Daily Mail go for Gately

AnonoBoy

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

This sums up my views fairley clearly

Your views are all pixellated dude.

humanji

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Your views are all pixellated dude.

She's not even worth focusing for!

Reflector

walshb wrote: »

Nobody can honestly say that men lusting after men is no different than
men lusting after women. The animal kingdom, which we are part of is predominantly male lusting after female. This isn't made up, it's fact.

Would I discriminate against gay men, no way. I take everyone as I see them.

But, if you want me to say that gay men are no different than straight men, then I don't thnk that is true. Doesn't mean at all that straight men are better people. It simply means that we are different.

I think this is a very narrow view of sexuality, where men lusting after men is different than men lusting after women in the sense that one of the couples is opposite gender is true but gay men and straight mens social/sexual behaviour can be and is quite similar.
I think that people need to be dealt with in an individual manner and not just grouped into two defining groups



You throw your hat into a pot of all straight men as something that defines you as a person. Would you claim that you are more sexually similar to someone who uses and abuses people and sleeps around or someone who enjoys dating, monogomy and long term relationships.
Both these types of people can be either a straight man or a gay man so by saying gay men and straight men are not the same is too much of a simplication in my opinion.

Stephen Gately RIP.
I dont care how you died it is tragic that someone died who had so much life ahead of them.

eightyfish

walshb wrote: »

Nobody can honestly say that men lusting after men is no different than men lusting after women. The animal kingdom, which we are part of is predominantly male lusting after female.

Predominantly, but not totally. There are many examples of homosexuality in animals. Run a search on the New Scientist website and you'll find lots of information about it. If you're going to use the animal kingdom to judge, it's perfectly natural.

oceanclub

eightyfish wrote: »

Predominantly, but not totally. There are many examples of homosexuality in animals. Run a search on the New Scientist website and you'll find lots of information about it. If you're going to use the animal kingdom to judge, it's perfectly natural.

Plus, newsflash, we haven't been "natural" since we started wearing skins and using fire.

P.

deadhead13

Jan Moir's latest column, full of self-righteous justification.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1222246/The-truth-views-tragic-death-Stephen-Gately.html

CathyMoran

deadhead13 wrote: »

Jan Moir's latest column, full of self-righteous justification.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1222246/The-truth-views-tragic-death-Stephen-Gately.html

That was a disgrace, I hope that that article gets looked into too, it deeply offended me.

Busi_Girl08

She really doesn't know when to shut up, does she?

I read that whole thing and all it was was a speil of backtracking furious enough to change the earth's orbit, and a hell of a lot of "Poor me"

And she's still going on about the "orchestrated campaign".
25,000 people can't be wrong.

AnonoBoy

Oh for f*ck's sake I'm not even going to bother reading her half-arsed attempt to weasel her way out of it.

Does she say at any point that "I can't be homophobic, I have lots of gay friends."? :rolleyes:

What a bint.

eviltwin

She can write what she wants. She's a columnist and employed to write about her opinions rather than fact and lets face it, she's not the only one with such sterotypical views on the gay lifestyle.

It didnt have to get approval though.

What was the editor thinking letting it get published in the first place? Surely whoever (s)he is should have had the cop on to send it to the recycle bin?

eviltwin

She can write what she wants. She's a columnist and employed to write about her opinions rather than fact and lets face it, she's not the only one with such sterotypical views on the gay lifestyle.

It didnt have to get approval though.

What was the editor thinking letting it get published in the first place? Surely whoever (s)he is should have had the cop on to send it to the recycle bin?

herya

eviltwin wrote: »

What was the editor thinking letting it get published in the first place? Surely whoever (s)he is should have had the cop on to send it to the recycle bin?

I'm sure it was done on purpose - Daily Mail was mentioned everywhere for a day and while for many what she wrote was outrageous there are just as many if not more who subscribe to her point of view and might possibly become DM readers as a result. They've just lost a few ads but gained new readership.

I do hope that there will be more consequences for them or her but I wouldn't bet any money on this.

RandolphEsq

Comments on her 'explanation article';

"I'd still like an exclaimation on Jan's comment that "Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships"???"

"Do not patronize us, we all read your article and there could be no misinterpretations. Stick to what you have done in the past and that is stuffing your face with food and then writing about it. Leave the intelligent ethical writing to the professionals."

"The fact you started out with an apology and then spent a couple of pages explaining why 'this huge orchestrated campaign of people that obviously don't have opinions of their own are wrong', and then end with a slight insincere line about you feeling bad about his death, its outrageous!"

"I love the fact your apology is then whipped back by your Holier than Thou attitude. Learn to say sorry properly and sincerely instead of because you have to as so many people took offence."

Aidric

deadhead13 wrote: »

Jan Moir's latest column, full of self-righteous justification.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1222246/The-truth-views-tragic-death-Stephen-Gately.html

What a spineless bint. She seemed to think she was very ballsy in her original piece yet there's a series of open ended questions in this follow up.

This said, I can't help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged? Or was it a failure of communication on my part?

Did she think she was somehow abdicating herself with the above bull****?

eightyfish

Last week, I wrote in this column about the death of Boyzone star Stephen Gately.
To my horror, it has been widely condemned as 'homophobic' and 'hateful'.

The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this. All that has been established so far is that Stephen Gately was not murdered.

And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.

[...]

Nevertheless, his mother is still insisting that her son died from a previously undetected heart condition that has plagued the family.
Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.
Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.

It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death.
As a gay rights champion, I am sure 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.

For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see.

(emphasis mine)

And she wonders why it was "condemned as 'homophobic' and 'hateful'."?

dr.bollocko

Jan Moir banned for trolling.:pac:

Johnnio13

I hate tabloids.
They are all full of sh!te. The particular rag spent most of the 60's and 70's bashing the Irish branding us all terrorists and bombers.
One of the English papers at the time I believe ran with a headline of something like "run the irish out of England".

Wouldn't waste money on those papers.

genericguy

eightyfish wrote: »

And she wonders why it was "condemned as 'homophobic' and 'hateful'."?

yes, because no straight person, ever, anywhere in the world has died in strange circumstances. :rolleyes:

dr.bollocko

Apparently they ruled against the complaints.

The press watchdog has decided not to uphold a complaint by Stephen Gately's partner about a Daily Mail article on the Boyzone star's death last year.

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) received a record 25,000 complaints about the Jan Moir comment piece which was perceived by many to be homophobic.

The watchdog's head said aspects of the piece were "extremely distasteful".

But the PCC said it was an essential point of principle that papers could print views which might offend readers.

Meanwhile, the Crown Prosecution Service has ruled the article did not break the law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8521105.stm

markesmith

Seems that the Mail lives to write slanderous lies another day.

walshb

They did rule against the complaints, and I don't see anything too wrong with this.

I questioned why folks were so incensed about this and ended up getting banned.

Gately's death was suspicious, his cremation after a few days was also a little strange.

I mean, the family just accepted the Spanish Autopsy without even bothering to have an Irish autopsy to makes sure that his death was as the Spanish said. To the Spanish, Gately was a nobody and did they really give a flying **** how he may have died?

dr.bollocko

walshb wrote: »

They did rule against the complaints, and I don't see anything too wrong with this.

I questioned why folks were so incensed about this and ended up getting banned.

Gately's death was suspicious, his cremation after a few days was also a little strange.

I mean, the family just accepted the Spanish Autopsy without even bothering to have an Irish autopsy to makes sure that his death was as the Spanish said. To the Spanish, Gately was a nobody and did they really give a flying **** how he may have died?

No you questioned the entire homosexual lifestyle and implied it was incorrect or somehow wrong. Just like that idiot Muir did.

K-9

Think it was the correct decision. Agree completely that parts of it was "extremely distasteful".

Stuff like this should be printed. People still think like this so if anything, it highlights the stupidity of the opinion.

Morlar

K-9 wrote: »

Stuff like this should be printed. People still think like this so if anything, it highlights the stupidity of the opinion.

I think the alternative is to have special interest lobby and advocacy groups starting facebook petitions anytime they see an opinion in print they disagree with.

walshb

dr.bollocko wrote: »

No you questioned the entire homosexual lifestyle and implied it was incorrect or somehow wrong. Just like that idiot Muir did.

And so what if I did. Is this against the law to question lifestyles?:rolleyes:
I never implied it was wrong, saying something isn't quite the "norm"
doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Gately's lifestyle was different to mine, and others, as different as ours is to his. Nobody is saying mine or others is the way it should be.

Xluna

These people would sell their grannies into slavery for money. I would'nt wipe my arse with tabloid crap.

eightyfish

walshb wrote: »

Gately's death was suspicious, his cremation after a few days was also a little strange.

That's not the main thing she said that enraged people. This is:

Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships

At least for me anyway. Free speech is paramount, and this woman should be allowed to spout whatever homophobic bile she likes, but I do feel better about the world if that bile generates thousands of complaints rather then just being accepted.

Mike 1972

press watchdog

Bear in mind this so-called watchdog is an industry body not a state regulatory body.

Think Fox-in-charge-of-henhouse

OutlawPete

walshb wrote: »

Gately's death was suspicious, his cremation after a few days was also a little strange.

Ah ffs.

Not again.

walshb wrote: »

And so what if I did. Is this against the law to question lifestyles?:rolleyes:

On an IRISH thread, when a IRISH guy has just choked to DEATH that did fcuk all to anyone.

Yes it is, its against the LAW of common sense !!!

walshb

OutlawPete wrote: »

Ah ffs.

Not again.



On an IRISH thread, when a IRISH guy has just choked to DEATH that did fcuk all to anyone.

Yes it is, its against the LAW of common sense !!!

So, you don't think it at all suspiscious the circumstances surrounding his
death, and just because some ****ing half ass Spanish autopsy says it was
natural, that makes it so?

Now, I am not saying that they got it wrong, but if I were Gately's parents and my child died under those circumstances, aged 34, I would want a second opinion, at least an autoposy performed by an Irish authority.

That didn't happen, Gately was cremated as soon as he could be.

Maybe I am too precise and inquisitive, but Gately's death from my understanding wasn't an every day occurrence, hence a wee bit of
investigation was needed.