Gately/Moir - PCC verdict

The Press Complaints Commission has not upheld the complaint made against Jan Moir for her piece in the Daily Mail upon the death of Stephen Gately, when she wrote:

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.

The story was ill considered. A young man died.

But to see the gays jumping up and down screaming "homophobia" devalues the word. It now seems to be aimed at anybody who criticizes gays, in any way.

There is a certain type of homosexual who glories in the worst kind of perversions, including some of the high profile activists who are criticizing the PCC. A lot of people are ok with what goes on in private, but would rather not have it thrown in their faces. That is all. When someone writes "the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy" they are writing in the context of a hysterical outpouring of second-hand grief, of the Princess Di kind, not only about someone who is gay, but about someone who is, whether he wanted it or not, a public figure who was instantly made out to be some kind of hero.

This poor young man died while his "civil partner" was having sex with a rent boy. If you can pretend that is not seedy, you are living in la la land, and had this been a heterosexual story, most people would have condemned it as such.

The only thing I can say in favour of this story not appearing, is if we dispensed with the idea that people who are famous for something are remarkably interesting in other aspects of their lives. They are not. They are just like you and me, only they have been extraordinarily lucky. Some have been talented, that is beyond doubt, but Stephen Gately? He was invented!


strapworld said...

Well written WW. I read Iain Dales tirade this morning. I responded by asking, What Next burning books?
I then said about this being a free society, allegedly, and that I may disagree with people but I respect their view.

Iain Dale did not allow it!

I have taken him off my list and will ignore the bore. Anyone who cannot accept there is always an alternative view is a fool.

I have come a long way. From arresting them, and many were nice people, and now accepting them it was a hard journey.

Well written.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Dear Strapworld,

As a matter of form, I tend to save posts that I think may be banned. I used to do this with Tom Harris' blog, and it comes in useful.

Nothing will get banned here unless it is just offensive (and I have a very high threshold) or potentially illegal.

As for arresting people, I believe the article was referred to the Crown Prosecutor. Having read it, that move was laughable in the extreme - but then again, we live in extreme times.

Spartan said...

Too true WW, too true ... or as Omar Little would say "Indeed".

Dave said...

Good points WW.
It's as if fidelity and life-long commitment mean nothing.

I don't care what a person's sexual orientation is. But surely if you behave like a slapper and sleep with someone you picked up while your partner sleeps next door, it makes a mockery of any vows you may have taken, whether in a civil or religious ceremony.

Isn't that the point she was making?

Dave said...

PS, you're right about pop artists and boy bands being invented. They're just the label on a corporate tin of beans. Same old mush, different label.

Jim Baxter said...

'There is a certain type of homosexual who glories in the worst kind of perversions'

True no doubt but the same cold be said of many who are not homosexuals. and what are the best kinds of perversions?

Perhaps an example might help:

In his article of 1949, ‘Remarks on the relation of male homosexuality to paranoia, paranoid anxiety, and narcissism’ Int. J. Psych-Anal, 30: 36-47, Rosenfeld cites the case of a homosexual man who recalled that when he was six he would bounce happily on his father’s knee while fantasising about shitting his trousers (note: his own - the child’s - trousers, not the father’s, although collateral defilement could not be ruled out depending on the absorption index of the child’s trousers and any contiguous undergarment, the trouser inside leg-length, and the consistency, real or imagined, of the child’s faeces on the day in question – it is not clear from Rosenfeld’s account to what degree his patient recalled considering such extraneous variables at the age of six).

Children eh? You're just trying to be a happy playful dad and what does it turn out that the little creeps are thinking?

OK, if that fantasy isn't a sick one then nothing is. (It's a real case report, as referenced - look it up). But, again, there are supposed heterosexuals who include coprophilia, and copropagia, on their to-do lists.

Indy said...

I don't think you can have read the article?

She started off comparing his death to those of Michael Jackson and Heath Ledger - both of whom died because of drugs.

She went on to talk about fractured lives and private vice and named some of the "dozens of household names out there with secret and not-so-secret troubles, or damaging habits both past and present. .... Robbie, Amy, Kate, Whitney, Britney; we all know who they are."

She then said "All the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances. The Gately family are - perhaps understandably - keen to register their boy's demise on the national consciousness as nothing more than a tragic accident. Even before the post-mortem and toxicology reports were released by the Spanish authorities, the Gatelys' lawyer reiterated that they believed his sudden death was due to natural causes."

She then said "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."

However the post mortem found that his death was due to natural causes. Jan Moir may have believed that his death was not natural - presumably she also believed that his life was not natural either since he was gay and by her standards an unnatural pervert.

But that was just her personal opinion. When she stated that his death was not natural she got it wrong. When a journalist gets it wrong they should apologise and withdraw their comments. If they refuse to do that they should be made to. Otherwise it is carte blanche for every journalist to misrepresent facts to support their opinions.

Many people would say we are at that stage already