Blimey, its the top item on the 10 o'clock news now

oooh

They only showed the sanitised headline though, not that hateful original one

Poor Jan. She only wanted to help the young geighers not have inherited heart conditions and tings!

They're already sending out a standard reply implying that the only people who are allowed to complain are Stephen Gately's family.

I'm owning up.  I read the Daily Mail and I quite like it.  I bypass all the politics and the stuff I don't agree with in the paper and make my own mind up about the content.
I did read the article today that Jan Moir wrote about the late Stephen Gately and I was shocked with the inferences she was making.  Normally, I like Jan Moir's column because she is a punchy journalist who tends to say what the other journalists steer clear of.  But I do believe she has gone too far with this article, I thought it today when I read it, and long before I came on the forum, and I am not surprised by the backlash she is receiving for her comments.  There are just some things you avoid saying at such a time when a family is grieving.  This young man is being buried tomorrow in Dublin and his family do not need to read such stuff at this very sad time for them.

Let's all change our surnames to Gately!

Doesn't surprise me.  I emailed Peter Kay recently regarding his Diary article about Betty Duncan Smith and he accused me of taking a "cheap shot"

It's more than that - there are somethings you don't say (everything in that article for a start) because they're blatantly not true AND homophobic.

*dashes off to see how much a deed poll costs*

Vodka?

I agree.  But you especially mind your language at a time when a family is grieving.  There is a lot of PC nonsense spouted today where certain words are taboo and people are reluctant to open their mouths for fear of causing offence but, in this instance, Jan Moir has overstepped the boundaries of what is acceptable and her comments are bound to cause offence to gay people, never mind the loving family of Stephen Gateley.

Yes please

PCC reply: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 Gately's 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 PCC's 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 wemay 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.

Yes, she made me feel vomitty.
Does that count?

The editor of the Daily Mail and member of the PCC Code committee can be contacted  on paul.dacre@pcc.org.uk

I have emailed him but have not got a reply yet from him.

That is a valid argument in law Ms Blizzie. Upheld.

You see, this sentence actually leaves the door open for any gay person to complain about her comments.  From my reading of the article, she inferred that gay people lead 'different' lives from those of the heterosexual persuasion.  By commenting on Stephen Gately's death and the circumstances surrounding it, she was all-inclusive in her statement and the unbalanced and prejudiced slant was definitely towards gay lifestyles imo.

Blizzie Gateley has a nice ring to it.

Tis true.
I felt obliged to invite a Brazillian into my bedroom, just to fullfill the remit. 

But Blizz, I thought a woman of your wide experience would already have a Brazilian

They may give the standard reply but I bet she's cacking herself now the horrible biatch..hope her next shoites a hedgehog....

*** feels upheld by smarting buttocks ***

When you say wide...  

I did not validate your valid arguement although I do feel it is valid none the less. Upholding my buttocks anyway, perhaps I should now be clenched.

*** feels kilocalories draining away ***

Sorry I haven't read through the whole thread ..................I am simply outraged that this was allowed to get into print.

What the hell was sleazy about his death ..........................OK it's not the norm for 33 year olds to go to bed and not wake up but it really does happen. what the eff is she on about saying civil partenerships aren't always happy etc.?

that woman should be sacked on the spot ...........it was truly scandalous what she had the audacity to write.

OK - I admit it ...........when I do buy a newspaper I buy the mail ..........I like the womans section and the crosswords and I like the layout.


i will not be buying this newspaper ever again ..............................SCANDALOUS, BIGOTED, SHITE!

Soozywoo, nough said!

When I say wide, I mean varied and multi-faceted.  I mean woman-of-the-world wide.  Wide enough to warrant a Brazilian in any case.  The wide bears no resemblance to buttocks or things


*digging myself out of a hole here*

*** protects hole from digging ***

soozy, well said.  I like the Mail too but I would be reluctant to buy it in future unless this woman is sacked.

I have jut e mailed at the address given above. How did this piece of shite ever get through?

Soozy, the Mail is full of PC nonsense gone mad, how they report if someone farts sideways and they do go OTT on a lot of things, always taking the moral high ground, and I can overlook all that stuff by choosing not to read it but this article is different. It is offensive and hurtful to the family of Stephen Gately and it is also offensive to gay people too.  Normally, I can just overlook some of the crass stuff they print but today I was really shocked that this article went to print in a national newspaper.

I'm not.  Not in the slightest.  I'm glad it's been printed.  Let's all turn our cameras around to look at the people who read that newspaper.

Hello Daily Mail readers.  This is your rag. 

Too right - all hail the Daily Heil!

Jesus what planet are you on?

I'm with you there.  All I read it for is the adverts about limited edition commemorative plates, elasticated pants for the late middle-aged gents, and sheds at the back.  It's actually worth buying just for those, really.

I've been missing out. 

I've been half-making apple crumble, Daniel.  Done that, have you?!  Well, have ya????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!