(For the benefit of any new readers, FJM is explained here. But to be honest, it’s not very complicated. You’ll probably get the idea pretty quickly.)

It’s been a good week, both for the liberal left and for Twitter. First there was the whole Trafigura thing, which finally came to a decisive end yesterday evening, when the injunction on the Minton Report into the toxic waste dumping was lifted. This followed the lifting earlier in the week of the injunction against reporting a Parliamentary question mentioning it, which was what sparked off the whole thing. But before that came to an end, a whole new storm of outrage was brewing over Jan Moir’s egregiously offensive piece in Friday’s Mail, which, thanks once again to a campaign on Twitter, attracted a huge number of complaints and not a few derisory reactions from the rest of Fleet Street and the blogosphere. So a few hours later she decided to try and explain herself, in a manner wholly deserving of being FJM’d:

Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention. Stephen, as I pointed out in the article was a charming and sweet man who entertained millions.

Um, I really don’t think most people were upset because they thought you saw Gately as charmless or sour. But I suppose you can never be sure about these things.

However, the point of my column-which, I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read –

Hang on, you’re a columnist for the Daily Mail, and you’re claiming that the criticism you’re on the end of is nothing but an uninformed kneejerk reaction? This is truly special.

…was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all. Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately’s death – out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger – did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition.

O…kay. First, you didn’t say that there were ‘unanswered questions’ about Gately’s death, you categorically stated that ‘Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one.’ So now you’re just lying, very clumsily. Second, you’ve already been taken apart by any number of people (see links above) for implying you magically know the circumstances of Gately’s death better than the qualified coroner who examined his body. Doing the same thing again really isn’t helping you.

The entire matter of his sudden death seemed to have been handled with undue haste when lessons could have been learned.

Ooh, what lessons might these be? Please enlighten us.

On this subject, one very important point.  When I wrote that ‘he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine’, I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended  to a stranger. Not to the fact of his homosexuality.

Got that, kids? Drugs and casual sex might not have had anything to do with Gately’s death, but they’re still bad, mmmkay? I hear he didn’t always get his five fruit and veg a day either. Maybe his death could teach us a lesson about the importance of eating our greens?

In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.

Fair point. Of course, it would help if you could cite a single case of someone arguing that civil partnerships wouldn’t have the same problems that marriages do, since without that all you’ve got there is a pathetic straw man argument, but I suppose I’m quibbling over details here.

In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.

So…your grand finale is to insinuate that the protests about this article are some kind of gigantic conspiracy rather than the result of people actually being genuinely offended? Sterling job there. If for some reason you find yourself looking for work in the near future, maybe Carter Ruck’s PR department could hire you?

There’s an American blog I read from time to time that goes by the name of Gin and Tacos. It has an irregular feature entitled FJM, in which the author takes egregiously stupid comment articles and systematically destroys them for the edification of his readers. (FJM stands for Fire Joe Morgan, a now-defunct baseball blog whose sole purpose was this kind of analysis.) Since I quite like this concept, I’ve decided to shamelessly plagiarise draw inspiration from it as a means to demonstrate the shocking revelation that Amanda Platell is full of shit. Platell’s original brainfarts are in bold; my commentary’s in normal text:

Soaring immigration – and a migrant baby boom – has sent Britain’s population rocketing over the 61 million mark.

Really? So the Office for National Statistics are lying when they say that the rate of net immigration into the UK has dropped by 20% in the past four years? Or does ‘soaring’ mean ‘decreasing’ on your planet?

We are now the second most densely populated country in the world, something that will be all too apparent on the roads and trains this bank holiday weekend.

Sadly, though, it is not the indigenous middle-class, hard-working, tax-paying population that’s exploding.

Because the only people in this country who have jobs and pay taxes are the ones who live in detached mock-Tudor villas in Surrey and can trace their ancestry back to Alfred the Great. True fact.

According to statistics, our latest baby boom is partly down to high birth rates among immigrants, and partly due to rising numbers of younger mothers.

The Office for National Statistics thinks this latter trend is explained by young women putting babies before careers. Well, none of the young women I know is.

And you’re personally acquainted with a representative, statistically significant sample of young women in this country? The ONS might as well just abolish itself when we’ve got sages like you around.

So who are these younger mothers? It stands to reason that many of them must be teenagers.

And teenagers having children is evil. Nearly as evil as older women having children, probably. In fact, women should really only give birth between the ages of 25 and 28. Anything else is wrong and against nature.

How many of them are married or even have their children’s father around? How many have jobs or are supported by someone who does? How many live off benefits?

I don’t know. I’m sure you’re about to provide accurate figures, though – you’ve been so good at that so far.

No, what these figures really show is that our benevolent welfare system is actively encouraging girls to have babies young and alone.

Labour has, disgracefully, made single-motherhood a legitimate occupation.

Oh. Unsupported sweeping generalisations. Well, those are…nearly as good as actual informed opinions, right? It’s almost like you’re going to conclude by descending into a babble of non sequiturs, clichés and frothing-at-the-mouth rightwing alarmism that’s totally unjustified by any of the rest of what you’ve written, but surely you’re not that predictable…

My other worry is this: how many immigrant mums have contributed anything to this country before landing us with another child to educate in our already struggling schools?

Across Britain, one in four babies is born to a mother from overseas. The figure is 55 per cent in London, and in some places it’s as high as 75 per cent.

Small wonder, then, that many teachers find themselves struggling against the language barrier to raise educational standards.

At a time when the very core of Britishness is threatened, shouldn’t we be concerned about this?

In fact, as other figures showed this week, more than five million Brits have never worked under Labour, which suggests that far from importing workers, we need to get our own population into jobs.

The cost of unemployment in the UK is now £346 billion – with £100 billion of that paid in housing benefits alone.

The sad truth of the matter is that it’s not so much a baby boom we’re experiencing as a benefits boom. Middle Britain, stand ready to empty your wallets.

…never mind.