Stephen Fry: Hated By The Daily Mail

Not that they're obsessed or anything, but The Daily Mail have splashed the Stephen Fry story across their front page today.
It's rather odd as they haven't really got anything new to add - but seem so keen to bash him they're pushing a reprint of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's unbelievably shitty article from The Independent.
This has been re-titled for emphasis; 'Your problem, Stephen Fry, is that you just don't understand women (or like them very much)'.
It's one of three (!) articles, a second is a rehash by Rosie Boycott, who was quoted at length in The Observer article that kickstarted this Hate Week, asking 'So Is Sex Less Important To Women?'
It's not, in case you were wondering.
And Charlotte Metcalf writes a piece that's actually in agreement with what Stephen Fry actually said in the Attitude interview; "Women are driven by a ­different imperative, not by our libidos, to the extent that we’re willing to make fools of ourselves to satisfy men, which I think is the point Stephen Fry was trying to make."
Quite.
It must be hard for The Daily Mail to know how to treat Stephen Fry.
Many of their readers adore Fry the "National Treasure"; the witty posh clever clogs from the middle England comfort zones of QI, Jeeves & Wooster and the Twining tea ads.
And any friend of Charles and Camilla...
But he's also a naughty little bugger - who is quite vocal about hating The Daily Mail and all it stands for.
He was last on the front page of the Mail in September; 'What An Unholy Welcome To Britain - As Pope flies in for historic visit, Vatican aide brands UK a Third World country fuelling atheist hate campaign led by Stephen Fry'.
Fry blogged at the time; "Today’s headline and the leader inside however actually made me genuinely guffaw and wriggle with delight. It is the final proof, if proof were needed, that the Daily Mail is not just actually wicked (intentionally, knowingly lying) but actually now quite, quite mad. In the name (it must suppose) of morality, spirituality, goodness, kindness, sweetness and honesty it intentionally, knowingly twists, distorts, misrepresents, smears and calumniates. Will their editor and subeditors go to heaven? Is god pleased with them? Have they done a good deed? Is this their advertisement for the religious way? To lie?"
And - lest we forget - a year ago it was Fry who spearheaded the campaign against Jan Moir's odious Daily Mail column about the death of Stephen Gately.
He memorably tweeted; "I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathsome and inhumane."
Is it any wonder they're giving Mr Fry such a damned good kicking over this?