Oh dear. My short post about the PCC and Jan Moir seems to have been rather misunderstood by most of those commenting.
Jan Moir had an absolute right to write what she did. If you believe in freedom of speech you have to accept that there will be times when people write disgustingly inappropriate things. Everyone has a right to offend. I do it quite often on this blog.
You can spot the 'however' which is coming, though, can't you?
If something like the PCC exists, and it has a code of conduct which specifically rules out its member papers from carrying articles likely to be interpreted as homophobic, then no one should be surprised when people complain about articles like Moir's. As in the case I brought against the Mail, the PCC found in their favour* despite it being obvious to most people in the newspaper industry that at least one clause of the PCC Code of Conduct had clearly been breached. In my case, two current newspaper editors told me they thought the PCC had made the wrong decision.
All of which begs this question. If the PCC wimps out of finding against one of its members who have so clearly breached their code of conduct, what is the point of having such a code of conduct, or indeed a PCC at all?
* Mail editor Paul Dacre is, coincidentally, chairman of the PCC's code of practice committee.