Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Mail: a truly despicable article ("nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death")

Okay - have added in some more (conf call was dull)

Paul Dacre
Editor
The Daily Mail
Associated Newspapers
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London W8 5TT



Dear Mr Dacre

I am writing to urge you to retract Jan Moir’s article about Stephen Gately (originally entitled ‘Nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death’) published in the Daily Mail on Friday 16th October 2009.

I am deeply disappointed that you found it fit to publish such odious material about a young man’s death, particularly on the eve of his funeral, causing additional distress to his family at a very painful time.

In particular, I found the following parts of the article objectionable:
"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."
The results of a post mortem confirmed he died of “natural causes by acute pulmonary oedema”. A court reporter confirmed, “Stephen's death has nothing to do any alcohol he drank that night, it has nothing to do with drugs and he did not choke on his own vomit,” she said. Furthermore, according to the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (c-r-y.org.uk), twelve apparently fit and healthy young people die in the UK from undiagnosed heart conditions every single week. So Ms Moir’s statements are factually incorrect and baseless.

“Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. … Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.”

I am at a loss to understand as to how Gately’s tragic death ‘strikes a blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’. And what the link is between Gately’s death from natural causes and Kevin McGee’s suicide is, I cannot begin to fathom. I assume Ms Moir’s mind sinks to depths of depravity I am unfamiliar with. And let’s remember that being heterosexual and married (or even female) is no guarantee of moral superiority or emotional wellbeing – Vanessa George was a married mother. So was Rosemary West.

I understand that the PCC will investigate the matter in response to the unprecedented number of complaints received about the article. In recognition of this, and of the fact that this article was at best ill-judged and at worst, malevolent, I urge you to consider your position and retract the article in advance of that investigation.

Yours
Click to expand...
 
Times article:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6881055.ece

Edit: that column quotes a Mail spokesperson saying on Friday: “In the interest of free speech Mail Online is carrying comments both for and against her column but regrets the heavy-handed tactics by the campaign which is clearly being fanned by many people who haven’t even read Jan’s views.”
Well, they're not carrying comments any more, are they?!
 
Weller said:
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1812/skys.jpg

may have to click on it to zoom in , or right click save as to your desktop or something if you want to save it ;)
Click to expand...

gately.jpg
 
@ nickh

Well aye but thats not whole article page , the link I gave was to a joined upped & cropped full article uploaded as a jpg just posted as a link to it rather than image here as its 3 screens deep and would have made it look like the waste bandwidth thread or something :)
 
nick h. said:
Radio 4 NOW!!!!!
Click to expand...

Got it fired up just in time for him to finish. :rolleyes:


I wonder if the BBC will be particularly happy to go with the story in light of the daily mail's sachsgate shenanigans which really was a case of people complaining who had not even heard the piece in question.

Seems Ms Moir has been judging others by her own standards.
 
I've had this from the PCC:

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.

Press Complaints Commission
Click to expand...

This despite my complaint including the point that I was complaining not on behalf of Mr Gately or his family, but because the article expresses a discrimination that affects society as a whole, of which I am a member. I'm sorry if this has already been raised, but is there a sense that they're not getting that? Any ideas about how best to respond?

(I've also had replies from the Observer - "she last worked for us in 2008", from BT - "passed to our media planning department", and from National Express - "passed to our Customer Relations Team").
 
nick h. said:
Would be good to put a list of specifics in the Dacre letter about bits of the article which are factually inaccurate, misleading or homophobic. Those can be singled out as mistakes to be retracted, whereas opinions can't.

"The ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see" - still can't believe I read that in a 'family newspaper' in a context other than, say, cannibals or paedophiles.
Click to expand...

Could also mention her incorrect use of the word 'decorous' .
 
danny la rouge said:
I've had this from the PCC:



This despite my complaint including the point that I was complaining not on behalf of Mr Gately or his family, but because the article expresses a discrimination that affects society as a whole, of which I am a member. I'm sorry if this has already been raised, but is there a sense that they're not getting that? Any ideas about how best to respond?
(I've also had replies from the Observer - "she last worked for us in 2008", from BT - "passed to our media planning department", and from National Express - "passed to our Customer Relations Team").
Click to expand...

This for me too. I brought up the general homophobia point under code no. 12 too so want to reply to my stock response.
 
quimcunx said:
This for me too. I brought up the general homophobia point under code no. 12 too so want to reply to my stock response.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm not surprised that they've not read properly each of the 22, 000 complaints :)D ), but there has to be a way to flag up that this is about more than just Mr Gately and his family?
 
danny la rouge said:
Right. I'm not surprised that they've not read properly each of the 22, 000 complaints :)D ), but there has to be a way to flag up that this is about more than just Mr Gately and his family?
Click to expand...

BBC? Stephen Fry? Bloggers? someone in the press who can answer to the PCC's statement, rather than the stock responses, which fair enough, are going to be, well, um, stock....
 
I more had in mind a way of letting the PCC know that the substance of my complaint (and presumably the majority of the 22, 000) isn't so much that I've taken offense on behalf of the Gatelys, but that I object (as a member of society) to what amounts to incitement to homophobic hatred.
 
I'm going to reply too, but just think a bit of pressure from elsewhere that this isn't just about the Gately's would be useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Larry O'Hara
Royal Mail Pricing Strategy
Replies
0
Views
160
Larry O'Hara
Larry O'Hara
PR1Berske
Royal Mail
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
moochedit
moochedit
tim
Anyone worried about the UK becoming a one party state?
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Kid_Eternity
Kid_Eternity
Protag
Farage is right about NATO. Sorry
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
236
Views
9K
DaveCinzano
DaveCinzano
PTK
British Army Death Squad Soldiers to be Prosecuted
Replies
4
Views
642
PTK
PTK
Back
Top Bottom