I’m perhaps not in the best position to discuss and dispute the criticism levelled in Stephen Fry’s direction over the weekend as a result of his article suggesting that women don’t enjoy sex. After all, the sum total of my bedfellows makes for a rather lacklustre sample size and one that contains significant gender bias.

That said, I did find the criticism to be just the latest frustrating outpouring from an increasingly intolerant left-wing mob, ironically timed during Jon Stewart’s calls for a bit of moderation to break out. I personally have no strong views on the subject Fry opted to discuss other than to say that everyone is different and generalisations rarely stack up on any issue, including to what extent women (or men) enjoy sex.

A possibly interesting addendum to this wider debate, and one that can confound many a devout Christian who believes sex should be a God-blessed, clumsy, baby-making affair, is that the clitoris has no functional biological value other than to make sex enjoyable. It’s a bit like bacon which has zero nutritional value and merely exists as it tastes good, though it is at that juncture where the similarity with female genitalia may well end….

Anyway, cripes, let’s move on.

There is a thin line between principled debate, passionately argued and an obtuse, oafishness that gives no quarter to those stepping beyond the lines drawn up by only one side of what should constitute ‘debate’ but is really just a public flogging. I think the latter applies here and has applied intermittently on various occasions throughout the year, with Twitter largely to blame.

One such example emanated from the merest whiff of an unpaid tax liability story regarding Vodafone, resulting in store blockades and cancelled mobile contracts. The source of such apparent disproportionate action was a rather dubious anonymously sourced article in Private Eye. If Iain Hyslop is to be the litmus test of right and wrong then we’re all in trouble. The pint-sized funnyman (a description I’m sure he treasures) is no stranger to public action, but that’s typically of the legal variety after getting his facts wrong rather than standard protests.

And there is a further point to make. Stephen Fry did not wilfully invite this Intolerant Left storm upon himself, in the way perhaps that Jan Moir, David Starkey, Kelvin Mackenzie and Melanie Phillips regularly, knowingly, smirkingly do. Honestly held views, as opposed to professional baiting, should, but often sadly don’t, command more respect.

There will be people today, otherwise perfectly smart, rational people, who will hold the delightfully lovable Stephen Fry in a significantly lower regard than they did last week, all for next to nothing.

An oft-quoted line from left-wing worthies is “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death you’re right to say it”. Such logic does appear to be on the wane or, at least, should now come with the addendum of “but we will unleash the mob forces of social media upon you and cast you adrift if you speak out of turn”.

Stephen Fry is a good egg and in my eyes will always come first before a chicken left-wing that, in short, needs to lighten up (through perhaps, while we’re on the topic, a good….. no, i’ll leave it there)