Stavros Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 And her response was: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/1...gately-response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I think she's quite smart to try and spin this into a homophobic thing, when the article is offensive for many other reasons, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 And her response was: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/1...gately-response Oh man. She comes across as really stupid again. Shouldn't be surprised really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Charlton sums it up quite well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...gately-jan-moir 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. Guardian bashing Mail. Thank you for sending us your complaint about the Daily Mail article on the subject of the death of Stephen Gately. We have received numerous complaints about this matter.I should first make clear that the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail. I can inform you that we have made ourselves available to the family and Mr Gatelys bandmates, in order that they can use our services if they wish. We require the direct involvement of affected parties because the PCC process can have a public outcome and it would be discourteous for the Commission to publish information relating to individuals without their knowledge or consent. Indeed, doing so might unwittingly add to any intrusion. Additionally, one of the PCCs roles is dispute resolution, and we would need contact with the affected party in order to determine what would be an acceptable means of settling a complaint. On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and we will not be able to pursue your concerns further. However, if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this. Yours sincerely Simon Yip simon.yip@pcc.org.uk You'd have thought that the Guardian would be aware of the rules regarding complaints to the PCC and therefore wouldn't be encouraging complaints from individuals with nothing to do with the article. I read one posting that I thought was quite good: Nothing in that piece is as nauseating as the canonising of Gately as a gay saint by people who didn't give a shit about him the day before he died, or the liberal ganging-up on show here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I did. It is most certainly homophobic. A rather pointless meandering about whether it was a natural death or not - even though the doctors say it was, yet the columnist then make some bizarre comments on the matter of same-sex relationships and his lifestyle. She is referring to his homosexuality in some way being the cause of his death because of her ideas of some lifestyle. What a fucking dickhead she is. Do you not think that you might be reading what you 'want' to read as opposed to reading her views impartially. It doesn't appear to make any hetrosexual people feel that she is being homophobic and I suggest that you might be biased in your opinion of her comments towards same sex relationships and his lifestyle. Impartial? Well I can't be impartial, nor can you. It is heterosexual outlook on same-sex relationships and a supposed gay lifestyles. Why would you suggest I might have bias? But read the article again, the homophobia is obvious in making reference to same-sex relationships and lifestyle that aren't even relevant. And nor is Matt Lucas's ex's death have anything to do with Gately's - they just both happen to be same-sex relationships. And she also comments on the idea of civil partnerships being long-term commitments. How the fuck does she know how long they will last? Because a couple of gay people have died? More interestingly is this dickhead's choice of language: "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." Considering she clearly knows very little about his lifestyle, except that there was clubbing, some cannabis use, and that one of the partner's possibly slept with this Bulgarian, her language seems to betray a feeling of disgusting and dirtyness surrounding his lifestyle. Which has no relevance to his death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I have read Moir's article and there is nothing homophobic about it at all. Some of the comments made on here make me wonder if those concerned have taken the trouble to read and comprehend what Moir actually said. It is one thing to disagree with any opinions she expressed, but quite another to brand the article as homophobic and proceeding to lambaste it with such abuse. I can only think that LDV and all the other bleeding hearts are so blinded by their politically correct predelictions that they cannot read and understand what is written but automatically apply their "chip on the shoulder" response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 ...except that there was clubbing, some cannabis use, and that one of the partner's possibly slept with this Bulgarian... I see what you mean, yeah just a regular Saturday night that any of us have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 She thinks it is mischievious that her comments are being made out to be homophobic. What about this: However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately's death - out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger - did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition. Reading her knowledge of what Gately may have done that night only drugs would appear to be something that could possibly have any involvement in his death. Not taking a shag back home. And it appears from what is known that only cannabis was taken. He may have been clubbing for a long time but so what? Her article seemed to try to argue that there was something dark, sinister, and dirty behind his death when there is nothing to indicate that this is the case, yet because his lifestlye is clearly seen to be dirty she brings up civil partnerships and a gay person who committed suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 ...except that there was clubbing, some cannabis use, and that one of the partner's possibly slept with this Bulgarian... I see what you mean, yeah just a regular Saturday night that any of us have. It's hardly an unusual way to spend a Saturday night - go out, take some sort of substance, hope to get a shag. Thousands do it every week on the island without dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Reading her knowledge of what Gately may have done that night only drugs would appear to be something that could possibly have any involvement in his death. Not taking a shag back home. And it appears from what is known that only cannabis was taken. He may have been clubbing for a long time but so what? So he may have been out clubbing and he may have been drinking. He may have taken illegal drugs and he may have brought a strange man back to his room with the intention of shagging him. You may not see any behaviour there to be concerned about although perhaps Moir had a different opinion. It's hardly an unusual way to spend a Saturday night - go out, take some sort of substance, hope to get a shag. Thousands do it every week on the island without dying. You take your boyfriend out with you on a Saturday night, you both drink and take illegal substances and ask an unknown man to come back with you both so you can shag him. Thousands of people do this every week on the island? I must be old and blind. It certainly seems unusual to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 ...except that there was clubbing, some cannabis use, and that one of the partner's possibly slept with this Bulgarian... I see what you mean, yeah just a regular Saturday night that any of us have. I doubt there are many Bulgarians on the Isle of Man. However, people on the Island do tend to get wasted on drink (and drugs), go clubbing all evenings, and pull. If one of the many people on the Island who partied at the weekend died and it was stated that it was due to 'natural' causes, would we really be looking at their lifestyle, seeing that they drank a bit, went clubbing, and slept around and then comment about how dirty their lifestlyle was? If they were cheating when they pulled someone, would we really then talk about how the 'happy ever after' belief about marriage is just a myth because of this person? Would it reinforce the point by stating that someone else who is straight and married died the other week, so meaning that straight marriage has been dealt a blow? I can only think that LDV and all the other bleeding hearts are so blinded by their politically correct predelictions that they cannot read and understand what is written but automatically apply their "chip on the shoulder" response.Idiot. You clearly have no idea what political correctness is from your post. Nor understand why the term 'bleeding heart' doesn't make much sense here. And yeah, I do have a 'chip on my shoulder' when it comes to homophobia but also irritation at downright ignorance and stupidity. By all means, clarify the point this woman was apparently trying to make if you believe I am missing how benign they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 So he may have been out clubbing and he may have been drinking. He may have taken illegal drugs and he may have brought a strange man back to his room with the intention of shagging him. You may not see any behaviour there to be concerned about although perhaps Moir had a different opinion. You don't seem to be getting what I mean. Firstly, what does bringing someone back to his home have to do with his death? Might shagging someone other than his partner aggravate his condition? Secondly, he may have dropped a speed bomb, done lines of ket, coke, and took pills. But we don't know anything other than he smokes some dope. Therefore, one could wonder if maybe he did take other drugs. Now it would be one thing for the columnist to say that it is damn strange that a young man died at 33. But to then go on about his sexual activities, speculate on the effects of cannabis use and going clubbing is to enter an area where there is more concern for giving a moral-based opinion on what his lifestyle seemingly was rather than 'intelligently' speculate on what the reasons for his death are. And then...she makes negative comments about endurance of same-sex partnerships- which have nothing to do with his death and thus makes her article homophobic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 she makes negative comments about endurance of same-sex partnerships- which have nothing to do with his death and thus makes her article homophobic. What a pitiful argument for claiming homophobia. Don't worry, there will be another 'Bandwagon' along shortly and you'll no doubt get the opportunity to spout more homophobic interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I am arguing though! You just seem to be saying that you don't UNDERSTAND how I recognise this as homophobic. If you genuinely disagree than explain why. Tell me why same-sex civil partnerships have been mentioned the columnist and how they have a connection with his death? Also explain what connection Gatley's death has with Kevin McGee's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Tell me why same-sex civil partnerships have been mentioned Presumably because Stephen Gatley was there with his partner Andy Cowles, whom he married in a civil ceremony in 2006 and they invited a Bulgarian man back to their apartment. The fact that the Bulgarian man was there the night that Gatley died would be enough reason to mention the connection with their civil partnership. If it were a male celebrity with his wife and they brought another woman back to their apartment, I wouldn't question the fact that their marriage had been mentioned so why would it make it any different if their civil partnership was mentioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.