Jan Moir PCC rejects complaint over Jan Moir column on Stephen Gately
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...ely-pcc-ruling

The Press Complaints Commission has rejected a complaint from the partner of Stephen Gately, the Boyzone singer who died suddenly in October, over an article by the Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir.


A victory for common sense and a defeat for new internet liberal hysteria

This was just a debate on The Wright Stuff

what was the jist of the debate?

That she was being a bit homophobic and making ludacris claims that a "30 odd year old does not just go to sleep and never wake up due to natural causes." but it was proven that he had an undetected heart problem.

what did they say about the threesome when they were "married"?

i don't know.

i'd have liked to have been in that threesome.

The bottom line is she more or less directly linked his lifestyle to his death without any knowledge whatsoever. Even if she was right she would still have made that basless judgement.

The silly homophobic cow.

off with her head!

I always thought it would be better and hillarious to just bring her to a popular gay night spot and shove her on to the dance floor.

Lol! Yes or do that then everyone will slap her with their cocks.

I'm not bothered whether she gets prosecuted. I wouldn't know where to begin to list all the ridiculous, offensive things the Daily Mail has come up with over the years.

The moment I heard that story about the mother murdering her autistic child, my first thought was "In before the Daily Mail writes an article sympathetic to the murderer and how hard it must have been for her" to say nothing of the lies it's told about the MMR jab's relationship with autism.

No

As i recall she said that there was nothing natural about the circumstances that lead to his death and for 95% of the world that would be right.

Whilst gay people would think so what, married couple bring back guy from bar for sex, that is not what most think and she said what most thought. The PCC agreed.

Here is what still annoys me;
If that was Nick Griffin who died - there would be absolutely no end to the horrific jokes, innuendos, slurs, insinuations and not only 'equally bad' as this case but far far worse,
yet,
not a single question over 'freedom of speech' or any question would be made over censoring anything.
It would not even be hinted at as any sort of discussion.

Now btw.. I am not saying I want that and I am not 'touting' Nick Griffin either (and disagree with him on some issues),
but,
What really annoys me is that this even has to be a discussion but only if it comes to the chosen and exclusive PC-Police 'ordained limits and topics' and what protects 'social liberal leftist' types causes or sympathies.

Why don't we just allow any and all free speech and ALSO that includes anyone wanting to tell our rude and tasteless speakers to shut the **** up and then freely discuss why they were wrong to insult (name person or cause),
and,
in the case of speech grossly offensive then good - ALLOW them to embarrass and expose themselves.
Then 'vote' with your ears or attendance too.

People think I am exaggerating when I say that the UK has become as uncomfortably 'Big Brother' (as in the horror novel not programme) and as 'thought policed' as Communist China.
I was in both recently.
I am not exaggerating when I say the UK is LESS free in so many areas and going the wrong way.
China is actually becoming MORE free in so many areas and going the right way.
Seriously.
Its damn creepy with you people and you better damn well stop and take a look at yourselves.
Oh.. well you do.. on CCTV soon to be in your homes monitoring your racism I suppose.

It had nothing to do with his death though. It was an assumption. Bottom line.

Being a pervy old swinger does not automatically kill you within a matter of hours. It just makes you a pervy old swinger.

She also said this was a blow to those who touted the 'myth of the safe gay lifestyle'. Horsesh!t.





To the above post : Whilst I disagree with what said stupid cow said, I would not make any attempt to stop her from saying it. Only your argument falls at the hurdle of it being misinformation, which tarnishes her ~freedom of speechez! backup somewhat. I believe journalists of major papers should at least be held to a certain standard. Like ... you know ... basing things on correct information. It's their job. If my job is flipping burgers and I don't flip burgers - I get fired.

If she wants to rant misinformed bullsh!t then she could have just blogged like the rest of us.

But hey, it is the Daily Mail.

As for the lolocaust Nick Griffin comparison, your right, nobody would care. Because he is a fucking nazi. That's the way the world works, son. If your a sh!tlicking nazi you have to accept certain formalities. One of them being rational thinking people having nil respect for you in life or in death.

In all seriousness - I wonder if the guy died from damage caused by whatever drugs are so prevalent in the gay sex scenes?
Cocaine maybe but I hear that Meth is a huge thing with the gays now and what is this thing 'poppers' supposed to be?

I ask because it reminded me of late comedian Chris Farley who also died in this 30s from 'heart problems'.
Well yes.. you can say that he did of 'natural causes' from a heart problem but you know.. of course that heart problem is directly from being on a non-stop drug-fueled party for 48 hours in a row type of thing.

So anyone know the 'inside story' here?

lolocaust?

i am having that


I think the big story for the Moir article was the hysterical internet baying mob whipped up over very little and how judge and jury it became. The decision is a good one.

Only Cannabis showed up in the autopsy. Try again, homophobe.

Cocaine and Methamphetamine are big in the gay scene only in the same vein that they are big in any clubbing scene.

Cocaine and Methamphetamine in the same vein?


no wonder he died:shocked:

:hugesmile:

Don't be so ignorant of the gay lifestyle. 'Per Capita' the drug use and abuse is WAY HIGHER than any other subculture you can think of.
Except maybe heroin addicts.

Stop being homophobic and learn to accept that drug use is part of their lifestyle.
Who are you to judge them for it?
Gays love cocaine and meth and its not for you to decide what they love.

Gays love poppers :joker:

Drug users themselves are a subculture. Stoners are a subculture. Heroin junkies are a subculture. These subcultures contain straight, gay, bi people, you name it. Your nothing more than a silly little troll. Posting uninformed mess after uninformed mess. Like I already told you, and like you promptly ignored : No traces of any drugs bar Alcohol and Cannabis were found in the autopsy.

Tibb gets worse by the week

most folk? no it was a stupid artcle.

plenty married hetrosexuals take part in threesomes who cares. eash to their own and let it be.

Uh no, you don't get it. Also, you are no spokesman for the gay subculture,
and,
you are just some knee-jerk reactionary with a simple mindset who thinks you should deny anything that 'makes you feel bad about gays' somehow. If someone said gays put penis's in their mouths you would instantly refute it by saying "Oh no.. people do that.. gays are just some of them.. so there!".
The reality is different than your made-up stories.
The gay 'subculture' IS one where drug use and abuse is not just more 'per capita' but it is more use by 'each person' than most other demographics. Often by a huge margin.
It IS hard to pin down 'scientific studies' on illegal and underground activity but the better research puts it as about:
20 times more drugs on average than the normal males.

But of course some of us don't need to play 'internet statistics' anyways. We lived in areas with gay clubs and scenes and have friends and family that worked or played in those circles.
The drug use is astonishing.
I know Meth was a very popular one because the idea here is that it can keep you awake and hyper-horny for long periods of time.
For a lot of gays this means many more lovers and more frequently in a given 'party weekend'.
Having gay sex is the whole point of being gay.

I have to give gays credit where it is due - on the whole they seem to have a very high tolerance level and are pretty good to be 'functional' drug-addicts and users.
They will get to work on Mondays. They may also look like hell warmed over, have horrific and inattentive attitudes/hangovers,
but,
people just think its because they are like 'bitchy women' and think they are weird anyways so they seem to get a pass more than others,
but,
to their credit they do handle their massive drug intakes better than other groups overall.

Get real. Go LEARN about subcultures FIRST and then you can come here and try and 'educate'.

Free Tibb... et!

(sorry)

You know I'm Bisexual and have been in this city's gay subculture for the past four or so years, right?

Oops.

I'm not denying huge drug use exists in the gay subculture, but that's not to say being gay = drug use. Lots of gays do tonnes of drugs, but so do lots of clubbers in general. The gay subculture you are reffering to fits into the whole clubbing spectrum in general also. A lot of gays tend to be these clubbing party animal types. Link the drug use to them as people, not because of the fact that they are gay.

And again, my point was you were wrong about Stephen Gatley. No Cocaine. No Meth. Something you keep ignoring me on.

Silly tool.

No, I don't know that but that is worse. You know better and are trying to argue against something you know to be true.

Now we have the truth. Was that really so hard?
You didn't need to try and fight that simple truth until now.

Nobody, not you, not me, not any readers.. absolutely nobody thought that anyone was actually trying to say that each and every gay.. all gays always do drugs.

When I say 'Tea is a big part of British culture and they really love drinking plenty of tea' there is NOBODY who thinks I'm trying to convince them that every single Brit does drink tea twice a day.
Come on.
It's like saying Christians often sit in Pews but link it to them as people and not Christians.

Ignoring what?
I asked if anyone had the backstory on it and you told me. Great. Yes, thanks. Wow.
It may not even answer my question but at least it does about that particular weekend (and what tests can detect).

So here we see the name-calling hatred come out.
Hatefulness, spite, name-calling and intolerance towards heterosexuals is another thing rampant in the gay subcultures.

Not hatefulness, spite, name calling because your a heterosexual, but because your a homophobe. And you try and victimize yourself?, you complete windowlicker. You can shine the sh!t off my shoes.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but when you're writing for a newspaper that's read by millions it places you in a position of power, and as we all know with great power comes great responsiblity. Geek alert. But yeah, the editor should have taken a look at this hatchet job and told the person writing it to ease off with the fear mongering and vitriol or otherwise they can start a new career - ranting their bile on a street corner somewhere.

At the end of the day she, like all of us has freedom of speech. She's an unpleasant woman who I disagree heartilly with but it was the Editor's choice to print it, just be glad most people are (rightfully) outraged rather then agreeing with her.

Her reputation's in the mud now and people look at her with hatred, she didn't need her knuckles rapped by that comittee since her career's probably all but ruined now (and rightfully so).

And what exactly are the spokesman for, racial and sexual intolerance, ignorant claims backed up by personal abuse or simply "Trolls R Us"?

Of course it is hard to pin them down if you dont look for them and just pull some random number out of the air and claim it to be fact. Who commissioned this "better research" the university of el proximo (no dirty filthy ***** or raghead muslims allowed)?

No you just like playing the "let me make some garbage claim and anyone who argues against my warped point of view obviously has something wrong with them" game.

Another big one there, you dont have any friends.


I didnt realise being Gay had to have a point.

I would recommend you practice what you preach, not the hate filled garbage, just GO LEARN!

I'm a representative from 'Reality Check Worldwide'.


Wrong.
It is difficult to get a 'scientific study of exacting nature' (as one might say) on illegal activity.
For that matter it's not easy getting reliable surveys on who has had gay sex, how often and if they identify themselves as 'gay' (and even what that means),
but,
the illegal activity 'confession' leaves question.
One of the reasons we 'know what we don't know' is because (for example) a direct in-person questionnaire can get you some much much lower numbers than an anonymous poll,
and,
actually there again are other factors.

But you can actually find some of these online and by 'better ones' will be the ones giving explanations about why and how they arrived at 20 times the drug usage among homosexuals.
(besides saying 'an online poll' or 'survey of gay right activists' etc)



Well in my case its more than just relying on some studies published online. In fact my claims come from 2 other angles:
- For years I lived in an area that would be deemed a 'gay district' by some and lived among, worked with and befriended many a flaming gay. I also got first-hand the spite, contempt and hatred of some,
and,
certainly had close friends and family.
Our city actually could add a 'boast' in that our local 'gay community' was also a multicultural and 'international' gay community.

And even further along in education is that part of my job once included being among the first people who tried to find out just what exactly was the gay population,
what did they like,
what did they do...
...and yes you guessed 'marketing'. At the time there really wasn't any good answers. We had to try and 'find the gays' and more importantly find out what they wanted to buy!
In fact our jobs depended on this so no 'rubbish games' allowed on that one.

You didn't?
Well realize it this way; simply imagine someone did not desire to or actually did have gay sex.
Would you consider them gay anymore?
This is not complicated. the desire for 'gay sex' IS really the 'minimum requirement' for you to even call a person a homosexual in the first place.


How would you know the difference?

Plenty of straight people don't like sex but are still fundamentally straight [I.E. Attracted to the opposite sex]. Does that make them not straight?

That didn't answer my question.
You answer mine first instead of resorting to trick "If __ doesnt' ___ then does that not make ___" and pretending like the 'answer' to that also 'answers yours' too.

Guy doesn't desire sex with another man and never does.
Is he gay or not.
Yes or no.
Answer that and you can work on other peoples medical problems later.

He could be gay. I don't know this non existent character you have dreamed up, you silly tit. Ever hear of Asexuals? People who have no desire for sex? Well they still have sexual feelings often. It is entirely possible that plenty of gay people exist who don't wish to have gay sex just like plenty of straight people exist who don't want to have sex. These are facts.

Medical problems? What one earth are you talking about? Is that to suggest people who have no desire for sex suffer from a medical condition?

Your something, aren't you.

And which "world" is it that you live in?

More unsubstantiated crap from the crapmeister(thats you by the way). You going to come back with the usual, "go find", instead of actually providing any sort of link? After all if its there and you have seen it, you would have it in your browser history. But no, no doubt there will be some ridiculous comment or arguement against that.


We covered that one already.

I take it that job didnt last too long for you then?

Is it feasible that a person who considers himself Gay decides to become celibate at some point in his life? Does this then make that person straight? After all they arent wanting Gay sex.

Unlike yourself I can tell the difference between my arse and my elbow/shit and shinola*.

*Delete as applicable

As Roy Hattersely said on QT last night. Newspaper columnists say controversial things, that is their job. deal with it.