribly biggoted.

monkeyboy said...

The star and award gives the rather mental letter a sliver of credibility....see how it works?

Brockley Nick said...

@Name - "disgraceful hatchet job"? I have reported exactly what happened and what the Councillor said about it and he has come on to this thread to make the same points that I attributed to him. I was far more charitable to the Shopper than others have been and if you look at my response on Darryl's blog, I thought the original crime was not worthy of more than a roll of the eyes at their ineptitude. Their behaviour afterwards was shameful and Cllr Mike's defense of their approach was dumb. I said as much.

The irony of you calling for me to apologise for exercising my freedom of speech has obviously escaped you.

Anonymous said...

debate? nonsense . . .


get the council to do a public consultation, that'll sort it out

Danja said...

Giving Griffin a knighthood would spark some debate. Must be a good idea then in the interests of promoting free speech.

Monkeyboy said...

Can we not just give him a pen?

welcome to 2010 said...

The Nazis have provoked a lot of debate over the years. They're doing it again right now in fact. Makes it all seem worthwhile, somehow.

Anonymous said...

I see Ben Goldacre has Tweeted about this now, great to see that the rest of the country is gonna get a good impression of Greenwich and Lewisham, cheers NewsShopper :rolleyes:

darryl said...

Sadly, since the News Shopper is based in Petts Wood, near Orpington - wish it'd just stay there.

Hey, maybe I could send that opinion in and win a pen? This biro's running ou-...

welcome to 2010 said...

Been looking back on the Twitter feed from News Shopper. They really do come over as a bunch of dicks, and if wasn't for the fact that I'm sure no-one who uses Twitter reads their paper, I'd strongly advise them never to let the work experience student near their Twitter feed again.

I agreed with the BBC's decision to let Griffin on QT, but I liked the fact that the BBC respected those who thought it was a bad idea. They responded sympathetically and courteously to their critics and presented a coherent argument to support their stance.

NewsShopper just said: "great, loads of hits, now you h8ers can get lost. We're shining a light on a hidden truth, yeah. So woteva, losers!"

Cllr Mike you say you've been misrepresented; what has been said that has misrepresented your position? And I mean specifically.

Free speech said...

If the BNP shove a leaflet through the letterbox of everyone in Lewisham and Greenwich saying the same thing, will Cllr Mike also say this is advancing the debate and contributing towards a more tolerant society?

If not, what is the difference? Other than the fact that the BNP is marginally more credible than the News Shopper?

Monkeyboy said...

And of course griffin is an elected MEP, mad but true. Mind you if you read the independent, the BNP appears to be falling apart at the seems. Shame.

Anonymous said...

Reading the letter it seems to me that the writer is some kind of religious fundamentalist. or 'nutter' who is extracting information from the bible to support his or her own prejudices - I'm sure a visit to many an 'off-piste' religious establishment would confirm that these views are widely held.

The Newsshopper, in publishing the letter, is reflecting a view that is no doubt shared by a section of its readers, and indeed, could have been given 'star' status by a person with strongly held beliefs.

All that said, the letter is so ludicrous as to be genuinely funny - it could well have been written by a performing comedian.

Anonymous said...

Should it have been published? Yes
Should it have been a star letter? Probably not
Has all this been massively blown out of proportion by self-righteous labour voters?
Definitely

Brockley Nick said...

Was it an interesting, informative or well written letter? No.

Was there a good reason to publish the letter? No.

Is it the News Shopper's right to publish it? Yes.

If they publish it as a prize-winning star letter, does it give the impression that they approve of the letter's contents? Yes.

If that was not their intention and their actions upset some of their readers, must they apologise? No.

Does refusing to apologise and acting "like dicks" (according to Ben Goldacre) represent good business sense? No.

Is it a free speech issue? No.

Should a local Councillor think it through before leaping to defense of a paper on the basis of his passion for freedom of speech issues, which happen to be irrelevant in this case? Yes.

Is this a party political issue? No, the original blog was written by a Green Party member, the Cllr Mike is a Labour Councillor, a Tory Cllr in Greenwich criticised the Shopper.

Is it a big issue? Only if you think local newspapers, homophobia and the judgement of our elected representatives matter.

Monkeyboy said...

A genuinely funny letter? Depends on the context, anything can be funny. Publishing it as a star letter is crass ( my new fav word) I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp.

Brockley Nick said...

PS - Has the News Shopper been a vocal critic of Council-run newspapers? Yes.

Are they right? Yes.

Does this kind of crappy content and attitude weaken their argument? Yes.

Does their fearless and sensationally entertaining content generate lots of readers or attract lots of advertisers in a digital age where there is lots of competition? No. They have fewer twitter followers than BC does, their forum is dead and advertising is falling through the floor.

Monkeyboy said...

They're still smarting because they didn't get a "cat in the bin" story. Would you get a free pen for that? In the interest of stimulating the pets in refuse receptical issue that is currently ignored in this crazy world

Anonymous said...

As usual, an issue that the majority of gay people couldn't care less about is blown out of proportion by "well meaning" people.

Anonymous said...

I hate well meaning people.

Tressilliana said...

Yeah, ill-meaning people are much better.

abw said...

i have already contacted the distribution dept of NShopper and asked them to stop putting the paper through my letterbox (which they have to do if you ask) and several people i know have done the same. Let it hit them in their pockets and lose advertising due to lower distribution. What? That's MY free speech

Anonymous said...

Actually don't think I've ever received a copy. Are the local scamps dumping then in depford creek rather then deliver? I feel strangely cheated. I may demand a copy just so I can cancel it.

Anonymous said...

Do you agree with everything brockley nicks says? No

Monkeyboy said...

I don't agree with everything anyone says, I'm not sure I agree with what I say some of the time.

Putting that to one side for a moment, do you think the letter should have been singled for a prize? It's kind of the crux of the argument. A prize suggests that the the person awarding said prize either felt it had merit or it was a point well made, even if they didn't agree with it. Dont think it meets either of those tests.

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon - fine, unlike the News Shopper, I am happy to admit my mistakes, but please just explain what bit of that reasoning you disagree with and why. Otherwise, I will have to conclude that I am right after all ;)

Brockley Nick said...

PS - you're not the News Shopper are you? You certainly have the same manner.

Brockley Kate said...

As I've just said on 853, at least half the hoo-hah is generated by the NS staffer's attitude. If I was the editor, I'd be fuming. He's merrily peeing on their (reluctant) audience, and earning the paper a terrible reputation in the process.
Other people, eg. Evan Harris, have been engaging on Twitter in a logical and respectful manner (he's still wrong, but he is at least coming across well), I don't get why the NS needs to be so shitty about it. It's just making things way worse.

Anonymous said...

I bet cat man has been awarded a few free pens in his time....just saying. Actually what would happen if Mrs Fitzsimons and the cat were in the same room discussing life, politics and relationships? God I hope she's black. I'd pay to watch.

Anonymous said...

I understand that a write-round of News Shopper's advertisers has been proposed. Hit them in the pocket, is the idea, I believe. Might be more effective than moaning online ...

Brockley Nick said...

the idea to target advertisers came from moaning online...

Name said...

Still at it eh? I am not going to say anymore? you lot stew in your self righteousness.

Brockley Nick said...

@Name - you view every issue on here through a Labour party prism, which is a shame because this has nothing to do with party politics.

Accusations of self-righteousness could equally be made of those who accuse those upset of waging war on free speech.

Try to engage in the issue.

Cheers

Anonymous said...

boycott the News Shopper...don't read it and don't advertise in it...homophobic trash!!!

Monkeyboy (to hungry to sleep) said...

@Name....Freedom of speech does not mean that you should be allowed to publish whatever you want anywhere you like at any time and not expect some strong reaction. In fact it's "provoking a reaction" which apparently is the point. Obviously most sane people do not support the views expressed in the letter and it's good to see no support here. Unfortunatly for the newsshopper the reaction is about whether they showed good judgement in giving out prizes. Would you rather the comments were censored so that we stuck to the brief and discussed whether homosexuals make baby Jesus cry? Now some would say that's censorship.

Complicated world isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Как говорилось на Seexi.net Читала на одном форуме,что многие девушки,которые собираются замуж летом 2011 уже присматривают платье,фотографов и т.д..Лично мне может показаться на первый взгляд,что это очень рано.Еще как минимум пол года можно спокойно гулять.А Вы как считаете?Нужно уже что-то думать или же я все-таки права?

Brockley Central Label Cloud