Telegraph, via Mark Steyn:

Canterbury is sufficiently gay, council inspectors rule

Whew! That's a relief!

A government watchdog decided that Canterbury in Kent does enough to promote homosexual culture, rejecting a complaint by local activists.

Who knew that the government had a duty to "promote homosexual culture"? And are there any other cultures government has a duty promote (British, for example?) or is just that one?

As part of the investigation, the council had to prove its inclusiveness by giving details of "touring plays and musicals, for example, which would be of interest to the LGBT community".

But did they ensure each were sufficiently fabulous? And what if these plays and musicals were of more interest to the B than the T? Or does the G get it all? And do they have a similar quota for checking to ensure the Muslim community has enough musicals? (Jihad! The musical!) Or would there be some other kind of stereotypical standard for them?

Chairman Andrew Brettell lodged a formal complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman claiming his initial letter to the council in November fell on deaf ears. Mr Brettell, in his 60s, said last month: "We do not believe the council want a thriving LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community in our city. The impression I get is that the council just doesn't want to know. "

Because, to quote George Stephanopoulos, we don't just want a government that cares, we want a government which can make people care.