Blog

• Posted By Mick 22 Oct 2009 20:41

  @Panti - Sorry, not the actually Queerty article, but the reader comments. It shouldn't be the case, but whether we like it or not, the circumstances surrounding Stephen Gately's death, and to a lesser extent, the defence of those circumstances via the reaction to Jan Moir, have negatively impacted on our case for marriage and our image as a community in general. On an unrelated topic, decriminalisation excepted, I think Donal Óg Cusack's coming out is probably the single most significant event in Irish gay history.

• Posted By Panti 21 Oct 2009 22:39

  @ Mick. Unless I read the wrong article, I don't see how that agrees with your point. I have never said she couldn't write what she wants. She can. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge it and call it the tripe it is. And if forcefully challenging this kind of tripe, in large numbers, means that fewer people write that kind of tripe again, then great! Allowing bigotry and ignorance to go unchallenged, allows it to go unchecked.

• Posted By Mick 21 Oct 2009 16:25

  Sorry, didn't know links weren't allowed - go to queerty.com and have a look.

• Posted By Mick 21 Oct 2009 16:23

  Seems there are quite a few who share my views; http://www.quee

• Posted By Jim Bo 17 Oct 2009 15:36

  Complaint lodged with the PCC. This crap makes my blood boil.

• Posted By Simon Murphy 17 Oct 2009 01:30

  Horrific as the article is, I'm not surprised. it's the Daily Mail - the paper that claims to be anti-BNP but pretty much share the same platform. I was never a fan of Boyzone or Stephen Gately (I didn't dislike them they just didn't register very much with me) but I was very sad when Stephen died. He was the first, famous, nice, gay, Irish boy. And he was lovely. I just find the article so incredibly spiteful and vindictive that I think the negative reaction towards Moir is entirely justified. I like the way the Mail's advertisers are being targetted. They care about their income. Might make them think about printing such hateful bile.

• Posted By Philip 16 Oct 2009 23:05

  Panti, this is terrible. I'm in the States, and this death has been largely unreported here. I only learned of it from your post. It's sad that pseudo-journalists are writing hateful things about Stephen. But I'm still trying to get used to the news that he's gone. I remember reading an article about him (in the Advocate, maybe?) when I was a babygay, just coming out, and I rushed to the "foreign" section of my local Virgin megastore to find his imported album. I took a lot from him being a young, out performer. And now he's gone, and left a widower and a grieving family. . . and I didn't know. Very sad. For my part, I HOPE he had a fabulous threesome for his last night on earth. I hope it was wonderful and sexy and passionate, and I hope it's something that his widower and his friend can remember and cherish for the rest of their lives. He certainly deserved that kind of fun, and I hope he took that joy with him to wherever he's off to now. Sad over here in the US ...

• Posted By Hometime 16 Oct 2009 21:25

  Agree 100% with Panti re Stephen not being responsible to the press. Delighted to see that M&S - among others - have pulled their advertising.

• Posted By Mick 16 Oct 2009 21:25

  @Panti - Yup, point taken Panti. I agree. I just wanted to make the general point, using the reaction to this article as the excuse, that too often we can dismiss what might be traces of valid arguments just because they are found buried deep in the middle of a bigoted rant, and that the righteous anger you spoke about so eloquently in the past sometimes needs to be applied with a little more nuance lest we play into the hands of those that provoke that anger.

• Posted By Martin 16 Oct 2009 20:51

  Complaints reach 6,000/ http://www.news

• Posted By Martin 16 Oct 2009 20:50

  Complaints reach 6,000/ http://www.news

• Posted By Martin 16 Oct 2009 20:30

  Complaints reach 6,000/ http://www.news

• Posted By Panti 16 Oct 2009 19:35

  @ Mick. But the two essential points are, (A) to extrapolate from Stephen's (possible) lifestyle to all gay relationships is pure self-serving bigotry, and (B) it wasn't Stephen's responsibility to be some kind of example, acceptable to tabloid journalists, in order to advance the cause of gay marriage. I urge you to read Charlie Brooker's piece in the Guardian that I added a link to in the blog post.

• Posted By Christopher 16 Oct 2009 19:03

  Charlie Brooker has wrote and AMAZING piece on this Why there was nothing 'human' about Jan Moir's column on the death of Stephen Gately Jan Moir's rant about the Boyzone star Stephen Gately is a gratuitous piece of gay-bashing * Charlie Brooker Stephen Gately Jan Moir's column about Stephen Gately dances on his grave. For money. Photograph: Rex Features The funeral of Stephen Gately has not yet taken place. The man hasn't been buried yet. Nevertheless, Jan Moir of the Daily Mail has already managed to dance on his grave. For money. It has been 20 minutes since I've read her now-notorious column, and I'm still struggling to absorb the sheer scope of its hateful idiocy. It's like gazing through a horrid little window into an awesome universe of pure blockheaded spite. Spiralling galaxies of ignorance roll majestically against a backdrop of what looks like dark prejudice, dotted hither and thither with winking stars of snide innuendo. On the Mail website, it was headlined: "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death." Since the official postmortem clearly ascribed the singer's death to natural causes, that headline contains a fairly bold claim. Still, who am I to judge? I'm no expert when it comes to interpreting autopsy findings, unlike Moir. Presumably she's a leading expert in forensic science, paid huge sums of money to fly around the world lecturing coroners on her latest findings. Or maybe she just wants to gay-bash a dead man? Tragically, the only way to find out is to read the rest of her article. She begins by jabbering a bit about untimely celebrity deaths, especially those whose lives are "shadowed by dark appetites or fractured by private vice". Not just Heath Ledger and Michael Jackson. No: she's eagerly looking forward to other premature snuffings. "Robbie, Amy, Kate, Whitney, Britney; we all know who they are. And we are not being ghoulish to anticipate, or to be mentally braced for, their bad end: a long night, a mysterious stranger, an odd set of circumstances that herald a sudden death." Fair enough. I'm sure we all agree there's nothing "ghoulish" whatsoever about eagerly imagining the hypothetical death of someone you've marked out as a potential cadaver on account of your ill-informed presumptions about their lifestyle. All she's doing is running a detailed celebrity-death sweepstake in her head. That's not ghoulish, that's fun. For my part, I've just put a tenner on Moir choking to death on her own bile by the year 2012. See? Fun! Having casually prophesied the death of Robbie Williams and co, Moir moves on to her main point: that Gately's death strikes her as a bit fishy . . . "All the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances . . . But, hang on a minute. Something is terribly wrong with the way this incident has been shaped and spun into nothing more than an unfortunate mishap on a holiday weekend, like a broken teacup in the rented cottage." That's odd. I don't recall anyone equating the death with "an unfortunate mishap on a holiday weekend". I was only aware of shocked expressions of grief from those who knew or admired him, people who'd probably be moved to tears by Moir likening the tragedy to "a broken teacup in the rented cottage". But never mind that – "shaped and spun" by whom, precisely? The coroner? Incredibly, yes. Moir genuinely believes the coroner got it wrong: "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." At this point, I dare to challenge the renowned international forensic pathologist Jan Moir, because I personally know of two other men (one in his 20s, one in his early 30s), who died in precisely this way. According to the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (c-r-y.org.uk), "Twelve apparently fit and healthy young people die in the UK from undiagnosed heart conditions" every single week. That's a lot of broken teacups, eh Jan? Still, if his death wasn't natural "by any yardstick", what did kill him? Moir knows: it was his lifestyle. Because Gately was, y'know . . . homosexual. Having lanced this boil, Moir lets the pus drip out all over her fingers as she continues to type: "The circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy," she declares. "Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta . . . was not what was on the cards . . . What happened afterwards is anyone's guess." Don't hold back, Jan. Have a guess. Draw us a picture. You specialise in celebrity death fantasies, after all. "His mother is still insisting that her son died from a previously undetected heart condition that has plagued the family." Yes. That poor, blinkered woman, "insisting" in the face of official medical evidence that absolutely agrees with her. Anyway, having cast aspersions over a tragic death, doubted a coroner and insulted a grieving mother, Moir's piece builds to its climax: "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 . . . 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." Way to spread the pain around, Jan. Way to link two unrelated tragedies, Jan. Way to gay-bash, Jan. Jan's paper, the Daily Mail, absolutely adores it when people flock to Ofcom to complain about something offensive, especially when it's something they've only learned about second-hand via an inflammatory article in a newspaper. So it would undoubtedly be delighted if, having read this, you paid a visit to the Press Complaints Commission website (www.pcc.org.uk) to lodge a complaint about Moir's article on the basis that it breaches sections 1, 5 and 12 of its code of practice. 16/10/2009 17:18:20

• Posted By Steve 16 Oct 2009 17:56

  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=151083562155&ref=mf

• Posted By Mick 16 Oct 2009 17:33

  @Panti Look, Panti, I love this blog - I tend to agree with most of what you say in it, and it's pretty clear that we also agree on the nature of this article too - I set my stall out on that at the beginning - "I agree that the article is in poor taste and that it is no doubt intended to serve the menacing general editorial agenda of the Daily Mail". Assuming that to have been understood I just wanted to expand on one of the points raised in the context of the current phase of our civil rights struggle.We are seeking the right to marry. All things being fair, this is something that should be afforded to us without question, or debate, or requiring any effort on our parts whatsoever. That is not the case however, and unfortunately what we have to do is engage in a public relations battle - a campaign to change long held ill conceived perceptions, and one of those perceptions is that male couples are incapable of the kind of monogamous relationship that society generally expects of marriage. Now I'll defend anyone's right to live their own married life whatever way they so choose, and whether that perception is bang on the money, or wildly inaccurate, or somewhere in between, or whether it even matters at all is irrelevant at this point, because in the context of our own campaign we must be seen to be acknowledging that the behaviour being speculated upon by the Daily Mail does not go along with what is expected of marriage, regardless of whether it be a gay pop star or Dr. McDreamy , or my own mother and father that's involved.

• Posted By martin 16 Oct 2009 17:24

  the only way they'll learn is to have advertising pulled from them. ive emailed kodak, procter and gamble, visit britain and clinique. visit britain pulled their ad as a resilt an now the rest of the ads have been suspended http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=151083562155&ref=mf

• Posted By Jake 16 Oct 2009 17:16

  One of the red-tops today had an article outlining the evidence given to the policy in Majorca. Andrew and Stephen spent most of the night on the sofa together. Andrew then went to his bedroom to get some proper sleep. The other guy, who apparently is a friend of theirs in Majorca was already asleep in the guest bedroom. On waking, the other guy found Stephen on the sofa. Of course none of this should even matter, but if it does to you then don't jump to assumptions.

• Posted By Jake 16 Oct 2009 17:14

  One of the red-tops today had an article outlining the evidence given to the policy in Majorca. Andrew and Stephen spent most of the night on the sofa together. Andrew then went to his bedroom to get some proper sleep. The other guy, who apparently is a friend of theirs in Majorca was already asleep in the guest bedroom. On waking, the other guy found Stephen on the sofa. Of course none of this should even matter, but if it does to you then don't jump to assumptions.

• Posted By Maria 16 Oct 2009 16:13

  You can (and should) lodge concerns about this vitriolic piece here: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html

• Posted By Alan 16 Oct 2009 16:10

  As ever, well said, Panti

• Posted By Panti 16 Oct 2009 15:20

  @ Mick. First of all, no one knows what the "sleeping arrangements" were - it's all prurient speculation. But more importantly, it's nobody's business! The idea that there is only one acceptable way for adult's to conduct a relationship is offensive. Why should I care whether or not one or the other was having sex with someone else?That's their business. And if they were, I have no problem with it. And of course, the idea that only terrible homos get up to that kind of thing while on holidays is patently ridiculous! Sky One would have a pretty empty schedule if weren't for the "wild" carry-on of heterosexuals on holidays. And of course, we all know that heterosexual pop stars never get up to anything remotely like that! The sexual escapades of straight pop stars are cheered on in their biographies and written about with awe in magazine profiles, but of course, the gays are expected to be paragons of sexual propriety, or else they negate their claims for equality! For example, just recently a video of one of the actors from Grey's Anatomy ("Dr Mc Steamy", or whatever his real name is) having a threesome with his wife and a model, was all over the internet. Had he died that night, would the Daily Mail then be using that as evidence to suggest that heterosexuals are sleazy types who's claims to respect and marriage rights are therefore suspect?

• Posted By J-Lo 16 Oct 2009 15:06

  Mick I know panti can speak for herself. But your just as bad as the one who wrote the article.....Using someone's death to get your point across.

• Posted By Mick 16 Oct 2009 14:52

  I'd actually like if you did pull apart the argument Panti, because while I agree that the article is in poor taste and that it is no doubt intended to serve the menacing general editorial agenda of the Daily Mail, I also happen to agree that the sleeping arrangements in the Gately apartment were the very antithesis of what I would like to think of as the marital ideal and that any attempt to defend such behaviour weakens the advancement of our own general agenda. If one half of a heterosexual married couple died on the sofa while the other half shared a bed with a stranger it would be rightly described as sleazy. Why not the same with a homosexual couple?

• Posted By Jake 16 Oct 2009 14:31

  She's a fat c*nt and I'm not swaying far from public opinion there.

• Posted By J-Lo 16 Oct 2009 13:10

  I wouldnt be gettin too upset about such a outporing of sewage. The proportion of people that will read that and say "damn right" against the proportion of people who'll say "what a sick thing to say" is negligible. That's what makes the daily mail popular, it figures out the more innapropriate things to say and prints it, by going against mainstream oppinion. This makes for addictive reading. Waiting to see how far they will go. They know people will check that article's comments again and again to see do people disagree or not thus huge traffic. How many people will read sky new's comments on the same story. Fery few. Exact same with FM104 phone show when they have any discussion on civil partnership. They find some absolute idiot and give him hugely disproportionate air time. Thus everybody listening is stuck to the radio thinking WHAT. Or when they talked about weather we should pay the ransom for the simmons girl captured in kenya. Obviously the general concensus among people was a compassionate yes. But they give some lunatic 15 mins on his own talking about why thats her problem and not ours. So dont worry about it. If you owned or were the editor of a tabloid newspaper you would do the exact same thing. Anything that strays from popular opinion is always addictive, the addiction being waiting to see other peoples reactions. I would be most certainly sure that the person who wrote that article knew the vile that was in it, totally disagrees with it but was fairly excited putting it out. She was probably a married mother of two, waiting for the clock to turn six thinking 'Hope this is what they want'! Anyway, stop taking media so seriously. Its all a load of shite.

Add your own comment