To find this article about Stephen Gately's death utterly vile and callous?

[BiteOfFun]

Quelle surprise- it's in the Daily Hate, and surely represents a new low? What a nasty piece of writing- shame on you, Jan Moir!

She is tacking very close to the wind as far as the code goes; it's all very nudge-nudge-wink-wink and disingenuous. Irritating style, to say the least, and pandering to a certain type of reader obviously.

"She is tacking very close to the wind as far as the code goes; it's all very nudge-nudge-wink-wink and disingenuous."

Quite agree Mathanxiety. However, I do think that she is just within the guidelines and therefore beyond reprimand.

"Irritating style, to say the least, and pandering to a certain type of reader obviously."

Absolutely. But then if you write for the Daily Mail your remit is to appeal to your target audiences' opinions and beliefs.

I would not be schocked to find photographs of naked breasts if I bought a copy of Playboy, for example.

VicarInABooTu

For someone who is terribly keen on codes being stuck to and people not being offended, you appear to have overlooked Mumsnet's ruling that:

"...in line with our Talk policy elsewhere, we don't allow personal attacks no matter how unreasonable you think someone is".

Aside from that, I have little respect for someone whose argument relies upon calling the other party a "pompous up your own arse t**t."

But isnt a vital part of free speech, the freedom to object to and complain about views that offend you?

This woman's views and writing are offensive to many. Because of free speech we are free to complain and make our views clear. This does not mean we are against free speech, it means we have the right to express our disgust at her bigoted bollocks.

If a homosexual lifestyle is so darn dangerous, why are STDs (including HIV)on the rise in hetrosexuals more than in gay men?

"But isnt a vital part of free speech, the freedom to object to and complain about views that offend you?"

Indeed, Chegirl. I have already said that:

"I have no argument with people criticising, or even campaigning ? thats? part of free speech too."

My concern is over those who wish to silence Moir, to punish her for an opinion she is perfectly entitled to hold. And that is effectly what you are saying when you complain to the PCC (whose code of conduct I do believe she has broken).

"If a homosexual lifestyle is so darn dangerous, why are STDs (including HIV)on the rise in hetrosexuals more than in gay men?"

I blieve it's about a greater care taken over the use of barrier contraception in the homosexual community than the hetrosexual one.

But in any case, I did clearly state that this is not an argument I subscribe to myself. I was using to illustrate the evidience that homophobic peoples use to support my argument, and I did say that I would have some bones to pick with it myself.

correction

"Whose code of conduct I do not believe she has broken."

Getting late and very tired - sorry.

I understand your points notanumber but this woman is a journalist with a huge platform on which to air her horrible views.
I think this makes a huge difference.

If gay men are taking greater care than hetrosexuals then surely their lifestyle is less not more dangerous?

being gay is not inherently more dangerous than being straight. Indulging in certain acts is dangerous and these acts are not exclusive to gay men. Drug taking, multiple partners, drinking, anal sex, unprotected sex.. these are all very common in hetrosexuals.

This journalist is making assumptions about Mr Gately's life based on her ideas about what gay men do. Did he not die of natural causes? What has anal sex or drinking got to do with it?

It seems as if his death was just an excuse to air her nasty little prejudices. I think it is perfectly valid to object to this.

Janet Street-Porter is not impressed by her colleague's article either

M & S, BT and Visit England have pulled their ads from the daily mail page by Jan Moir on Stephen Gately. Good start.

"...this woman is a journalist with a huge platform on which to air her horrible views."

Yes. It doesn't mean that shouldn't be able to though.

Charlie Brooker had a huge platform to air his views too and there are no complaints about that. The only difference is that you agree with Brooker and you disagree with Moir.

That's not a good enough reason to want her silenced. And - like it or not - there are a good many people who do agree with Moir, who feel that she represented their views.

Look, I largely agree with you that "...being gay is not inherently more dangerous than being straight", you are preaching to the converted!

However, for the sake of illustrating my argument I felt the need to give an example of the logic a homophobe might use. I am neither defending or agreeing with it.

"It seems as if his death was just an excuse to air her nasty little prejudices. I think it is perfectly valid to object to this"

You can of course object to what she said. I just don't think you can object to her saying it.

I am not impressed by Moir's views either, SCARYspicemonster.

Providing lots of examples of people who don't agree with her views doesn't change the fact that she is entitled to hold them and entitled to speak them.

Even if she is the only person in the whole country who thinks that way (sadly, I fear she is not).

One thing that strikes me is that the DM editors knew how offensive people would find it, to the extent that it was not included in the Irish version of the Daily Mail, as the alleged journo's columns usually are. Why publish something about an irish man in the UK version and not in the Irish one? Because they knew they would never get away with it.

"M & S, BT and Visit England have pulled their ads from the daily mail page by Jan Moir on Stephen Gately. Good start."

Agreed, claudialyman. I am all for people making their feelings known. And if it damages Moir's reputation and career then all for the better. That is the beauty of free speech!

I must abed now. I've enjyed the debate.

Perhaps I will see you in the morning if it's still going (probably a good thing if it's not!)

poo, it was the night of the press awards, the head honchos were away getting pissed and the piece went through in uk. in ireland, with a full complement of staff, it would have been too close to gately's death to run it, would've alienated their audience. nothing to do with homophobia though, i'd have thought, more to do with the irish thing. just look at john and edward getting through.

Thats what I meant Aitch, that it would have pissed off too many of their readership over here...which struck me as cynical..either you think the piece is acceptable to print or you don't, not acceptable for one audience but not another.
I agree with the comments about her right to free speech, her bilous hateful vitriol should not be censored, I'm all for these people showing their true colours. But is you believe in that viewpoint (and the editors shouldn't print it if they don't want to stand behind it) you shouldn't be afraid or ashamed or just plain bottom line reading cynical enough not to run it in the subjects home country.

So what I'm saying I suppose is they are not just nasty, homophobic, reactionary, inappropriate and ghoulish, but also spineless, cynical and two faced to boot.

i understand your point, but tbh that's not the way it works. ireland will drop things all the time, as will scotland, but they're fine for england and vice versa. that's precisely why they print up regional editions and have staff in regional offices, so that local issues can be covered differently.

Could I suggest that a far better way of registering disgust than asking the PCC (who don't accept complaints from persons not directly affected anyway) to reprimand Moir are items such as this brilliantly sarcastic article.

It so effectively reveals Moir's argument to be the illogical bigotry it is, there is no need to complain to the PCC or anyone else.

hardly, otherwise this earlier article would havve had the desired effect.

I think it is beyong the Mail's ken to be able to radically alter decades of entrenched prejudice.

But perhaps articles like this reduce their sting?

I abhor Moir's opinions. But as Notanumber has pointed out, she has probably breached the code.

Further, complaints to PCC are only usually considered if lodged by people directly affected.

But aboveall, the Chairman of the PCC Code Committee is ............Paul Dacre. Editor of the DM. Talk about closed shop.

So don't expect the PCC to do a thing.

Instead, hit them where it hurts: a boycott. A concerted, longterm boycott. Online and offline. And on mn; enough with the links to the DM, even to deprocate their extremist articles. Stop reading the DM, stop linking to the DM, stop giving them oxygen.

They have the right to express whatever opinion's they want. But in a vacuum.

Look at The Sun....20 years after Hillsborough and they still haven't recovered their sales on Merseyside.

Probably has not breached the code

I'm confused over this not having breached the code. She lied. She said that healthy young men don't just die. They do. As I said earlier, this has happened to the sons of two friends of mine in the past year. They both went to bed after an evening in with their families and never woke up again. It happens. Surely a bare-faced lie breaches Article 1 of the code?

The Daily What?