A Strange, Lonely and Troubling piece of Journalism (AKA Jan Moir: Homophobe)

Consider this a warning - this is an angry, sweary, offended blog, which is on a subject I know a lot of people have talked about / blogged about today (including people much more talented than me, such as Charlie Brooker) but, having read the offending article, a few hours ago, and then mulled it over in my mind, I felt I wanted to say something.

For those of you who don't know what this is about, today in the Daily Mail, a piece was published by their columnist Jan Moir, both in print and online, entitled "A Strange, Lonely and Troubling death..." which is about the death of Stephen Gately.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not a mad Boyzone fan, and nor did I have any particular affection for Mr Gately himself, except for that affection one affords to all human beings (excluding those who have done something to cause that affection to be terminated). I read of his death a couple of days ago, and my brain simply registered "Oh, that's sad." Then, this morning, I started to see people posting on Facebook and other such outlets about Ms Moir's article. So I decided to have a read and see what all the fuss was about.

Where do I start? At the beginning I guess... (Please bear in mind that I shall not be reproducing the ENTIRE article here, just sections...)

"The news of Stephen Gately's death was deeply shocking. It was not just that another young star had died pointlessly"

Well yes, it was that another young star had died pointlessly. In fact, I would say it was more shocking than those who die from fast living, drug overdoses and the like...

"Through the recent travails and sad ends of Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and many others, fans know to expect the unexpected of their heroes - particularly if those idols live a life that is shadowed by dark appetites or fractured by private vice."

OK, so when you get to this stage in the article, you are expecting her to reveal that Stephen Gately had some "dark appetite" or "private vice". Was it drugs? Drinking? An addiction to kittens? Let's read on...

Well none of the next few paragraphs imply any such vice, reminding us that Gately was "charming, cute, polite and funny." And basically, apart from a none-too-subtle dig at his vocal abilities "he was the group's co-lead singer, even though he could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk", the piece appears to be a simple statement of the facts, carrying on to talk about Gately being forced out of the closet by someone threatening to run the story in a paper, and then about his civil union he entered into in 2006.

Then the self-righteous, self-serving, suspicious, shit-stirring and frankly disgusting side of Ms Moir starts to emerge

"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... But, hang on a minute. Something is terribly wrong with the way this incident has been shaped and spun into nothing more than an unfortunate mishap on a holiday weekend...The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. 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."

OK, first things first Ms Moir, your name is not Dr Moir. You have not (as far as I am aware) studied medicine. This makes us equal on knowledge of these particular subjects, as neither have I. So please explain to me, how the FUCK are you able to say that 33 year old men do not just go to sleep, never to wake up again?? And your assumption that the incident has been shaped and spun, surely you have evidence of such a thing? Surely you wouldn't just write slanderous accusations towards a man who died less than a week ago?

"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. And 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."

Forgive me, but surely if the death is not murder, and the toxicology report shows that there were no drugs in his system, then it is a NATURAL death. That's kinda the point of the statement. And the circumstances surrounding his death are sleazy? How do you know? Were you there??

"After a night of clubbing, Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta with 25-year-old Georgi Dochev was not what was on the cards. Cowles and Dochev went to the bedroom together while Stephen remained alone in the living room."

IT'S NOT DISRESPECTFUL? YES IT FUCKING IS!!! You have made the assumption that a) All Gay Men are the same, b) All Gay Men are sex mad and c) There is no reason for bringing someone back to your apartment other than for some sordid sex act. You then go on to point out that the man in question (Stephen Gately) WAS NOT EVEN WITH THE "YOUNG BULGARIAN MAN" AT THE TIME HE DIED!!! So for WHAT reason is it worth bringing that up? And if you are implying that they may have had a threesome, or had the intention of having a threesome, I'm sure you can find thousands of people in heterosexual marriages that have had one, or thought about one, or discussed the idea, and I'm sure none of them died from it, ESPECIALLY if they weren't in the same room as the others!

Oh, but it gets worse

"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. "

Oh it does, does it? Why's that you ignorant homophobe?

"Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael. "

Yes, this much is true. If you look at heterosexual marriages, not everyone is like... well... Angus Dayton... or OJ Simpson... or.. the list goes on...

"Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas..."

OK, firstly, Kevin McGee comitted suicide. This is obviously a tragedy, as it would be for anyone comitting suicide. However, it had (certainly as far as is common knowledge) NOTHING to do with his ex-civil partnership with Matt Lucas, so how on earth can you bring that up as any form of argument within this debate?

" and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened. "

There are always troubling questions about why someone dies, then they do an autopsy, and give us answers. Which has been done. The man died from "acute pulmonary oedema, a build-up of fluid on his lungs." So please explain to me, Ms Moir, how exactly does one contract acute pulmonary oedema from bringing a Bulgarian Man aged 25 home with you and letting him go into the other room with your husband? I was unaware that this could happen, does this also mean I could suffer from a punctured lung if my girlfriend booked a hotel room and then stayed there without me because I couldn't make it there? That makes about as much sense as your analogy

"It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death."

Yes, it is. But the people who will discover the truth are the coroner, and the police, and I hope that they simply pass that information on, as they should do, to the Gately family, so that they can mourn for their loss.

*Takes breath, swigs whiskey*

To put it bluntly, Ms Moir appears to be of the opinion that being in a gay marriage means that you will be promiscuous and indulge in many varied sex acts, and that this will apparantly cause fluid to build up in your lungs, and that really all gay men just want to fuck any other men that move.

What an ignorant bitch.

(As stated earlier, I apologise for the offensive language in this post, and I also apologise if any of my facts are wrong, these are the facts as I understand them from the public press.)

If you have read the article and are as offended by it as I am, feel free to visit the Press Complaints Commission website to complain. Apparently (and this information comes from those more knowledgable than I) the article breaches sections 1, 5 and 12 of its code of practice. (Apparently the site crashed earlier today, but should be back up and running)