Gordon in the morning: The child in focus

Does nobody police the Press Complaints Commission code of practice any more? Has the rotten performance of Buscombe And Her Editor Chums been so dispiriting they've even stopped pretending they're keeping an eye on thing?

For why else would Gordon be running a picture of Elton John and David Furnish's kid, which is there for no reason other than his parents being famous?

Oh, there's a horrible joke, too. The child is wearing a lifejacket, and the Bizarre team have come up with this headline:

Don’t let the son go drown on me, Elton

It's a great pun. It's just, being based around the idea of a small child dying, it might be a bit off-colour for a "family" newspaper.

Gordon in the morning: Sometimes Gordon can surprise us

Whoever would have thought that Gordon Smart would find space to cover the story about the Arkansas supermarket covering up the Elton, David and child cover?

A MAGAZINE showing SIR ELTON JOHN with his gay partner and their baby is CENSORED at a supermarket - sparking uproar.

Of course, Gordon had recycled the OK cover story a few days back, but who would have thought that he'd have chosen this as something his readers would like to read between photos of Megan Fox and lots and lots of stuff about X Factor contestants?

He can't quite bring himself to endorse the sentiments of the protests, though:

Gay campaigners were outraged at the "homophobia".

Much as the supermarket couldn't quite stomach the photo without a protective cover, Gordon can't quite talk about homophobia without the protection of a strong pair of industrial quotation marks.

The good news is that the store HQ stepped in and told the outlet to not be so bloody prissy, or words to that effect.

Although the ending isn't quite as happy as Gordon seems to believe:

Yesterday the mag was OPENLY on display at the store in Mountain Springs, Arkansas – on orders from HQ.

Yesterday, Gordon, the Elt and David issue wasn't on sale any more, what with Ok being a weekly, so the store would have been selling an issue with Brad from The Bachelor on it.

Melanie Phillips apparently works in an Arkansas supermarket

It must be. For why else would the Elton John, David Furnish and child copy of OK have been hidden behind a Family Shield "to protect young shoppers"?

Gordon in the morning: Elton John makes a few quid

While I'm sure Rupert and James Murdoch will be delighted to see Gordon giving masses of free advertising to Richard Desmond's print empire this morning, why on earth has Elton John flogged his kid to Ok!? I know a new father has things to buy, but is John really so short of a few quid that he needs to do this to keep the family in nappies and romper suits?

... or the Beloved Entertainer

Jim M emails with the observation that Elvis Costello's move into TV presenting isn't entirely comfortable:

the phrase "vanity project" springs to mind. Some of us remember when Costello confined his TV appearances to those occasions when he he actually had something to say, or perform. He's now turned into the sort of media darling he would once have scorned in his lyrics.

How showbiz is the project? The New York Times explains:

Cue Elton John. Mr. John and David Furnish, his partner, are friends of Mr. Costello’s through his wife, the jazz singer and pianist Diana Krall. (The two were married at Mr. John and Mr. Furnish’s English castle in 2003.) So last year, when Mr. Furnish was approached by a Canadian production company about creating a music-oriented program, one frontman came to mind.

It's not just a vanity project, it's a bloody vanity unit.

Elton John shares his views on Proposition 8

Elton John seems to be a little confused by the question of Proposition 8, which he seems to think is somehow about him. Apparently gays "only have themselves to blame":

"I don't want to be married," he says. "David and I are not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off. It's the word marriage."

The 61-year-old pop star believes that same-sex couples should be happy with a civil partnership as it gives them the same legal rights and protection as straight couples. "I'm very happy with a civil partnership," he adds. "If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership."

Yes, of course you don't want to be married, do you Elton? Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and his recording engineer, and not to be entered into lightly.

Now, if Elton doesn't want to get married to David Furnish, great. Nobody should force him to. But just because that's right for him doesn't mean he should support a nasty attempt to stop gay people for whom a civil partnership isn't the statement they choose to make.

And, to be blunt, John is deluded if the thinks the homophobes who funded Proposition 8 were doing so simply because they object to the idea of gay people being 'married'. The Mormon Church, whose members lavishly funded the campaign to withdraw rights from gay people [Google Doc] in California, are pretty clear that homosexuality is immoral:

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

Is Elton really so stupid he thinks that a group so committed to pouring cash into removing marriage rights simply because it's the word they object to? Does he really think that a group who are so busily organising themselves, driven by a belief that they should be arbiters of sexual morality for world, are going to meet each other at Temple and say "so long as they only have a civil partnership when they shag each other, that'll be alright"?

Elton John has always seemed a little selfish, and a little self-obsessed, but to not fight for a right simply because you yourself are happy without it is a step beyond. John didn't really do that much to help with the struggle for gay equality; you would have thought the least he could do was try and be a bit more careful with the gifts others bled for.

Why David Furnish is wise to not talk much

David Furnish has attacked Michael Moore's film, Sicko, which - we suspect - he hasn't actually seen. The movie is based on the US healthcare system, focusing on the seventeen million people without health insurance.

Furnish, bless him, missed the point somewhat:

"I completely disagree with Michael Moore.

"With my own father, when he was ill, the only option was to hire a jet and fly him to America. It was the only place to get good treatment."

No, David, you've agreed with Michael Moore; the American healthcare service is brilliant, if you can pay for it. You seem to have confused his film with one about rubbish doctors.