claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
7,733 ATM 
Mail: a truly despicable article ("nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death")
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
Hello,
Just written to the PCC, an amazing campaign here. I've just been looking round the Mail website (i feel a little sullied) and their top "Femail" article now is a big piece on Gately's funeral, including pics of the family (including his mum). It's tone initially tries to be respectful, and I initially thought, oh, they've finally understood, though it seems intrusive. Then half way down there's a "read more" and it links to the Jan Moir article - classy, basically in among pictures of the coffin arriving in Dublin (the PCC clause on not intruding in grief seems relevant here). The article then goes on into a lot of detail on the night, which though much more subtle than the Moir article (it would hard to be less subtle), seems to be along similar lines. It just seems more of the same, what do people think?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...Stephen-Gately-police-reveal-final-hours.html
Oh, and the advertiser alongside is Am Ex
Just written to the PCC, an amazing campaign here. I've just been looking round the Mail website (i feel a little sullied) and their top "Femail" article now is a big piece on Gately's funeral, including pics of the family (including his mum). It's tone initially tries to be respectful, and I initially thought, oh, they've finally understood, though it seems intrusive. Then half way down there's a "read more" and it links to the Jan Moir article - classy, basically in among pictures of the coffin arriving in Dublin (the PCC clause on not intruding in grief seems relevant here). The article then goes on into a lot of detail on the night, which though much more subtle than the Moir article (it would hard to be less subtle), seems to be along similar lines. It just seems more of the same, what do people think?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...Stephen-Gately-police-reveal-final-hours.html
Oh, and the advertiser alongside is Am Ex
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Doh!! They just don't get it do they?!
It starts off quite respectful as you point out, and then turns into another slightly spurious coverage of supposedly 'the events that night'.
5t3IIa
Registered User
temper_tantrum did great work with links to early articles
And other people did too I'm sure but I can't remember. I have a cold
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone
Where Mandelson is concerned, criticise his policies, not his sexuality!
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
It's a great thing that has been done today, and you deserve enormous credit for what you've kicked off - I haven't been able to take the grin off my face all day. 
A few things for the next time:
1) Target advertisers in the printed copy first - that's where it will really hurt the paper,
2) Pick your battles - there's no point in railing against an article by Peter Hitchens or Richard Littlejohn for instance - they are employed as professional trolls and both are usually smart enough not to get the paper in trouble - free speech and all that,
3) if you do have a blog or something and wish to make a comment about the newspapers belonging to the Daily Mail and General Trust then quote them and pepper the links with "Moseley", "fascist sympathisers" and "hypocrite tax exile cunts". Not that the current owners and senior editorial staff would have any truck with those sort of things.
DMGT Head Office
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London
W8 5TT
Great Britain
Directions
Tel: +44 (0)20 7938 6000
Fax: +44 (0)20 7938 4626
Peter Williams
Finance Director
Tel: +44 (0)20 7938 6631
Nicholas Jennings
Company Secretary
Tel: +44 (0)20 7938 6747
nick.jennings@dmgt.co.uk
Fran Sallas
Assistant Company Secretary
Tel: +44 (0)20 7938 6747
fran.sallas@dmgt.co.uk
Using those phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses to do anything other than register honest and sober complaints would, of course, be utterly wrong.
ETA for any passing Mod: This is all public domain stuff ^^^
A few things for the next time:
1) Target advertisers in the printed copy first - that's where it will really hurt the paper,
2) Pick your battles - there's no point in railing against an article by Peter Hitchens or Richard Littlejohn for instance - they are employed as professional trolls and both are usually smart enough not to get the paper in trouble - free speech and all that,
3) if you do have a blog or something and wish to make a comment about the newspapers belonging to the Daily Mail and General Trust then quote them and pepper the links with "Moseley", "fascist sympathisers" and "hypocrite tax exile cunts". Not that the current owners and senior editorial staff would have any truck with those sort of things.
DMGT Head Office
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London
W8 5TT
Great Britain
Directions
Tel: +44 (0)20 7938 6000
Fax: +44 (0)20 7938 4626
Peter Williams
Finance Director
Tel: +44 (0)20 7938 6631
Nicholas Jennings
Company Secretary
Tel: +44 (0)20 7938 6747
nick.jennings@dmgt.co.uk
Fran Sallas
Assistant Company Secretary
Tel: +44 (0)20 7938 6747
fran.sallas@dmgt.co.uk
Using those phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses to do anything other than register honest and sober complaints would, of course, be utterly wrong.
ETA for any passing Mod: This is all public domain stuff ^^^
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
Uh-oh...Torygraph commenters are coming out of the woodwork against Mr Fry on the SG twitter posts - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...h---Stephen-Fry-is-giving-the-orders-now.html
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
OK, got this
What is consensus? I'm going to bed now. I have a cold
7,873
I think you've (all) done a fabulous job.. I wouldn't dilute it by moving away from the original issue - maybe putting up a notice to that effect?
rollinder
Dont walk away in silence
just posted this to that Telegraph page (bet they don't post it
)guess everybody here's far too busy showing off how much you hate Stephen Fry (which is your perogative - he can be a right smug .... and never f-ing shuts up on twitter) to bother do actually do any basic research and look at the mix of people who were actually challenging Jan Moir's article - this was not Stephen Fry's campaign, none of it was even his idea, all he did was forward some links.
To everyone here who is so bravely speaking out against your perceived attacks by the evil "gay lobby" - the main people who started the ball rolling on facebook and contacting advertisers etc. are not gay, just decent people with enough humanity to want to not see a newspaper with a major readership & influence spread ugly unsubstantiated innuendo attacking not just the victim and his partner/family but all people who share his sexuality.
This wasn't an attack on free speach but against the spread of hatred - to those who are apparently supporting the article - do you agree that the recent vicious homophobic attack was justified? because that is what this type of reports leads to.
I posted this...
Oh do behave...it's only because he has so many people following him on Twitter that someone somewhere is bound to repeat it and it spreads organically...compare the people who do pick up 'causes' he comments on to the numbers that don't...i bet that there's far more that don't. Anyway, if you were half the journo that you think that you are, you'd check the timing of SF's Twitter postings today with that of other well known Twitterers...i think you'll find that he wasn't the first to get up in arms about poor old, much maligned Jan Moir
Oh do behave...it's only because he has so many people following him on Twitter that someone somewhere is bound to repeat it and it spreads organically...compare the people who do pick up 'causes' he comments on to the numbers that don't...i bet that there's far more that don't. Anyway, if you were half the journo that you think that you are, you'd check the timing of SF's Twitter postings today with that of other well known Twitterers...i think you'll find that he wasn't the first to get up in arms about poor old, much maligned Jan Moir
Christ... HA!
Unbelievable. You self-important little prick. Apologies for not noticing that the sainted charlie brooker has seen fit to totally contradict himself..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/21/comment.digitalmedia
There ^^. So... the site's so shit that he simply has to join it. Ha. and indeed. you know the... etc
I was too busy, actually living.... and i know who you are dude. no point hidin behind that facade
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
Christ... HA!
Unbelievable. You self-important little prick. Apologies for not noticing that the sainted charlie brooker has seen fit to totally contradict himself..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/21/comment.digitalmedia
There ^^. So... the site's so shit that he simply has to join it. Ha. and indeed. you know the... etc
I was too busy, actually living.... and i know who you are dude. no point hidin behind that facade
I think you're allowed to contradict yourself 18 months later.
And don't play the internet hardman
I think you're allowed to contradict yourself 18 months later.
And don't play the internet hardman
Not tryin to. I just realised who this little dude is. Hes quite nice in person actually.. as often, we'd prolly agree on most shit in person.... the internets a wonderful filter of actual truth in that sense.
PS dont tell me what the fuck to do! Or NOT TO DO
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
Not tryin to. I just realised who this little dude is. Hes quite nice in person actually.. as often, we'd prolly agree on most shit in person.... the internets a wonderful filter of actual truth in that sense.
PS dont tell me what the fuck to do! Or NOT TO DO
He is quite nice. A scamp, but nice.
What if I tell you what you could maybe do?
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
dude. sort it out.
Maybe
Easy now...
Superdupastupor
fun to funky
three cheers for badger kitten!
D'wards
IT'S YOUR DECISION DANIEL
Back to the point, you bickering fools.
Complained at this page (they even have a special link for it). If you haven't, have a go - the PCC have made it really easy for us to complain!
http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
Complained at this page (they even have a special link for it). If you haven't, have a go - the PCC have made it really easy for us to complain!
http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
Gingerman
Is a great bunch of lads.....
just posted this to that Telegraph page (bet they don't post it
guess everybody here's far too busy showing off how much you hate Stephen Fry (which is your perogative - he can be a right smug .... and never f-ing shuts up on twitter) to bother do actually do any basic research and look at the mix of people who were actually challenging Jan Moir's article - this was not Stephen Fry's campaign, none of it was even his idea, all he did was forward some links.
To everyone here who is so bravely speaking out against your perceived attacks by the evil "gay lobby" - the main people who started the ball rolling on facebook and contacting advertisers etc. are not gay, just decent people with enough humanity to want to not see a newspaper with a major readership & influence spread ugly unsubstantiated innuendo attacking not just the victim and his partner/family but all people who share his sexuality.
This wasn't an attack on free speach but against the spread of hatred - to those who are apparently supporting the article - do you agree that the recent vicious homophobic attack was justified? because that is what this type of reports leads to.
Thats way too sane and decent a comment for the Torygraph who seem to attract a fair load of comments from mouthfoaming loons
Fingers
From Tuscany SE22
From the Facebook Group (Alex Deller)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html
Suprisingly the Daily Mail edit the article at 1.05am on a Saturday morning.
The word 'Sleazy' have been removed and the phrase 'Of course, in many cases this may be true' has been added to the previous comments that Gay Marriages were a fast.
Views?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html
Suprisingly the Daily Mail edit the article at 1.05am on a Saturday morning.
The word 'Sleazy' have been removed and the phrase 'Of course, in many cases this may be true' has been added to the previous comments that Gay Marriages were a fast.
Views?
Similar threads
