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



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/Why-natural-Stephen-Gatelys-death.html



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





How the fuck, why the hell, is this bigoted shite, in which a sudden death by natural causes of a young man in a committed relationship, is used to castiagte the 'unnatural' 'ooze' of civil partnerships and gay relationships in general?

Why is this not flagged up as hateful?

Is there any point complaining?


----------



## Tank Girl (Oct 16, 2009)

oh. my. god.

what a vile read.


----------



## fen_boy (Oct 16, 2009)

What an unmitigated cunt Jan Moir is.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

The comments are 95% furious about it, and rightly so.


----------



## colacubes (Oct 16, 2009)

That is outrageous.  I think I'm going to email the pcc.  Probably will do fuck all but I'm genuinely fuming


----------



## ricci (Oct 16, 2009)

nipsla said:


> That is outrageous.  I think I'm going to email the pcc.  Probably will do fuck all but I'm genuinely fuming



Good idea, but as you say, don't expect to get anything out of it. I complained to the PCC about The Sun's portrayal of gypsies when the Brazil family moved onto that MP's land. They looked at my complaint (obviously -- they have to), but the response I got was that, since I wasn't directly affected by the story, they had no grounds to take things further.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

> Shame on you, Moir. Shame on for letting your sleazy, dark appetites for such poisonous, sanctimonious bigoted drivel ooze out for all to see.  As a journalist I would have thought you wanted to set an example to impressionable young writers; instead you have shown everyone your private vice and damaging habit of homophobic gutter prurience, which is quite disgusting to regular, normal people.It raises troubling questions about the private lives of all journalists, many of whom do not live their four score and ten years, and are known to lead lives in which drugs, alcohol, divorce and mental breakdowns are far from unknown.




surprised if it gets through moderation


----------



## girasol (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> The comments are 95% furious about it, and rightly so.



Yes, I think the comments section says it all.

All we can do is add our own comments, the more the better (but yes, some won't make it because of their moderation)

Nice comment Badger Kitten!!!  Doubt they'll show but hey!


----------



## DeepStoat (Oct 16, 2009)

I don't know why this article has caused more upset than the years of union bashing and thinly veiled racism.


----------



## Dooby (Oct 16, 2009)

I feel physically sick reading this, I was stunned by the 'drugs and sex death' homophobic speculation before the post mortem but thought now they'd be a bit more grovelling and apologetic. Fuck's sake. Yeah coz this behaviour on a night out is SO perverse and gay and unusual. 
I personally know 2 people who died dfrom sudden adult death syndrome so I'm guessing it's not uncommon. I wish I could be more articulate on this but I'm so angry with people like her that I'm a spitting ball of apoplexy.


----------



## ricci (Oct 16, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I don't know why this article has caused more upset than the years of union bashing and thinly veiled racism.



Luckily, it's possible to be pissed off about more than one thing at a time.


----------



## Upchuck (Oct 16, 2009)

Do gays play canasta?


----------



## fucthest8 (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Is there any point complaining?



Probably not. And no matter how hateful, the tragic truth is that 50% or more of the population of this country were already thinking the same thing. Or worse.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

100+ furious comments!

MailOnline readers are fuming!

Good.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 16, 2009)

Jan Moir=Rita Skeeter.


----------



## nick h. (Oct 16, 2009)

Car crash journalism, innit? We all click on the link and the Mail's ad sales go up. 

How many of us then click on one of the stories on the right? The Mail knows exactly what it's doing.


----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2009)

Truly vile and disgusting bigotry, dragging the Mail even further into the gutter.

Best summed up by one user comment, "Why try to force a sordid story out of a simple tragedy?"


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Right, of you really want to do something to hit the Mail where it hurts, write/call/email their advertisers NOW.

The following are advertising on the same page as that disgusting article online.

Fairy Liquid Non Bio gel
M&S
Club Med
Clinique
Nescafe
Kodak
Jean Patrique Knives
Enjoy England
O2
Science and maths.Net

 I am now going to find customer complaints addresses for them, and their advertising agencies' details.
Anyone who has a bit of time and wants to join in, great.


----------



## xenon (Oct 16, 2009)

Daily Mail.
Daily Mail
Daily Mail.

It's, the Daily Mail.

Is it not a bit like looking in used toilet paper then complaining about the unsightly shit?


----------



## rapattaque (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> surprised if it gets through moderation



Hits the nail on the head nonetheless.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

The thing to do is to say that you are a consumer and that you are furious that they are advertising next to such a load of disgusting bigoted hateful drivel, and until they take it up with the mail you will be telling everyone to boycott their product


1. *Fairy Liquid Non Bio Gel* - 
Corporate Communications Fax: 0191 297 6296 / 01932 896200
Corporate Press Office - Corporate-related media enquiries only 01932 896090 pgpress.im@pg.com
Press Enquiries : Corporate
(for members of the Press only)
Tel : 01932 896090
Fax : 01932 896200
email : pgpress.im@pg.com


*2. M&S *
Media

You may find the information you need in presentations, press releases or reports & publications. If not, please contact the relevant press office listed below.

Clothing, Home and Beauty Press Office: 020 8718 4313

Food Press Office: 020 8718 8777

Corporate Press Office: 020 8718 1919 or 020 8718 2000 (out of hours)

*3. Club Med*

Sarah Mason, Head of Marketing, Club Med UK 
For a quote or industry commentary from Sarah Mason, Head of Marketing, Club Med please contact Four Communications.

Phil Ryan Four Communications
The Communications Building,
48 Leicester Square,
London,
WC2H 7FG
T. +44(0) 870 420 3257
F. +44(0) 870 420 3252
Email Phil  http://www.fourcommunications.com/digital_contact.php

more coming as I find it...


----------



## DeepStoat (Oct 16, 2009)

Decades of shit stirring propaganda against anybody to the left of Tebbit but in the end they're strung up for cussing some guy who was in Boyzone.


----------



## Santino (Oct 16, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Decades of shit stirring propaganda against anybody to the left of Tebbit but in the end they're strung up for cussing some guy who was in Boyzone.


You're right, this is the first time anyone has thought to criticise the Mail.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

OK, just to point out re: the banner ads; these will be served remotely and not specifically placed, so while it's worth writing to the brands to express disgust, there's very little they can actually do about it because of the way the technology works...so don't be surprised if you get responses along those lines from their marketing departments...


----------



## fucthest8 (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> The thing to do is..



give it up as a bad job? Can't help thinking there are better things to expend your energy on.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/Why-natural-Stephen-Gatelys-death.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



up to their usual standard of religious loonery, mind you what could be more offensive than boyzone's music????


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Just spoke to P&G press office and they are now aware a) of the _Mail_ article b) of the level of outrage expressed by commenters c) that there is about to be an internet campaign to complain to advertisers and ask them to take it up with the _Mail _.

Please address complainst asking them to take it up with the Mail to PGpress.im@pg.com

Have got direct line to media buying department and it is 0191 297 6400. Will now call them and explain that this article has caused enormous offence and please will they talk to P&G about it.

P&G is the Mail's biggest advertiser.
They take this stuff seriously so I can only encourage people to write in.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 16, 2009)

I seem to remember Ronnie Barker ripping the Sun up on Wogan after they wrote something about his antiques shop.. not that it would happen, but you would hope Simon Cowell et al would do the same on X Factor on Saturday, that if it is stocked anywhere in Ireland, they stop stocking it..


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 16, 2009)

You're much better off seeing which display advertisers are nearest to the print article. That's the revenue and the relationships that they care about.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm going to nip out and check in the newsagent as soon as I have a sec.

P&G are now aware, and that's their biggest advertiser.
I know how the banner ads work, which is why I'll be following up with SMV media agency and have placed a call to the press office and the P&G buying team.

Will go out now and find out which print ads are running next to it.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Comments have suddenly ground to a halt.


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Comments have suddenly ground to a halt.



Stopped about an hour ago.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 16, 2009)

For those without a medical background, a little explanation of the causes of pulmonary oedema.

It is, as was mentioned in the article, fluid in the lungs. There is always a little fluid there, to prevent the internal surfaces from sticking together. When a large amount of fluid is present, it prevents gaseous exchange, i.e. you cannot absorb oxygen and excrete CO2. Without oxygen, you die.

There are a number of causes of fluid build up, the most common being acute irritation caused by the inhalation of an irritant substance like smoke or a chemical vapour. This was not the case here.

The other common cause is coronary insufficiency. The heart is not pumping blood round the body with enough force for the kidneys to be able to extract water. When this happens, the lungs begin to fill with the excess fluid.

In the article, it mentioned a family history of heart problems. I would bet money that this is the cause of death, acute ' slow ' heart failure. Had the failure been catastrophic, no fluid. He had been drinking I gather, but not drunk. The amount of alcohol would probably be enough for him to sllep very deeply, and therefore not wake we he started to cough, which is the first sign of the fluid build up.

It is dreadful that someone so young should die in this manner; it is disgraceful that a reporter with as much medical knowledge as a housebrick prints this dross in what can only be described as a homophobic manner.

R.I.P. Stephen, you gave a lot of pleasure to a lot of people.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

Starcom's phone number is 020 7190 8000...


----------



## nick h. (Oct 16, 2009)

Jan Moir will get extra brownie points for the click throughs and the comments (including the negative ones). The editor might just decide the article has crossed the line  from 'controversial' to 'damaging to the Mail'. Then it might be pulled. But this hardly ever happens.  All this attention will probably inflate Moir's pay.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Press advertisers on the Jan Moir double page spread, p36-37 are :

BT - Consistently faster Broadband and National Express

1. BT By telephone

BT headquarters switchboard number - 020 7356 5000
For all general BT enquiries

UK national journalists - 020 7356 5369
For enquiries from the national media
Journalists can get in touch with the BT Newsroom 24 hours a day. Out of hours, for urgent or emergency calls only, a duty officer will arrange a call back from the Newsroom

UK regional journalists - 0800 0850 660
For enquiries from the regional media


2. National Express

Email: customerrelations@nationalexpress.com


SWITCHBOARD 08450 130130 and press 4 for the press office


----------



## hendo (Oct 16, 2009)

Lordy you should see the way Jan Moir is trending on twitter


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

*What's the best number/email address to stick on Facebook and get other people complaining about this? 

BK: will you write a little thing I can post up?*


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 16, 2009)

hendo said:


> Lordy you should see the way Jan Moir is trending on twitter



Mmm...time to follow her and call her a cunt I think.

Despicable article, truly despicable.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

hendo said:


> Lordy you should see the way Jan Moir is trending on twitter


Translation pl?

Anyway, what a vile woman she is. 

Thanks, BK, for the info on ads etc.  Nice one.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 16, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> up to their usual standard of religious loonery, mind you what could be more offensive than boyzone's music????



Mrs Sas likes it.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Email Gemma.C.Thomas@BT.com and she will pass on complaints to BT media buying department who will then contact the Mail....

Next up, national express, and I'll post their reponse up too.

Once I have done that I will put up a list of names and contacts to direct requests that the advertisers contact the Mail: *if people want to help out here can you go and look up the media/press/corporate complaints numbers for the banner advertisers and get on the phone to them? It will be quicker if we tip off  all the advertisers asap.*

ta.

And please can someone start the facebook group?
If people want to have a go at an explanation as to why people should join it great because I'm doing phoning advertiser/corp comms right now.

I'll also tip off media monkey at the Guardian and Matthew Norman...

any more suggestions welcome


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

Sasaferrato said:


> Mrs Sas likes it.


I know.  But what does she think of the music?

<runs>


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Translation pl?



She's currently the 4th most *popular* subject under discussion on the worldwide Twitter-sphere, and people are not happy with her.

ETA - 3rd place now.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> She's currently the 4th most *popular* subject under discussion on the worldwide Twitter-sphere, and people are not happy with her.


Ah, cheers.  Good.


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 16, 2009)

I bet Liz Jones is happy about this. At last, she's thinking, there's someone even more unpopular than me.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 16, 2009)

Someone on twitter pointed to this blog which is in response - http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-there-is-nothing-natural-about-life.html - and is also calling on people to respond and express their disgust.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

National Express press office grateful for the tip off and going to contact the mail now.

National Express press office can be reached on 08450 130 130, press option 4 or speak to operator


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 16, 2009)

Comments on the article are being moderated, and you have to become a "registered user".


----------



## Libertad (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> The thing to do is to say that you are a consumer and that you are furious that they are advertising next to such a load of disgusting bigoted hateful drivel, and until they take it up with the mail you will be telling everyone to boycott their product
> 
> 
> 1. *Fairy Liquid Non Bio Gel* -
> ...



This is all top work Badgkin, much respek to you.

Feels good to think that making your views known can actually bring results. 

It's good to kick against the pricks, but that's probably best left for another thread.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 16, 2009)

I can't seem to access the Daily Mail website at the moment....


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

I haven't started a group but I've posted on FB with PGpress.im@pg.com 

Please share!


----------



## g force (Oct 16, 2009)

TBH in the Gatley thread there were more than a few people who displayed a similar attitude...if Ken was attempting to pun his way out of hitting the keyboard before enganging his brain, there were 'amusing' gay jokes from Stoatboy.

Seeing as it's the Mail I expect very little else.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

Cheers Badger.. on the case myself with some complaining...


----------



## boskysquelch (Oct 16, 2009)

Sasaferrato said:


> He had been drinking I gather, but not drunk. The amount of alcohol would probably be enough for him to sllep very deeply, and therefore not wake we he started to cough, which is the first sign of the fluid build up.




mmm I always thought the first "sign" was a _crackling_.... in the sense of the noise of breathing...

having witnessed it in a few instances with 2ndary drowning/scuba/divers I've known over the years... and some other perverse interest I've had with the condition over the years eg there was an artist with cystic fibrosis who recorded the last few years of his life for a Channel4 docu long-time ago...he eventually died of p.o

but that aside... I was also trying to understand how p.o would have come on so quickly without the concern of the sufferer....I _guess_ alcohol/whaddeva could be a factor.

So you've answered some of my questions.ta.  



still,,,,anyways,,, awful end, concious or not.

I already boycott the companies mentioned for a variety of reasons & the DM as a rule...but believe the OPs intentions to be both honourable & correct.

gluk.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I don't know why this article has caused more upset than the years of union bashing and thinly veiled racism.



We expect union bashing and thinly-veiled racism from the Mail. We don't expect *unveiled* homophobia.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

*I can't start a FB group so if someone else can...*

Facebook blurb: PLEASE CAN SOMEONE SET UP A GROUP, TWITTER THIS, ETC...

*The Daily Mail should retract Jan Moir's hateful, homophobic, ignorant article - and apologise to the public and their advertisers*.

Today's Daily Mail has a sickening column by Jan Moir, in which she makes unfounded and sickening allegations about the tragic death of Stephen Gately, before going on to bash civil partnerships and gay lifestyles. Jan Moir then has the gall to call herself a 'gay rights champion'.

Here is the prurient, offensive and bigoted article in all its vileness


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/Why-natural-Stephen-Gatelys-death.html

Advertisers BT Broadband and National Express coaches (press edition) and online advertisers Procter and Gamble (Pantene, Fair Non Bio Gel), M&S, Jean-Patrique Knives, ScienceandMaths.net, Clinique, Kodak, Nescafe and Enjoy England should be made aware of the hateful content that their brands have been placed to.

If you want to contact an advertiser whose brand communication has been placed next to this hateful content and alert them contact details are publicly listed as follows. Advertisers do not have advanced knowlege of the content of Mail columns, but they or their media buying departments can contact the Mail and let them know if they are unhappy with how their adverts have been placed and the content they are placed next to. 

1. National Express switchboard 08450 130130 (option 4 is press office)

2. BT Broadband newsroom 020 7356 5369

3. Procter and Gamble Press office PGpress.im@pg.com

Procter and Gamble media buying department  0191 297 6400
Nescafe Nestlé UK Press Office:
Tel: 020 8667 6005 in work hours (020 8686 3333 out of hours)
Email: nestleukpressoffice@uk.nestle.com 

4. M&S Marks and Spencer Group plc
Waterside House
35 North Wharf Road
London
W2 1NW
Telephone: 020 7935 4422 

5. Clinique Customer services http://www.clinique.co.uk/customerservice/cservice_email_us.tmpl

6. Kodak 	
Julie Taylor-Butt
J.T. ButtMarketing Manager
Tel 01442 846 955
julie.taylor-butt@kodak.com 

7. Jean-Patrique Cookware
FREEPOST SEA13494,
Sittingbourne,
ME10 3HB.
United Kingdom

If you would like to call us we are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our telephone number is: 0871 784 8458
email is at customerservice@jeanpatrique.co.uk.

8. Science Council (Science and maths.net)
Future Morph can be contacted via email: futuremorph@sciencecouncil.org

Future Morph has been set up by the Science Council, who can be contacted via the Science Council website: www.sciencecouncil.org

or at the following address:

The Science Council
32-36 Loman Street
London
SE1 0EH

9. Enjoy England - part of Visit Britain
VisitBritain
Thames Tower
Blacks Road
London
W6 9EL

Tel: 020 8846 9000
Fax: 020 8563 0302


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 16, 2009)

is this the same woman?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/janmoir


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> is this the same woman?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/janmoir



Yup. Writes for Observer Food Magazine too...


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> is this the same woman?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/janmoir



Yep.

She wrote this piece of crap also recently:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052589/JAN-MOIR-Glass-ceiling-Weve-blame.html


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 16, 2009)

http://www.angrymob.uponnothing.co....615-jan-moir-im-thinking-shes-a-piece-of-shit


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

letters@observer.co.uk

reader@observer.co.uk

Lets get her the sack from the Obs...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2009)

Santino said:


> You're right, this is the first time anyone has thought to criticise the Mail.



Yep. This criticism is unique.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> is this the same woman?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/janmoir


Might be an idea to spill the protest over into the Guardian, too.

I'll drop them a line.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 16, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> mmm I always thought the first "sign" was a _crackling_.... in the sense of the noise of breathing...
> 
> having witnessed it in a few instances with 2ndary drowning/scuba/divers I've known over the years... and some other perverse interest I've had with the condition over the years eg there was an artist with cystic fibrosis who recorded the last few years of his life for a Channel4 docu long-time ago...he eventually died of p.o
> 
> ...



You are right that wheeziness is generally the very first symptom, but someone deeply asleep would not usually wake.


----------



## plurker (Oct 16, 2009)

jan.moir@dailymail.co.uk


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

Email to Obs reader editor sent...


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

*Anyone set up a facebook group?*

I wrote a blurb if that helps to set it up, but FB is blocked where i am so i can't do it....


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Email to Obs reader editor sent...


For others:

Write to: Readers' Editor
The Observer
Kings Place
90 York Way
London
N1 9GU
Tel: 020 3353 4656
Email: reader@observer.co.uk


----------



## HAPPY CHEF (Oct 16, 2009)

I can't really say any more than has already been posted but I'm horrified that vile,hateful trash like this is published in mainstream newspapers.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I wrote a blurb if that helps to set it up, but FB is blocked where i am so i can't do it....



Am doing it now


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

cheers


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> The comments are 95% furious about it, and rightly so.



On the Mail website?

Might be the only thing that just _might_ bring the message home to the editors that they've fucked up ...


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Anyone able to get it to Stephen Fry on Twitter?


----------



## Rod Sleeves (Oct 16, 2009)

Normally I just role my eyes at outrage at tabloid outrage, but I have to say that's a pretty sick column, not worse than the sort of thing Peter Hitchens for example would write, but still.

Good luck with getting the bitch punished, I'll even email the Observer.


----------



## fen_boy (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Anyone able to get it to Stephen Fry on Twitter?



Graham Linehan is asking for advertisers details, I was going to link the the FB group and send it to him when it's ready.

e2a done.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=151083562155


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

I've just contacted the Gay Times about it - they're on the case now.
I'll forward the extra info too.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Needs a pic - suggestions?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

She's now trending in position 2 on twitter, unlikely to claim the top position because that’s ‘Follow Friday’*.

* For the benefit of danny, that’s people recommending new people to follow, to their existing followers, and tends to always be number one on Fridays.


----------



## fogbat (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Needs a pic - suggestions?



Her Guardian pic? http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/07/21/jan_moir_140x140.jpg


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)




----------



## shakespearegirl (Oct 16, 2009)

What an awful, stupid article. Will email the advertisers


----------



## elbows (Oct 16, 2009)

Regarding the cause of death, I am keeping an open mind because I do not think that post mortem findings rule out the vomit theory. But at the very most this could only lead to a sensible debate about the term 'natural causes', it in no way justifies this vile and hideous article that has made me sad and angry. Im not sure if the backlash against the article will achieve much but its worth trying anyway, what a disgrace. I consider articles like these to be far more unnatural than anything Gately could possibly have gotten up to in his lifetime.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 16, 2009)

Charlie brooker has been tweeting about it.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 16, 2009)

Just read this Tweet: 

''I've just seen a Tube worker shout "stupid bitch!" at Jan Moir - now what do I do??''  She's probably written tons of articles on figures of hate, now she's finding out what it's like to be one.


----------



## 8den (Oct 16, 2009)

Smug smirk on the cow's face too.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> She's now trending in position 2 on twitter, unlikely to claim the top position because that’s ‘Follow Friday’*.
> 
> * For the benefit of danny, that’s people recommending new people to follow, to their existing followers, and tends to always be number one on Fridays.



I was wrong - she's now in the top position!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 16, 2009)

She's trending number 1 on twitter!  Overtaking follow friday.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

She's is position 1 as 'Jan Moir' AND poistion 4 as '#janmoir'.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Her Guardian pic? http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/07/21/jan_moir_140x140.jpg



Ugh really? I've sent this to all the people I know who know millions of people NEEDS PIC NOW


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Email the advertisiers saying you are appalled that they are running ads next to such hateful content and if they are unhappy about it they should let the Mail know.

*THAT IS THE ONE THING THAT WILL GET THROUGH TO THE MAIL*\

The Daily Mail should retract Jan Moir's hateful, homophobic, ignorant article - and apologise to the public and their advertisers.

Today's Daily Mail has a sickening column by Jan Moir, in which she makes unfounded and sickening allegations about the tragic death of Stephen Gately, before going on to bash civil partnerships and gay lifestyles. Jan Moir then has the gall to call herself a 'gay rights champion'.

Here is the prurient, offensive and bigoted article in all its vileness


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...lys-death.html

Advertisers BT Broadband and National Express coaches (press edition) and online advertisers Procter and Gamble (Pantene, Fair Non Bio Gel), M&S, Jean-Patrique Knives, ScienceandMaths.net, Clinique, Kodak, Nescafe and Enjoy England should be made aware of the hateful content that their brands have been placed to.

If you want to contact an advertiser whose brand communication has been placed next to this hateful content and alert them contact details are publicly listed as follows. Advertisers do not have advanced knowlege of the content of Mail columns, but they or their media buying departments can contact the Mail and let them know if they are unhappy with how their adverts have been placed and the content they are placed next to.

1. National Express switchboard 08450 130130 (option 4 is press office)

2. BT Broadband newsroom 020 7356 5369

3. Procter and Gamble Press office PGpress.im@pg.com

Procter and Gamble media buying department 0191 297 6400
Nescafe Nestlé UK Press Office:
Tel: 020 8667 6005 in work hours (020 8686 3333 out of hours)
Email: nestleukpressoffice@uk.nestle.com

4. M&S Marks and Spencer Group plc
Waterside House
35 North Wharf Road
London
W2 1NW
Telephone: 020 7935 4422

5. Clinique Customer services http://www.clinique.co.uk/customerse..._email_us.tmpl

6. Kodak
Julie Taylor-Butt
J.T. ButtMarketing Manager
Tel 01442 846 955
julie.taylor-butt@kodak.com

7. Jean-Patrique Cookware
FREEPOST SEA13494,
Sittingbourne,
ME10 3HB.
United Kingdom

If you would like to call us we are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our telephone number is: 0871 784 8458
email is at customerservice@jeanpatrique.co.uk.

8. Science Council (Science and maths.net)
Future Morph can be contacted via email: futuremorph@sciencecouncil.org

Future Morph has been set up by the Science Council, who can be contacted via the Science Council website: www.sciencecouncil.org

or at the following address:

The Science Council
32-36 Loman Street
London
SE1 0EH

9. Enjoy England - part of Visit Britain
VisitBritain
Thames Tower
Blacks Road
London
W6 9EL

Tel: 020 8846 9000
Fax: 020 8563 0302


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> She's trending number 1 on twitter!  Overtaking follow friday.


The BBC loves Twitter stories.  Does this warrant tipping them off?

Is Stephen Fry taking this up?  They'd love a quote from him.


----------



## 8den (Oct 16, 2009)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> She's trending number 1 on twitter!  Overtaking follow friday.



Wow first that bitch from the Express with her fucking ugly article on the Dunblaine survivors, and now this. Suddenly Journalists discover they can't be self righteous pricks in the best way possible.


----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2009)

Well, I've Twittered it. That'll make her really sorry, and make no mistake.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> The BBC loves Twitter stories.  Does this warrant tipping them off?
> 
> Is Stephen Fry taking this up?  They'd love a quote from him.



I reckon it would be worth a try.  Not a scooby on how to actually do it though.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

editor said:


> Well, I've Twittered it. That'll make her really sorry, and make no mistake.







danny la rouge said:


> The BBC loves Twitter stories.  Does this warrant tipping them off?



They will be aware anyway, they keep an eye on it.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> The BBC loves Twitter stories.  Does this warrant tipping them off?
> 
> Is Stephen Fry taking this up?  They'd love a quote from him.



nothing as yet, he's in the stuido all morning


----------



## BoatieBird (Oct 16, 2009)

> 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.



Actually they do.  I'm going to a memorial service this afternoon. The same thing happened to a friend of mine.  He was 32 
The PM said his death was due to pneumonia.  He wasn't obviously ill, he went to sleep and didn't wake up.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Huh. Searching FB for 'homophobia' (to find 'Say no to...' groups) and nothing comes up. Have bunhed group on a few 'We hate Daily Mail' sites.

Where else can it go?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

There is at least one person who works at the BBC on this thread who I'm sure is on the case


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

news@sky.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/feedback/default.stm


----------



## Ms T (Oct 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> The BBC loves Twitter stories.  Does this warrant tipping them off?
> 
> Is Stephen Fry taking this up?  They'd love a quote from him.



They already know. 

I imagine Stephen Fry will know about it already, especially if Graham Linehan is in on the act.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I reckon it would be worth a try.  Not a scooby on how to actually do it though.


BBC TV 1pm Newsdesk  	Tel : 020 8576 7771
BBC TV 6pm Newsdesk 	Tel : 020 8576 7776

But somebody who understands Twitter and knows what they're talking about would need to do it.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

Emails sent to just about everyone in the world...


----------



## yardbird (Oct 16, 2009)

plurker said:


> jan.moir@dailymail.co.uk



Nice one.
 The 'lady' is going to get just a few emails - mine for starters


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Matthew Norman now on it.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Matthew Norman now on it.



Who?


----------



## purplex (Oct 16, 2009)

its the daily mail, uk journalism at its worst, nothing to see here


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

purplex said:


> its the daily mail, uk journalism at its worst, nothing to see here


Well, not quite.  What's to see is that this sort of vile unveiled homophobia can be countered.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

43 members for group. Should pick up later this evening


----------



## fen_boy (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Matthew Norman now on it.



The food critic?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> 43 members for group. Should pick up later this evening



Yep - I can't access FB at work but will be on this evening asking all my friends to join. Have also sent an email advising others of the FB group etc..

Good work all!


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

Are all these Facebook and Twitter people also contacting advertisers and newspapers?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3lla - the link to the article from the facebook group doesn't work.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

It is _so_ amazing up here on the moral high ground. I feel the warm breeze in my hair and the sun on my face


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

weepiper said:


> 5t3lla - the link to the article from the facebook group doesn't work.



http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=151083562155&ref=ts

Better? Ugly links


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

What's the FB group linky? Will be able to login between 1-2...

e2a - useless fucking work internet...


----------



## weepiper (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=151083562155&ref=ts
> 
> Better? Ugly links



I'm still getting a 'sorry we couldn't find the page you were looking for' message


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> The food critic?



The media columnist


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm writing to you because your advertisment has been placed next to some truly horrible, objectionable and hateful content on the Daily Mail website/newspaper [CHANGE AS APPROPRIATE] today.

I'm aware that you don't have prior knowledge of what will appear in editorial features but I wanted to let you know of the damaging effect this has on your brand.

Comments from Mail online readers have suddenly stopped appearing on the article, but the top rated comments - with an unusually high number of endorsements - 800 or 900+ apiece - all make the case clear: this is a truly sickening and vile piece in which the journalist infers that the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of a young man, in a committed relationship, who died suddenly of natural causes were 'more than a little sleazy' and infers that his lifestyle was 'very different and dangerous' - before going on to bash civil partnerships in what can only be described as a hateful and deeply homophobic fashion.

Such displays of bigotry and muck-raking gutter journalism are shameful, and should not be appearing in a mainstream newspaper.

What advertiser would be happy to be associated with such malevolent and ignorant content?

A storm of protest is brewing, with the columnist in question now the number one trending topic on Twitter, and a facebook group has been set up expressing disgust.

I hope that you will be talking to the mail through your media buying department, and exercising your power as an advertiser to say that homophobic, ignorant hateful content is not something you or your customers want to be associated with.

Regards


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

it's called "The Daily Mail should retract Jan Moir's hateful, homophobic article" Can you search for it?

Argh - how to link?


----------



## 8den (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> It is _so_ amazing up here on the moral high ground. I feel the warm breeze in my hair and the sun on my face



In Fairness you're on the moral highground above a deep sea trench bottom feeder.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I'm writing to you because your advertisment has been placed next to some truly horrible, objectionable and hateful content on the Daily Mail website/newspaper [CHANGE AS APPROPRIATE] today.
> 
> I'm aware that you don't have prior knowledge of what will appear in editorial features but I wanted to let you know of the damaging effect this has on your brand.
> 
> ...



Added to group discussion board


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> it's called "The Daily Mail should retract Jan Moir's hateful, homophobic article" Can you search for it?
> 
> Argh - how to link?



the link to the article in your facebook group text doesn't work


----------



## prunus (Oct 16, 2009)

BTW - I don't think she's claiming she's a gay rights champion in that last paragraph, rather that he was.

It is a bizzare piece of invective though.


----------



## fogbat (Oct 16, 2009)

Putting "jan moir" in the search box on your fb homepage will bring it up.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> the link to the article in your facebook group text doesn't work



Feck it Ted - help then?! I can't work out what's wrong with it


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

From twitter...
*
Carter-Ruck tries to gag questions in parliament about the amount of toxic waste Jan Moir is dumping on us*


----------



## Weller (Oct 16, 2009)

The link to the story on first page of this thread is working fine , but the one on facebook is not for some reason , I double checked in case the story had been taken down but its still there


----------



## prunus (Oct 16, 2009)

The link in one of the wall posts on the FB thingy is working - copy that one?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/Why-natural-Stephen-Gatelys-death.html


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

I like Fry's Tweet: stephenfry I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathesome and inhumane.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

From Stephen Fry on twitter:

I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathesome and inhumane.

Grrr @ Kanda


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Feck it Ted - help then?! I can't work out what's wrong with it



you copy and pasted the address from Badger Kitten's urban post. urban automatically shortens web addresses so they don't take up the whole screen. what you need to do is go to the original article here, copy the url and paste it into your facebook group text


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

prunus said:


> The link in the first wall post on the FB thingy is working - copy that one?



Fucking fuck. Can you please c/p that here for me? I am getting lost in FB.


----------



## fogbat (Oct 16, 2009)

A National Treasure


----------



## clandestino (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=151083562155




Great work Stella. I joined this without realising it originated from Urban...


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

fogbat said:


> A National Treasure



Awww thanks Foggy


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

ianw said:


> Great work Stella. I joined this without realising it originated from Urban...



At BK's direction


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 16, 2009)

fen boy said:
			
		

> The food critic?






			
				Badger Kitten said:
			
		

> The media columnist



Of the Independent.

He's restaurant critic in the Guardian on Saturdays.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 16, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> From twitter...
> *
> Carter-Ruck tries to gag questions in parliament about the amount of toxic waste Jan Moir is dumping on us*


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Fucking fuck. Can you please c/p that here for me? I am getting lost in FB.



if you want, make me an admin of the group for two mins, and i can fix the link for you


----------



## Stoat Boy (Oct 16, 2009)

I must admit to at first wondering how I might be able to turn this thread into an amusing distraction for a quiet Friday afternoon but after reading the article again even I could not not stoop that low.

Its an awful piece of journalism.

I would be defined by many of you on here as homophobic and I have made no secret of my opposition to the whole idocy of civil partnerships and the like but the young man in question died in the privacy of his own home.

Even if his death had been unnatural he was not hurting anybody else and it certainly does not deserve the vitriol.

I accept that I laugh at sick jokes, including ones about this incident but for me this article really does go beyond the pale.


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

Comments on the page rolling back through now... I guess moderated


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> I must admit to at first wondering how I might be able to turn this thread into an amusing distraction for a quiet Friday afternoon but after reading the article again even I could not not stoop that low.



I just started reading that post in time, I was about to reply with 'fuck off' - lol.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

prunus said:


> BTW - I don't think she's claiming she's a gay rights champion in that last paragraph, rather that he was.
> 
> It is a bizzare piece of invective though.



I've sorted out that bit - just removed that line


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 16, 2009)

all the new comments are from 09:50 am etc


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 16, 2009)

scrap that, they where now there all 11:45 etc


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

i like charlie brooker's comment on this "Jan Moir manages to walk the difficult tightrope between being a bitch and a cunt"


----------



## DRINK? (Oct 16, 2009)

We are simply outraged at this article. Like, really really outraged. As ever.
- Urban75, London, 16/10/2009 9:59

 is that a genuine post? not saying it isn't correct


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i like charlie brooker's comment on this "Jan Moir manages to walk the difficult tightrope between being a bitch and a cunt"



Laugh out loud


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

> We are simply outraged at this article. Like, really really outraged. As ever.
> 
> - Urban75, London, 16/10/2009 9:59



From DM Comments...


----------



## mrsfran (Oct 16, 2009)

Stella, you could put a link to the PCC. The article breaches parts 1, 3, 5 and 12 of the code: http://ow.ly/uL56


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> if you want, make me an admin of the group for two mins, and i can fix the link for you



Done


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

missfran said:


> Stella, you could put a link to the PCC. The article breaches parts 1, 3, 5 and 12 of the code: http://ow.ly/uL56



Have updated - thank you


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 16, 2009)

tbh, I wonder how much of the mail's readership would agree with the article, it's par for the course for that rag.


----------



## aylee (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> surprised if it gets through moderation



Probably, but well said anyway.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 16, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> tbh, I wonder how much of the mail's readership would agree with the article, it's par for the course for that rag.



Are all the negative reactions on the Mail website from non Mail readers ... ?


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

Peter Lloyd @the Pink Paper's doing a story on it - he wants to know about the facebook group. Ok to pass the link on?.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Are all the negative reactions on the Mail website from non Mail readers ... ?



Well, for a long time I've presumed a lot of the comments made on Grauniad's CIF aren't representative of their actual readership, but right-wing leaning people using it as a sounding off platform against the G. I think we are seeing the reverse in action more an more on the Fail website - especially as twitter is being used to organise people.


----------



## chazegee (Oct 16, 2009)

Let's take the bitch down to the disused Blobby Land park rave and ceremonially decapitate her with a roller-coaster at the peak of the night.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

rollinder said:


> Peter Lloyd @the Pink Paper's doing a story on it - he wants to know about the facebook group. Ok to pass the link on?.



Of course of course - this is public fucking outrage


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://newsarse.com/2009/10/16/jan-moirs-career-to-die-of-perfectly-natural-causes/


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i like charlie brooker's comment on this "Jan Moir manages to walk the difficult tightrope between being a bitch and a cunt"



So homophobia is bad but misogyny is OK? 

john x


----------



## tarannau (Oct 16, 2009)

Why is that misogyny? Do you honestly think that Brooker is any less insulting or prone to using sexual expletives to males?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> So homophobia is bad but misogyny is OK?
> 
> john x



Yeah, that's the thing which really frustrates me with these sort of things, calling out homophobia (rightly) is then replaced by misogyny if the writer happens to be a woman. Both are fail.


----------



## chazegee (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> So homophobia is bad but misogyny is OK?
> 
> john x


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

john x is a very sensitive soul, people. _Any_ insult given to an individual is meticulously picked apart for it's -ismness. He would prefer a world where insults didn't exist.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 16, 2009)

stephj said:


> Well, for a long time I've presumed a lot of the comments made on Grauniad's CIF aren't representative of their actual readership, but right-wing leaning people using it as a sounding off platform against the G. I think we are seeing the reverse in action more an more on the Fail website - especially as twitter is being used to organise people.



I've had very similar thoughts myself as it goes!


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Why is that misogyny? Do you honestly think that Brooker is any less insulting or prone to using sexual expletives to males?


i'm guessing he's using the classic 'using the word cunt is misogynistic' argument


----------



## prunus (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> So homophobia is bad but misogyny is OK?
> 
> john x





stephj said:


> Yeah, that's the thing which really frustrates me with these sort of things, calling out homophobia (rightly) is then replaced by misogyny if the writer happens to be a woman. Both are fail.



I think you're overlabelling simple abuse.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

And insulting a woman by calling her a bitch, presumably.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

361 members 

Just had a message from someone saying he was 'openly gay' but didn't get what was so offensive *gulp*


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

366!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

PLEASE TEST THIS - pdf of article  http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/113286/W...bout Stephen Gately's death | Mail Online.pdf

Someone kindly sent it to me but I need to update my reader


----------



## Weller (Oct 16, 2009)

just in case anyone has not done it theres a joined up jpg of the article here in case they remove it.. just right click it and download it , or link to it I will leave it there for now 

http://www.catcha.co.uk/maila.jpg

it is full size


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 16, 2009)

Media Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/16/dailymail-stephen-gately


----------



## subversplat (Oct 16, 2009)

That pdf seems to be the story in the paper, yeah.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Weller said:


> just in case anyone has not done it theres a joined up jpg of the article here in case they remove it.. just right click it and download it , or link to it I will leave it there for now
> 
> http://www.catcha.co.uk/maila.jpg
> 
> it is full size



That's perfect, thanks very much. Have updated


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> PLEASE TEST THIS - pdf of article  http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/113286/W...bout Stephen Gately's death | Mail Online.pdf
> 
> Someone kindly sent it to me but I need to update my reader



just downloaded it and tried to open it but got a 'not a pdf or corrupt' message in Foxit reader. Could just be my computer being shit though.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 16, 2009)

rollinder said:


> just downloaded it and tried to open it but got a 'not a pdf or corrupt' message in Foxit reader. Could just be my computer being shit though.



worked for me, but Weller's is better as the layout is true.


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i'm guessing he's using the classic 'using the word cunt is misogynistic' argument



  

john x


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/cultural-capital/2009/10/stephen-gately-gay-moir-mail

New Statesmen on it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Media Guardian:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/16/dailymail-stephen-gately



have linked on FB. Comments mention to group.

426 members


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> john x



if my guess is wrong, perhaps you could correct me.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/cultural-capital/2009/10/stephen-gately-gay-moir-mail
> 
> New Statesmen on it.



Added.

438 members


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> if my guess is wrong, perhaps you could correct me.



Save it for another thread! You're derailing this one. 

john x


----------



## tarannau (Oct 16, 2009)

Bollocks man. Don't seagull in here, shit over the thread and then don't explain yourself.

Why does using the words 'cunt' and 'butch' imply misogyny?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

I refer all questioners to my post # 168, regarding john x and insults.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

517


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Why does using the words 'cunt' and 'butch' imply misogyny?



It doesn't! 

john x


----------



## Weller (Oct 16, 2009)

rollinder said:


> just downloaded it and tried to open it but got a 'not a pdf or corrupt' message in Foxit reader. Could just be my computer being shit though.



PDF works fine here .

RE : the link to the jpg I posted it will probably be ok but not sure if it kicks off and it gets viewed oodles of times if there may be bandwidth restrictions as its only a personal webspace should be ok as its only a jpg but although its ok I didnt know you would use the link for facebook .

Should be ok but thought Id better mention it in case it goes dead if thousands start viewing that instead of DM 

If it does it might be worth hosting  on a no limits 

see how it goes


----------



## tarannau (Oct 16, 2009)

So why comment on alleged misogyny highlighting exactly that Brooker quote then?!?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> So homophobia is bad but misogyny is OK?
> 
> john x





john x said:


> It doesn't!
> 
> john x



Yes, you are very


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Bollocks man. Don't seagull in here, shit over the thread and then don't explain yourself.
> 
> Why does using the words 'cunt' and 'butch' imply misogyny?



The c word is nearly always used when referring to someone or something as disgusting or in a negative fashion. Given that the c word is also slang for female bits, how can that therefore not imply mysogyny? There's nothing disgusting or negative about female bits.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

544

Slowing down after lunch


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Oct 16, 2009)

Right, so Gately died because he was gay. Also his death proves civil partnerships are bad...intelligent stuff from today's Fail. Can we just shut this newspaper down?


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

reupping to photobucket if I can get the rest of the internet working.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

stephj said:


> The c word is nearly always used when referring to someone or something as disgusting or in a negative fashion. Given that the c word is also slang for female bits, how can that therefore not imply mysogyny? There's nothing disgusting or negative about female bits.



So does that mean I'm being misandrist and/or homophobic if I call someone a cock, prick, dick, penis etc?


----------



## wtfftw (Oct 16, 2009)

PerezHilton on twitter, "If Jan Moir doesn't issue a public apology within the next hour, she should be FIRED! http://bit.ly/4B7cnc"


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2009)

a) we've done this one to death a million times

b) If there is a god the author of that article will fall under a bus on the way home tonight.


I have spoken


----------



## Weller (Oct 16, 2009)

rollinder said:


> reupping to photobucket if I can get the rest of the internet working.


I was thinking of uploading to photobucket first but doesnt that have a restriction on size for the free hosting ?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> So does that mean I'm being misandrist and/or homophobic if I call someone a cock, prick, dick, penis etc?



I've never been keen on using those words either tbh.


----------



## madzone (Oct 16, 2009)

And we're off


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 16, 2009)

drag0n said:


> PerezHilton on twitter, "If Jan Moir doesn't issue a public apology within the next hour, she should be FIRED! http://bit.ly/4B7cnc"



Rather ironic for that muck raking tosser it has to be said.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

624 members


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

madzone said:


> And we're off



No we're not 

628!


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/jend80/maila.jpg


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Dean Piper of the Sunday Mirror showbiz column is on it, twittering.
http://twitter.com/deanpiper

(( Dean))


----------



## tarannau (Oct 16, 2009)

Good work people. Letters to follow when I'm back on the home mac

The inconsistent 'I don't like those swear words, so they be must be misogynistic argument is a bit rubbish.

FWIW I'm quite happy to call Moir a giant cunt, as well as an enormously unpleasant dickhead if that make y'all feel better.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

rollinder said:


> http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/jend80/maila.jpg



That's tiny darling


----------



## IMR (Oct 16, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> We expect union bashing and thinly-veiled racism from the Mail. We don't expect *unveiled* homophobia.



The Mail had the headline _Abortion Hope after 'Gay Genes' Finding_ in 1993, after the scientist Dean Hamer reported a gene marker that was more common in gay than straight men.

One of the few occasions when they seriously misread their readership - there were a lot of complaints over that one, rightly so.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> That's tiny darling





Weller said:


> just in case anyone has not done it theres a joined up jpg of the article here in case they remove it.. just right click it and download it , or link to it I will leave it there for now
> 
> http://www.catcha.co.uk/maila.jpg
> 
> it is full size


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

Daily Quail satire..

Daily Quail


----------



## Weller (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> That's tiny darling



Yeah thats what it did for me as photobucket has a limit and due to the length it slims it down and goes all burry , so unless hosted on a personal webspace most of the free picture sites do that I think .

The pic should be ok where it is though  , unless it goes balistic


----------



## wtfftw (Oct 16, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Rather ironic for that muck raking tosser it has to be said.


Innit. He's got a large audience though.

Edit: looks like he got the info through stephen fry.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

50+ people joined in the last 10 mins. There's going to be _billions_ when everyone gets home tonight


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Has the PCC complaint form crashed??


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Has the PCC complaint form crashed??



I think the PCC site is struggling!


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

IMR said:


> The Mail had the headline _Abortion Hope after 'Gay Genes' Finding_ in 1993, after the scientist Dean Hamer reported a gene marker that was more common in gay than straight men.
> 
> One of the few occasions when they seriously misread their readership - there were a lot of complaints over that one, rightly so.



What the actual fuck?!


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

768 people in the facebook group


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

Good job you've got screengrabs, the page has just been editted  

http://i35.tinypic.com/2z5jf2g.jpg


----------



## 8den (Oct 16, 2009)

stephj said:


> I think the PCC site is struggling!



Yeah I hear all those limp slaps to the wrist they give newspapers is giving them an RSI.


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

> After going out "clubbing" (a euphemism for hanging around the loos with a tell-tale pink feathered hat, the accepted sign of availability), he and "his" husband retired to their hotel room with a pretty young Bulgarian boyman. Now I'm not homophobic, but it's safe to assume they weren't just going back for a quick game of snakes & ladders. More like just plain old snakes, if you know what I mean. In case you don't though, I mean gay stuff. You know what they're into - hanging each other like that other possibly gay Hutchence man did, spanking, dressing up as ladies, knife swallowing, and bear-baiting. If one is to indulge in such dangerous persuits of carnal pleasure, one must be prepared for the consequences. Did we learn nothing from the hapless Sodomites?
> 
> Precisely what happened before, during, or after the salacious triuvirate returned to their hotel I don't know, but it's quite obvious that it was something icky that almost certainly led to poor Stephen's death. I'm no expert, or medical professional, nor do I know most of the facts, and I haven't really bothered reading about the case or asking anyone, but with cases like this you don't need to.



PMSL


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Wikipedia's been amended by someone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Moir



> She sparked controversy on 16 October 2009 with an article [2] about the death of Stephen Gately, in which she argued that gay civil partnerships were not as faithful as marriage and that Stephen's homosexuality had contributed to his death.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Well they've changed the title but the bile is still the same underneath


----------



## Weller (Oct 16, 2009)

stephj said:


> Good job you've got screengrabs, the page has just been editted
> 
> http://i35.tinypic.com/2z5jf2g.jpg



Could they actually do anything about the linked jpg  if they have changed the webpage? anyone know ? 

I assume not as its just a screengrab of the actual site 

Ive got a better resolution one saved here though if its needed as well


----------



## nick h. (Oct 16, 2009)

Good to see the backlash is gaining traction....but the story is still at the top of the paper's home page. They probably view this as a win so far. Perhaps complaints to advertisers and the PCC will change that. But I wouldn't be too sure. Jan Moir is probably hoping the outrage will grow to the point that she gets invited on Newsnight. 

Oh, and according to some US feminists...


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

A irritatingly perceptive comment on CiF...



> It's interesting that this story has broken while another of the threads on today's Guardian is to do with highs and lows over the last decade.
> 
> As was pointed out here following Gatele's death, he was one of the earlier pop stars whose sexuality appeared to matter not a jot to his fans, possibly to the surprise of the tabloid press. Now, upon his death, another tabloid has been taken to task, even by its own readers by the sounds of it, for using that sexuality to libel him in a particularly grubby fashion.
> 
> Dare I suggest that this actually represents real progress, over the last ten years or so?


----------



## Pseudopsycho (Oct 16, 2009)

The Jan Moir wiki has now been stripped to basic info...


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2009)

TwilightPilgrim said:


> The Jan Moir wiki has now been stripped to basic info...



edit wars I guess. The internet is angry


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

TwilightPilgrim said:


> The Jan Moir wiki has now been stripped to basic info...



It said she was a 'homophobe', british journalist and restaurant critic. 

john x

They have now removed the word homophobe!


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Well they've changed the title but the bile is still the same underneath


The new title is the one it appeared under in the Scottish edition of the print version of the paper.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

THEY'VE TAKEN DOWN ALL THE ADS!



It's working


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Oct 16, 2009)

I still dont hate her as much as that shoesmith bitch- but im getting close!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 16, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Jan Moir is probably hoping the outrage will grow to the point that she gets invited on Newsnight.



Absolutely *bursting* to moan on about 'political correctness', no doubt ...


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Oh, and according to some US feminists...



Some? Surely all US feminists. How could you be a feminist and not think that cunt is a good word? 

john x


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

871

It'll be 1000+ in an hour


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

I can't access the mail site at all, haven't been able to for weeks. Wonder if it's anything to do with some comments i made about some of their anti-traveller articles...


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

This been posted yet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/oct/16/jan-moir-stephen-gately-facebook-twitter



> Social media users including Stephen Fry and Derren Brown angry over 'homophobic' Daily Mail article on Stephen Gately


----------



## fogbat (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> THEY'VE TAKEN DOWN ALL THE ADS!
> 
> 
> 
> It's working





Excellent work.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

In case any one wants it...

here's the page URL and top of page grab at 12:14PM

http://i36.tinypic.com/23rty5x.jpg

and the changed URL and grab at 14:32PM

http://i34.tinypic.com/a284lu.jpg


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> THEY'VE TAKEN DOWN ALL THE ADS!
> 
> 
> 
> It's working


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

927 members way to go.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> THEY'VE TAKEN DOWN ALL THE ADS!
> 
> 
> 
> It's working



Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

It went up 40 members in 3 minutes


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Good work BK and stella (sorry but I can't cope with all those numbers in your name )

 

Power of t'interwebz


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 16, 2009)

Is this the same newspaper that saw fit to shove a camera in the faces of two young kids at their father's funeral in the name of public interest. Had they been my kids the only picture that would have come out from that camera would be the inside of the fucker's eye socket.


----------



## fogbat (Oct 16, 2009)

Exponential growth


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

How do you join the Facebook group? 

john x


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> How do you join the Facebook group?
> 
> john x



http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=151083562155

click that and join


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> click that and join



It won't let me. Want's a password! 

john x


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

*1,018*


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

stephj said:


> Good job you've got screengrabs, the page has just been editted
> 
> http://i35.tinypic.com/2z5jf2g.jpg


 whats  the internet site that logs page changes???? is it on that .. would be interested to see all the chnages thru the day


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> It won't let me. Want's a password!
> 
> john x



Are you even a _member_ of FB dude?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> whats  the internet site that logs page changes???? is it on that .. would be interested to see all the chnages thru the day



The History tab on wiki shows you all that info


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

My aussie journo friend has just picked this up - Jan Moir is going to be persona non grata globally by the time we've finished with her. 

Hah


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Are you even a _member_ of FB dude?



No, of course not! 

john x


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> It won't let me. Want's a password!
> 
> john x


The password is "cunt".


----------



## fogbat (Oct 16, 2009)

1,056


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> *1,018*




*High-fives*


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

Julie Taylor Butt at Kodak's PR seems to have put her auto-responder on and fled the office


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> *High-fives*



This ^


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

pinkpaper article's up
http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=1814



			
				Peter Lloyd said:
			
		

> When PinkPaper.com contacted Moir, she refused to answer her phone. Likewise, when we contacted the Daily Mail’s top editorial team – the people who approve articles before they go to print – we were told they were "too busy."
> 
> Despite a slew of follow-up messages, PinkPaper.com were still waiting for a response at the time of going to press.
> 
> ...


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> The password is "cunt".



It wants a user name as well 

john x


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 16, 2009)

j.moir200@btinternet.com

Her personal e mail from the FB group.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

I didn't know Derren Brown was gay


----------



## fogbat (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> It wants a user name as well
> 
> john x



Perhaps the internet is not for you


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> No, of course not!
> 
> john x


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> No, of course not!
> 
> john x



Then
You
Can't 
Join
The
*FACEBOOK*
Group


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 16, 2009)

Jesus that FB group is growing at a phenomenal rate.


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Then
> You
> Can't
> Join
> ...



I'm not a subscriber to the Daily Mail but I can still post on their site! 

john x


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> I'm not a subscriber to the Daily Mail but I can still post on their site!
> 
> john x


----------



## Sadken (Oct 16, 2009)

Sorry, this bit did make me lol

"But somehow we never expected it of him. Never him. Not Stephen Gately."


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

1128!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Thanks for your support John x!


----------



## Sadken (Oct 16, 2009)

Sorry, by the way, how do we complain about the article?  The pink paper link doesn't work.


----------



## fogbat (Oct 16, 2009)

I think the PCC site may be overwhelmed


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> I didn't know Derren Brown was gay




Then he's obviously not long for this world either.

Poor Derren


----------



## Weller (Oct 16, 2009)

Growing steadily then


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Sorry, by the way, how do we complain about the article?  The pink paper link doesn't work.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/contactus.html


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> I didn't know Derren Brown was gay


Lol.  Your gaydar is proper fucked then!


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 16, 2009)

PCC complaints can also be *emailed*, fact fans:

complaints@pcc.org.uk

(Good work on this by the way, it is absolutely appalling.)


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 16, 2009)

I posted a comment.

If I had a twitter account i would happily waste the next couple of hours till the chippy opens telling her she is a cunt.


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Thanks for your support John x!





john x


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> PCC complaints can also be *emailed*, fact fans:
> 
> complaints@pcc.org.uk
> 
> (Good work on this by the way, it is absolutely appalling.)



U[dated news feed!

Thank _you_ t_t


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Sorry, this bit did make me lol
> 
> "But somehow we never expected it of him. Never him. Not Stephen Gately."



Some of the writing in that article is brilliant in its vileness. The way that she manages to pack so many insinuations and complicated prejudices into such short sections is breathtaking.

Take this one for instance which seems to have a pop at Gately for not being in some way genuinely proud of his sexuality while also combining undertones of assent that imply that his stance was correct in its presumed cowardice:



> Although he was effectively smoked out of the closet, he has been hailed as a champion of gay rights, albeit a reluctant one.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Oct 16, 2009)

No, Stephen Gately did not die of 'being gay' Torygraph


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...8/no-stephen-gately-did-not-die-of-being-gay/

Daily Telegraph's TV critic now having a go


----------



## Sadken (Oct 16, 2009)

I just complained to the PCC.  

Is it cool if I take this opportunity to go on a vile misogynist rant?  For old time's sake?


----------



## Sadken (Oct 16, 2009)

Diamond said:


> Some of the writing in that article is brilliant in its vileness. The way that she manages to pack so many insinuations and complicated prejudices into such short sections is breathtaking.
> 
> Take this one for instance which seems to have a pop at Gately for not being in some way genuinely proud of his sexuality while also combining undertones of assent that imply that his stance was correct in its presumed cowardice:



That second quote is like a fucking rollercoaster of hate!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

ExtraRefined said:


> No, Stephen Gately did not die of 'being gay' Torygraph





Badger Kitten said:


> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...8/no-stephen-gately-did-not-die-of-being-gay/
> 
> Daily Telegraph's TV critic now having a go



Added


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> THEY'VE TAKEN DOWN ALL THE ADS!
> 
> 
> 
> It's working



From where? The page on your original link still has ads although the headline has changed! 

john x


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 16, 2009)

PCC are claiming it's none of our business, judging by an email just posted onto the Facebook group ... they need a friend or family member to complain!
More good evidence why print media's self-regulation just doesn't work.


Edit: here's the text the guy on the FB group has posted:


_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 we may 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.

Kind regards

Simon Yip_


----------



## mozzy (Oct 16, 2009)

I posted a comment stating my discust at the vileness, small mindedness, ignorant shite the stupid bitch posted. Sad that she has the stupidity to write such rubbish, so soon after someone's death. I feel for Stephen's partner, family and friends, as this is highly disrespectful to them too - very sad.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> PCC are claiming it's none of our business, judging by an email just posted onto the Facebook group ... they need a friend or family member to complain!
> More good evidence why print media's self-regulation just doesn't work.



It COULD work, but the PCC is a paper tiger, alwys has been


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

facebook going  logarithmic


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

> they need a friend or family member to complain!



Yes, their rules are pretty clear about who they can act on complaints from.

You also didn't bold this bit:



> *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
> ...



Which really is the bit you should have been focussing on.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> PCC are claiming it's none of our business,


They are correct: complaints to them must come from someone directly affected by the article.  This point has already been made.  Complain to the Mail, the advertisers, and to Moir's other employer, the Observer/Guardian.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/oct/16/religion-dailymail

It's now on comment is free, so that's 3 Guardian blogs about it already 


edit: not sure what the Andrew Brown one is on about, tbf, it's very confused


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

Ken Smith wrote
at 15:34
Just walked past Westminster and spotted Jan Moir sucking Geert Wilders cock!!!!


----------



## mrsfran (Oct 16, 2009)

I complained to the PCC and received an email saying the following:



> Thank you for making your complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the article published in the Daily Mail on the 16/10/09.
> 
> Please note that we require you to supply a copy of the article or articles you are complaining about. You can either do this as an attachment to the email or by providing a link to the article or by sending hard copy in the post to: Press Complaints Commission, Halton House, 20/23 Holborn, London EC1N 2JD. A hard copy should be sent within seven days of raising your complaint.
> 
> ...



So do I now have to email them back with another link to the article (despite having provided a link on the complaint form)?


----------



## fogbat (Oct 16, 2009)

I think God gave you that cold, Stella, so you could do His work today


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

brooker's written an article on this for monday's guardian.


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

headline's now "a strange, lonely and troubling death"
and the  url's changed http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html

The google ads and advertorial links down the bottom are still there but there's now empty space where I think banner ads were.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Lol.  Your gaydar is proper fucked then!



 It's slightly rusty


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> brooker's written an article on this for monday's guardian.



yay - I hoped he would.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

missfran said:


> So do I now have to email them back with another link to the article (despite having provided a link on the complaint form)?


No, write to the Mail, the advertisers, and Moir's other employer,the Observer/Guardian.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 16, 2009)

Kanda said:


> Comments on the page rolling back through now... I guess moderated


Mine never appeared


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

missfran said:


> I complained to the PCC and received an email saying the following:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I now have to email them back with another link to the article (despite having provided a link on the complaint form)?



Yes I found that confusing. I'm sure they know what the article is by now but may not register your complaint without the link. 

I just replied with the link.

john x


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

fogbat said:


> I think God gave you that cold, Stella, so you could do His work today


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

missfran said:


> I complained to the PCC and received an email saying the following:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I now have to email them back with another link to the article (despite having provided a link on the complaint form)?



To which they'll respond 'Thanks but we can only act on complaints received by family or someone with a direct connection to the subject'


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 16, 2009)

Pink news have picked it up:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/1...ily-mail-column-on-gay-singer-stephen-gately/


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

rollinder said:


> yay - I hoped he would.



If he so much as mentions the FB group, which he will, I might fap myself to def


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 16, 2009)

Isn't the article libellous to Gateley's partner?


----------



## Badgers (Oct 16, 2009)

Anyone know where Jan lives?


----------



## mrsfran (Oct 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> To which they'll respond 'Thanks but we can only act on complaints received by family or someone with a direct connection to the subject'


 
I know. But what it will do is add to the total "<number of people> complained about this article".


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Isn't the article libellous to Gateley's partner?



I would think so. I'd also think that Stephen Gateley's mother has been libelled by Moir implying she was lying about the genetic heart condition. (nb have no legal training)


----------



## ExtraRefined (Oct 16, 2009)

rollinder said:


> headline's now "a strange, lonely and troubling death"
> and the  url's changed http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html
> 
> The google ads and advertorial links down the bottom are still there but there's now empty space where I think banner ads were.



You can change the last part of the link to whatever you want, although it redirects to the above it's still vaguely entertaining

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/jan-moir-is-a-vapid-cunt.html


----------



## kained&able (Oct 16, 2009)

I really don't get the new headline?

Lonely? wasn't he about to have a threesome?

Umm yeah good work on the group. Good to see that the interntz can be mad at more then just scientologists(although NEVER stop hating them)  


dave


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Isn't the article libellous to Gateley's partner?



He'd have to complain though...I think that's the gist of the PCC response.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

1,753

Wow


----------



## paolo (Oct 16, 2009)

Brooker's Guardian article is being brought forward - will be online later today.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 16, 2009)

Guardian are going to run Brooker's piece tomorrow! And it will be on the web later today apparently.

Edit: Snap!


----------



## plurker (Oct 16, 2009)

Paul Dacre, as well as being the Mail's editor, is also the chairman of the PCC's Editors’ Code of Practice Committee.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Gimme links as soon as it comes up please!

 I have a cold and am getting  about all my tabs


----------



## paolo (Oct 16, 2009)

Badgers said:


> Anyone know where Jan lives?



Several thousand know. It was twittered a few hours ago.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 16, 2009)

The Guardian are now trailing their Greenslade column on the front page of their website! (top right)


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 16, 2009)

NOTW showbiz reporter has Tweeted: 
'Am hearing that the Press Complaints Commission has had *more than 6,000 complaints *over Jan Moir's v.hateful Stephen Gately piece'

http://twitter.com/simonjward


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Sqeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! ^_^


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

work emails j.moir200@btinternet.com jan.moir@dailymail.co.uk


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

*Nearly two thousand on FB group*


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Sky News reports the PCC has so far received more than 800 complaints about the Jan Moir article - PCC website may have crashed

Report on Sky at 7pm, apparently


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

tbh i would have ignored this story as typical DM bollox but just cos we get used to something doesn't mean it is right .. so respect to BK and all for this campaign


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

2,001 

Brooker link available yet?

Imagine - he's there writing it now and clicking on that (my) cunting group


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

over 2,000 members now


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> tbh i would have ignored this story as typical DM bollox but just cos we get used to something doesn't mean it is right .. so respect to BK and all for this campaign


Indeed.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

*20* people joined while I was typing that


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

*2027 members, get in! *


----------



## Badgers (Oct 16, 2009)

The Hive Mind is whirring


----------



## gabi (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> 2,001
> 
> Brooker link available yet?
> 
> Imagine - he's there writing it now and clicking on that (my) cunting group



i highly doubt charlie brooker is a facebook user. surely that site sums up everything he hates most about humanity.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 16, 2009)

Hee hee  - am off home now and first thing I am going to do when I get there is log onto Facebook and join


----------



## Chairman Meow (Oct 16, 2009)

I'll join when I get home - facebook is barred at work. Good work everyone!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

gabi said:


> i highly doubt charlie brooker is a facebook user. surely that site sums up everything he hates most about humanity.



I highly doubt that someone who writes about popular culture for a living wouldn't be a member! lol at you


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm gonna hit 19k on this righteous work


----------



## gabi (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> I highly doubt that someone who writes about popular culture for a living wouldn't be a member! lol at you



he writes about popular culture from a highly misanthropic pov... facebook is second only to twitter in the two sites i can imagine he despises. could be wrong tho


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

kained&able said:


> I really don't get the new headline?
> 
> Lonely? wasn't he about to have a threesome?
> 
> ...



Lonely cos teh gay cannot know real love or friendship, and are permanently isolated.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 16, 2009)

You're invariably wrong Gabi: it's an internet law


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

gabi said:


> he writes about popular culture from a highly misanthropic pov... facebook is second only to twitter in the two sites i can imagine he despises. could be wrong tho



he's been on twitter for ages though


----------



## gabi (Oct 16, 2009)

tarannau said:


> You're invariably wrong Gabi: it's an internet law





That's true.


----------



## 8den (Oct 16, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> work emails j.moir200@btinternet.com jan.moir@dailymail.co.uk



I sent her an e-mail wishing that she chokes to death on her own vomit. I'm okay with this.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

STV (Scottish Television) News has this:  http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/130754-jan-moirs-gately-slur-provokes-online-outrage/

See also:

http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/gather...ils-pulls-all-advertising-on-homophobic-blog/


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

BT have got back to me:



> Thank you for email. We've had a number of complaints about this today and have passed these on to our media planning department.
> Best wishes,
> Gemma


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

Says here that it's all down to Malcom Cole that the ads have been removed, but he didn't start twittering 'til around 10.30...after BK had started spreading the word. Bloody journalists ey...always taking credit for other people's work


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> STV (Scottish Television) News has this:  http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/130754-jan-moirs-gately-slur-provokes-online-outrage/
> 
> See also:
> 
> http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/gather...ils-pulls-all-advertising-on-homophobic-blog/


^ omg it's gone global


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

*2,255* 

Poor Gemma


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

@ danny:

Who will turn round and say 'Hmm, 10,000 liberals vs. 2m Mail readers'; no contest.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 16, 2009)

The Lesbian and Gay Foundation have picked it up as well now

http://www.lgf.org.uk/daily-mail-infers-stephen-gately-died-of-a-gay-lifestyle/


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> @ danny:
> 
> Who will turn round and say 'Hmm, 10,000 liberals vs. 2m Mail readers'; no contest.




Today, I side with the liberals.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

Sadly (and I say this truly) media planners, while possibly actually giving a fuck about the article, won't unrecommend the Mail in view of the coverage they'll lose in the campaign they've booked.

It's the brand&marketing managers at the client you need to get to in this case...


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> It's the brand&marketing managers at the client you need to get to in this case...


Ah, you have my interest now...?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Sadly (and I say this truly) media planners, while possibly actually giving a fuck about the article, won't unrecommend the Mail in view of the coverage they'll lose in the campaign they've booked.
> 
> It's the brand&marketing managers at the client you need to get to in this case...




Done them too.

Think others have as well.



			
				Intastella said:
			
		

> Says here that it's all down to Malcom Cole that the ads have been removed, but he didn't start twittering 'til around 10.30...after BK had started spreading the word. Bloody journalists ey...always taking credit for other people's work



Malcolm Coles has graciously tweeted that u75 started it.

http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/jan-moir-ads-pulled/#comment-5522


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

Media planners will be given a brief by the client that says:

Book X million page impressions over period Y-Z, against the audience ABC1 for £D cost per thousand page impressions/£0.00 per click 

Media planner goes off, plans the campaign and books it. That's it. Media planners, while they will know that putting the ad on say bdsmpoo.com wouldn't work, they generally aren't too concerned about editorial.

Clients, and their brand managers/brand 'guardians' or whatever you want to call them, are _very_ interested in this. The whole reason for there existance is to protect the integrity of the brand from any and all badness. Examples of brand manager idiocy include the guy at Nike who refused to let some bloke put 'made by sweatshop labour' on his custom Nikes. If they had, about 3 people would have noticed; as it was it made the news, loads of people got to say 'Nike, what a bunch of cunts.'

The most important person to talk to is the decision maker, the grand fromage, the one who signs the money over. Not a media buyer.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

> The Daily Mail has issued a statement from Jan Moir which concludes, “In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.”



http://www.nma.co.uk/mail-online-removes-ads-from-jan-moir-column-following-uproar/3005628.article


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Clients, and their brand managers/brand 'guardians' or whatever you want to call them, are _very_ interested in this. The whole reason for there existance is to protect the integrity of the brand from any and all badness. Examples of brand manager idiocy include the guy at Nike who refused to let some bloke put 'made by sweatshop labour' on his custom Nikes. If they had, about 3 people would have noticed; as it was it made the news, loads of people got to say 'Nike, what a bunch of cunts.'


Gotcha. Yup.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Is there an 'incitement to hatred' Police complaint here, do you think? 

Someone just suggested that to me on FB


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 16, 2009)

Mischievous?  Obvious.  

Bloody Hell.


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Malcolm Coles has graciously tweeted that u75 started it.
> 
> http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/jan-moir-ads-pulled/#comment-5522



/Calls off the hitman


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Is there an 'incitement to hatred' Police complaint here, do you think?
> 
> Someone just suggested that to me on FB


I think a gay group will have thought of that.  Anyone got first hand contacts?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

'Orchestrated' lol

Yeah, by a bunch of people who in all likelihood despised Boyzone and all their works.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

But the media buyers will get *massive* grief from the brand managers because *they* will be getting it in the ear from the Head of Marketing. There will be fury - press space isn't cheap and with tighter margins, advertisers need to squeeze as much margin as they can out of their spend. They are going to seriously question whether to advertise with the DM again


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> 'Orchestrated' lol
> 
> Yeah, by a bunch of people who in all likelihood despised Boyzone and all their works.


And in fairness, I have to say Gately was a truly appalling singer, and always heavily autotuned.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> I think a gay group will have thought of that.  Anyone got first hand contacts?



I am loathe to absolutly FILL that FB page with links to everything - now 'orchestration' has been brought up I feel like an agitator fo' real 

Other views?


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 16, 2009)

i was surprised i hadn't been invited to join the facebook group.

first thing i did when i joined was invite all my fb friends.  That's how these things really snowball - so do it!


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> http://www.nma.co.uk/mail-online-removes-ads-from-jan-moir-column-following-uproar/3005628.article


 doh so she wants a fight! ..


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 16, 2009)

I heard about it first via http://twitter.com/polljack


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

brooker's column here...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir




			
				brooker said:
			
		

> The funeral of Stephen Gately has not yet taken place. The man hasn't been buried yet. Nevertheless, Jan Moir of the Daily Mail has already managed to dance on his grave. For money.
> 
> It has been 20 minutes since I've read her now-notorious column, and I'm still struggling to absorb the sheer scope of its hateful idiocy. It's like gazing through a horrid little window into an awesome universe of pure blockheaded spite. Spiralling galaxies of ignorance roll majestically against a backdrop of what looks like dark prejudice, dotted hither and thither with winking stars of snide innuendo.
> 
> ...


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

*From Brand Republic (Campaign and marketing mags online)*

It's hit the marketing trade press - this from Campaign and Marketing magazine



> MailOnline ads pulled from columnist Jan Moir's article amid gay backlash
> 
> by Daniel Farey-Jones, Brand Republic 16-Oct-09, 16:15
> 
> ...



http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/9...olumnist-Jan-Moirs-article-amid-gay-backlash/


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> But the media buyers will get *massive* grief from the brand managers because *they* will be getting it in the ear from the Head of Marketing. There will be fury - press space isn't cheap and with tighter margins, advertisers need to squeeze as much margin as they can out of their spend. *They are going to seriously question whether to advertise with the DM again*



Maybe the smaller brands, but BT? Nah. Press wise the DM is expensive as The Sun and delivers a more valuable audience (1 page ad=3.8m ABC1s, roughly and IIRC) - the only time the DM gets dropped is when the agency/client falls out with them over page rates.

Online might be different - but then, even given this, if you're a marketing director, and your media planners give you a plan without the UKs largest newspaper website on it, you're going to reject it.

I actually went through something similar with one of the 2 big French luxury brands groups over sweatshop allegations in Marie Claire...audience _always_ triumphs, unless the title concerned is running an ongoing campaign.

I really, really want to be pleasantly surprised about this tho...


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> brooker's column here...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir



Updated *bosh*


(((strung_out)))


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

spanglechick said:


> i was surprised i hadn't been invited to join the facebook group.
> 
> first thing i did when i joined was invite all my fb friends.  That's how these things really snowball - so do it!



I didn't invite everyone because I thought you'd be inundated with invites. My bad 

I did however invite all my non-urban friends.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> It's hit the marketing trade press - this from Campaign and Marketing magazine
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/9...olumnist-Jan-Moirs-article-amid-gay-backlash/



Is there an actual full press release from the DM about this? Or is it being disseminated trhough nma and Brandrep?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

> All she's doing is running a detailed celebrity-death sweepstake in her head. That's not ghoulish, that's fun. For my part, I've just put a tenner on Moir choking to death on her own bile by the year 2012. See? Fun!


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> brooker's column here...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir



solid work there Brooker


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> brooker's column here...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir



I think i love him <3


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Gately family 'hugely disappointed by tone' of Moir's article today - just been on SKY news, along with over 800 PCC complaints


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Maybe the smaller brands, but BT? Nah. Press wise the DM is expensive as The Sun and delivers a more valuable audience (1 page ad=3.8m ABC1s, roughly and IIRC) - the only time the DM gets dropped is when the agency/client falls out with them over page rates.
> 
> Online might be different - but then, even given this, if you're a marketing director, and your media planners give you a plan without the UKs largest newspaper website on it, you're going to reject it.
> 
> ...



Depends on the company and who they're hoping to target. Where I used to work (big company but not FMCG), we dropped a couple of publications from our ad campaigns because of bad publicity. Anyway - the MC thing was criticising the brands which is different from the publication being seen as the last refuge of scoundrels


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 16, 2009)

Seemingly, the police are now involved

http://www.lgf.org.uk/lgf-reports-daily-mail-s-jan-moir-for-incitement-to-hatred/


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Gately family 'hugely disappointed by tone' of Moir's article today - just been on SKY news, along with over 800 PCC complaints



Fantastic. Well not fantastic that they're upset during which must be a fucking dreadful time but I want them to bloody crucify the woman.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

*OK - is there anything else that needs to go on the group today because I've got a cold and want to go and do something else now *


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

Intastella said:


> I think i love him <3



snap


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

I think we can all sit back and let outrage take its course.

Interesting comments on New Media Age:

#




			
				 commenters on NMA said:
			
		

> Christine | Fri, 16 Oct 2009 5:01 pm
> 
> Heavily orchestrated campaign? No. It was very much a spontaneous erruption of disgust from the British public, as anyone who knows anything about Twitter would realize. Clearly Jan Moir is as out of touch on that as she is anything else.
> 
> ...



Press Gazette has covered it as well

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44483&c=1


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

Post 9
Louise R Turner (Leeds) wroteabout a minute ago
Welcome to the power of social media Jan Moir! We aren't part of some underground organisation just waiting to pounce, we're just normal people who totally disagree with her insinuations and, through the power of the internet, are able to express that. And long may we have that power.

this has been an interesting day


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 16, 2009)

> As for homophobic undertones, which parts does she think were undertones?


Indeed.


----------



## -=RicK=- (Oct 16, 2009)

Poisonous, bigoted cunt. I think that sums it up really.
Google Jan Moir, the results speak for themselves.

Was gonna suggest a t'interweb hate campaign, hardly a requirement for it.

I for one hope the cantakerous old cunt gets hung up to dry!


----------



## mrsfran (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> *OK - is there anything else that needs to go on the group today because I've got a cold and want to go and do something else now *


 
Why not pass the admin baton to someone else?


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

http://www.angrymob.uponnothing.co....615-jan-moir-im-thinking-shes-a-piece-of-shit   she had a good track record lol


----------



## rikwakefield (Oct 16, 2009)

The Press Complaints Commission's website is down. Hopefully it's from the sheer number of incoming complaints.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I think we can all sit back and let outrage take its course.



Oh thank god *sneeze*

I'll check back tomorrow of course 

PM me if there's anything really shitty that needs deleting or whatever...I dunno about that but there's Friday Night to get through :shrug:


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

missfran said:


> Why not pass the admin baton to someone else?



Sure thing. You in tonight?


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 16, 2009)

Fuckin delighted with the backlash she's getting,like to see this happening more often not when just celebs are involved


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

*result...*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir-complaints




> Brands including Marks & Spencer have asked for their advertising to be removed from the Daily Mail website page featuring a controversial column about the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately.
> 
> After a storm of protest which grew during the day online, Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir defended her comment piece, rejecting accusations that it was homophobic.
> 
> ...


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

<snip>

we posted at the same time lol

def result *applauds Badger Kitten, Stella, and everyone who did their bit on facebook, and twitter etc.*


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2009)

I think it's fair to post her statement in full.

Right to reply/keep on digging and all that:




			
				Jan Moir statement said:
			
		

> "Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention. Stephen, as I pointed out in the article was a charming and sweet man who entertained millions.
> 
> "However, the point of my column-which,I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read - was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all. Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately’s death – out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances,  bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger – did not have a bearing  on his death.
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 16, 2009)

The facebook group has acquired about another 200 members since I joined it - 20 minutes ago!   

This is the democratising potential of the internet in action IMO. These days it's so easy to read something and react to it that nasty, spiteful journalists writing in nasty, spiteful newspapers can expect a blast of criticism immediately, rather than a muted response a few days later.


----------



## rikwakefield (Oct 16, 2009)

You know what, I fucking love the Internet. Only a few years ago, it wouldn't have been possible to nail this bitch.


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

rikwakefield said:


> You know what, I fucking love the Internet. Only a few years ago, it wouldn't have been possible to nail this bitch.



^ snap. also this thread is why I love urbans


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 16, 2009)

rollinder said:


> ^ snap. also this thread is why I love urbans



We're quite good at this sort of thing.

*remembers the 'backing Blair' petition *


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

Roadkill said:


> We're quite good at this sort of thing.
> 
> *remembers the 'backing Blair' petition *



oh yeah


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2009)

rikwakefield said:


> You know what, I fucking love the Internet. Only a few years ago, it wouldn't have been possible to nail this bitch.



aye. The internet and cit journalism also won over the Ian Tomlinson killing, managing to totally kybosh the Met's attempted smear and cover-up campaign.

Some people have yet to wake the fuck up to what loads of angry internetz people can get done.


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

rikwakefield said:


> it wouldn't have been possible to nail this bitch.



Yeah, women are shit, aren't they? 

john x


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> Yeah, women are shit, aren't they?
> 
> john x


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 16, 2009)

Jan Moir's career, seconds after she finished today's column:







Does anyone feel like dancing?


----------



## xes (Oct 16, 2009)

Bravo urban, you've outshone yourselves once again.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 16, 2009)

Good to see the Fail get a taste of its own medicene


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> aye. The internet and cit journalism also won over the Ian Tomlinson killing, managing to totally kybosh the Met's attempted smear and cover-up campaign.
> 
> Some people have yet to wake the fuck up to what loads of angry internetz people can get done.



I agree but lets not get carried away with describing stuff like this as evidence of the democratising nature of the internet.

It is mob justice, albeit a very just kind of mob justice.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2009)

Diamond said:


> I agree but lets not get carried away with describing stuff like this as evidence of the democratising nature of the internet.
> 
> It is mob justice, albeit a very just kind of mob justice.



Mob justice would have been a lynching. This is people flagging up an article that breaks three of the PCC's codes. An appeal to existing authority (vociferous though the appeal may be) isn't the same as mob justice.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Diamond said:


> I agree but lets not get carried away with describing stuff like this as evidence of the democratising nature of the internet.
> 
> It is mob justice, albeit a very just kind of mob justice.



it's an expanded right of reply


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 16, 2009)

Diamond said:


> I agree but lets not get carried away with describing stuff like this as evidence of the democratising nature of the internet.
> 
> It is mob justice, albeit a very just kind of mob justice.



Of course, but the point is that it's much easier now, with the internet, for the 'man in the street' to respond to journalists.  The balance of power between writer and reader has shifted a little bit.  That is a democratising force IMO.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Mob justice would have been a lynching. This is people flagging up an article that breaks three of the PCC's codes. An appeal to existing authority (vociferous though the appeal may be) isn't the same as mob justice.



I think, ironically, the new standard for mob justice was set a year or so ago by the Daily Mail with the whole Andrew Sachs campaign.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2009)

Roadkill said:


> Of course, but the point is that it's much easier now, with the internet, for the 'man in the street' to respond to journalists.  The balance of power between writer and reader has shifted a little bit.  That is a democratising force IMO.



That's not really a democratising force.

That's just a redistribution of power.


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 16, 2009)

Diamond said:


> That's not really a democratising force.
> 
> That's just a redistribution of power.



Sure, but it's a redistribution of power from writer to reader; 'media' to public; producer to consumer.  Not a complete one by any means, perhaps not even a very big one, but enough to be significant.  Surely a redistribution of (some) power in the direction of the majority is in itself a democratising influence?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comm...r-man-died-of-homosexuality--for-moirs-p.html


> *Jan Moir on Stephen Gately: serious statistical flaws*
> 
> Gately I am deeply dismayed by Jan Moir's article on Stephen Gately, suggesting that the poor man died of homosexuality.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 16, 2009)

Its a shame Littlejohn's vile article about those murdered Suffolk prostitutes did'nt attract the same coverage and outrage,according to him their deaths apparently were 'no great loss'


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://timesonline.typepad.com/comm...r-man-died-of-homosexuality--for-moirs-p.html



From the comments:



> She's now released a statement, which appears to me to say "I didn't say he was /bummed/ to death. I just said he died of gay."



lolz!!


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2009)

Roadkill said:


> Sure, but it's a redistribution of power from writer to reader; 'media' to public; producer to consumer.  Not a complete one by any means, perhaps not even a very big one, but enough to be significant.  Surely a redistribution of (some) power in the direction of the majority is in itself a democratising influence?



I don't necessarily think so because I suspect that these internet campaigns represent nothing more than special interest groups, albeit ones that may be morally in the right, as opposed to a majority consensus (which is what democracy drives at).

Also, Finkelstein is great. It's a pity he's a Tory.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> *OK - is there anything else that needs to go on the group today because I've got a cold and want to go and do something else now *



I'll do it if missfran has a life, given I don't  

Oh hang on


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

Email from Nestle

FINGERS,

Thank you for your email to the Nestlé Press Office, below is our statement.  This has also been put up on the home page of our website:
Nestlé has no influence on the editorial content of the publications in which it advertises. The views expressed in the article are from the author and are not shared by Nestlé.
The Company has consistently emphasised the importance of mutual respect and tolerance, regardless of culture, religion or nationality. This a core Company value as expressed in the Nestlé Corporate Business Principles.

http://www.nestle.co.uk/Home


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

and nestle's website has crashed


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2009)

Fingers said:


> Email from Nestle
> 
> FINGERS,
> 
> ...



Nestle said this with a straight face


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

Intastella said:


>



I was just trying to point out one irony by being ironic myself. 

Should have known that it doesn't work on the interweb. 

john x


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> I was just trying to point out one irony by being ironic myself.
> 
> Should have known that it doesn't work on the interweb.
> 
> john x



But you had pointed it out earlier on the thread, retracted it, then did it again. 

Like i said...


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

SKY news just had it on again, it's part of the Gately package,

said family were aware of it, close friend of Stephen and family said they were 'very disappointed' that 'on the day before his funeral as Ireland grieved a favourite son' someone had sat down and deliberately written something that had caused 'so much offence', SKY jaourno read out Moir's statement and then reiterated that it 'had caused great anger here in Dublin'.

Sky also bigged up that PCC had 800 complaints already, of a 3 minute piece it was the last 45 seconds which is pretty strong, for a news column piece.


----------



## rikwakefield (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> Yeah, women are shit, aren't they?
> 
> john x



I have no idea what point you are trying to make.


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 16, 2009)

Diamond said:


> I don't necessarily think so because I suspect that these internet campaigns represent nothing more than special interest groups, albeit ones that may be morally in the right, as opposed to a majority consensus (which is what democracy drives at).



That is true, but then interest groups always tend to shout louder than most, whether on the internet or in real life.  In any case, to me the phrase 'special interest groups' implies a degree of organisation, whereas what's happened today is spontaneous.  Nor is it only gay people who've taken umbrage at Jan Moir's comments by any means.  In fact, mcuh as it might be true in some cases, I don't think you can pin today's 'campaign' on any particular interest group: it's just people exercising their right of reply, which the internet makes it easier to do.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> I'll do it if missfran has a life, given I don't
> 
> Oh hang on



It's on.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Fingers said:


> Email from Nestle
> 
> FINGERS,
> 
> ...



Nestle - promoting the right of women everywhere, regardless of access to clean water, to bottle rather than breasfeed


----------



## xes (Oct 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Nestle said this with a straight face


did you expect anything more from this shower of cunts?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Diamond said:


> I don't necessarily think so because I suspect that these internet campaigns represent nothing more than special interest groups, albeit ones that may be morally in the right, as opposed to a majority consensus (which is what democracy drives at).
> 
> Also, Finkelstein is great. It's a pity he's a Tory.



What special interest groups? 
I'm not a special interest group and nor is 5t3IIa, but that didn't stop us setting up a FB page and publicising it. Purely because like other people posting here we were disgusted by the article, and the first time I'd ever been in contact with 5t3IIa on a one on one basis was today, via PM, because of this thread.


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

Has anyone noticed that *all* the adverts have gone from that page. 

That is actually much more important than just moving them to the bottom of the page.

Well done BK 

john x


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> Has anyone noticed that *all* the adverts have gone from that page.
> 
> That is actually much more important than just moving them to the bottom of the page.
> 
> ...



Yes, at about 3pm this afternoon.... along with everyone else


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 16, 2009)

Result. 

In the same week that twitterers beat down the racist murderers of Trafigura and their Carter Ruck accomplices aswell.


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

Kanda said:


> Yes, at about 3pm this afternoon.... along with everyone else



I still have a browser open from 5.30pm with the ads still there. 

john x


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> I still have a browser open from 5.30pm with the ads still there.
> 
> john x



screenshot it for some shameage


----------



## rikwakefield (Oct 16, 2009)

The internet could well be the most important tool in the upcoming social revolution.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 16, 2009)

http://newsarse.com/2009/10/16/jan-moirs-career-to-die-of-perfectly-natural-causes/


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

Someone being mischevious on the original pages comments:



> So the two guys took drugs, got drunk, picked up another guy and one of them took him into another room for some person - need we guess what? - while his husband chocked to death on his own vomitn (which is what pulmonary oedema is)? I am sorry but, yes, this is a story and Jan is right to write it up.
> - Stella xxxxxx, Hackney, 16/10/2009 15:17
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...e-lonely-troubling-death--.html#ixzz0U7Wo2aQW



I took Stella's surname out...


----------



## tarannau (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm amazed that The Mail had the temerity to publish Moir's  mealy mouthed comeback attack _apology_

My gut feel is that's it worth shifting the line of attack to beyond Moir. Who were the editorial goons who passed this article the first time around and then allowed this second statement to entirely miss the point and cause more offence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2009)

Kanda said:


> Someone being mischevious on the original pages comments:
> 
> 
> 
> I took Stella's surname out...



sterling observance of the rule that a a paragraph should be readable there.


----------



## nick h. (Oct 16, 2009)

The BBC has a story on its website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8311499.stm


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> screenshot it for some shameage



How do you do that?

john x


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Fucking A we're on the R4 6pm news


----------



## Weller (Oct 16, 2009)

She has been spewing so much hatred for so long about so many things and its been great watching this site and the internet in action and see it all working out 

She has had it coming a long time .


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 16, 2009)

what twitter channel has all the action?


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

Yeah, that piece she wrote about that young girl who was strangled by her mother's partner was absolutely vile.


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> screenshot it for some shameage



Go for it... http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/20...ain-mail-admits-pulling-ads-on-moirs-article/



> They reported James Bromley, Mail Online MD, as saying:
> 
> We removed the advertising within minutes of the article being published as we saw the strong reaction This is done frequently and by other newspapers. For example, we wouldn’t want a mobile phone ad next to an article about mobile phone masts.


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

Intastella said:


> But you had pointed it out earlier on the thread, retracted it, then did it again.
> 
> Like i said...



I don't think I retracted it? Now I am confused. 

john x


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 16, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> what twitter channel has all the action?



http://twitter.com/search?q=%23janmoir


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Leaping on the bandwagon, by shoehorning Moir into completely unrelated content  Poker News  http://www.pokernewsheadlines.com/2009/10/16/poker-players-top-5-dislikes-jan-moir-not-included/


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Fucking A we're on the R4 6pm news



*dies happy*

What did they saaaaaay!?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> *dies happy*


i wonder what the mail would say about you after your death.


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder what the mail would say about you after your death.



"Tended to get a bit overexcited? "

john x


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> How do you do that?
> 
> john x



CTRL + Prnt Screen

then go into paint and paste it in


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> *dies happy*
> 
> What did they saaaaaay!?



They said that M&S had pulled their ad and how this was the power of social networking and intermawebz to change the world. And how you and BK are going to be made queenz of stuff and that


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 16, 2009)

Do click links to BT Business Broadband and Tescos Deliveries fall into the advertising category as they are still next to the piece online?

BT Broadband are on your FB page but there's no mention of Tescos?


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> I don't think I retracted it? Now I am confused.
> 
> john x



You said the use of the word cunt was misogynistic, then said that it didn't imply the same, then quoted someone else's use of the word bitch implying that he meant that all women are bitches. You said one thing, backed off, then said a very similar thing.

It's not rocket surgery mate.


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> They said that M&S had pulled their ad and how this was the power of social networking and intermawebz to change the world. And how you and BK are going to be made queenz of stuff and that


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

It's on a digital special on Sky News at 7pm and Moir is supposed to be appearing on C4 news with Jon Snow! Also at 7pm!


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> It's on a digital special on Sky News at 7pm and Moir is supposed to be appearing on C4 news with Jon Snow! Also at 7pm!



Cool - will try and catch one of those!


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://twitter.com/Janmoir_uk/status/4919901405


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

C4+1 on Freeview I think if you want to watch both


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Just read on fb that she isn't appearing on C4 - these are from her tweets which apparently aren't from her. (does she really have a gay son? I doubt it)


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://twitter.com/Janmoir_uk/status/4919901405



 ooh this is like 24 isn't it


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> ooh this is like 24 isn't it


----------



## john x (Oct 16, 2009)

Intastella said:


> You said the use of the word cunt was misogynistic,



Did I? I very much doubt it.

john x


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

well it's definitely on SKY, in about 1 minute


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

john x said:


> Did I? I very much doubt it.
> 
> john x




look can you have a discussion about the semantics of cunt on another thread and not derail this one? Ta


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

Live press conference on balloon boy. Naughty little shit.


----------



## clandestino (Oct 16, 2009)

Ha ha! This is fantastic. Well done the Internet!


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 16, 2009)

been told she is on the Channel 4 news soon....


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

SKy News report on in a few moments


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Here we go on Sky


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Oct 16, 2009)

Well fucking said!!!!!!!!!


----------



## nick h. (Oct 16, 2009)

Stephen gateley story on C4 news now....will it mention Moir? Yes!!!


----------



## harpo (Oct 16, 2009)

Making it all far far worse with that 'statement'.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 16, 2009)

What did they say?, No sign of her on C4


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

Grandma Death said:


> j.moir200@btinternet.com
> 
> Her personal e mail from the FB group.



I've got loads to catch-up on this thread, but I reckon that's worth quoting.


----------



## harpo (Oct 16, 2009)

On sky news, her statement pretty much said 'of course I am not homophobic, why are people upset, I am the victim here, of organised mischief on the internet'.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Six_OClock_News Radio 4 26m17s


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

Great Sky news coverage...


----------



## nick h. (Oct 16, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> What did they say?, No sign of her on C4



Very brief...PCC record complaints...M&S pulled advertising..that's it.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Oct 16, 2009)

harpo said:


> On sky news, her statement pretty much said 'of course I am not homophobic, why are people upset, I am the victim here, of organised mischief on the internet'.



Love the way she only thought it was gay people that had a poblem with what she said!!!!

that just shows how mis-guided and homophobic she really is...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 16, 2009)

*high five* hobnobs all round!


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 16, 2009)

4578. That's about 800 an hr...


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

4683 now. It's quite something isn't it?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

4700.. wow..


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

Damian Thompson in the Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...le-about-stephen-gately-the-row-goes-nuclear/

I am not going to bed until her head is on the end of a pike (metaphoricaly speaking)


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

Sweaty Betty said:


> Love the way she only thought it was gay people that had a poblem with what she said!!!!


 she's great!! thick as ****


----------



## jonajuna (Oct 16, 2009)

hateful article, hateful woman, fantastic bit of people power


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

http://newsarse.com/2009/10/16/jan-moirs-career-to-die-of-perfectly-natural-causes/


----------



## Urbanblues (Oct 16, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> she's great!! thick as ****



At last durruti, we find something to agree upon. Well said!


----------



## LJo (Oct 16, 2009)

You are all brilliant. Fantastic work.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 16, 2009)

harpo said:


> On sky news, her statement pretty much said 'of course I am not homophobic, why are people upset, I am the victim here, of organised mischief on the internet'.



Hypocritical, considering she wrote an article which was circulated around the country via an orchestrated  distribution of some 2.24 million newspapers - an article which victimised Stephen Gately through her bigoted commentary on civil partnerships.


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

Fingers said:


> Damian Thompson in the Telegraph.
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...le-about-stephen-gately-the-row-goes-nuclear/
> 
> I am not going to bed until her head is on the end of a pike (metaphoricaly speaking)



nice attacks on smug censoring liberals plus comenters being homophobic themselves eta: there's even mention of the dreaded "homosexual agenda"


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html

Hurrah, we now have our own special complaining section on the PCC website.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

I wondered how long it would take for them to pull out the 'it's the gay lobby' blaming tactic!


----------



## Sean (Oct 16, 2009)

Bernadette on that Telegraph blog sounds like a demented, diseased homophobe. Fucking internet


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

Well done BK & Stella in particular, but everyone else too. 



tarannau said:


> I'm amazed that The Mail had the temerity to publish Moir's  mealy mouthed comeback attack _apology_
> 
> *My gut feel is that's it worth shifting the line of attack to beyond Moir. Who were the editorial goons who passed this article the first time around and then allowed this second statement to entirely miss the point and cause more offence.*



This ^^^ too, what fuckwit sub-editor let this crap get into print?


----------



## tarannau (Oct 16, 2009)

For the record, I'm not gay. Nor did I particularly like Stephen Gately or his twee music, but he certainly deserved better than some unpleasant spitemuppet smearing his memory with all sorts of homophobic preconceptions and uninformed insinuations all over a national newspaper. Moir and the editors who approved this foul article should be held responsible. It's difficult to see how they expected the  general public, or any advertiser, to be satisfied with that ludicrously half-hearted apology


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
> 
> Hurrah, we now have our own special complaining section on the PCC website.



The PCC now say this is a record number of complaints received http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8311499.stm


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Sean said:


> Bernadette on that Telegraph blog sounds like a demented, diseased homophobe. Fucking internet



Where is that?


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

Urbanblues said:


> At last durruti, we find something to agree upon. Well said!


 UB i am sure we agree on MUCH more than this  on pretty well most things tbh


----------



## Strumpet (Oct 16, 2009)

Bloody brilliant results so far! 
Have complained and joined the FB group and am twittering links. Go team! 

Fukn nasty trollop.


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Where is that?



comments here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...le-about-stephen-gately-the-row-goes-nuclear/


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 16, 2009)

This is all great.

But when do you think the back lash against us 'liberal bleeding heart yoghurt knitting sandal wearing bearded scroungers' will begin? Tomorrow I reckon. I'm braced for a wave of people in support of this deluded lonely old hag in the belief that she really is the victim of a targeted hate campaign pursuing an unhealthy permissive society anti peter hitchens agenda. After all, whatever happened to free speech. Some right wing cockjourno will no doubt try and be edgy by criticising the new media and the people using it to criticise jan moiron.


----------



## Rod Sleeves (Oct 16, 2009)

According to BBC6 Music News it's the most complained about newspaper story in history


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

rollinder said:


> comments here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...le-about-stephen-gately-the-row-goes-nuclear/



Vom inducing. Then again, the torygraph does tend to attract the loony right faction


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> This is all great.
> 
> But when do you think the back lash against us 'liberal bleeding heart yoghurt knitting sandal wearing bearded scroungers' will begin? Tomorrow I reckon. I'm braced for a wave of people in support of this deluded lonely old hag in the belief that she really is the victim of a targeted hate campaign pursuing an unhealthy permissive society anti peter hitchens agenda. After all, whatever happened to free speech. Some right wing cockjourno will no doubt try and be edgy by criticising the new media and the people using it to criticise jan moiron.



It's already started on the telegraph comments. We are trying to curtail free speech. Yaaaaawn


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> It's already started on the telegraph comments. We are trying to curtail free speech. Yaaaaawn



The thing is that... the sort of people who say that? Nobody reads their twitter. So who cares?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is that... the sort of people who say that? Nobody reads their twitter. So who cares?



True 

There are quite a few americans and scandinavians who are members of the fb group. And a bishop!


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog.php

*Alistair Campbell has joined in! *

Alistair chuffing Campbell!


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

And Kristian Digby from To Buy or Not to Buy has joined the Facebook group and written a message.

Hey, all the slebs are on it.


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> And Kristian Digby from To Buy or Not to Buy has joined the Facebook group and written a message.
> 
> Hey, all the slebs are on it.



 

I'm in the same Facebook group as Kristian Digby.

My life is complete.


----------



## nightbreed (Oct 16, 2009)

We have freedom of speech in the UK. The Daily Mail are abusing this right.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> And Kristian Digby from To Buy or Not to Buy has joined the Facebook group and written a message.
> 
> Hey, all the slebs are on it.



Has she? 

You fucking rock BK. You did this. I bloody hope you're earning megabucks because you should be. You media strategist you


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Has she?
> 
> You fucking rock BK. You did this. I bloody hope you're earning megabucks because you should be. You media strategist you



*He* trashy, he!


----------



## Weller (Oct 16, 2009)

I think my personal website hosts might be wondering whats happened where I put the  jpeg for download / viewing  for  the FB page 

No bandwidth for the rest of the month and 3 +  gigabytes in one day taking a quick look at the download stats , all for a 400k picture , I suspect it may be being linked elsewhere 

Happy its been that popular that at least if its been viewed that many times its kept a good deal of traffic off the DM site 

Seems like its still popular as well anybody up on if any copyright issues  on prt screen then  rejoining a web news page as a picture from a newspaper site and hosting it elsewhere to be viewed exist?.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> *He* trashy, he!



Ooops. You mean Kristian, not BK though  (I don't know who he is)

And check out this link someone posted. ROFL 

http://trendsmap.com/topic/moir


----------



## TheDave (Oct 16, 2009)

Vile women and a despicable article. It's not surprising that it's the in the 'Femail' section of the Daily Mail site, it's one of the most disgusting sections of any publication ever. It's a blank cheque for women to be horrible bitches about other women. Women who have babies too early, women who have babies too late. Women who wear too much makeup, women who don't wear enough. Women who are fat, women who are too skinny. I could go on for days like that.

It seems to me who have a be a vile self-hating woman to want to write in Femail. It's the fucking dregs of 'journalism'.


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Ooops. You mean Kristian, not BK though  (I don't know who he is)
> 
> And check out this link someone posted. ROFL
> 
> http://trendsmap.com/topic/moir




My friend who used to be my cleaner fancied him.  She'd always be doing the living room when that show was on... 

Excellent work everyone.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

tarannau said:


> I'm amazed that The Mail had the temerity to publish Moir's  mealy mouthed comeback attack _apology_
> 
> My gut feel is that's it worth shifting the line of attack to beyond Moir. Who were the editorial goons who passed this article the first time around and then allowed this second statement to entirely miss the point and cause more offence.



This.

Yes, Moir wrote the article. Yes, it's utterly appalling.

But, ultimately, who decides what gets printed, and what doesn't? It just shows how low the editor, *Dacre*, is prepared to stoop. The media, PCC, et al should be holding him to account just as much.


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)




----------



## Gingerman (Oct 16, 2009)

Sean said:


> Bernadette on that Telegraph blog sounds like a demented, diseased homophobe. Fucking internet


You do get some right fucking foaming at the mouth loons in the comment section on  Telegraph blogs


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 16, 2009)

Could we have a campaign for better writers for FeMail on the back of this atrocity by Moir?

I like to read about womens' issues and womens' lives, but I don't want to read hateful articles and there have been too many of those in FeMail! Won't someone think of our daughters!


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> I'm in the same Facebook group as Kristian Digby.
> 
> My life is complete.



http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=j...&page=2&hash=708003eb56df53917e37f1036f68ad4a




			
				Kristian Digby said:
			
		

> Kristian Digby wrote
> at 8:00pm
> As a gay television presenter I normally take little notice of what the Daily Mail has to say - but Jan Moir should hang her head in shame for what tat she has written. What wicked words. I have made my complaints - I hope you will make the effort to contact certain parties and let your voice be heard. Its Important papers know that can't write such rot.
> 
> LET'S ALL SPEAK UP.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

Weller said:


> I think my personal website hosts might be wondering whats happened where I put the  jpeg for download / viewing  for  the FB page
> 
> No bandwidth for the rest of the month and 3 +  gigabytes in one day taking a quick look at the download stats , all for a 400k picture , I suspect it may be being linked elsewhere



 

If needed, I've got unlimited disc space and bandwidth available to host the JPEG of the article for linking from facebook etc.

Just PM if required.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/jan-moir-column-on-stephe_n_323964.html

Huffington Post, get in!


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

Almost 6000 members.. !!!


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/jan-moir-column-on-stephe_n_323964.html
> 
> Huffington Post, get in!



Is that really an accolade???


----------



## Weller (Oct 16, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> If needed, I've got unlimited disc space and bandwidth available to host the JPEG of the article for linking from facebook etc.
> 
> Just PM if required.



Its supposed to be unlimited so it should to be OK so no probs it was more the "would they have issued a take down on it or something" they being the DM  Im not quite up to date on. 

No problems was just sort of interested , I assume they cant because its a screen grab of a news site and then being critical of its content or something , pretty much like the Ralph Lauren photos ?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

The facebook group, the ads being pulled, Twitter, Stephen Fry and Derren Brown have just been featured in a report on BBC news channel


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> The facebook group, the ads being pulled, Twitter, Stephen Fry and Derren Brown have just been featured in a report on BBC news channel



http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif


yey....


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

Do you think there is any mileage in trying to re-focus things towards Dacre? He's editorial command presides over this sort of stuff all the time (although not as bad as what's appeared today), and I think he should be doing some of the apologising.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog.php
> 
> *Alistair Campbell has joined in! *
> 
> Alistair chuffing Campbell!



Oh god. He's my shag, marry, kill all rolled into one


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog.php
> 
> *Alistair Campbell has joined in! *
> 
> Alistair chuffing Campbell!


tbf, Campbell is doing what Campbell does, he's co-opted this issue to serve his own agenda. In this case it's his loathing of and feud with Paul Dacre. Campbell doesn't give a fuck about this issue.


In general though, well done everyone especially Stella and BK.


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> tbf, Campbell is doing what Campbell does, he's co-opted this issue to serve his own agenda. In this case it's his loathing of and feud with Paul Dacre. Campbell doesn't give a fuck about this issue.



Yup, he saw a lot of value in this. Piss easy for him.


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> tbf, Campbell is doing what Campbell does, he's co-opted this issue to serve his own agenda. In this case it's his loathing of and feud with Paul Dacre. Campbell doesn't give a fuck about this issue.
> 
> 
> In general though, well done everyone especially Stella and BK.



As long as he serves a purpose, fukkit. Gotta play the game the same as they do to get things done sometimes. It's shit, but it's how it is...


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 16, 2009)

stephj said:


> Do you think there is any mileage in trying to re-focus things towards Dacre? He's editorial command presides over this sort of stuff all the time (although not as bad as what's appeared today), and I think he should be doing some of the apologising.


He wont,he's a chickenshit cowardly bastard,happy to dish it out but can't take it


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> tbf, Campbell is doing what Campbell does, he's co-opted this issue to serve his own agenda. In this case it's his loathing of and feud with Paul Dacre. Campbell doesn't give a fuck about this issue.



Possibly true, although he's spot on with this IMO:




			
				http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog.php said:
			
		

> Mail Group Obergruppenfuhrer Paul Dacre continues to hide under his stone so instead of getting his balding head above the parapet to deal with the Stephen Gately storm, he has left it to a statement from the hapless Jan Moir to try to repair the commercial damage her/his article has done.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

http://twitter.com/WOSSY

Jonathan Ross now on case


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2009)

Gingerman said:


> He wont,he's a chickenshit cowardly bastard,happy to dish it out but can't take it




Just because he can't take it is no reason not to give it to him.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)




----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Just because he can't take it is no reason not to give it to him.



Putting some pressure on him given that surely his position as the Chairman of the Code Committee of the PCC is surely now as questionable as ever?

http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/committee.html


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Now headlines on GayUKNews: http://www.gayuknews.com/Your-News/gay-bashing-by-any-other-name-jan-moir.html


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2009)

stephj said:


> Putting some pressure on him given that surely his position as the Chairman of the Code Committee of the PCC is surely now as questionable as ever?
> 
> http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/committee.html



Putting some pressure on the PCC about who gets to be on their committee and what the ethics of that are...

There are lots of places to take this.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Oct 16, 2009)

Wow, I didn't know you guys actually started the group - fucking well done 

I can now proudly say I know the people who started the backlash. Reflected glory - yessss,


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 16, 2009)

Heard this story on the news tonight, have registered my complaint with the PCC. 

Words cannot express my disgust at this rag and the author of such calculated excreta.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://twitter.com/WOSSY
> 
> Jonathan Ross now on case


I bet  Wossey is lovin this after the Mail orchestrated campaign agin him over Sachgate


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 16, 2009)

Daily Mail currently getting it's arse served up on ITN News


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

I have 14 messages from strangers in my FB


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> I have 14 messages from strangers in my FB



17 now. Shit. With great power comes great etc


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> 17 now. Shit. With great power comes great etc



I got tons when I done Kettle the Met. I just freaked and ignored them


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> 17 now. Shit. With great power comes great etc



Bloody well done you 5t3IIa... bloddy well done...


----------



## Winkybag (Oct 16, 2009)

Absolutely fantastic work from everyone involved, who made their voice heard in any way, this brilliant reaction illustrates the tools we have available to focus our well-thought out & discrete responses, which I think separates this particular case from the general 'angry mumbling response' of similar abhorrent Daily Mail stories.

Top work


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Just because he can't take it is no reason not to give it to him.



Oh I agree and give it to him along with a few buckets of shit as well,its just that we never get to see him defend some of the crap the Fail gets away with,he usually gets his minnions to  defend the indefensible.


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> 17 now. Shit. With great power comes great etc



Glad i didn't reply to the group message now, i'd just get branded as another groupie


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> 17 now. Shit. With great power comes great etc



Any of them fit?


----------



## Kanda (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> Any of them fit?



Me


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> Any of them fit?



Me... Female unfortunately moomoo.. Still if you find a fit bloke place.. lemme know eh...


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Damn - now the group is so big I missed my chance to do a mass internet dating


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

Kanda said:


> Me



I said 'fit'.


----------



## Strumpet (Oct 16, 2009)

Winkybag said:


> Absolutely fantastic work from everyone involved, who made their voice heard in any way, this brilliant reaction illustrates the tools we have available to focus our well-thought out & discrete responses, which I think separates this particular case from the general 'angry mumbling response' of similar abhorrent Daily Mail stories.
> Top work


INnit  and hiya WInkle! x


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2009)

From a comment on the DM site from a parent of a child with a heart defect. 



> And, if you're sure of your stance, perhaps you would agree it would be a nice gesture to donate one pound for every complaint received by the Press Complaints Commission for this article, to a charity such as Wessex Heartbeat who support the families hit by pre-existing conditions suddenly presenting themselves.


----------



## wiskey (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> I have 14 messages from strangers in my FB



a good days work


----------



## 8den (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> I said 'fit'.



Moomoo you used to fancy Noel Edmonds, Your yardstick for fit is a mile long.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 16, 2009)




----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

8den said:


> Moomoo you used to fancy Noel Edmonds, Your yardstick for fit is a mile long.



Fair comment.  I'm not that fussy tbh...


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> I have 14 messages from strangers in my FB



i've had a few because i'm listed as an officer in the group. did you get one from the witch complaining about the picture listed further down in the group?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


>


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i've had a few because i'm listed as an officer in the group. did you get one from the witch complaining about the picture listed further down in the group?



I saw that comment.  Was it for real? I thought it was a joke!


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> I saw that comment.  Was it for real? I thought it was a joke!



i got this in my inbox...

"I know you mean well, but as a Witch, I find the picture " Burn the Witch" as deeply offensive. I have many Gay friends and have joined the group supporting them against this article in the Mail, but don't lump homophobes with the followers of true Withcraft. You will just lower yourself to their (Daily Mail) level."

great stuff


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i got this in my inbox...
> 
> "I know you mean well, but as a Witch, I find the picture " Burn the Witch" as deeply offensive. I have many Gay friends and have joined the group supporting them against this article in the Mail, but don't lump homophobes with the followers of true Withcraft. You will just lower yourself to their (Daily Mail) level."
> 
> great stuff



Oh, that is brilliant!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i've had a few because i'm listed as an officer in the group. did you get one from the witch complaining about the picture listed further down in the group?



What picture?


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?p...all&subj=151083562155&aid=-1&oid=151083562155

Love the last sentence


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> What picture?



http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/...55&aid=-1&id=100000263970770&oid=151083562155


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Oh fuck. NOw I want to remove it 

Ad hominem in text maybe but ffs - it's a shit picture


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

Do you think we should delete the witch tshirt pic? I don't want to offend pagans


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Do you think we should delete the witch tshirt pic? I don't want to offend pagans



I'm ready to start the support group...


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

Not so much a question of that - it's more a question of me not thinking it's funny or clever enough


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

i reckon remove it, but like stella says, only because it's awful and shit


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Not so much a question of that - it's more a question of me not thinking it's funny or clever enough



Well yeah that too. It's gone anyway. I'm loving my powerz 

Stop me if I get too crazed


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

Not found any FB groups supporting her yet, that's always a good sign. Might check out some of the right wing ones, see what they're saying...


----------



## scifisam (Oct 16, 2009)

I don't really like the witch t-shirt, personally. 'Burn the witch!' is usually something people say when they're taking the piss out of a complaints campaign, not as part of the campaign. 

Love the pic of the Wiki article.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Well yeah that too. It's gone anyway. I'm loving my powerz
> 
> Stop me if I get too crazed



Oy vey - the mods forum had not reached a consesus


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Well yeah that too. It's gone anyway. I'm loving my powerz
> 
> Stop me if I get too crazed



Stella, never give positions of power to those who seek it.... 

What you need in this is someone reasonable, responsible, clear-headed and with a willingness to serve not exploit. 



*cough*


----------



## 8den (Oct 16, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Do you think we should delete the witch tshirt pic? I don't want to offend pagans



Tell you what if she weighs more than a duck and floats then we won't burn her  at the stake. 

Or we could burn her at the stake now just to be on the safe side.


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

i have my name in lights on the group but no power at all. it's great, i feel like the queen.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2009)

7000 members.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

7,040


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

40 people joined in two minutes. It's going to be 10,000+ by tomorrow


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

Robert Booth's take in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone


----------



## scifisam (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i have my name in lights on the group but no power at all. it's great, i feel like the queen.



Which is kinda appropriate for this topic, too.


----------



## 8den (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> Fair comment.  I'm not that fussy tbh...



Theres not fussy and theres letting the ugly one from Noels house party have his way with you.


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> 40 people joined in two minutes. It's going to be 10,000+ by tomorrow



If my friend Bev joins, don't get too excited.  It's only cos Kristian is a member.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> If my friend Bev joins, don't get too excited.  It's only cos Kristian is a member.


----------



## 8den (Oct 16, 2009)

scifisam said:


> Which is kinda appropriate for this topic, too.



I really hope she's at home right now with 2/3 of the 2nd bottle of blossom hill knocked back, rocking herself aching for sleep.


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

Fingers said:


> Robert Booth's take in the Guardian
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone



what's all this? 


> At times, reaction on the internet became disturbing. Moir's home address was reportedly posted, and the false allegation that the Daily Mail had claimed Gately had been murdered by his partner was repeated on Twitter.



reportedly posted? didn't he bother to look for himself & who was claiming she'd said Gately was murdered?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

Can I just say *high-five* to you all?

The advertisers pulling is major, massive damage and despite what the Mail say, has never happened before as a result of a direct net campaign.
No editor can cope with the wrath of  Nestle, M&S, P&G, BT and other bluechips. Not even Dacre. This is the lead story on all the media and marketing trade press and every brand manager will see it - and every publisher. I cannot stress enough how serious this is. Even though it's just from this article, this is a first, this has very, very big implications.

This is HUGE and we should all be very pleased with our efforts,

So WELL DONE.


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

*high-fives*


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

> Display advertising has been removed from the Mail Online webpage around Moir's article. Earlier today a Facebook page was set up urging users to lobby brands featured on the page, including Marks & Spencer, to pull their advertising.
> 
> "Marks & Spencer does not tolerate any form of discrimination," said a spokesman for the retailer. "We have asked the Daily Mail to move our advertisement away from the article. This is a matter for the Daily Mail."
> 
> ...



Like I said, immense.

And game-changing.


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Like I said, immense.
> 
> And game-changing.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

never mind...


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm surprised cheesy hasn't posted on this thread.  I thought it would have been of interest to her, what with her being a journalist and all. 

Unless...


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Can I just say *high-five* to you all?
> 
> The advertisers pulling is major, massive damage and despite what the Mail say, has never happened before as a result of a direct net campaign.
> No editor can cope with the wrath of  Nestle, M&S, P&G, BT and other bluechips. Not even Dacre. This is the lead story on all the media and marketing trade press and every brand manager will see it - and every publisher. I cannot stress enough how serious this is. Even though it's just from this article, this is a first, this has very, very big implications.
> ...



^^^ This...


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> I'm surprised cheesy hasn't posted on this thread.  I thought it would have been of interest to her, what with her being a journalist and all.
> 
> Unless...



Shhhhh... I've thought the same moomoo.... 

or worse..............


----------



## Strumpet (Oct 16, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Like I said, immense.
> 
> And game-changing.


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> I'm surprised cheesy hasn't posted on this thread.  I thought it would have been of interest to her, what with her being a journalist and all.
> 
> Unless...



: that's evil


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

*sneezes on hand*

*high-five*


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> I'm surprised cheesy hasn't posted on this thread.  I thought it would have been of interest to her, what with her being a journalist and all.
> 
> Unless...



Ziiing!


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Oct 16, 2009)

Frankie Jack said:


> ^^^ This...



This ^^^^


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

OK - I've had 25+ messages in response to the 'Thank you all' message I sent to the group members and they are all _amazing_  I feel very weird about it - this is A Great Thing


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> OK - I've had 25+ messages in response to the 'Thank you all' message I sent to the group members and they are all _amazing_  I feel very weird about it - this is A Great Thing



You and BK and Trashy and Strung Out should all be very proud of yourselves. 

I'm really proud of you all.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

The Daily Mail seem top have removed all of the 500+ comments on the original article.  Fair play to the DM readers, there were a lot of pissed off comments posted on there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> OK - I've had 25+ messages in response to the 'Thank you all' message I sent to the group members and they are all _amazing_  I feel very weird about it - this is A Great Thing



You done good 5t3IIa.. fecking good lass.. and all those that helped you do it.. 

Yer group is in the news babe...  In the fecking news... !!!


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

Frankie Jack said:


> You done good 5t3IIa.. fecking good lass.. and all those that helped you do it..
> 
> Yer group is in the news babe...  In the fecking news... !!!



Oh God.  She's going to be unbearable now.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

They also seem to have pulled most of their advertising from most of the site.  Damage control swings into action.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2009)

Fingers said:


> The Daily Mail seem top have removed all of the 500+ comments on the original article.  Fair play to the DM readers, there were a lot of pissed off comments posted on there.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html



OMG.  They totally have.  ''no comments have been submitted''.  Yes they bloody have.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> Oh God.  She's going to be unbearable now.



On Urban... We'll see...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 16, 2009)

They've deleted the comments!


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2009)

But not the offending article.  nice.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> OMG.  They totally have.  ''no comments have been submitted''.  Yes they bloody have.



If in doubt.. wipe them out...


----------



## Strumpet (Oct 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> But not the offending article.  nice.



Fukn joke isn't it....


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> But not the offending article.  nice.



Yeah, why is it still up there?  I would have thought that they would have removed it by now.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

Mebbe they had to many comments to deal with... I looked after 6pm and they were just putting up comments from just after 3 pm... 

There must have been too many for their mods to handle...


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

Fingers said:


> The Daily Mail seem top have removed all of the 500+ comments on the original article.  Fair play to the DM readers, there were a lot of pissed off comments posted on there.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html




Talk about rewriting history...that's disgusting 

Still can't access the mail site at all tho...very strange...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> But not the offending article.  nice.



The comments were the best bit


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 16, 2009)

Has this been posted yet? It's a very nice analysis of the newfound Power Of Teh Internets:

http://853blog.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/the-people-versus-the-daily-mail/


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 16, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> The comments were the best bit


Don't suppose the page would be archived anywhere, would it?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 16, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Has this been posted yet? It's a very nice analysis of the newfound Power Of Teh Internets:
> 
> http://853blog.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/the-people-versus-the-daily-mail/





> When Nestle criticises your ethics, you know you’re in trouble.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm very surprised that the Fail haven't pulled the article - it clearly isn't doing them any good - is this just Dacre trying to assert his power? (I can just imagine him going into a rant against how the "homosexual lobby and political correct guardianistas are trying to infringe freedom of speech" or the like). Perhaps only a legal threat usually forces them to take down stories?


----------



## Dirty Martini (Oct 16, 2009)

Fingers said:


> The Daily Mail seem top have removed all of the 500+ comments on the original article



Yep.

How Stalinist of them. Or how consistently supportive of fascism in the 1930s of them. I can never remember which.

The Daily Mail needs setting fire to.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 16, 2009)

*UPDATED: This is a long post. These are all the messages I have (so far, I think!) from group members in response to a message sent about 5pm thanking everyone for joining and updating on the ads being pulled and the articles written.

 They are not for me - they are for everyone who helped make this an amazing day for great justice, especially BadgerKitten *

Thanks for starting the Moir page - and for driving the campaign over the past 24 hours. Hero! These sorts of articles used to be so commonplace - now so rare, thank god. What really inspires me is that the people who joined up are gay, lesbian, straight, young, old.... Moir thinks she's insulting a minority. She doesn't understand that tolerance and respect are the majority views now, and that she herself represents a shrivelling minority. Thanks again 

Respect for starting us off . . x

I'll keep this brief, since you'll probably get loads of these: thanks for starting the group and all the hard work. Maybe Moir and her ilk will think again before they pull this kind of thing again.

Thanks for the update. I wanted to reply to thank you specifically for what you've done setting up this group. You should be really proud, many congratulations and heartfelt thanks for what you've done. I complained to the PCC adding that homophobic articles in the mainstream press affect everyone, so should be investigated. The only downside is that the current chairman of the PCC is Paul Dacre, who is also the editor of the Mail. Crazy I know, but we can't let a skewed system stop us confronting bigotry. So again, thank you so much, and if there's anything I can do to help, please, let me know.

Thanks for the email and the update. Last I heard she's writing a piece to "explan" herself in tomorrow's newspaper. Now to see what happens 

I've been passing all the info round on the many sites for Stephen today and twitter. If you need a hand with anything let me know. I have also tried contacting Gerald Kean the families lawyer as I'd like them to take the complaint further. Just seen an advert for ITV 10 o clock news, looks liek the Daily Mail story will be featured.

Excellent! 

Thank you so much for your efforts. I hope what you've done is the start of a backlash against media homophobia. Let's keep this up. Hugs

Well done Stella give yourself a pat on the back for going that extra mile your a wee star XX

NO....THANK YOU!!!! For starting this, It would prob have gone kinda un noticed (ish) otherwise!

I'm so happy, you have clearly made MASSIVE inpact with your initiative, you're a true inspiration, well done  Please be my friend, I like you a lot, you're awesome!! haha! Have a great weekend lovely X

I have been sick to the back teeth of the disrespect shown to Stephen Gately and his family, had i not been invited to this group i would have never seen this abhorrent article and the one written for the guardian is quite right, well done for showing up this homophobe who has wrongfully disrespected a lovely and gentle man who has never had an ounce of scandal in his life other than his "coming out" which isnt a scandal in the first place its a very brave and courageous move given his circumstances. as a fan of boyzone when i was younger i applaud you in what you have done. you have my upmost respect x

yippee!! More power to us all!!! thank you facebook!

Well done to you for setting up this group, too. Thank you 

Thank you for starting the group. I will continue to spread the word. Thank you for up dates

i emailed all the papers and news channels earlier on when you started this and im so happy it was the first story on itv and sky next hopefully the bbc thanks stella xx 

Would just like to say well done and thanks for starting this. I also log onto Urban75,that's how i came to know about your facebook group. My boss grew up with Stephen and Shane and work's with them,I have also met them numerous times and you couldnt ask for nicer lads,nothing bigheaded bout them whatsoever. So sad. RIP Steo
Once again thank-you

And well done to you for organizing it! Thank you.

You've probably got an inbox chock full of messages so I'll be brief - thank you for creating the group (Jan Moir). I've never really understood the power and immediacy of online social whatsits until now - but by god, I'm glad of it! It proves how utterly wrong-footed this vile woman and her vile organ are, by printing something that belongs in the Dark Ages.

I'll keep this brief, since you'll probably get loads of these: thanks for starting the group and all the hard work. Maybe Moir and her ilk will think again before they pull this kind of thing again.

Excellent...and thank you for taking the time to set this up. 

Regardless of how the poor bloke died, this stupid woman has no right to write such a homophobic and hate filled article.

Good work on setting up the group! x

It just shows you how we can fight back against this crap! Well done for all the work.

great campaign - it's great to see that we can make an impact this way. Now that your campaign has got the attention that it has maybe you can encourage people to view this link http://www.facebook.com/inbox/#/event.php?eid=152586453159&ref=mf  the bile that the daily mail regularly spews from it's pages help feed the bigotry that was responsible for an innocent gay man on his way to celebrate his new job. Maybe Gately's death was not in vain and we can use this chance to really force home the point that homophobia is not acceptable. thanks stella

Updated: (I can't just read these then leave them in my inbox )

Well done you for setting this group up. thank you.x

Fucking rights man. Peace. Xx

Thanks for updating..*I live in Singapore and it even made the papers here*. Very best regards and God Bless

awesome job!

Thanks for the reply.What we did is raise awareness that people who have this much biggoted and completley slanderous hatred in them for others should be named and shamed.What this woman called a journalistic report was nothing short of sickening and disgusting.We need to make a stand against these sort of people and this is exactly what we did and we all should be proud of ourselves for managing to achieve what we have achieved.This woman was not a journalist but a slanderous nasty humen being who tried to single handedly single every person like this as being nothing more than a laughing stock to her own misguided and ill informed take on situations today.Well done everyone who backed this campign feel very proud of yourselves.

and a big thank you to you, for showing us how. Feel good, you kick ass!

Thank you for running this group. You've done a really good thing here  xxxx

Just "thanks" for creating the group x

Just a note to say thanks for organising the Facebook group about Moir's poisonous article. You did a grand job yesterday.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2009)

What this thread needs is a poll re who is gay or not.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> They've deleted the comments!



I'm surprised it took them so long tbh, especially as the overwhelming majority were against the article - unless it was some sort of tactic to show 'how incredibly right-on about freedom of speech they are' to leave them up - or to distance them (the paper) from the journo (the article)???


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Has this been posted yet? It's a very nice analysis of the newfound Power Of Teh Internets:
> 
> http://853blog.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/the-people-versus-the-daily-mail/



Now they've realised that shit wont be tolerated and the people have a media to say what they feel about the things that are forced down our necks.. Will there be a backlash about curtailing the freedom of the web. that allows us to say we're not happy with the bollocks that we've had to put up with and are not gonna take it anymore.. 

I don't think any "body" can shut us up anymore... 

It's time for them to listen...


----------



## 8den (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa I can't wait for Jane Moir's "really what I meant to say was". rebuttal..


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

Dirty Martini said:


> Yep.
> 
> How Stalinist of them. Or how consistently supportive of fascism in the 1930s of them. I can never remember which.
> 
> The Daily Mail needs setting fire to.



They do.

But their telly guide on a Sat is the best


----------



## fogbat (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> 40 people joined in two minutes. It's going to be 10,000+ by tomorrow



Now's the time to start talking to some marketing firms - 10,000 people, ready to receive spam


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

I have heard rumour that whe is writing a 'what i really meant is' article for the Mail tomorrow.  All that will come of that is she will insert her foot further down her scrawny neck.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 16, 2009)

That she blames the campaign for the backlash, when the backlash caused the campaign.


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

Intastella said:


> They do.
> 
> But their telly guide on a Sat is the best



I get 'What's on TV'.  It's got all the soap gossip so my teen tells me...


----------



## Fingers (Oct 16, 2009)

The comments have reappeared


----------



## futha (Oct 16, 2009)

Bloody hell looks like the shit has hit the fan with this! 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone


----------



## rollinder (Oct 16, 2009)

Fingers said:


> The comments have reappeared


realised they'd got caught out trying to censor them?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

Despite refreshing the page several times I am still seeing the comments, 793 up to 15.58.


----------



## Intastella (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> I get 'What's on TV'.  It's got all the soap gossip so my teen tells me...



Aye, teen...riiiiight 

It has a good soap bit, and proper film write-ups (which even for the fail are usually spot on, if they say it's a stinker it usually is), plus the size of it means that it doesn't get lost amongst my TABs and Chats...

Did i admit something i shouldn't then?

My boy doesn't let me buy it often tho, and it's too big to steal


----------



## futha (Oct 16, 2009)

futha said:


> Bloody hell looks like the shit has hit the fan with this!
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone



I am joining this a little late


----------



## Belushi (Oct 16, 2009)

futha said:


> Bloody hell looks like the shit has hit the fan with this!
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone



Perhaps I'm being naive but looks like Moirs brand of vicious homophobia became a little less publicly acceptable today


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 16, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> *This is a long post. These are all the messages I have (so far, I think!) from group members in response to a message sent about 5pm thanking everyone for joining and updating on the ads being pulled and the articles written.
> 
> They are not for me - they are for everyone who helped make this an amazing day for great justice...<snip> Maybe Gately's death was not in vain and we can use this chance to really force home the point that homophobia is not acceptable. thanks stella*


*

*cries*



quimcunx said:



			What this thread needs is a poll re who is gay or not.
		
Click to expand...


*


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Oct 16, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Now's the time to start talking to some marketing firms - 10,000 people, ready to receive spam



7,500+ and counting at 11.50pm...


----------



## strung out (Oct 16, 2009)

moomoo said:


> You and BK and Trashy and Strung Out should all be very proud of yourselves.
> 
> I'm really proud of you all.



i didn't really do anything apart from help stella fix a link. big props to the others mentioned in your post though.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 16, 2009)

7,733 ATM


----------



## malice (Oct 16, 2009)

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


----------



## moomoo (Oct 16, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> 7,733 ATM





I might have to leave, it's getting a bit crowded!


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2009)

malice said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...Stephen-Gately-police-reveal-final-hours.html



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 (Oct 16, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i didn't really do anything apart from help stella fix a link. big props to the others mentioned in your post though.



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 (Oct 17, 2009)

> Moir has previously employed innuendo when commenting on homosexual public figures. In an article in August about Peter Mandelson, the business secretary, she wrote that "with his blue suede shoes, his peach mansion and his green tea devotionals, he is like a rock star camping it up on a farewell tour", and said he has spent years "clawing his way up the soil pipe of politics".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone

Where Mandelson is concerned, criticise his policies, not his sexuality!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

OK, got this 



> Hello,
> 
> Totally understand if this isn't something you want to do but if possible would you mind putting a link to the following Facebook group on your group about the Daily Mail article.
> 
> ...



What is consensus? I'm going to bed now. *I have a cold*

7,873


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 17, 2009)

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 ^^^


----------



## rollinder (Oct 17, 2009)

^ good tings


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Oct 17, 2009)

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 (Oct 17, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> 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 (Oct 17, 2009)

Prince Rhyus said:


> 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



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.


----------



## Intastella (Oct 17, 2009)

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


----------



## gabi (Oct 17, 2009)

tarannau said:


> You're invariably wrong Gabi: it's an internet law



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


----------



## rollinder (Oct 17, 2009)

from twitter (probably already posted pages ago)


> Tomorrow: unrepentant Moir instructs Carter Ruck, everyone on internet receives letter telling them to stop being mischievous.


 

Even Robert Llewelyn (Kryton from Red Dwarf) was twittering about it.


----------



## gabi (Oct 17, 2009)

And while I'm at it...

Stephen Fry 

God. And the poms criticise the american celeb culture..


----------



## ChrisFilter (Oct 17, 2009)

gabi said:


> Christ... HA!
> 
> Unbelievable. You self-important little prick. Apologies for not noticing that the sainted charlie brooker has seen fit to totally contradict himself..
> 
> ...



I think you're allowed to contradict yourself 18 months later. 

And don't play the internet hardman


----------



## gabi (Oct 17, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> 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 (Oct 17, 2009)

gabi said:


> 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?


----------



## rollinder (Oct 17, 2009)

^ hang on - is this suddenly your thread?
eta: that was to gabi
think it's time I quit urbans/this thread, seems to be going strangly off topic..


----------



## gabi (Oct 17, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> He is quite nice. A scamp, but nice.
> 
> What if I tell you what you could maybe do?





dude. sort it out.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Oct 17, 2009)

gabi said:


> dude. sort it out.



_Maybe_


----------



## gabi (Oct 17, 2009)

Shall I 'quite' something? Dick


----------



## Intastella (Oct 17, 2009)

Easy now...


----------



## Superdupastupor (Oct 17, 2009)

three cheers for badger kitten!


----------



## D'wards (Oct 17, 2009)

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


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 17, 2009)

rollinder said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> ...



Thats way too sane and decent a comment for the Torygraph who seem to attract a fair load of comments from mouthfoaming loons


----------



## Fingers (Oct 17, 2009)

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?


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 17, 2009)

I thought that ''maybe true phrase'' was always there. 

Why does Kevin McGhee's death raise troubling questions over Stephen Gately's death?  *shakes head*


I look forward to her explanation of why.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 17, 2009)

banner ad there for findaproperty.com


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> look can you have a discussion about the semantics of cunt on another thread and not derail this one? Ta



All I am doing is correcting erroneous posts about what I may or may not have said on here. 

As far as de-railing the thread. Check post 187 

john x


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 17, 2009)

Havent read this thread, but I read her article today....such bad taste.  Bad judgment and ill-informed. 

the thing that struck me most, was her reliance on the cheap and ill-stitched assumption that erm, because Stephen Gately is young and famous, there must be foul play.

GAFFE ALERT!!!


----------



## Kanda (Oct 17, 2009)

Cheesypoof said:


> Havent read this thread!



Erm... quite a lot of shit has gone on today. Sure you want to comment without reading the thread?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 17, 2009)

Kanda said:


> Erm... quite a lot of shit has gone on today. Sure you want to comment without reading the thread?



Doesn't she always cos she has the attention span of an amoeba...  fucksake..!!


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 17, 2009)

Kanda said:


> Erm... quite a lot of shit has gone on today. Sure you want to comment without reading the thread?




synopsis?


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 17, 2009)

Awaits the usual tangent off post fuckwittery when cheesypoof arrives on the thread.. (ffsk..!!)


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 17, 2009)

Frankie Jack said:


> Awaits the usual tangent off post fuckwittery when cheesypoof arrives on the thread.. (ffsk..!!)



no, i wont do that. 

and i feel really sad about Stephen Gately. Really sad. 

may his soul rest in peace.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Oct 17, 2009)

Cheesypoof said:


> Havent read this thread, but I read her article today....such bad taste.  Bad judgment and ill-informed.
> 
> the thing that struck me most, was her reliance on the cheap and ill-stitched assumption that erm, because Stephen Gately is young and famous, there must be foul play.
> 
> GAFFE ALERT!!!



Yeah, Jan Moir is a fucking ghey... eh Cheesey?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 17, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> Yeah, Jan Moir is a fucking ghey... eh Cheesey?



lol


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

Cheesypoof said:


> synopsis?



Badger Kitten draws Urbanites attention to the DM article and suggests people contact and complain to the advertisers on the page.

Meanwhile some Urbanites start a facebook page about it which grows and grows.

Lots of posts about other people complaining (Stephen Fry, Derren Brown) and how the campaign is growing.

Attempts by a few to archive the original DM article as it seems to be changing by the minute.

Some discussion as to the point of complaining to the PCC when only close relatives or those 'affected directly' can officially complain.

Lots of backslapping and discussion of whether the internet is the saviour of democracy.

That pretty much covers it. 

john x


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> Badger Kitten draws Urbanites attention to the DM article and suggests people contact and complain to the advertisers on the page.
> 
> Meanwhile some Urbanites start a facebook page about it which grows and grows.
> 
> ...



Jeezo.. !! 

naieve post by naieve basicness... jeeso.. defeats the whole purpose.. with fuckwittery...


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> Badger Kitten draws Urbanites attention to the DM article and suggests people contact and complain to the advertisers on the page.
> 
> Meanwhile some Urbanites start a facebook page about it which grows and grows.
> 
> ...



thanks. I'll complain when its due. I can find Ms moir and punch her down if she was slagging him or his family.  His family, like many Irish when their young die young, dont get the coroners verdict wrong and wouldnt publish some bollocks about his death to 'save face'.  If Stephen had died of drugs his mam would have wanted people to know. Irish mothers are beautiful souls, as are the fathers, they never hide this stuff, and if their young die, they dont want anyone else making the same mistake.... I think English ladies are the same.....so Jan Moir, whats your name and address? stop embarassing my profession. There's people like me, who would happily punch  you.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

Frankie Jack said:


> naieve post by naieve basicness... jeeso.. defeats the whole purpose.. with fuckwittery...



In English? 

john x


----------



## Endeavour (Oct 17, 2009)

Cheesypoof said:


> synopsis?





john x said:


> Badger Kitten draws Urbanites attention to the DM article and suggests people contact and complain to the advertisers on the page.
> 
> Meanwhile some Urbanites start a facebook page about it which grows and grows.
> 
> ...





Cheesypoof said:


> thanks. I'll complain when its due. I can find Ms moir and punch her down if she was slagging him or his family.  His family, like many Irish when their young die young, dont get the coroners verdict wrong and wouldnt publish some bollocks about his death to 'save face'.  If Stephen had died of drugs his mam would have wanted people to know. Irish mothers are beautiful souls, as are the fathers, they never hide this stuff, and if their young die, they dont want anyone else making the same mistake.... I think English ladies are the same.....so Jan Moir, whats your name and address? *stop embarassing my profession*. There's people like me, who would happily punch  you.


So as a 'professional journalist' you happily accept one source of information to arrive at your balanced conclusion.

Yeah, that sounds about right!


----------



## starfish (Oct 17, 2009)

Mam.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 17, 2009)

Endeavour said:


> So as a 'professional journalist' you happily accept one source of information to arrive at your balanced conclusion.
> 
> Yeah, that sounds about right!






no, i read hers earlier today. i  thought it was tame and confused, because it showed painful naivity and feeble connections. it was screamining with anomalies of evidence. that was naked. 

erm, is the thread about the article or the reaction? has it 'morphed'


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

Endeavour said:


> So as a 'professional journalist' you happily accept one source of information to arrive at your balanced conclusion.
> 
> Yeah, that sounds about right!



To be fair, only three people have posted since she asked for a synopsis (at half three in the morning! )

One of them posted a synopsis (me) and the other two posted gibberish:
_
Yeah, Jan Moir is a fucking ghey... eh Cheesey?_  and
_
naieve post by naieve basicness... jeeso.. defeats the whole purpose.. with fuckwittery... _

and then you come along slag her off for only 'accepting one source of information' 

Why don't you do a synopsis and then she will have two to choose from! 

john x


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> To be fair, only three people have posted since she asked for a synopsis (at half three in the morning! )
> 
> One of them posted a synopsis (me) and the other two posted gibberish:
> _
> ...



you did a great job john... trust me


----------



## ChrisFilter (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> One of them posted a synopsis (me) and the other two posted gibberish:
> _
> Yeah, Jan Moir is a fucking ghey... eh Cheesey?_  and



It wasn't gibberish, you're just not up to speed on the 'Cheesey using 'ghey' as a derogatory term but claiming it's ok because the spelling has been changed' issue.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> It wasn't gibberish, you're just not up to speed on the 'Cheesey using 'ghey' as a derogatory term but claiming it's ok because the spelling has been changed' issue.



My apologies. 

john x


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 17, 2009)

There she goes.. there she goes again..


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 17, 2009)

Frankie Jack said:


> There she goes.. there she goes again..




no one cares about that.  People do, however care, about people on this thread contributing.  And we'd like you to, because and some of us havent been reading all this, while others have.


----------



## starfish (Oct 17, 2009)

Racing through my brain 
& i just cant contain


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 17, 2009)

starfish said:


> Racing through my brain
> & i just cant contain




yeep. food helps.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 17, 2009)

weren't there lurid articles and sleazy assumptions made after Jacko died? Yet all he got was a bunch of wacky photoshop pictures for the gallery. No twitter campaign there.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2009)

who cares?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 17, 2009)

don't you?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 17, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> weren't there lurid articles and sleazy assumptions made after Jacko died? Yet all he got was a bunch of wacky photoshop pictures for the gallery. No twitter campaign there.



I think we're talking about 2 very different people and 2 very different situations here, tbh.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> don't you?


not really. the stuff about jacko was completely different to this, and didn't try to tar an entire section of society (ie, gays) as filthy and wrong.

unless i missed something?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 17, 2009)

This ^


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 17, 2009)

News 24 reporting from Dublin on the Moir piece said that it didn't seem to bother people there as they "don't get the Mail".

Well, we did when  I lived there. Unless it's been discontinued


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 17, 2009)

The Fail is still asking us to _'face up to the sordid reality'_. Care to tell us what the 'sordid reality' is then???


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2009)

that the gays all die young. probably drowned in spunk or something. filthy bastards.


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Oct 17, 2009)

10000 + members on fb


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Oct 17, 2009)

oh and sterling work you lot


----------



## malice (Oct 17, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> banner ad there for findaproperty.com



Yep. Findaproperty still being advertised next to the Jan Moir article now. And the Jan Moir article is still being linked to from the big headline article on the funeral (see my post about a page back last night), which I find really distasteful


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 17, 2009)

10, 106 members now in the FB group, plus a few trolls.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 17, 2009)

malice said:


> Yep. Findaproperty still being advertised next to the Jan Moir article now. And the Jan Moir article is still being linked to from the big headline article on the funeral (see my post about a page back last night), which I find really distasteful



FindaProperty is Mail house advertising - it is owned by the Mail.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

*10,218*

Morning! I'm going out at 11am. Is there anything to be linked on the Group or has Trashy done it?


----------



## malice (Oct 17, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> FindaProperty is Mail house advertising - it is owned by the Mail.



That makes more sense, thanks


----------



## Chester Copperpot (Oct 17, 2009)

Sky news ^^


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 17, 2009)

Can someone change the summary of the facebook group to remove the phrase "today's article", so that anyone bumping into it realises it is still a current group?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

Just posted group on Gay Pride FB group. It has 25,881 members 

Will edit summary Guin, thank you.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 17, 2009)

bk/st3lla; have either of you contacted the obs or similar to rebutt her claim about this being orchestrated by the gay?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 17, 2009)

I can't because it has to be kept quiet that I am in any way directly involved in this. 5t3lla can.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I can't because it has to be kept quiet that I am in any way directly involved in this. 5t3lla can.


excellent. a cloak & dagger twist. 

won't it be easy enough to find out you're involved by anyone who can be bothered to do a bit of digging?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

11.50am - 10.20am = 23.5 hrs

10,349 members / 23.5 = 440 members an hour? Is my maths right? *I have a cold*


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2009)

yeah, your maths is right.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I can't because it has to be kept quiet that I am in any way directly involved in this. 5t3lla can.



Pls write us a press release?  I woke up thinking about this - I had 'orchestrated by the gay community' running around my head and I want to say 'No, another lie'

I'll ring the Guardian and ask if they want it, like, or something.


----------



## Geri (Oct 17, 2009)

killer b said:


> excellent. a cloak & dagger twist.
> 
> won't it be easy enough to find out you're involved by anyone who can be bothered to do a bit of digging?



Yeah, like reading this thread?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 17, 2009)

killer b said:


> excellent. a cloak & dagger twist.
> 
> won't it be easy enough to find out you're involved by anyone who can be bothered to do a bit of digging?



Possibly, and it's not that serious anyway as I did it all in my day off, but it is easier if I don't leap all over it publicly from a work pov. As  could confuse clients.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 17, 2009)

There are two facebook groups calling for her sack - might be worth linking the "common interest" thing?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

Guineveretoo said:


> There are two facebook groups calling for her sack - might be worth linking the "common interest" thing?



My insitinct is not to dilute the #1 group, iyswim


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> *10,218*
> 
> Morning! I'm going out at 11am. Is there anything to be linked on the Group or has Trashy done it?



We had the shockingly bad night to end all nights and so only just up. So I can be on troll watch


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 17, 2009)

I like that point about how this worked as a counterpoint to the Daily Mail's campaign re Ross-Brand-Andrew Sacks. Very interesting that conservative reactionaries use old media, younger liberals new media - we know that's how it would work but it's nonetheless interesting to see it in action.

This is a nice story for the media to examine it's favourite subject, itself.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 17, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> 11.50am - 10.20am = 23.5 hrs
> 
> 10,349 members / 23.5 = 440 members an hour? Is my maths right? *I have a cold*



(((5t3IIa)))


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

I am a big baby


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 17, 2009)

*some good blogs*

http://853blog.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/the-people-versus-the-daily-mail/

http://dispatchesfromthehighhorse.blogspot.com/2009/10/daily-mail-in-insensitive-column-non.html


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 17, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> banner ad there for findaproperty.com



From their website:



> In November 2004 FindaProperty.com was acquired by Associated Newspapers, the publishers of The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and Metro.



So, not much point complaining about that ad. 

ETA - just got to the end of the thread and see BK has already pointed this out.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://853blog.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/the-people-versus-the-daily-mail/
> 
> http://dispatchesfromthehighhorse.blogspot.com/2009/10/daily-mail-in-insensitive-column-non.html



Will update.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

The line I am taking with trolls and shitehawks on the group is not to immediately delete them - they can feel the wrath of their peers and the people will continue to indicate that this is unacceptable.

*What does urban think?*


----------



## yardbird (Oct 17, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I can't because it has to be kept quiet that I am in any way directly involved in this. 5t3lla can.



Is it cool to let it be known that urban was the start of this without mentioning you?
And you is brill, it is an honour to 'know' you both.

Just as I started this post, the doorbell went.
It was the JW's on a mission to convert. I drew them into a very interesting conversation.
"We don't condemn anybody"
I asked them what was their stance on homosexuals.

Bottom line was that "It is wrong"
Pathetic.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 17, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Fucking A we're on the R4 6pm news


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

Ms T said:


>


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 17, 2009)

And a whole page 3 of the Guardian, with front page trail 

5t3lla, if you put words like 'Daily Mail gately' and 'jan moir' into google news, google blogs you should pick up all the stories in case we've missed any so far.

I'm cool with people saying this was an urban initiative, or bigging up 5t3lla,  just please don't particularly mention me, as although I did this in my own time, on my day off, I have weekday clients who will be very confused indeed if they discover what I was up to. 

Not in a bad way but I would like to avoid the hassle of confusion and endless explaining and 'ooh, was that you? '-ing, especially as I am mad busy at work for the next 10 days. And it's nobody's business at work what I do on my day off and how I feel about the Mail, Moir and social media etc etc.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 17, 2009)

Reminds self to not piss 5t3IIa off any more


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> And a whole page 3 of the Guardian, with front page trail
> 
> 5t3lla, if you put words like 'Daily Mail gately' and 'jan moir' into google news, google blogs you should pick up all the stories in case we've missed any so far.
> 
> ...


----------



## nick h. (Oct 17, 2009)

I really don't know why everyone's celebrating - this is a victory for the Mail. Controversy is money in the bank for them. They've got increased traffic and a higher profile, because one of their star columnists managed to provoke a reaction - that's precisely what she's paid for. The article is still there. Moir hasn't apologised. The PCC won't do a thing, neither will the Police. Advertisers haven't stopped advertising. (M&S only asked their ad to be moved to another page.)  The Mail won't be hurt by this unless 'the internet' can organise a boycott of its advertisers. Now that really would be something...


----------



## Badgers (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> I really don't know why everyone's celebrating - this is a victory for the Mail. Controversy is money in the bank for them. They've got increased traffic and a higher profile, because one of their star columnists managed to provoke a reaction - that's precisely what she's paid for. The article is still there. Moir hasn't apologised. The PCC won't do a thing, neither will the Police. Advertisers haven't stopped advertising. (M&S only asked their ad to be moved to another page.)  The Mail won't be hurt by this unless 'the internet' can organise a boycott of its advertisers. Now that really would be something...



WTF? 

I had got bunting and stuff


----------



## N_igma (Oct 17, 2009)

Just read it there now...what a bitch eh? Bet I'm not the first to say that!


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> I really don't know why everyone's celebrating - this is a victory for the Mail. Controversy is money in the bank for them. They've got increased traffic and a higher profile, because one of their star columnists managed to provoke a reaction - that's precisely what she's paid for. The article is still there. Moir hasn't apologised. The PCC won't do a thing, neither will the Police. Advertisers haven't stopped advertising. (M&S only asked their ad to be moved to another page.)  The Mail won't be hurt by this unless 'the internet' can organise a boycott of its advertisers. Now that really would be something...



It's a bit of a double edged sword I agree. I'd like to think that The Guardian will be seriously questioning whether they still want Moir on their payroll. And if the Gately family complain then the PCC will have to investigate (or at least be seen to, Dacre at the helm or not). And don't forget that if the DM still continue to publish Moir's pieces, they are going to have give assurances to the advertisers on those pages that she isn't going to write anything that's going to have their press offices flooded with complaints.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> I really don't know why everyone's celebrating - this is a victory for the Mail. Controversy is money in the bank for them. They've got increased traffic and a higher profile, because one of their star columnists managed to provoke a reaction - that's precisely what she's paid for. The article is still there. Moir hasn't apologised. The PCC won't do a thing, neither will the Police. Advertisers haven't stopped advertising. (M&S only asked their ad to be moved to another page.)  The Mail won't be hurt by this unless 'the internet' can organise a boycott of its advertisers. Now that really would be something...


Ok, so complete the argument, what was the better alternative?



p.s. I was under the impression she had apologised


----------



## tarannau (Oct 17, 2009)

There's a certain amount of truth in NickH's viewpoint, but if this pressure can be sustained there's a chance that changes may go beyond a marginalised Moir. The Mail's adept at moulding itself to meet public opinion - if there's continued criticism there's likely to be a sly about face and a quick change of direction. So far, with that half-heartedly snide apology, they've far from succeeded in quieting things down.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Ok, so complete the argument, what was the better alternative?
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. I was under the impression she had apologised



It was quite vague - more of a defence than an apology

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=1816


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 17, 2009)

A friend of mine who has nothing to do with Urban, but is a gay, political activist, has now linked to the fb page


----------



## Oriole (Oct 17, 2009)

I wonder if the PCC would have to investigate a complaint from the coroner who ruled on the cause of death. JM did after all slander his professionalism and competency.


----------



## nick h. (Oct 17, 2009)

trashpony said:


> And don't forget that if the DM still continue to publish Moir's pieces, they are going to have give assurances to the advertisers on those pages that she isn't going to write anything that's going to have their press offices flooded with complaints.



It doesn't really work like that. The problem is Dacre, not Moir. He would have approved such a controversial piece. Other senior editors would also have approved a synopsis before she wrote it.  (It may not even have been her idea.) The paper won't be giving assurances to advertisers - they would see this as allowing advertisers to dictate editorial policy, i.e. a complete surrender of the principle of freedom of the press.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> I really don't know why everyone's celebrating - this is a victory for the Mail. Controversy is money in the bank for them. They've got increased traffic and a higher profile, because one of their star columnists managed to provoke a reaction - that's precisely what she's paid for. The article is still there. Moir hasn't apologised. The PCC won't do a thing, neither will the Police. Advertisers haven't stopped advertising. (M&S only asked their ad to be moved to another page.)  The Mail won't be hurt by this unless 'the internet' can organise a boycott of its advertisers. Now that really would be something...



This is largely correct but at the very least her provocation encourages others to rearticulate their opposition to prejudice and by doing so draw a line in the sand.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 17, 2009)

Fantastic - can't believe the FB group members have nearly doubled overnight . Good work all 

Saw the article in the Guardian today as well


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

Oriole said:


> I wonder if the PCC would have to investigate a complaint from the coroner who ruled on the cause of death. JM did after all slander his professionalism and competency.



That's an interesting idea. Wonder if I can find out his name?


----------



## nick h. (Oct 17, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Ok, so complete the argument, what was the better alternative?



There isn't one, but the job's only just started - the campaign needs to get some real teeth, i.e. a boycott of the advertisers.  But I'm not sure enough people are angry enough for this to work.  Most people will just shrug and say, 'yeah, that's the Mail for you.'


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 17, 2009)

So you don't have a  argument for what to do when this kind of appalling nonsense is published, except to say it only helps the media outlet if you  complain. Ok, it's a view I suppose.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 17, 2009)

Great work all 

(thanks for the mention re: the early links by the way, glad I could chip in a little)

Incidentally, if you search for 'Jan Moir' on Google News, you get over 1,600 results relating to this issue:
http://news.google.co.uk/news?q=jan...ent=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

Also, have they taken the story down? When I search the Mail website for 'Jan Moir', it doesn't appear.


----------



## nick h. (Oct 17, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> So you don't have a  argument for what to do when this kind of appalling nonsense is published, except to say it only helps the media outlet if you  complain. Ok, it's a view I suppose.



What hurts them most is to be ignored. If a columnist gets no comments, they're finished. If you can organise a boycott of Moir's articles by readers she'll be gone very quickly.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> What hurts them most is to be ignored. If a columnist gets no comments, they're finished. If you can organise a boycott of Moir's articles by readers she'll be gone very quickly.



Hahahah. Are you a virgin too?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Great work all
> 
> (thanks for the mention re: the early links by the way, glad I could chip in a little)
> 
> ...



It's still there as far as I can see (although they may have taken it off their internal search engine)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html


----------



## nick h. (Oct 17, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Hahahah. Are you a virgin too?




No. But a friend of mine is a columnist and I used to freelance for the Mail. I do know how it works.


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> No. But a friend of mine is a columnist and I used to freelance for the Mail. I do know how it works.



This should go well......


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> No. But a friend of mine is a columnist and I used to freelance for the Mail. I do know how it works.



Oh balls. Since when would anyone be able to get the entire DM readership to stop buying it?


----------



## boskysquelch (Oct 17, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Oh balls. Since when would anyone be able to get the entire DM readership to stop buying it?




re-read wot was writ


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

No! 








*sneeze* o jesbus


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> What hurts them most is to be ignored. If a columnist gets no comments, they're finished. If you can organise a boycott of Moir's articles by readers she'll be gone very quickly.


That's stupid talk. Jan Muir was doing what that paper always does which is feed and entertain the prejudicies of its readership. Except this time she and the editor misjudged the line.

Liberals don't buy the paper anyway; you can't ignore in a commercial sense what you already ignore.

You cannot say to ignore the article is a good way forward when M&S and other advertisers withdrew support.


----------



## nick h. (Oct 17, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Oh balls. Since when would anyone be able to get the entire DM readership to stop buying it?



I don't think anyone can, not with this story.  As I said upthread, there's not enough anger - this is nowhere near the scale of The Sun and Hillsborough.  I was just trying to make the point that negative comments alone don't harm Moir. Quite the reverse - it will be champagne and high fives for her. She'll have won the 'most commented story of the week' prize.


----------



## nick h. (Oct 17, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> That's stupid talk. Jan Muir was doing what that paper always does which is feed and entertain the prejudicies of its readership. Except this time she and the editor misjudged the line.
> 
> Liberals don't buy the paper anyway; you can't ignore in a commercial sense what you already ignore.
> 
> You cannot say to ignore the article is a good way forward when M&S and other advertisers withdrew support.



That's not how it works. The Mail is on the internet! Every liberal who reads that article on the Mail's site is a reader and generates ad income. All of us have earned money for the Mail with this campaign. 

I doubt that Dacre and Moir have any regrets about the article. They will be telling themselves that the silent majority of Mail readers agree that gays live dangerously so they die young.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> I don't think anyone can, not with this story.  As I said upthread, there's not enough anger - this is nowhere near the scale of The Sun and Hillsborough.  I was just trying to make the point that negative comments alone don't harm Moir. Quite the reverse - it will be champagne and high fives for her. She'll have won the 'most commented story of the week' prize.



It's not negative comments alone. The furore has been unprecedented for an opinion piece. Advertisers *have* withdrawn ads. They are not going to want to pay for the space they've booked. And they are going to be very wary of placing ads again with them, certainly not on Moir's page. Petitions have been made to Parliament to get her sacked. People have written to Fitness First and BA to ask them to stop giving out free copies of the DM. So that's a bit more than 'negative comments' wouldn't you agree?

I'd also be very surprised indeed if she's left the house today. She must be shitting herself. I am quite tempted to do a drive by to see if anyone's throwing eggs at her windows


----------



## nick h. (Oct 17, 2009)

Who's withdrawn ads? Got any links? 

I think this will all blow over unless the campaign is sustained. The advertisers love the Mail so they hope this will be forgotten quickly. What's needed is for the campaign to be a continued irritant to the advertisers, costing them time and money and embarrassment. Then the money men will take notice and Dacre will implode.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Quite the reverse - it will be champagne and high fives for her. She'll have won the 'most commented story of the week' prize.



Sadly I have to agree with this. Moir and her like, are people who resent the fact that you can't use the word 'nigger' in public to describe black people anymore. She will be seen as having struck a mighty blow against political correctness.

People who see the world like that will always read that shit. And commerce is not your friend in the fight. They will, (and can) only respond to a threat to their bottom line. Someone cited the Hillsborough/Sun case. It is a popular misconception that you can't buy a copy of the Sun in Liverpool. Not true. Although sales are down, almost every newsagent in the city sells it.

The real problem is that people don't really care enough to sustain any effective opposition, and only want to get involved when something 'exciting' happens like yesterday. 

john x


----------



## Oriole (Oct 17, 2009)

trashpony said:


> That's an interesting idea. Wonder if I can find out his name?



Good luck with that, my google-fu is failing me.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

Oriole said:


> JM did after all slander his professionalism and competency.



No she didn't.

And even if she had (I take it you mean libel, not slander) there is no way he would get involved with a complaint.

john x


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Who's withdrawn ads? Got any links?
> 
> I think this will all blow over unless the campaign is sustained. The advertisers love the Mail so they hope this will be forgotten quickly. What's needed is for the campaign to be a continued irritant to the advertisers, costing them time and money and embarrassment. Then the money men will take notice and Dacre will implode.



THERE ARE NO ADS ON THE PAGE http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html AND IT WAS ALL OVER THE TV NEWS YESTERDAY THAT ADVERTISERS PULLED THEIR ADS.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 17, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> THERE ARE NO ADS ON THE PAGE http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html AND IT WAS ALL OVER THE TV NEWS YESTERDAY THAT ADVERTISERS PULLED THEIR ADS.



On the left hand side, in line with the bottom of the picture of Stephen Gately, there are links to BT Broadband and Tescos Groceries under the word Advertisers - I'm not sure if that falls into the same category as the adverts which have been moved/pulled but it is still links to these companies?

BT Broadband were on your FB page, but Tescos weren't..


----------



## subversplat (Oct 17, 2009)

How novel. Websites with ads on them. I feel like I am in 2005 again


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

paulhackett66 said:


> On the left hand side, in line with the bottom of the picture of Stephen Gately, there are links to BT Broadband and Tescos Groceries under the word Advertisers - I'm not sure if that falls into the same category as the adverts which have been moved/pulled but it is still links to these companies?
> 
> BT Broadband were on your FB page, but Tescos weren't..



Those are google ads which are different.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 17, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Those are google ads which are different.



Ah ok.. sorry.. I was also thinking about the google ones as well, as well as the fb, twitter links etc at the bottom of the article


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 17, 2009)

Ivebeenhigh is in the pub and says people he doesn't know are talking about the FB group


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Liberals don't buy the paper anyway; you can't ignore in a commercial sense what you already ignore.



No but they read the Guardian and I reckon it would not take too much pressure (threat of a boycott?) to lose her her job there. 

john x


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> Sadly I have to agree with this. Moir and her like, are people who resent the fact that you can't use the word 'nigger' in public to describe black people anymore. She will be seen as having struck a mighty blow against political correctness.



I'm not so sure it's that clear-cut, although we don't neccessarily know much about Moir's personal motives or attitudes beyond merely what we can deduce by what she writes. I only point that out because I recall this article on the FWord a while ago about Jill Parkin who has also written some dubious articles herself in the Fail:

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/04/female_journali_1

Whilst this doesn't excuse Moir's piece, I can't help but think that ultimately, it's all about the editorship. If journalists are in a tough market trying to earn a living, and the only way to get paid is by writing these sort of pieces, then that's probably what some journalists are going to do (which, IMO, is disgraceful and selling your soul if you don't believe what you write, but I accept it happens!).

Whilst Moir is the author of the piece and totally deserved of much of the criticism towards her, Dacre for me is still the primary villain in this. This sort of article is not new in his newspaper, although this particular article just really took it that one step too far and hence the outrage.

There's not been a bloody word from Dacre - not an apology, not a statement, and the article is still up there on the website - he's probably loving all the controversy. After all, Dacre will probably just not hire Moir again, but hey, that doesn't matter to him, there's thousands of hacks out there all prepared to write the same type of shit to keep up their mortgage repayments?


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

stephj said:


> then that's probably what some journalists are going to do (which, IMO, is disgraceful and selling your soul if you don't believe what you write, but I accept it happens!)



Most journalists will do it, see no problem with it and happily admit to it. It is a job after all. Is it really any different to 'ad-men' writing their copy (which they can't believe in because they know it's not true.)?

With a few honourable exceptions, most journalists (certainly most tabloid journalists) don't give a shit what they write as long as it is on time and not libellous. They know that they are just writing to fill the gaps between the adverts.

To assume some kind of higher journalistic ideal is a mistake.

john x


----------



## nick h. (Oct 17, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> THERE ARE NO ADS ON THE PAGE http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html AND IT WAS ALL OVER THE TV NEWS YESTERDAY THAT ADVERTISERS PULLED THEIR ADS.



That's not what happened at all. Pulling an ad is cancelling it. Nobody cancelled their ads. The Mail just moved the ads to other pages.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 17, 2009)

Apparently British Airways offer free copies of the Fail on their domestic flights - I wouldn't know, can't afford to travel BA!

Just stumbled upon a petition here via twitter to ask BA to stop doing so:
http://www.petitiononline.com/bastopdm/


----------



## paolo (Oct 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> That's not what happened at all. Pulling an ad is cancelling it. Nobody cancelled their ads. The Mail just moved the ads to other pages.



"Moved" ?

Are you supposing that, or did that actually happen?


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

stephj said:


> Apparently British Airways offer free copies of the Fail on their domestic flights - I wouldn't know, can't afford to travel BA!



Yes they do. Mail and the Telegraph on international flights too.

I asked if they had anything 'more left wing' once and was stared at as if I had just beamed down from Mars! 

Newspapers are primarily for business travellers and they make it to economy if there are any left. BA will not stop handing out copies of the Mail on their flights simply because their business class customers will complain.

Also the pressure from a boycott petition is very weak as most of the people signing it will not be flying BA business class (or threatening to withdraw their patronage)

BA is up shit creek financially and WILL NOT do anything to jeopardise one of the profitable areas of their business.

john x


----------



## tarannau (Oct 17, 2009)

You do not recieve copies of The Mail in BA business class, unless that service has gone downmarket recently. It's complimentary broadsheet territory in there ime - The Mail's more for cattle class.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

tarannau said:


> You do not recieve copies of The Mail in BA business class, unless that service has gone downmarket recently. It's complimentary broadsheet territory in there ime - The Mail's more for cattle class.



Believe me, you do.  I usually find the 'hard' suduko in the Mail adequate to pass the time on most short-haul flights. When not travelling business class I have to 'sweet talk' a member of cabin crew into 'saving' me a copy.

john x


----------



## nick h. (Oct 17, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> "Moved" ?
> 
> Are you supposing that, or did that actually happen?



Read the Guardian article carefully www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone. Especially this bit: "We have asked the Daily Mail to move our advert away from the article," said a spokesman for Marks & Spencer.

If advertisers had cancelled their ads there would have been big headlines with the word "CANCELLED" in them. The Guardian (which is trying to kick the Mail as hard as it can) says nothing stronger than "the paper was forced to withdraw advertising from part of its web site". 

This belief that advertisers actually cancelled ads seems widespread. Poor reading skills, urbanz.  Most unlike you to be so naive.

P.S. Don't be taken in by this subheading "Companies rush to pull advertising from website". That's just a cockup by a sub. There's nothing in the article to back it up.


----------



## malice (Oct 17, 2009)

I understand nick. h's scepticism  but I think the idea that it the mail will see it as positive is overstated. At the very least it will have caused them a headache, and a lot of work - moving adverts, taking them down etc, reassuring the advertisers etc. I also don't think it's a simple case of Daily Mail readers v. liberals. As with when Gately originally came out, I think they've underestimated that he's generally well liked, so the article may well have jarred with its readership. They clearly have read the mood wrong, and for a paper like the Mail, that's a bad mistake.

But, if the fuss dies down they will get away with it, so keeping the pressure up matters.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 17, 2009)

malice said:


> But, if the fuss dies down they will get away with it, so keeping the pressure up matters.



Definately.


----------



## Mitre10 (Oct 17, 2009)

What you guys have done here is admirable and very well executed but I can't help but think that all this attention will encourage people who do not normally buy the DM to go out and purchase it and/or the Mail on Sunday to find out what all the fuss is about.

Increased sales = more money = more plaudits = handshake for Jan Moir (with a little note to cool it on the homophobia in future).

Very few of the 2 million everyday Mail readers will have got annoyed about this article (despite the upset on their comments column - am guessing less than 1% add their views online) so I guess the editors won't be that bothered about a load of free publicity.

The funeral takes place today so the papers will concentrate on that and relegate the Moir debate to a mention in a side box.

Maybe time to stop drawing attention to this?

I understand that it might not be the result people here are looking for but she ain't gonna get fired and more publicity will only feed the Mail's uptake as folks try to work out what is so controversial.

Thoughts (and probably flaming) appreciated.



ETA: Having said all of the above, I don't know how else it could have been handled or how it could have been handled better so well done to all those from here involved in this campaign response. If not now, you will get the right outcome in the end - maybe rather than keep going with this you could keep an eye on her and bring any future bullshit to the attention of the public.

This alone won't take her down, but maybe sustained protest about what will no doubt be more bile to spill form her mouth over a period of months will.

Good luck guys!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2009)

Mitre10 said:


> What you guys have done here is admirable and very well executed but I can't help but think that all this attention will encourage people who do not normally buy the DM to go out and purchase it and/or the Mail on Sunday to find out what all the fuss is about.
> 
> *Increased sales = more money *= more plaudits = handshake for Jan Moir (with a little note to cool it on the homophobia in future).
> 
> ...



cover price is negligible compared to advertising revenue. And the adverts for Jans article got shifted.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

People are petitioning Downing Street, people are campaigning BA to withdraw it as a freebie. Some cabin crew have said they're going to leave it in the cupboard. Yes, the DM has always been vile and racist and homophobic but this article has pushed a lot of people over the edge into doing something. And they feel like they can. Which is good I think, even if it doesn't get them anywhere


----------



## Mitre10 (Oct 17, 2009)

To DC and Trashy,

Wasn't trying to denigrate what has happened here in any way, was just voicing my own thoughts and doubts.

If any major sponsors pull out full-time I will be astonished. If there is a protest by any then I imagine that the DM will just apologise, say it won't happen again and offer them half price rates for 3 months (or some other sweetener) - which they will take as any business would.

Sad but true - that's why I think that the long game, rather than concentrating on this one article, is the way forward.

Well done to all involved over the last couple of days though, esp Stella and BK.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

Oh no it's cool - fair enough to challenge and it's worth exploring 

But advertisers will be wary about placing ads on Moir's page. So what is the DM going to do? Give them editorial control/run the column with no ads on the page or get rid of Moir? 

Serious question.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Oct 17, 2009)

Q: What's small, brown and very relieved?


A: Steven Gateley's hamster!


----------



## Mitre10 (Oct 17, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Oh no it's cool - fair enough to challenge and it's worth exploring
> 
> But advertisers will be wary about placing ads on Moir's page. So what is the DM going to do? Give them editorial control/run the column with no ads on the page or get rid of Moir?
> 
> Serious question.




I imagine that the ads are placed on the pages more or less at random, didn't look like any of the companies listed earlier were picking up on any keywords in her vile diatribe so I would think that they will just put some other adverts on her page for the next few weeks and make a note to skip her page in terms of advertisement for any people upset today.

I hope from this demonstration that you can make the people in charge of the DM aware of the danger of allowing Moir a free reign and make her wind her neck in - I think that would be a good result for now.

If she does write another inflammatory or nasty article in the future, then I think by what you have achieved in the last 48 hours she will be then judged as a repeat offender and I hope she gets hit like the fist of an angry God.

As I said, I have no answers but I wouldn't hold out any hope that what you have achieved here will have an effect in terms of Moir's public resignation or even an apology.

As I tried to say above, sustained vigilance and pressure over a period of time would seem to me to be the best way.

I wish you luck and if you need any help I'll try where I can.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 17, 2009)

Wolveryeti said:


> Q: What's small, brown and very relieved?
> 
> 
> A: Steven Gateley's hamster!


I don't get it.


----------



## malice (Oct 17, 2009)

I think one outcome will be on other publications and their willingness to employ Jan Moir. As some people pointed out she has worked in the Guardian in the past - I think doing food reviews, and I think it was a while ago, and I'd be very surprised if they employed her again. The mail might be able to absorb the flak, but others might not be, and it will limit her options long term. I agree, the Mail and its editorial policy is more pernicious than her, but equally it should be a good sign that you can't take a commission like this and write this kind of article with impunity


----------



## gosub (Oct 17, 2009)

I honestly think enough has been ,done(or nearly) cutting the Daily Bile's revenue stream meant they don't profit from being crass and contentious but the surely any coup de gras regarding Moir and Dacre should surely be saved for Mr Gately's family. The PCC have said they have made themselves available to the  family presumably through Louis Walsh. 

I would suggest waiting til Monday (there is a funeral today and hangovers tommorrow) and emailing  his offices with an outline any evidence that might have accumulated


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

trashpony said:


> So what is the DM going to do? Give them editorial control/run the column with no ads on the page or get rid of Moir?
> 
> Serious question.



Why does it have to do either? 

Also serious question.

john x


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> Why does it have to do either?
> 
> Also serious question.
> 
> john x



They are a printed paper first and foremost. If advertisers don't want to pay for ads on her page (and advertisers do care where their ads are placed - that's how papers sell space), then how are they going to continue with her column? The only way print makes money is through selling ad space. The cover price is only a contribution to costs.


----------



## fogbat (Oct 17, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't get it.



It's just a sad, desperate bleat for attention. Best ignored.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

trashpony said:


> They are a printed paper first and foremost. If advertisers don't want to pay for ads on her page (and advertisers do care where their ads are placed - that's how papers sell space),



They don't pay for ads on her page they pay for ads in the paper and there is plenty of scope for rearranging the layout to cope with this. Also there are plenty of advertisers who don't really care what the adjacent content is as long as the ad is prominently displayed.

There is even an argument for charging a premium rate for ads placed near Moir's pieces, as they will certainly attract more attention over the coming weeks and months. 

john x


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> They don't pay for ads on her page they pay for ads in the paper and there is plenty of scope for rearranging the layout to cope with this. Also there are plenty of advertisers who don't really care what the adjacent content is as long as the ad is prominently displayed.
> 
> There is even an argument for charging a premium rate for ads placed near Moir's pieces, as they will certainly attract more attention over the coming weeks and months.
> 
> john x



Course they do you div! Papers charge lots more for ads on more popular pages. And the statements (from even the highly unethical nestle) suggest most organisations won't want to touch her with a bargepole. Suggest a company that doesn't give a shit about alienating a huge swathe of the population and I'll show you one that's fucking up royally.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Suggest a company that doesn't give a shit about alienating a huge swathe of the population and I'll show you one that's fucking up royally.



What you are forgetting is that 'huge swathe of the population' that are appalled by homophobia, don't generally read the Mail.

john x


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> What you are forgetting is that 'huge swathe of the population' that are appalled by homophobia, don't generally read the Mail.
> 
> john x



That's not the point though. The point is that companies don't want to be associated with it *hence them moving their ads*


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

trashpony said:


> companies don't want to be associated with it



Don't want to be associated with it when there is an almighty row kicking off. 

To paint this as a crisis for the Mail is simply not realistic.

Next week when it all settles down it will be forgotten about. As I said in an earlier post, people can't be arsed to keep this kind of pressure up.

Sad, but true. 

john x


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 17, 2009)

I hope the DM gets all the flak it deserves. 

Has a complaint been made to Scotland Yard? According to the Irish Times, there has...


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

jer said:


> I hope the DM gets all the flak it deserves.
> 
> Has a complaint been made to Scotland Yard? According to the Irish Times, there has...



Yes. People have complained about incitement to race hatred.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 17, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Yes. People have complained about incitement to race hatred.



Race hatred?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 17, 2009)

Yes - 
http://www.lgf.org.uk/lgf-reports-daily-mail-s-jan-moir-for-incitement-to-hatred/

Edit: Incitement to hatred, not race hatred!


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

jer said:


> Race hatred?





temper_tantrum said:


> Yes -
> http://www.lgf.org.uk/lgf-reports-daily-mail-s-jan-moir-for-incitement-to-hatred/
> 
> Edit: Incitement to hatred, not race hatred!



Yes hatred of the Irish of course! 

Not really   my lack of sleep is beginning to catch up on me


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 17, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Yes hatred of the Irish of course!
> 
> Not really   my lack of sleep is beginning to catch up on me



I was wondering! 

But this is a good move; would be nice to see the Moir hauled up in front of the magistrates.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 17, 2009)

Like to see that bastard Dacre get his fat arse handed to him on a plate over this as well


----------



## ovaltina (Oct 17, 2009)

http://www.dailyquail.org/2009/10/jan-moir-why-theres-nothing-natural.html

Some might say the death and the fact that the deathee was gay are unconnected. To them, I say: 'no'. Look at the facts - he died, and he was gay. Therefore he died of gay.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2009)

ovaltina said:


> http://www.dailyquail.org/2009/10/jan-moir-why-theres-nothing-natural.html
> 
> Some might say the death and the fact that the deathee was gay are unconnected. To them, I say: 'no'. Look at the facts - he died, and he was gay. Therefore he died of gay.





That's brilliant - have posted on the group


----------



## untethered (Oct 17, 2009)

What's the real story here? The world is full of people that don't agree with left-liberals. Unable to confront that fact they attempt to bully everyone else into silence.

Will it work? Unlikely, let's be honest. But whatever the outcome it's got nothing to do with genuine persuasion or winning the argument.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

untethered said:


> Will it work? Unlikely, let's be honest. But whatever the outcome it's got nothing to do with genuine persuasion or winning the argument.



What do you think the response to the article in question should have been?

john x


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 17, 2009)

> Well said Jan. Couldn't agree more
> 
> - wedwivwage, London, 16/10/2009 14:29
> Rating  -5004



Awesome !


----------



## Weller (Oct 17, 2009)

Just checked my webspace details for the 24 hours that updated at 8.00am approx this morning and as you can see below the captured picture of the original story before the headline changed that is linked on the facebook site got  14,876 hits up until 8.00am today and by the looks of things may very well have been double that since 

Its been linked to at many different pages including a few gay sites and gaurdian / telegraph forums by the look of it so at least its kept a few peeps off the DM site and many thousands got to see the original via the facebook  




> 14 Oct 2009	1	 1	 1	             1.12 KB
> 15 Oct 2009	2	 3	 5	             103.46 KB
> 16 Oct 2009	52	  63	12480	     5.42 GB
> 17 Oct 2009	5	  5	2396	             838.21 MB



It is just a personal webspace with my ADSL supplier so as you can see thats a bit up on the previous days 2 hits and 103 KB to about 8 gb  

Nice one


----------



## untethered (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> What do you think the response to the article in question should have been?



That would depend on the individuals in question but I doubt it should include attempts to ensure that no-one could write, publish or read such things.

As no doubt others have mentioned, the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday are right-wing papers and this kind of thing isn't unusual. Linking some fairly shaky claims about the apparent circumstances of Mr Gately's death with a wider criticism of his lifestyle is tasteless and unwise but the idea that the Mail and most of its readers are going to have an "inclusive" epiphany is patently ridiculous.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

untethered said:


> but the idea that the Mail and most of its readers are going to have an "inclusive" epiphany is patently ridiculous.



Which is probably why few on here are suggesting it as a realistic possibility.

john x


----------



## untethered (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> Which is probably why few on here are suggesting it as a realistic possibility.



_Jolly well done_ the majority of contributors to this thread.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

untethered said:


> _Jolly well done_ the majority of contributors to this thread.



Well we are obviously reading different threads so there is no point in going any further with this. 

john x


----------



## untethered (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> Well we are obviously reading different threads so there is no point in going any further with this.



Your facepalm threshold is incredibly low. Must hurt quite a bit I'd imagine.


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

untethered said:


> Your facepalm threshold is incredibly low. Must hurt quite a bit I'd imagine.



What is facepalm? 

john x


----------



## untethered (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> What is facepalm?


----------



## john x (Oct 17, 2009)

untethered said:


>



I thought that was 'Doh' as in ......








john x


----------



## untethered (Oct 17, 2009)

john x said:


> I thought that was 'Doh' as in ......



You will note that the gentleman in your cartoon has his hand on his forehead rather than his face.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 17, 2009)

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2009/10/will-mail-react-to-moir-as-it-expected.html
Gpwm


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 17, 2009)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ut-biggest-celebrity-twitterers-internet.html
Oh dear,a sad pathetic attempt at revenge ,that sound you're hearing is a large barrel being scraped


----------



## john x (Oct 18, 2009)

untethered said:


> You will note that the gentleman in your cartoon has his hand on his forehead rather than his face.



Only if I can be arsed to look that closely.

It's only a frigging smilie at the end of the day! 

john x


----------



## Maggot (Oct 18, 2009)

Gingerman said:


> http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2009/10/will-mail-react-to-moir-as-it-expected.html
> Gpwm


Great article,  points out the extent of the Mail's hypocrisy.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 18, 2009)

Moir "defends" her article

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a182458/moir-defends-stephen-gately-column.html

Still no apology, or acknowledgement of offence given, other than to "the gay community".


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 18, 2009)

Guineveretoo said:


> Still no apology, or acknowledgement of offence given, other than to "the gay community".



And the piece is still there


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 18, 2009)

Amanda Platell next please, who explicitly thinks that everyone claiming benefit is doing so fraudulently with their gp's complicity.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2009)

Why can't everyone accept that this is an exchange of ideas and nowt more? Leaving aside most of the wildly off the mark comments about media buying from both emergent groups on this thread, just as the hells angels who use their engines to drown out phelps and the westboro baptists at soldiers funerals, this is an excercise where a usually quiesecent demograph have shouted, loudly, and created a noise heard above Big Media. 

It won't stop the mail from printing stuff like this again; it really won't lead to m&s removing the most valuable piece of press it has on it's media schedules; it might lead to moir not getting work. It's also demonstrated to the mail that there is a new balance in media, and that the press don't occupy a space where they will always remain unchallenged. And it's been _fun_


----------



## john x (Oct 18, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Amanda Platell next please, who explicitly thinks that everyone claiming benefit is doing so fraudulently with their gp's complicity.



She can't be very bright! Everyone knows you don't need a GP to claim benefit! 

john x


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 18, 2009)

Guineveretoo said:


> Moir "defends" her article
> 
> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a182458/moir-defends-stephen-gately-column.html
> 
> Still no apology, or acknowledgement of offence given, other than to "the gay community".



She should have titled her statement "Homophobic - Moir?"


----------



## john x (Oct 18, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> She should have titled her statement "Homophobic - Moir?"





john x


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 18, 2009)

john x said:


> She can't be very bright! Everyone knows you don't need a GP to claim benefit!
> 
> john x


'twas her comment yesterday regarding MP's expenses. I'm sure she thinks she meant IB claimants but the article just says people on benefits. What really aggravates me about this sort of shit is that it's made in such an offhand way, without any thought given to its veracity. Kind of like chucking a live grenade over your shoulder as if it were litter. Two million people she explicitly labels thus and paints their doctors as equally feckless. Fucking ignorant bitch.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 18, 2009)

Article vaguely in favour of Twitter by one of Moir's colleagues:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ge-libel-lawyers--new-virtual-conscience.html


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 18, 2009)

> Two million people she explicitly labels thus



Yeah but it's Daily Mail island where all teenagers are unemployed and binge drinking, all single mothers are useless, unemployed, scorunging and binge drinking, all gay marriages are plagued with perversion, drugs and binge drinking and....<goes on for several years>


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2009)

20,000+ on the group now


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2009)

It's gone up 150 in 15 mins.


----------



## john x (Oct 18, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Article vaguely in favour of Twitter by one of Moir's colleagues:



More importantly than her views on Twitter, she slags off Moir's article in no uncertain terms! 

john x


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 18, 2009)

Suzanne Moore is about the best of a bad bunch in the Fail.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 18, 2009)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ge-libel-lawyers--new-virtual-conscience.html

First she calls Twitter 'our new virtual conscience' and then she says
_
Whatever killed Stephen, it wasn’t being gay

Let's get just one thing clear: the cause of Stephen Gately’s death was not gayness.

He was a young man. I don’t know if he had sex or alcohol on the night he died.

Many young men do drink and have sex, though, don’t they? Or is that just a gay thing?

I asked on Twitter (obviously) what ‘sudden adult death syndrome’ was, as I didn’t know. I am not sure I do now.

But what has been so offensive to many are the insinuations that his death is connected to the death of comedian Matt Lucas’s ex. How is it?

Or that these tragedies are somehow the result of civil partnerships – as though ‘straight’ marriages are non-stop heaven.

The outrage over the way Gately has been written about – like the furore after X Factor judge Dannii Minogue’s outing of contestant Danyl Johnson – shows we live in an age where being gay just does not bother many people.

Those who pruriently pick over the circumstances of Gately’s death will find that no doctor signed a certificate with cause of death ‘homosexuality’.

A man was kicked to death in Central London recently by two teenage girls because he was gay.

So while many of us could not care less, homophobia is alive and kicking. It is repulsive to see it repeatedly kicking the corpse of a popular young guy._

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...rs--new-virtual-conscience.html#ixzz0UHwbplUv

The comments following all get it - shame she couldn't nail Moir explicityly, but I think she went as far as she could get away with. Well done Moore.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 18, 2009)

.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Oct 18, 2009)

Well done Moore- apart from one dodgy reference she nails it but would have been nice if she made reference to her nasty colleague!!!


----------



## yardbird (Oct 18, 2009)

Hey 5t3IIa - soon to be 25.000


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 18, 2009)

*Another Mail columnist breaks ranks...*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ay-killed-man-week--wasnt-Stephen-Gately.html

Bloody hell. First Suzanne Moore implicitly goes there in the Mail on Sunday, then Street-Porter breaks ranks and explicitly disses Moir's column.

Moir officially on the ropes.





			
				Janet Street Porter in the Daily Mail said:
			
		

> ...So I was astonished to read in Jan Moir's column last Friday that his death 'strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships', and 'under the carapace of glittering hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see'.
> 
> 
> What exactly was bothering Jan? The fact Stephen was gay, the fact he was in a civil partnership, or the fact that he or his partner might have enjoyed sex with someone they had just met?
> ...



read the rest


This has fucking worked, line in sand, things have started to change.

About bloody time.

Well done everyone.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 18, 2009)

That, ladies and gentleman, is the sound of a reverse ferret

Signed off by Dacre, who is on the run.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 18, 2009)

Did you see this guy's post on the FB group? 



> I'm a lecturer in English Language who's been tracking the Daily Mail and its homophobia for several years. In a book I published called Public Discourses of Gay Men I looked at over a thousand articles about homosexuality that the Mail has published and found some common themes. These are the 10 "rules" of writing about homosexuality that you have to abide by if you write for the Daily Mail.
> 
> 1) Gay relationships don't last
> 2) Gay is not a proper identity, it's just filthy sex
> ...





Has Dacre gone to ground then?


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 18, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Did you see this guy's post on the FB group?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dacre's a typical bully,dishes it out, unable to take it though.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 19, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Did you see this guy's post on the FB group?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I read that.

I've skimmed the thread again but missed what I was looking for.
Did I gather that Dacre is actually IN the Press Complaints Commission??


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 19, 2009)

Yeah, he is the "Chairman of the Code of Practice Committee".

http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDk4MA==


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2009)

http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/111/Rules_on_Conflict_of_Interests_and_Register.pdf


----------



## rollinder (Oct 19, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> That, ladies and gentleman, is the sound of a reverse ferret
> 
> Signed off by Dacre, who is on the run.



OMG - yes! 
How long before all this ends up being written about in Private Eye?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ay-killed-man-week--wasnt-Stephen-Gately.html
> 
> Bloody hell. First Suzanne Moore implicitly goes there in the Mail on Sunday, then Street-Porter breaks ranks and explicitly disses Moir's column.
> 
> ...



Posted to group.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

Apparently Thursday night was the Press Awards when everyone is out on the lash. So the article wouldn't have gone through the usual scrutiny. Seems even the subs were there (Posh Spice = decorous?!)


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Trashy - the PCC isn't flying. Everyone is getting 'you are a third party, nothing we can do' form reply. 

Perhaps change the complaint copy to something to send the advertisers instead?

Something to do today, like. Keep it moving.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

Will see what I can do. There has got to be a right to reply for Joe Public.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 19, 2009)

No doubt already posted but interesting


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

FWIW, Brookers op-ed and the story about Moir's article getting record complaints are both in the Top 5 most viewed in the last 24 hours...Brooker's piece most viewed in last 7 days...


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 19, 2009)

*Today's media coverage*

Links in full so they can be copied to the Facebook group, passed about, blogged, tweeted, etc

*PR Week - 48 hours to save your reputation?  If you're lucky, you'll get 4* http://community.prweek.com/blogs/d...utation-if-you-are-lucky-you-ll-get-four.aspx

*The First Post*: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54877,people,news,mail-columnist-throws-a-shadow-over-gately-funeral

See also: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54874...morning-stephen-gately-jenson-button-x-factor

*The Media Guardian* http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/oct/19/power-of-social-networks

*IT Pro* http://www.itpro.co.uk/blogs/daveyw/2009/10/18/twitter-finds-its-voice-and-roars/

*Independent Matthew Norman Media Diary* http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...an-moir-im-nearly-lost-for-words-1805097.html

*BBC What The papers say* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8313809.stm

*Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Independent* http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...til-the-invective-is-against-you-1805247.html

*The Times;* ( not very sympathetic and calls us 'a nation of Victor Meldrews')
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6880002.ece

*And of course, today's Mail's own take on the matter *, with reader comments

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221360/Stephen-Gately-debate-dominates-internet.html
*
Reverse ferret from Mail columnist Janet street Porter*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ay-killed-man-week--wasnt-Stephen-Gately.html

Reverse ferreting started with the sister paper on Sunday (who have, it must be said, a different editorial staff)  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ge-libel-lawyers--new-virtual-conscience.html


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Please define 'reverse ferret' for me?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 19, 2009)

http://neurope.eu/blogs/mindthegap/2009/09/14/british-media-explained-the-reverse-ferret/


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

I have been looking at the PCC site and am now wondering if I cocked up by changing the complaint letter because the one that's on the page only talks about the personal things and doesn't mention point 12 in the code which is 



> Discrimination
> 
> i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
> 
> ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.



Surely the article breaches 12 i). Or am I clutching at straws????

BK - will post the links


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Trashy - the PCC isn't flying. Everyone is getting 'you are a third party, nothing we can do' form reply.
> 
> Perhaps change the complaint copy to something to send the advertisers instead?
> 
> Something to do today, like. Keep it moving.



On the discrimination against gay people, part 12 of the code, surely that doesn't have to be the Gately mourners?

Oh, just saw trashy's post. 


I was thinking that DAYS ago though...


----------



## jonnyd1978 (Oct 19, 2009)

Pete from Wrexham said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Jan. His so called marriage seemed to allow for taking home waifs and strays for drug taking and other unseemely acts. When will the gay community realise that marriage is a unity of two people in the eyes of God. They want the right to marriage but do not take it seriously. Jan should not have to apologise. This mans actions were dubious. Smoking weed, threesomes with strangers. It is not the act of a normal individual and his death is still unexplained.
> 
> - pete, wrexham, 19/10/2009 07:15



She's got at least one fan then. When oh when will these gays learn?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> *
> Reverse ferret from Mail columnist Janet street Porter*
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ay-killed-man-week--wasnt-Stephen-Gately.html



Reasonable response!


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> On the discrimination against gay people, part 12 of the code, surely that doesn't have to be the Gately mourners?
> 
> Oh, just saw trashy's post.
> 
> ...



I know. I think I fucked up - someone posted that draft letter which I thought sounded good but it doesn't mention part 12. I'm going to ask the fb group if anyone has drafted their own letter which mentioned part 12 and *didn't* get the stock response. Is there some way I can email the group??


----------



## Weller (Oct 19, 2009)

I noticed that the link on facebook to the original headlined pic jpeg is no longer working I spoke to my webspace support and apparently they found he bandwidth to be excessive as it had had over 32,000 views and over 5 gig of data a day apparently so it now shows up as bandwidth exceeded .


I uploaded it to here instead  same image same quality but this also only allows 300 meg an hour (thats about 600 views) so may be ok to use my photobucket link instead , I think its good if the original headline is still linked but the catcha.co.uk one aint gonna work at moment unless I can sort it with them , can someone change it to...

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1463/dmail.jpg


or maybe someone else could host it for a while - to keep it active -  cheers 

Ive pmed St3lla but only just had the email from my webspace providers


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2009)

Interesting that the PCC gets some attention now, I was reading about the documentary starsuckers on the Guardian last week, and there is a secretly recorded journalist talking about how the PCC is run by newspaper editors and they just give you a slap on the wrist. These comments are on the video on the guardian website.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/15/starsuckers-celebrity-cosmetic-surgery-hoax


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

elbows said:


> Interesting that the PCC gets some attention now, I was reading about the documentary starsuckers on the Guardian last week, and there is a secretly recorded journalist talking about how the PCC is run by newspaper editors and they just give you a slap on the wrist. These comments are on the video on the guardian website.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/15/starsuckers-celebrity-cosmetic-surgery-hoax



Yes, because it needed someone to secretly record that the PCC does nothing save hand out slapped wrists to the newspapers. No one _ever knew that knowledge_ before this.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 19, 2009)

http://www.libdemvoice.org/jan-moir...t-you-should-say-in-your-complaint-16560.html

has a good steer on how to handle it.

 The PCC is crap, which is why the sheer numbers of complainers - and its unsatisfactory response, because it isn't set up to deal with this sort of thing - is going to become the next part of the story. It's just unfit for purpose in this day and age. So peopel should keep complaining, even though they get crap responses, because the volume and speed and size of the aggrieved complainers highlights the flaws of the PCC and will ultinately hasten its demise.

The PCC isn't up to the  job - breaking it and flattening it with huge numbers of complaints proves it.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> I know. I think I fucked up - someone posted that draft letter which I thought sounded good but it doesn't mention part 12. I'm going to ask the fb group if anyone has drafted their own letter which mentioned part 12 and *didn't* get the stock response. Is there some way I can email the group??



I didn't know about the letter and sent my own badly crafted one including reference to section 12, and which did get the stock response.  However I did send it on the form they set up especially so it would have done. 

I can reply to them pointing out that 12 is a broader issue not just affecting the mourners.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

I can email the group Trashy. Compose soemthing brilliant and I'll get on it.

Hope soemone else is posting BK's links above around the blogs and news sites as I am owrking at work and still *have a cold*


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

Weller said:


> I uploaded it to here instead  same image same quality but this also only allows 300 meg an hour (thats about 600 views) so may be ok to use my photobucket link instead , I think its good if the original headline is still linked but the catcha.co.uk one aint gonna work at moment unless I can sort it with them , can someone change it to...
> 
> http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1463/dmail.jpg
> 
> ...



Can urb host it?  Or is that a 'bit close to home' praps?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> *And of course, today's Mail's own take on the matter *, with reader comments
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221360/Stephen-Gately-debate-dominates-internet.html



Isn't that the Fail rather turning the situation around to their own beneficial ends? 'Oh look at us, every one is talking about us and one of our articles - aren't we great bastions of free speech and debate'.


----------



## Weller (Oct 19, 2009)

stephj said:


> Can urb host it?  Or is that a 'bit close to home' praps?




clapham boy did offer earlier in thread if mine got overloaded might be an option it would be better than relying on the photobucket link as if it exceeds 300meg an hour (approx 600 views with this) they have to be contacted each time to get it opened again and theres no way of monitoring it views which were definitely over a 1000 an hour over weekend probably through the link being spread , probably slowed down now but who knows it was still going quite high on my stats till 9am 




claphamboy said:


> If needed, I've got unlimited disc space and bandwidth available to host the JPEG of the article for linking from facebook etc.
> 
> Just PM if required.



Ive sent a PM


----------



## two sheds (Oct 19, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I didn't know about the letter and sent my own badly crafted one including reference to section 12, and which did get the stock response.  However I did send it on the form they set up especially so it would have done.
> 
> I can reply to them pointing out that 12 is a broader issue not just affecting the mourners.



Do you have to specify the particular paragraph of the the code which you feel has been broken? You'd imagine a complaint is a complaint and they should decide whether it meets any of their paragraphs.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 19, 2009)

http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/10/19/how-organised-was-the-jan-moir-campaign/

here you go, urban's chance to put record straight - get in touch and explain about how the campaign was 'organised', 5t3lla and Trashy


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

two sheds said:


> Do you have to specify the particular paragraph of the the code which you feel has been broken? You'd imagine a complaint is a complaint and they should decide whether it meets any of their paragraphs.



They ask you to detail your complaint then ask you which codes you think they have broken. 


I'm getting quite annoyed now that the PCC is wholly populated by the people it is meant to regulate.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 19, 2009)

Just sorting the hosting out now, I'll will PM Stella with a working link to stick up on Facebook in a mo.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 19, 2009)

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44486&c=1


an Moir's column on Stephen Gately is PCC's most complained about article ever

19 October 2009

By Dominic Ponsford

Jan Moir’s column questioning the circumstances around the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately has now become the most complained about story in the history of the Press Complaints Commission.

It has so far attracted more than 21,000 complaints.

It is likely to be dealt with under clause five of the Editors’ Code of Practice which states: "In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively."

Press Gazette asked the PCC this morning whether it could deal with a clause three complaint made by third parties, or whether it would need the involvement of the Gately family.

A spokesman said: "The commission will need to consider that. Intrusion into grief or shock to some extent requires the involvement of those expressing the grief."

The Moir column was published on Friday and has been accused of being disrespectful, appearing is it did on the eve on Gately’s funeral, and of casting aspersions over the singer's homosexual lifestyle.

Gately apparently died of natural causes at his home in Majorca last week.

Moir wrote: "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. Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one."

She also wrote: "under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see".

On Friday, Moir issued a statement saying: "Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention. Stephen, as I pointed out in the article was a charming and sweet man who entertained millions.

"However, the point of my column-which, I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read - was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all.

"Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately’s death - out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger - did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition.

"The entire matter of his sudden death seemed to have been handled with undue haste when lessons could have been learned. On this subject, one very important point. When I wrote that ‘he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine’, I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended to a stranger. Not to the fact of his homosexuality.

"In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships - the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting - have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.

"In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones."


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Just sorting the hosting out now, I'll will PM Stella with a working link to stick up on Facebook in a mo.



Cheers - can you send to me too as I appear to have a bit of time this am 

I have updated the home page of the group with the info from Mark Pack's blog and asked everyone to complain *again*. 

I agree that it is absurd that unless you stick to their bizarre and arcane rules (which they don't publicise) they reject your complaint.

Why is there not an Ofcom for published media?????

Ooh BK - am on the case


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 19, 2009)

Some of the campaign organisers might like to try and interest Media Guardian in this issue about the PCC and the code, with regard to the Moir case? While it's still a hot topic. Would make a good follow-up. 'PCC rejection of Moir complaints demonstrates ineffectiveness of newspapers' self-regulation system' or similar.

(Have they actually rejected the complaints, or just sent out a pro-forma? I've only had a pro forma)


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Oct 19, 2009)

has anyone burnt the witch yet? Or at least put her windows through?


----------



## nick h. (Oct 19, 2009)

Wow, this is incredible. I take back everything I said about this being a win for the Mail. For them to have two of their columnists diss Moir is an admission of defeat.  They are hoping this will take the sting out of the campaign. 

So I hope you all can find a way to ratchet up the pressure on Dacre.  As Matthew Norman in the Indy says, this is a running story: *Given the challenge of imagining a swift surrender from the paper's mannerly editor, Paul Dacre, I suspect we may be obliged to return to the matter next week. *

BK, someone will flush you out. You might as well write your own piece about how you did it.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 19, 2009)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> has anyone burnt the witch yet? Or at least put her windows through?



Now, now, don't stoop to her level.  I think when it descends into playground name calling (calling her a fat bitch, for example), it's hard to take a campaign seriously.  And we want to be taken seriously, don't we?

I think what she said was foul, but at the same time I'm not going to judge her on her looks or weight.  (Like the Daily Mail does, funnily enough).

Signed.  A Real Woman. *sigh*


----------



## nick h. (Oct 19, 2009)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> has anyone burnt the witch yet? Or at least put her windows through?



That's how you lose all public support and criminalize yourself, just like SHAC. I hope you were joking. Eventually a national paper will do a story about this thread, so you might want to do an edit.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

Tbh, the Fail has put the boot into this site before anyway - if I recall it regards urb as an "anarchist site" (cue: Middle-England horror!)


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Some of the campaign organisers might like to try and interest Media Guardian in this issue about the PCC and the code, with regard to the Moir case? While it's still a hot topic. Would make a good follow-up. 'PCC rejection of Moir complaints demonstrates ineffectiveness of newspapers' self-regulation system' or similar.
> 
> (Have they actually rejected the complaints, or just sent out a pro-forma? I've only had a pro forma)



I agree. I think we need to move to the Daily Mail's general attitude and the PCC's cronyism and ineffectiveness.   Neither are acceptable.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Some of the campaign organisers might like to try and interest Media Guardian in this issue about the PCC and the code, with regard to the Moir case? While it's still a hot topic. Would make a good follow-up. 'PCC rejection of Moir complaints demonstrates ineffectiveness of newspapers' self-regulation system' or similar.
> 
> (Have they actually rejected the complaints, or just sent out a pro-forma? I've only had a pro forma)



Yeah that's a good point - I was thinking about that earlier. As far as I know, people have just had pro formas.


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2009)

stephj said:


> Tbh, the Fail has put the boot into this site before anyway - if I recall it regards urb as an "anarchist site" (cue: Middle-England horror!)


My favourite was: 
"a Wolfie Smith website" (Richard  Littlejohn, Daily Mail), "a website run by anarchists" (The Sun) and an "extremist anarchist site" (Sunday People).


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

I've changed the pic on the FBG to one of Stephj's designs as she pointed out that JM's pic indicates an attack against her, not the paper.

Hope suits x


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Oct 19, 2009)

nick h. said:


> That's how you lose all public support and criminalize yourself, just like SHAC. I hope you were joking. Eventually a national paper will do a story about this thread, so you might want to do an edit.



  err. yes, sorry if I didn't make that clear.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 19, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/19/jan-moir-complain-stephen-gately


Jan Moir: more than 21,000 complain to PCC over Stephen Gately piece

More complaints in a single weekend over Jan Moir article than the regulator has had in the past five years
The Press Complaints Commission has received 21,000 complaints about Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately since Friday – more complaints in a single weekend than the regulator has received in total in the past five years.

Moir's article,published the day before Gately's funeral in Dublin, provoked widespread outrage on the web. The original headline on the Mail Online website, "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death" was later amended to the print edition headline "A strange, lonely and troubling death". The article has also prompted a complaint to the Metropolitan police.

The Press Complaints Commission will shortly decide if it will waive its tendency not to investigate third-party complaints due to the unprecedented number of people who have been in contact about the article by Moir, which said Gately's death in Mallorca after a night out "strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships".

It is understood that the PCC will be mindful of the attitudes of Gately's family and partner.

"They appear to be individually written complaints," a source said. The PCC has had no formal contact with the Daily Mail over the incident, the source added.

The PCC rarely investigates complaints not made by people directly involved in articles, unless they are complaints about accuracy. The regulator did last year investigate third-party complaints about press coverage of Alfie Patten after the Sun falsely reported that Patten had fathered a child aged 13, although it eventually dropped its inquiries.

In this case the PCC could launch an investigation to see if Moir's article violated parts of its code that deals with intrusion into grief, accuracy, discrimination and homophobia.

Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail editor, is chairman of the PCC code committee, which oversees the commission's code of practice that all journalists and newspapers are expected to abide by.

Moir also called for "the truth" to emerge "about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death" and said "Once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see".

Today the Daily Mail ran a small article on page 4 about the controversy, saying it had dominated internet debate.

"Columnist Jan Moir's comments on the singer's shocking death sparked an extraordinary online response using sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Thousands have been moved to comment on Moir's column after she wrote in last Friday's paper about the circumstances surrounding the star's death in Majorca, when he and his civil partner invited a Bulgarian man to their flat," the Daily Mail article said.

On Friday advertisers including Marks & Spencer demanded that their advertising be removed from the website page on which Moir's piece was published, although Mail Online had already taken the decision to remove banner ads.

Moir, who has won a British Press Award, made a statement defending her column late on Friday, saying it was not her intention to offend, blaming a "heavily orchestrated internet campaign" for the furore and adding that it was "mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones".

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 19, 2009)

Wow. 21,000. That's a lot of pissed-off people.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

26,000+ on the group now. 

Good post on the blog BK


----------



## xes (Oct 19, 2009)

posted in the bandwidth thread...


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 19, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Wow. 21,000. That's a lot of pissed-off people.



The number of complaints to the BBC about Ross & Brand reached 37,500* between 18th & 30th Oct 2008, so 21,000 to the PCC in just a few days is truly amazing! 

* source


----------



## Kanda (Oct 19, 2009)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/everyone-to-run-everything-by-stephen-fry-200910192148/


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 19, 2009)

the PCC said:
			
		

> PCC to consider complaints about Jan Moir column in the Daily Mail
> 
> PCC to consider complaints about Jan Moir column in the Daily Mail
> 
> ...



PCC website home page

heh.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

Xes: I don't think that sort of stuff is going to help IMO.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

I don't think it really makes an arses worth of difference. I realise that journos are lazy to the point of being made to breath, but any journo can easily get a user account, login and see _everything_ that's on this website - there's way, way more stuff about the Hate elsewhere on Urban that could be seen as less than helpful...


----------



## Strumpet (Oct 19, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> PCC website home page
> 
> heh.



Just saw this on the news!


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Oct 19, 2009)

http://www.stephenfry.com/2009/10/19/poles-politeness-and-politics-in-the-age-of-twitter/1/


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 19, 2009)

stephj said:


> Xes: I don't think that sort of stuff is going to help IMO.


It's juvenile, puerile and counter-productive.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 19, 2009)

Radio5 Simon Mayo NOW!


----------



## newbie (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> I agree that it is absurd that unless you stick to their bizarre and arcane rules (which they don't publicise) they reject your complaint.
> 
> Why is there not an Ofcom for published media?????



It's not clear what you want them to do, nor how expecting some authority figure to wield a big stick aids press freedom.

Either there is freedom of the press or there isn't.  That freedom includes the freedom to cause offence, and it doesn't matter whether it's Jerry Springer the Opera or Danish cartoonists or some bigot upsetting liberals.  If you're asking for curbs on what can be said in the press then you need to spell out very carefully what those curbs are and what sanctions you want to see.


----------



## subversplat (Oct 19, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It's juvenile, puerile and counter-productive.


Oh dear, xes has ruined the fun for everyone  Best close the facebook group now, stella, xes has shown why we can't have nice things.

rolleyes


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2009)

Jan Moir IS a cunt though.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 19, 2009)

yardbird said:


> Radio5 Simon Mayo NOW!



Damn I can't listen as am at work, what's being said?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

newbie said:


> It's not clear what you want them to do, nor how expecting some authority figure to wield a big stick aids press freedom.
> 
> Either there is freedom of the press or there isn't.  That freedom includes the freedom to cause offence, and it doesn't matter whether it's Jerry Springer the Opera or Danish cartoonists or some bigot upsetting liberals.  If you're asking for curbs on what can be said in the press then you need to spell out very carefully what those curbs are and what sanctions you want to see.



I don't think there is anything in the PCC code I disagree with. I would like them to apply the code to the publications it covers. Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

newbie said:


> It's not clear what you want them to do, nor how expecting some authority figure to wield a big stick aids press freedom.



Punish the Daily Mail for breaking the PCC's codes of conduct.


----------



## newbie (Oct 19, 2009)

punish how?


----------



## yardbird (Oct 19, 2009)

@BK
Mainly about PCC just after 2.00 (iplayer tonight then ?) Torin (sp) Douglas their media guy with Simon about what happened and unfortunately I was in the kitchen and missed most.
BUT - once again the use of the word "organised", which pisses me off !
Can we not get someone inside there to explain it to them


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Punish the Daily Mail for breaking the PCC's codes of conduct.



How? I'm going to play warninks advocaat here and ask how can you punish an entity for expression of (repugnent) views? Calls for bans sound more like the DM - and they can deploy _exactly_ the same arguments about Freedom of Speech as any of us do the next time they start wailing on about The Latest Bad Thing To Corrupt Minds That Should Be Banned.

How do you think you can regulate the national press?


----------



## xes (Oct 19, 2009)

stephj said:


> Xes: I don't think that sort of stuff is going to help IMO.



You can't stop the internet  

And i like it purile, some people voice their opinions and disgust in ways that differ from the norm. I can't see how this picture is counter productive. I think it's funny.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> How? I'm going to play warninks advocaat here and ask how can you punish an entity for expression of (repugnent) views? Calls for bans sound more like the DM - and they can deploy _exactly_ the same arguments about Freedom of Speech as any of us do the next time they start wailing on about The Latest Bad Thing To Corrupt Minds That Should Be Banned.
> 
> How do you think you can regulate the national press?



The beeb was fine 150k and wossy was suspended for a while wasn't he over sachsgate. Don't see why you can't do the same here. What's the point of having the PCC otherwise?

The only way is to hit them in the pocket.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 19, 2009)

My MP is Nicholas Soames, but Norman Baker is the next door guy.
Trying to find out when his next surgery is that I can go see him.


----------



## 8den (Oct 19, 2009)

xes said:


> You can't stop the internet
> 
> And i like it purile, some people voice their opinions and disgust in ways that differ from the norm.



Like say for example forming an angry mob and attacking a paediatrician, because they're idiots. Like you.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Trashy - 'we did it'? It's not a retraction, is it?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 19, 2009)

BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8314577.stm


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> The beeb was fine 150k and wossy was suspended for a while wasn't he over sachsgate. Don't see why you can't do the same here. What's the point of having the PCC otherwise?
> 
> The only way is to hit them in the pocket.



Let's remind ourselves some of what the Fail said about that again...

More than 4,000 Mail readers attack Brand and Ross over 'prank' call to Andrew Sachs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers-attack-Brand-Ross-prank-Andrew-Sachs.html

Ross, Brand and the BBC's gutter culture
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Y-COMMENT-Ross-Brand-BBCs-gutter-culture.html

And another scandal looms... The Brand and Ross episode is not the only tasteless broadcast by the BBC
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...and-Ross-episode-tasteless-broadcast-BBC.html

The REAL reason the Ross and Brand show was broadcast: BBC bosses actually thought it was funny 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...adcast-BBC-bosses-actually-thought-funny.html

As it claimed the moral high ground


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> How? I'm going to play warninks advocaat here and ask how can you punish an entity for expression of (repugnent) views? Calls for bans sound more like the DM - and they can deploy _exactly_ the same arguments about Freedom of Speech as any of us do the next time they start wailing on about The Latest Bad Thing To Corrupt Minds That Should Be Banned.
> 
> How do you think you can regulate the national press?



I don't need to.  I have the trusty PCC to do that for me.  I am asking for them to be punished for breaching a code of conduct which has been laid down by the PCC and is readily available for newspaper editors everywhere to study. 

The PCC has codes of conduct for the press.  the press are meant to abide by them. If people feel those codes have been breached then they can write to the PCC and, presumably, the PCC will investigate and come up with a judgement that rules have or have not been broken and can put in place some punitive measure.


----------



## newbie (Oct 19, 2009)

so if the press publishes something that causes offence they should be fined?  Is that really the press we want?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> The beeb was fine 150k and wossy was suspended for a while wasn't he over sachsgate. Don't see why you can't do the same here. What's the point of having the PCC otherwise?
> 
> The only way is to hit them in the pocket.



OK, well 

1. The PCC doesn't fine newspapers (http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDE5OA). The BBC is regulated by OfCom.

2. A very good question indeed. Why have the PCC at all?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Trashy - 'we did it'? It's not a retraction, is it?



No sorry  Got carried away  

Will change it back

ETA - except if we all lobbied the PCC to investigate and they are now doing so, then we've done that bit haven't we? So we have had an impact. Also, we haven't actually provided any contact details for the DM to ask them to retract the article have we?? 

So is the whole group a bit confused?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> How? I'm going to play warninks advocaat here and ask how can you punish an entity for expression of (repugnent) views? Calls for bans sound more like the DM - and they can deploy _exactly_ the same arguments about Freedom of Speech as any of us do the next time they start wailing on about The Latest Bad Thing To Corrupt Minds That Should Be Banned.
> 
> How do you think you can regulate the national press?



Do you disagree with the existence of the PCC code, then?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

What, that the press should vaguely behave themselves? Broadly yes I do. My point is that much as the DM shored up it's 'ban this filth' credentials with Sachsgate, a bunch of liberals saying 'ban this filth' is materially no different.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

newbie said:


> so if the press publishes something that causes offence they should be fined?  Is that really the press we want?



If it breaches the PCC code then yes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2009)

Theres no such thing as a free press, it's dominated and controlled by economic pressure through advertisers. So if a pressure group manages to exert the occaisonal sway over the press then why the fuck not? It's an occaisonal break from Megacorp doing so.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> What, that the press should vaguely behave themselves? Broadly yes I do. My point is that much as the DM shored up it's 'ban this filth' credentials with Sachsgate, a bunch of liberals saying 'ban this filth' is materially no different.



Sorry, I don't understand how this follows from my question. You agree that the PCC code is A Good Thing?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

Y'see, it's the interpretation of that very code that's the problem. How does one judge offensiveness? By the strength of a groundswell of people shouting on the internet? By the actions and comments of those closely involved in the story (which I would imagine is one of the reasons the rule about only investigating stuff when it's been raised by the subjects comes from)? Waving codes around is a dangerous game, because anyone can play it (as the DM did with Sachsgate - they used an OfCom rule to get that done).

So think about the universal applicability of 'rules', and how thay applicability can come back and bite your ass.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Sorry, I don't understand how this follows from my question. You agree that the PCC code is A Good Thing?



I answered it with this:



> What, that the press should vaguely behave themselves? Broadly yes I do.



So broadly, yes I do.


----------



## ovaltina (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> I don't think there is anything in the PCC code I disagree with. I would like them to apply the code to the publications it covers. Is that clear enough for you?



The code is fine, but the pcc is toothless when it comes to punishing publishers. Just look at the Sunday Express article over Dunblane survivors a couple of months ago. The PCC told the Sunday Express it was wrong. And nothing happened, and nobody noticed.

IIRC the Express titles have now taken themselves out of the PCC - and still nothing happens.

The code works well with local newspapers, which are happy to publish prominent corrections, apologies and adjudications to avoid an expensive libel hearing. The nationals, for the most part, couldn't care less so long as people keep buying papers.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

Just to get my point home. The next time a newspaper runs an article that's offensive to say, the Christian Alliance, and that could be argued breaks the PCC code over something or other, would lead to X publication being fined (well, not at the moment) - presumably the response from this board would be to decry it as a bad judgement, against FoS etc. However, if it breaks the code than by the _rules_ it's a good judgement.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 19, 2009)

Just as an aside by way of update...



> The PCC said it had received more than 21,000 complaints since its publication on 16 October - *the most ever made* about a single newspaper article.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8314577.stm


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> OK, well
> 
> 1. The PCC doesn't fine newspapers (http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDE5OA). The BBC is regulated by OfCom.
> 
> 2. A very good question indeed. Why have the PCC at all?



I work in an industry that is goivernment regulated, as opposed to self regulated like the media and finance, I find our regulators largely toothless as involves dragging them to court for trials too complicated for the average jury to comprehend so they usually don't bother, though I would accept self regulation has done a lot to put it in the mire. 

If Stephen Gately's family do not complain (I think they will, and those involved here should cc  help to them) this probably is the best case to bring about change within  press complaints, what with the Chairman of Procedures and Standards nuetralized by conflict of interest...
 but then that for me is the one thing that really needs changing. Mr Dacre in his role as Daily Mail Editor has demonstrated what he thinks standards are, I would hope the rest of the media can see that in his other PCC role he can only drag journalism into disrepute.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> What, that the press should vaguely behave themselves? Broadly yes I do. My point is that much as the DM shored up it's 'ban this filth' credentials with Sachsgate, a bunch of liberals saying 'ban this filth' is materially no different.



Firstly, I don't think people are reacting in quite the same way that they did with Sachsgate.

I think what most people are interested in seeing from the Mail is an admission that they made a mistake and subsequently a full apology.

Secondly, the Sachsgate-Moir paralell only really works in terms of form. Materially there was a difference with regard to the tone and purpose of the sentiments.

There is a danger that in pointing out the similarities between the two occurences with regard to their anti-democratic special interest group format and with regard to the smug self-congratulation as moral arbiters that flowed after the events, you miss the moral point and falls into the trap of moral equivalence.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

> I work in an industry that is goivernment regulated, as opposed to self regulated like the media and finance, I find our regulators largely toothless as involves dragging them to court for trials too complicated for the average jury to comprehend so they usually don't bother, though I would accept self regulation has done a lot to put it in the mire.



FSA/SFA perchance?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

Diamond said:


> Firstly, I don't think people are reacting in quite the same way that they did with Sachsgate.
> 
> I think what most people are interested in seeing from the Mail is an admission that they made a mistake and subsequently a full apology.
> 
> ...



I didn't bring Sachsgate up in the first place, and was responding to the poster that did. I agree there are substantial differences between the two, and that the comparison is only really valid in looking at group behaviours, rather than the actual meat of the initial complaint.

Personally I'm with you - an apology and admission of 'We were wrong to print this' is about as far as it should go, but that's me...


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> FSA/SFA perchance?



No, still in aluminium tube import export Finance is self regulating, I still have dinner table arguements with compliance officers that still reckon FSA do a wonderful job


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

Okay, I am looking at the PCC's website and the Chairman of the PCC is not Paul Dacre, it's Baroness Buscombe. Dacre is Chair of the Code Committee which is made up of journos. 



> The independent Chairman is appointed by the newspaper and magazine publishing industry. The Chairman must not be engaged in or, otherwise than by his office as Chairman, connected with or interested in the business of publishing newspapers, periodicals or magazines. The current Chairman is Baroness Buscombe.



So Baroness Buscombe will decide who will investigate the complaints made about the Moir article. Dacre is not allowed to be a part of that investigation under the Conflicts of Interest rules of the PCC


> All members of the Commission are bound by the law relating to directors of
> companies. They must act solely in the best interests of the Commission, uninfluenced
> by the possibility of personal benefit for themselves, their families, firms, employees,
> friends or other bodies of which they may be members, directors or trustees. They
> ...



So part one is done - they will investigate the complaint.

Part two is writing to the Daily Mail to ask them to retract the article. I am drafting something which I will bung up here for you to comment on before I put it on the fb page. After all, that's what the point of the group was, right?

Evidence, if it were needed, that this is not orchestrated in any way


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Just to get my point home. The next time a newspaper runs an article that's offensive to say, the Christian Alliance, and that could be argued breaks the PCC code over something or other, would lead to X publication being fined (well, not at the moment) - presumably the response from this board would be to decry it as a bad judgement, against FoS etc. However, if it breaks the code than by the _rules_ it's a good judgement.



I do understand what you're saying.  I care about this because it offends me but I would be quite happy to see the christian alliance offended every day of the week.  It's a personal thing and the rules could work for or against anyone's personal offensiveness map.  

So we should all be allowed to challenge other's beliefs.  The Daily Mail can challenge my belief that gay couples should be entitled to the same rights in law that married couples do.  And I can challenge their belief that they can make as many snidey, underhand, misinformed and misleading smears on a particular death, civil partnerships and gay people generally, as they like.  

This is what is happening.  In the meantime the PCC code of practice, level of authority, and validity as a regulatory body run by the people it is set up to regulate is being tested.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> So broadly, yes I do.



So your concern is about who applies the rules?

I think it's fairly clear that letting newspaper editors act as a self-regulating body leads to a pretty unsatisfactory pattern of results. That might not be too much of an issue if legal recourse was a realistic option for more people. But combined with our libel system, it's lethal.
Obviously the idea of imposing an independent regulator is difficult in the case of the media, because of the free speech issue. Letting the PCC members appoint the regulator would address that, but then you'd risk being back with the same problem of toothlessness and people living in other people's pockets.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the current system offers very little recourse for the vast majority of people (and perhaps too much recourse for the small minority, ie. those who can afford to employ Carter-Ruck).


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Okay, I am looking at the PCC's website and the Chairman of the PCC is not Paul Dacre, it's Baroness Buscombe. Dacre is Chair of the Code Committee which is made up of journos.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:thumbup:


----------



## Diamond (Oct 19, 2009)

There is another argument to be had about whether the role of the state or quasi-state bodies should be to regulate areas of society in this way at all.

Clearly the fashion at the moment is for more regulation rather than less and that does seem to encourage a strange kind of point scoring sensitivity in public life.

Where's that old corporate British spirit, eh?

*Sniffles. Blows nose on union jack*


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> :thumbup:



How's this?



> Paul Dacre
> Editor
> The Daily Mail
> Northcliffe House
> ...


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

Just Mr Dacre isn't it?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> How's this?
> 
> Paul Dacre
> Editor
> ...



Looks good to me, though the first sentence is slightly wet. But better minds than mine can rewroite it if they agree


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2009)

Posters seeking to indulge in personal, off topic bunfights are strongly recommended to take it to PM. Continuing disruption on this thread will not be looked upon kindly.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 19, 2009)

Diamond said:


> There is another argument to be had about whether the role of the state or quasi-state bodies should be to regulate areas of society in this way at all.



I don't think anyone has advocated a state body should regulate the press, have they? I certainly wouldn't support that.

The press should be self-regulating, but the current model of self-regulation isn't working.


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2009)

Perhaps I  didn't make myself clear enough. Anyone posting up any more off-topic personal nonsense in this thread will be banned. Thanks.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Looks good to me, though the first sentence is slightly wet. But better minds than mine can rewroite it if they agree



How about "I understand that you and your senior staff were all on the lash on Thursday night and so 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 wasn't subject to your usual scrutiny. However, it is not too late to repair the damage done to your already slightly tattered reputation by issuing a retraction in advance of the PCC's investigation.

blah blah blah


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Lol - Moir is a _freak_!! From http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/10/19/how-organised-was-the-jan-moir-campaign/



> Author: Phil Gahan
> Comment:
> Also i'd like to add that she wrote in similar style the week following the death of Princess Diana
> 
> ...


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> How about "I understand that you and your senior staff were all on the lash on Thursday night and so 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 wasn't subject to your usual scrutiny. However, it is not too late to repair the damage done to your already slightly tattered reputation by issuing a retraction in advance of the PCC's investigation.
> 
> blah blah blah



 tempting 

I am sure your version is fine. EWhat does BK say?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2009)

I think that just makes her a recycling lazy hack more than anything


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> How about "I understand that you and your senior staff were all on the lash on Thursday night and so 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 wasn't subject to your usual scrutiny. However, it is not too late to repair the damage done to your already slightly tattered reputation by issuing a retraction in advance of the PCC's investigation.
> 
> blah blah blah



Nah... whether they were out on the lash or not, they should still be ensuring that their editorial scrutiny is in place. But funny nevertheless


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Lol - Moir is a _freak_!! From http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/10/19/how-organised-was-the-jan-moir-campaign/



Unless they're giving blowjobs obv


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

stephj said:


> Nah... whether they were out on the lash or not, they should still be ensuring that their editorial scrutiny is in place. But funny nevertheless



I won't really write that. 

Can anyone track down his email address?

I will ask BK to have a look at the letter too. Not sure if she's around at the mo


----------



## nick h. (Oct 19, 2009)

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.


----------



## nick h. (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Can anyone track down his email address?



If it follows the usual Mail format it will be paul.dacre@dailymail.co.uk.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

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.



Yeah you're right. Unfortunately I have a load of stuff to do before a conference call in 15 mins so I'm not going to be able to do anything until this evening but if anyone else has got time to cobble something together (loads of info in the links on the fb site) please do. 

This isn't orchestrated, it's democracy in action


----------



## nick h. (Oct 19, 2009)

Might be worth listening to the PM programme at 5 on R4. It's their kind of story. Plus it's listed as a top story on the BBC News home page.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Yeah you're right. Unfortunately I have a load of stuff to do before a conference call in 15 mins so I'm not going to be able to do anything until this evening but if anyone else has got time to cobble something together (loads of info in the links on the fb site) please do.
> 
> This isn't orchestrated, it's democracy in action



We can send it out as a message to all the group members. Make it easy as pie to c/p into an email and Dacre's inbox will fill up overnight. 

Who own the paper? They can have it to.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> We can send it out as a message to all the group members. Make it easy as pie to c/p into an email and Dacre's inbox will fill up overnight.
> 
> Who own the paper? They can have it to.



I think it needs a bit more welly before we send it out as nick h. suggests.

Associated Newspapers owns the DM which I think is wholly owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust. I will investigate who the majority shareholders are (probably City institutions).


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Harold Jonathan Esmond Vere Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere and some other names http://www.associatednewspapers.com/org_chart.pdf


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2009)

We will certainly be advising our clients that being in The Mail is not a good place to be right now...


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

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



> Paul Dacre
> Editor
> The Daily Mail
> Associated Newspapers
> ...


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Pridelife.co.uk poll http://www.pridelife.co.uk/article_detail.php?id=1003 Should Jan Moir be sacked?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 19, 2009)

SKy News report to watch and read


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 19, 2009)

Look at the front page of the Sky UK news site! It's the lead!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/UK-News

Does anyone know how to do a screen grab?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 19, 2009)

Print Screen, copy&paste onto a word document or something


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 19, 2009)

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?!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Look at the front page of the Sky UK news site! It's the lead!
> 
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/UK-News
> 
> Does anyone know how to do a screen grab?



See Prnt Scrn button on keyboard, prob above 'insert, home, page up. buttons. HIt ctrl + that and paste intop Paint or whatever prog you use.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 19, 2009)

Every 5Live news. Hour and half hour on Drive. Plus a piece/discussion between 4.30 and 5.00


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2009)

Made the 5 oclock bulletin on 6 music


----------



## Weller (Oct 19, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Look at the front page of the Sky UK news site! It's the lead!
> 
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/UK-News
> 
> Does anyone know how to do a screen grab?



http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1812/skys.jpg

Done it for you and uploaded it to imageshack 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


----------



## nick h. (Oct 19, 2009)

Radio 4 NOW!!!!!


----------



## nick h. (Oct 19, 2009)

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


----------



## Weller (Oct 19, 2009)

@ 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


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Radio 4 NOW!!!!!



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


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.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2009)

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.
> ...



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").


----------



## yardbird (Oct 19, 2009)

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.



Could also mention her incorrect use of the word 'decorous' .


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> I've had this from the PCC:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This for me too.  I brought up the general homophobia point under code no. 12 too so want to reply to my stock response.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 19, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> and from National Express - "passed to our Customer Relations Team").



I got the same


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2009)

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.


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?


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> and from National Express - "passed to our Customer Relations Team").




Isn't National Express Brian Souter?


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

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?



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....


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2009)

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.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

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.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Isn't National Express Brian Souter?



Nah, Souter runs Stagecoach and is well known for his views.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

stephj said:


> Nah, Souter runs Stagecoach. Well known for his views.



Ah yes.  That's okay then.  And yes, his well known views were why I was wondering...


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

nick h. said:


> <image of sky page removed>



Tries to resist looking at taskbar to see if there's anything dodgy open


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Right then. Going to spa....message the group with the letter text.

letters@dailymail.com isn't good enough. I want Paul Dacre's and Lord Rothermere's email  addresses.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

This is it appara. Thought it might be at associated

paul.dacre@dailymail.co.uk


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2009)

anyone know if these really are the tweets of the Chairman of the PCC Code of Practice comittee?


----------



## nick h. (Oct 19, 2009)

C4 News is doing it. The trailer had a 'whither freedom of speech' angle.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

nick h. said:


> C4 News is doing it. The trailer had a 'whither freedom of speech' angle.



*rubs hands*

They will go on and on about Twitter, not us


----------



## TheDave (Oct 19, 2009)

The 'old' media do suck at covering anything to do with the internet, they've basically latched on to twitter and Stephen Fry cuz it's easy.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Oct 19, 2009)

TheDave said:


> The 'old' media do suck at covering anything to do with the internet, they've basically latched on to twitter and Stephen Fry cuz it's easy.



He aint said anything about it since Friday lol


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Thanks for the add, Sweaty B x


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Thanks for the add, Sweaty B x



good to find you on there


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> This is it appara. Thought it might be at associated
> 
> paul.dacre@dailymail.co.uk



A year ago the addresses at the mailonsunday were 

firstname.surname@mailonsunday.co.uk so yours sounds as if it would be correct


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Channel 4 def doing soething after the break


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> *rubs hands*
> 
> They will go on and on about Twitter, not us



Oh no, not true. We are the voice of the people!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Bastards showed the 'Sack Moir' group, not ours 

We are not calling to silence her, are we? Are we?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Right Trashy - it's time to message the members with the letter text.

We have paul.dacre@dailymail.co.uk - that do it or cc to others? I need email addresses in that case


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Bastards showed the 'Sack Moir' group, not ours
> 
> We are not calling to silence her, are we? Are we?



And its all that nasty man Steven Fry's Fault


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Bastards showed the 'Sack Moir' group, not ours
> 
> We are not calling to silence her, are we? Are we?



No. I am not having anything to do with gagging (unless in the name of sex games)



5t3IIa said:


> Right Trashy - it's time to message the members with the letter text.
> 
> We have paul.dacre@dailymail.co.uk - that do it or cc to others? I need email addresses in that case



That'll do for now. Let's go for full on flood. Who we gonna cc? Moir? Could do I guess


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Oh, I'll just do him then


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Trashers - title for email _Letter to The Editor-pressure Dacre to retract_


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Trashers - title for email _Letter to The Editor-pressure Dacre to retract_


----------



## DeepStoat (Oct 19, 2009)

Dacre's a prize scumbag. Writing to him is a joke. He coordinates the opinions expressed in the mail.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

ANYONE WHO IS A MEMBER: you got event invite?


----------



## john x (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> They will go on and on about Twitter, not us



Who gives a fuck as long as it is being discussed? 

john x


----------



## clandestino (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> ANYONE WHO IS A MEMBER: you got event invite?



I didn't get one.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

ianw said:


> I didn't get one.



Cunting thing - I can't work out how to incite the group members 

Has it appeared in your feed?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Has it appeared in your feed?



It appeared in mine then disappeared


----------



## Belushi (Oct 19, 2009)

Now its reappeared!


----------



## Belushi (Oct 19, 2009)

It's come up as an event? 

Anyway, letter sent


----------



## clandestino (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Cunting thing - I can't work out how to incite the group members
> 
> Has it appeared in your feed?



Can't see it. When did you send the invite? I thought if the group is larger than 5000 people you can't send out invites any more. But you should be able to message everyone...?


----------



## clandestino (Oct 19, 2009)

What's the URL for the event? I'll just stick it in my status. Be easy to get loads of people doing that.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 19, 2009)

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=157849127778&ref=nf#/event.php?eid=157849127778&ref=nf


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2009)

Belushi said:


> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=157849127778&ref=nf#/event.php?eid=157849127778&ref=nf


I think I'm right in saying the print version was never called ‘Nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death’, it was called "A strange, lonely and troubling death" (it certainly was in the Scottish edition).  I think only the online article had that title.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 19, 2009)

.


----------



## clandestino (Oct 19, 2009)

That Moir/Princess Di article mentioned earlier on in the thread was a parody by the way. One of a few I've read...


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Added more email addresses


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

*Who tweets?*

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=157849127778


----------



## Strumpet (Oct 19, 2009)

On it.


Done.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2009)

Strumpet said:


> On it.



Tweet little bird


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 19, 2009)

stephj said:


> Nah, Souter runs Stagecoach and is well known for his views.



Right I am going to mount my own protest tomorrow, buy my usual ticket, but walk into town.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 19, 2009)

.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 19, 2009)

From what I gather.. the printed version has the "sad and lonely death" header.. while the online version had the " Nothing natural " heading... 

It was the online version that was changed... I could be wrong tho... but I'm sure I've seen that explanation in one of the links from other sites and newsagencies..


----------



## yardbird (Oct 19, 2009)

I'm starting to flag a bit and may crash out and come back later.
I just wanted to tell you that I sent a hand written letter to Paul Dacre (fountain pen, expensive paper and envelope. My handwriting is really good and an assistant would treat the envelope with care) recorded snail mail complaint to Dacre.
Wonder if it will be acknowledged.

Oh, and being a pedant, I complained about the incorrect use of 'decorous'


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Cunting thing - I can't work out how to *incite *the group members
> 
> Has it appeared in your feed?



heh


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Cunting thing - I can't work out how to incite the group members
> 
> Has it appeared in your feed?



Your thank you message took hours to get to me on facebook so be patient, young grasshopper. 





danny la rouge said:


> I think I'm right in saying the print version was never called ‘Nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death’, it was called "A strange, lonely and troubling death" (it certainly was in the Scottish edition).  I think only the online article had that title.




someone way earlier in the thread said something about the scottish version being different, but not, that I remember, mentioning the english print version....


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

ivebeenhigh said:


> heh



Oh perfect 

Thanks for tweeting!


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 19, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Your thank you message took hours to get to me on facebook so be patient, young grasshopper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From what I've heard from Scottish mail readers.. this is true.. Cannot confirm tho...


----------



## colacubes (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> *Who tweets?*
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=157849127778




Done


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 19, 2009)

http://gormano.blogspot.com/2009/10/jan-moir-and-all-that.html

Dave Gorman - rocking.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

updated

http://twitter.com/schofe/status/4921517945 this is good


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2009)

Blimey http://www.votemoir.com/


----------



## Strumpet (Oct 19, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://gormano.blogspot.com/2009/10/jan-moir-and-all-that.html
> 
> Dave Gorman - rocking.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 19, 2009)

Excellent blog by Dave there.  

And it has reminded me that I want to go see his show.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 19, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Blimey http://www.votemoir.com/



bigot 7.6% 
homophobe 7.7% 
*both 81.0% *
neither 3.7%


----------



## Mooncat (Oct 20, 2009)




----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 20, 2009)

Mooncat said:


>


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 20, 2009)

Dear Mr Dacre

I am writing to express my disgust at the horrible, bigoted, insensitive column which your paper published by Jan Moir on Friday 16th.
The timing was spectacularly cruel and intrusive , as the family, friends, mourners and fans of Mr Gately prepared for his funeral the following day. There was no distinguishing between conjecture, comment and facts - the title 'There was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death' is a clear breach of the PCC code to maintain standards of accuracy. Moir's opening salvo - that if a celebrity died young, it was more than likely due to 'a life that is shadowed by dark appetites or fractured by private vice' is particularly ludicrous, given that Gately died of natural causes. It was tasteless in the extreme to speculate inaccurately on the manner of a young man's tragic passing, in the process blithely ignoring the coroner's findings and inferring his grieving mother was a liar or covering up secret, 'sordid, sleazy' facts - again, this is a clear breach of the PCC Code, as you must know.

The arguments put forward by Moir were sloppy to the point of incoherence and the standards of journalism and sub-editing particularly poor (Moir used 'decorous' when she clearly meant 'decorative', for example). The inaccuracies continued. Moir claimed '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.Yes they do - as a moment's research would have told her; such is the tragedy of Sudden Adult Death syndrome, where young people, previously healthy suddently pass away, frequently due to an undiagnosed heart condition.

There is no 'myth' that all civil partnerships end in 'happy ever after', just as there is no myth that any marriage or indeed any other legal contract between people ends similarly, so this was a pointless 'straw man'. There was a clear intent to make a link between the suicide of one gay man who was addicted to drugs and had been in a civil partnership, and the untimely death due to natural causes of Mr Gately, who died of a pulmonary oedema. The implication - clear implication, not an 'undertone' - was that gay partnerships, enshrined in law, were likely to end badly, probably in death - Moir says raises 'troubling questions' to consider that two men in civil partnerships had died young - no, it doesn't, unless you are a bigot or homophobe or unable to apply logical reasoning, preferring to indulge in conspiracy theories and wild speculation.  The columnist also speculated that the presence of a third party in the flat contributed to the death in some way. Of course it didn't, any more than the presence of children sleeping or playing in a different room contributed to the death in her sleep of my friend's sister, who, like Mr Gately, went to sleep and never woke up, due to pulmonary oedema.

'For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see', writes Moir. But the plain fact is that pulmonary oedema can kill whether you have spent the waking day arranging flowers at church, doing a sponsored swim for charity or  cooking a meal for your young family. There is no other conclusion to draw from the dog-whistle language used by Moir - 'rented cottage' - 'sleazy' -'sordid' - 'myth of civil partnerships' - 'unnatural' - 'ooze' - and so on - other than that the writer holds bigoted and intolerant, and woefully inaccurate views about gay men and gay lifestyles that are homophobic, and entirely out of step with what tolerant, decent people believe.

By publishing such a foul article, you have badly misjudged your audience and upset your advertisers. Janet Street Porter's commendable column is not enough to repair the damage. 22,000  complaints to the PCC should be an indicator. Moir's response to the furore - to claim that she was a victim of a 'mischievous' 'orchestrated campaign', that few complainers had even read her column and to infer that only gay people were upset further confirms her bigotry and ignorance of British life today - has she no idea how social media works? No understanding of how out of step her views are, how offensive they are? The world has changed and if she cannot keep up, she should find a different job to the one she has. 

It is not possible to 'orchestrate' a viral reaction of such speed and fury, and across so many different demographics. The 22% increase in traffic to her page on your site gives the lie to the idea that few read what she wrote, for heaven's sake. And a quick browse of the profiles of the 29,000 plus facebook group members calling for the article to be retracted will show you that they comprise both men and women, straight and gay - mostly ABC1 and female in fact, the very target audience of the Mail. They are clear that they will never purchase the paper again, and many are busy writing to your advertisers even now to ask them not to support a paper that disseminates such prurient anti-gay inaccurate and cruel opinions.

The PCC makes it clear what you should do: honour the code's spirit and letter, retract, correct and apologise with due prominence.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards



Badger Kitten (Mrs)


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 20, 2009)

Even the Mail's Irish title isn't happy.....



> The Irish Daily Mail has attempted to distance itself from the Jan Moir's controversial column about the death of Stephen Gately, claiming it is "independent" of the UK edition of the paper.
> 
> Moir's column, which had prompted 22,000 complaints to the Press Complaints Commission by yesterday evening after she wrote that Gately's death "strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships", was not published in the Irish Daily Mail on Friday.



Irish Daily Mail disowns Jan Moir

_____



> Indeed, the Daily Telegraph obviously feels its publishing power undermined. It thinks Stephen Fry, with more than 850,000 Twitter followers is to blame. A link to the first tweets tries to prove something different.



This comment made me lol.  .......



> TV writer Joe Lidster tweeted: "Yes, Jan Mohr, the hatred for you was 'orchestrated' by the big gay who runs the internet. http://bit.ly/43TwMx"



Was Jan Moir Twitter outcry 'orchestrated'?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 20, 2009)

BK is chief big gay


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 20, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Even the Mail's Irish title isn't happy.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://wthashtag.com/transcript.php...&end_date=2009-10-18&tz=2:00&export_type=HTML

That's interesting but how are there tweets about Charlie's Brookers article when it was pubbed way after 11am? Are the times off?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 20, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> http://wthashtag.com/transcript.php...&end_date=2009-10-18&tz=2:00&export_type=HTML
> 
> That's interesting but how are there tweets about Charlie's Brookers article when it was pubbed way after 11am? Are the times off?



He tweeted about it before he published on the Guardian


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 20, 2009)

Jonny Harmsworth, Lord Rothermere's pile co-ordinates

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...99999,-2.09767&spn=0.005131,0.009624&t=h&z=17


----------



## Kanda (Oct 20, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> http://wthashtag.com/transcript.php...&end_date=2009-10-18&tz=2:00&export_type=HTML
> 
> That's interesting but how are there tweets about Charlie's Brookers article when it was pubbed way after 11am? Are the times off?



I thought Brookers article was put up in the evening?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 20, 2009)

I wouldn't bother writing to Dacre btw, he's probably loving the attention.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 20, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> I wouldn't bother writing to Dacre btw, he's probably loving the attention.



Any other ideas? Where is the retraction?


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 20, 2009)

Kanda said:


> I thought Brookers article was put up in the evening?


Interesting init. Brooker went live on the Guardian site at about 10.59am, his weekly article having been brought forward to address what Muir wrote - looks like he was probably writing it between about 9.30am and 10.30am. 

A surprising amout of  twittering about it between 3-4am, crazy Internetz people.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 20, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Any other ideas? Where is the retraction?



Write to paul.dacre@dailymail.co.uk; paul.carter@dailymail.co.uk; alex.bannister@dailymail.co.uk; martin.clarke@dailymail.co.uk; jon.steafel@dailymail.co.uk

You may like to direct some comments towards the Chief Executive of the newspaper's parent company, Daily Mail and General Trust plc, Martin Morgan. Appointed in 2007, he comes from an online publishing background
martin.morgan@dmgt.co.uk

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6872860.ece explains the natural cause of Mr Gately's death.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html is the PCC code


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> I wouldn't bother writing to Dacre btw, he's probably loving the attention.



And thus with that approach, nothing would ever change.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 20, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Any other ideas? Where is the retraction?



He's not going to retract, the regular daily mail readers probably agree with the article. He doesn't have to retract it.


----------



## strung out (Oct 20, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Interesting init. Brooker went live on the Guardian site at about 10.59am, his weekly article having been brought forward to address what Muir wrote - looks like he was probably writing it between about 9.30am and 10.30am.
> 
> A surprising amout of  twittering about it between 3-4am, crazy Internetz people.



brooker's guardian piece on moir only went on the guardian site at 5pm, after he wrote it about lunchtime. it was originally going to be published in yesterdays edition but got brought forward once the internet storm grew and grew. i'm guessing those timings you have are down to incorrect timezone settings on twitter.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 20, 2009)

strung_out said:


> brooker's guardian piece on moir only went on the guardian site at 5pm, after he wrote it about lunchtime. it was originally going to be published in yesterdays edition but got brought forward once the internet storm grew and grew. i'm guessing those timings you have are down to incorrect timezone settings on twitter.


That's even more interesting. It would certainly explain why twitter was so busy at what wasn't 3.30am.

I see Marty21 twittered at 04.31 by that measure, will be interesting to see what time he remembers doing that . . .


----------



## paolo (Oct 20, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> I wouldn't bother writing to Dacre btw, he's probably loving the attention.



Doubt it.

Either he'll be dealing with a clogged email box himself, which will be irritating, or he'll assign an assistant to do it. Which means they're either not doing "proper stuff" he'd normally have them do as an assistant, or they've been seconded from another role in the org in which case there'll be other staffers aware that resource is being drained into this cluster-fuck.

(And he can't simply delete everything en-masse, because in amongst it there _could_ be an email from someone of genuine influence to Dacre's world.)


----------



## john x (Oct 20, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> (And he can't simply delete everything en-masse, because in amongst it there _could_ be an email from someone of genuine influence to Dacre's world.)



Aghhh! 

Do people really believe that 'people of genuine influence' write to Paul Dacre (or anyone else!) at a publicly published e-mail address? 

paul.dacre@dailymail.co.uk is for the 'plebs'. Do you think anyone other than his assistant looks at it?

john x


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

And precisely what are you doing John to try and challenge homophobic and racist attitudes in our media/journalism?




Wait... don't tell me!


----------



## john x (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> And precisely what are you doing John to try and challenge homophobic and racist attitudes in our media/journalism?



Well certainly not writing e-mails to people who will never read them! 

john x


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 20, 2009)

Thanks again for your input John x!


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

john x said:


> Well certainly not writing e-mails to people who will never read them!



I'll take that as meaning 'sweet FA' then.


----------



## xes (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> I'll take that as meaning 'sweet FA' then.



or you can take it as "a fucking hell of alot more than most people"


----------



## john x (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> I'll take that as meaning 'sweet FA' then.



So not agreeing with one particular futile tactic means doing nothing?

Interesting logic! 

john x


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

john x said:


> So not agreeing with one particular futile tactic means doing nothing?



Well, if you've got the ideas....?


----------



## xes (Oct 20, 2009)

what do you suggest stephj?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

I was hoping from a suggestion from John X first. If he thinks that the current stuff is futile, then perhaps he can enlighten us as to what would be better? That's all I'm saying.


----------



## paolo (Oct 20, 2009)

john x said:


> Aghhh!
> 
> Do people really believe that 'people of genuine influence' write to Paul Dacre (or anyone else!) at a publicly published e-mail address?
> 
> ...



I've no doubt he has another email address.

The idea that *all* people of influence know it, is clearly rubbish though.

There isn't some national employment standard that says when you get promoted to a certain level, you will be sent Paul Dacre's private email address.

But that aside, my original point was to refute the idea that "he's loving the attention".

If he was really loving it, he'd now be banging the articles out daily, having discovered a winning formula.


----------



## Leafster (Oct 20, 2009)

It's being discussed on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 at the moment.


----------



## xes (Oct 20, 2009)

did I get the wrong end of the stick again?  (@ stephj)


Sorry, it's after lunch. I drink.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

xes said:


> did I get the wrong end of the stick again?  (@ stephj)



PM'd.


----------



## john x (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> I was hoping from a suggestion from John X first. If he thinks that the current stuff is futile, then perhaps he can enlighten us as to what would be better? That's all I'm saying.



Nobody is saying the current stuff is futile. I am saying that sending e-mails to someone who will never read them is a bit pointless as is signing a petition to 10 Downing street asking them to 'sack' Jan Moir.

Even making complaints to the PCC has a point even though they will probably not allow any of them and if they did, it wouldn't actually change much re the actual article. Having it as a matter of record, that the article in question generated more complaints than ever however, is important in both highlighting the issue publicly and possibly putting pressure on advertisers to think twice about where they advertise.

However abhorrent, the media only reflect what we think as a society. Nobody would publish an article promoting paedophilia in a national newspaper because it would be publically condemned by everyone. Jan Moir was able to express those views because a significant number of the British public agree with her.

The media will stop publishing stories like that when there is no longer an audience for them. Remember that next time you hear a casual homophobic remark and choose not to challenge it.

john x


----------



## yardbird (Oct 20, 2009)

Okay, I know this sounds silly or may have been suggested before, but there must be Mail insiders who feel like us.
A polite approach to Dacre by a few  sensible staff members might be interesting.
Of course I doubt if there are any with the nerve, but I bet there are quite a few  who are very pissed off with Moir.
But there's no way that any Mail employee is gay/has ever had a threesome/smoked a spliff is there?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

john x said:


> Remember that next time you hear a casual homophobic remark and choose not to challenge it.



Well, I actively challenge (even casual) homophobia (which I've been in receipt of more than a few times myself over the years ) and racism quite a lot thanks. It's cost me some 'friendships' in the past but I feel strongly about such things.


----------



## gosub (Oct 20, 2009)

Public PCC petition


More details from petition creator
Following the article in the Daily Mail on Friday 16th October by Jan Moir in relation to the death of Stephen Gately, the PCC received over 21,000 complaints; however the chairman the Code committee for the PCC is currently the editor of the Daily Mail Paul Dacre.

As the formula one boss Max Mosley said when giving evidence to the culture, media and sport committee at the House of Commons “"It's like putting the mafia in charge of the local police station. You can't let them regulate themselves."

The PCC was weakened by preferential treatment to the newspaper industry and it lacked sufficient powers to appropriately deal with cases. The government needs to abolish the current PCC and re launch the committee as a public body so the public can have faith in the PCC once again."
-------

not sure about the public body, but that is closer to the remit of government than getting Journos sacked (not that the government doesn't yank chains behind the scences), that should add to Mr Dacre considering his position.

see Paul Dacre 's twitter page is rising up his google.whose been playing metatags?


----------



## gosub (Oct 20, 2009)

Alistar Cambell's unnavigable blog has been on the trash too (about three different pieces) from the latest



where has Mail Obergruppenfuhrer Paul Dacre been as this storm has engulfed his paper? He is always front of queue when it comes to lecturing others on leadership, and yet what has his response been as 21,000 complaints - mine not included I should say as I have no faith in the PCC whatever - have flooded into the Press Complaints Commission? It has been to get Moir to cobble together the ludicrous statement of a few days ago, and to get Janet Street-Porter to pen a 'why oh why did Jan write that piece?' piece in yesterday's paper, while keeping his own sweet head well below the parapet.

The PCC has at least shifted from its original line, that it could only investigate if the subject of the article made a complaint. Stephen Gately was doubtless highly talented, but I'm not sure those talents extend to making a complaint to the PCC from beyond the grave.

Now, the PCC have asked the Mail for their comments. That should be a cosy little chat. Mail Obergruppenfuhrer Dacre can sit down for tea and biscuits with the PCC Code committee chairman, Oberkomiteepresident .... er, Paul Dacre.

Ludicrous. Surely even he realises his chances of that Knighthood for services to journalism are thin.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2009)

christian voice is even more insensitive than moir:
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press133.html


----------



## trashpony (Oct 20, 2009)

gosub said:


> Public PCC petition
> 
> 
> More details from petition creator
> ...



Dave Gorman's blog is quite good on this (I know BK linked above but in case you missed it)


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> christian voice is even more insensitive than moir:
> http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press133.html


No surprises there, then.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2009)

anyways, i haven't read all this, but what's with all these strident calls for retraction?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> anyways, i haven't read all this, but what's with all these strident calls for retraction?






here is a good place to start


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> here is a good place to start




i was asking why there's now a campaign to get moir or her employers to now retract the article?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 20, 2009)

Have you been asleep for the last 4 days? It's all over the news, the internet, everywhere.

It's not hard. Google ''Jan Moir''. Put ''Jan Moir'' into Google news. Or Google blogs.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2009)

i know what she said in her column and i'm aware of the twitterised baying mob calling for her blood. but there's now a new campaign, it seems, to get moir to retract her arsedribblings or to get her bosses to do so. this is what confuses me, as it's pointless.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 20, 2009)

The campaign you refer to started on Friday morning, the day the article came out.

See PCC code for what editors are meant to do when they publish inaccurate and misleading things - retract, and apologise. The Mail signed up to that code. Hell, Paul Dacre is the Chair of people who have signed up to it.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> christian voice is even more insensitive than moir:
> http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press133.html



Isn't Christian Voice just a one-man (i.e Stephen Green) mission?


----------



## gosub (Oct 20, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> The campaign you refer to started on Friday morning, the day the article came out.
> 
> See PCC code for what editors are meant to do when they publish inaccurate and misleading things - retract, and apologise. The Mail signed up to that code. Hell, *Paul Dacre is the Chair of people who have signed up to it*.



At the moment


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> Isn't Christian Voice just a one-man (i.e Stephen Green) mission?


Yes, he's the Christian version of Anjem Choudary. With even fewer followers.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2009)

Leafster said:


> It's being discussed on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 at the moment.



Can someone more patient than I about Jeremy Vine's outrageous bigot-magnettery give some sort of outline of what's going on with this programme?

(I can never bear to listen to his prog. Whenever I have in the past, I've found that the vast majority of people who phone in are ignorant right wing fuckwits, although I guess it might? be different this time)

Cheers


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2009)

danny la rouge said:
			
		

> I've also had replies from the Observer - "she last worked for us in 2008",



I was going to pick up on this. When I did a quick and dirty search --under 'Jan Moir' -- of the Guardian/Observer sites earlier, I found NO article written by Jan Moir dated more recently than 2008. She was only a pretty occasional contributor anyway in my imperfect memory.

So one or two passing suggestions much earlier in the thread that Jan Moir was still on the Guardian's/Observer's books were in fact badly out of date as danny seems to have confirmed ...


----------



## Leafster (Oct 20, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Can someone more patient than I about Jeremy Vine's outrageous bigot-magnettery give some sort of outline of what's going on with this programme?
> 
> (I can never bear to listen to his prog. Whenever I have in the past, I've found that the vast majority of people who phone in are ignorant right wing fuckwits, although I guess it might? be different this time)
> 
> Cheers


TBH, I've never listened to it before. I also have to admit that I wasn't paying full attention when the topic was discussed today and wasn't able to listen to all of it. The bits I did hear seemed to relate to others recounting instances of sudden death syndrome as opposed to any other aspect of the Moir article.

It's probably available to listen to on Listen Again (or what ever it's called). It should be about an hour into the programme.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 20, 2009)

A couple of links that you non-organising organisers might like to contribute to - before someone else steals your thunder ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/oct/19/twitter-orchestrated-campaign-jan-moir
http://helpmeinvestigate.com/invest...-janmoir-jan-moir-campaign#inserted_challenge


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2009)

>>Leafster : Cheers ... I'll let someone else take that burden on I think ... I'm far too Vine-o-phobic ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> i know what she said in her column and i'm aware of the twitterised *baying mob* calling for her blood. but there's now a new campaign, it seems, to get moir to retract her arsedribblings or to get her bosses to do so. this is what confuses me, as it's pointless.



Nice provocative turn of phrase there ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2009)

well there is something rather unseemly about it. there's a lot of sanctimony in the air at the moment.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 20, 2009)

There is now a demo being planned for outside the Mail's offices, with nearly 500 people saying they will attend (via the Facebook group).

There is also a BBC journalist on the Facebook group asking people to contact her to be interviewed about it. Any takers?


----------



## nick h. (Oct 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> twitterised baying mob calling for her blood





temper_tantrum said:


> There is now a demo being planned for outside the Mail's offices



How prescient of Orang Utan! 

I hope the mob will add another freedom of speech angle to the mix with a few c-words on their banners.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 20, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> There is now a demo being planned for outside the Mail's offices, with nearly 500 people saying they will attend (via the Facebook group).



I want to see Muir's stupid head on a spike before the end of the week. That'll learn her about unnatural deaths.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> well there is something rather unseemly about it. there's a lot of sanctimony in the air at the moment.



And no sanctimony in Jan Moir's original article?

I know you're not suggesting that, or defending her, really, but your reaction seems to me to be a case of false equivalence.

As if the online reaction to what Jan Moir wrote is somehow equally objectionable to the article itself.

I really don't get why a widely shared antipathy to blatant homophobia can be dismissed as 'sanctimony' 

You might have a point about this anti Moir campaign if being of limited _effectiveness_, but that's different surely ....


----------



## berniedicters (Oct 20, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Have you been asleep for the last 4 days? It's all over the news, the internet, everywhere.
> 
> It's not hard. Google ''Jan Moir''. Put ''Jan Moir'' into Google news. Or Google blogs.


He's doing his grumpy old buffer impressions, BK, I shouldn't pay it too much attention... "


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> And no sanctimony in Jan Moir's original article?
> 
> I know you're not suggesting that, or defending her, really, but your reaction seems to me to be a case of false equivalence.
> 
> ...


i just don't see how moir can retract the article. she obviously meant what she said, so if she were to retract, it wouldn't be sincere. 
re: the point about sanctimony - maybe that was the wrong word to employ but there's certainly a whiff of it in many people's posts and published articles. i'm not keen on people thinking they're the bees knees and slapping themselves on the back for being tireless anti-prejudice campaigners just cos they've joined a facebook group.


----------



## john x (Oct 20, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Have you been asleep for the last 4 days?



That is the problem with this thread. 

While no doubt a noble cause and an interesting case of how quickly information can be spread and campaign organised over the internet, there _are_ other things going on in the world.

While I can understand people getting over-excited when stuff like this happens, there does seem to be a disturbing tendency to turn on anyone who isn't caught up in that excitement and accuse them of everything from being unsupportive of the to cause to being in league with the forces of homophobia.

People who have spoken from a position of practical experience with the media have been shouted down for being unduly negative, and people who have pointed out the irony of misogynist attacks on Jan Moir on an anti-homophobic thread, have been told not to spoil the party and to go elsewhere. 

Jan Moir should be criticised because she is a bigot, _not_ because she is a woman. What place do sentiments like 'Burn the Witch' 'fat bitch' and 'She is a cunt and a bitch' have on a thread opposing homophobia?

And while in no way questioning the sincerity of most of those on this thread who have participated in the 'campaign', there is a certain amount of 'look at me! I am wonderful' going on, that does make one wonder.

john x


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 20, 2009)

1. Orang Outang was asking what had happened; well how about reading the thread he was commenting on?

2. How interesting that you see 'backslapping' John X. I don't see that at all. I do see people being pleased by the extraordinary response. And rightly so, why not?

Also this: 'While I can understand people getting over-excited when stuff like this happens, there does seem to be a disturbing tendency to turn on anyone who isn't caught up in that excitement and accuse them of everything from being unsupportive of the to cause to being in league with the forces of homophobia'.

Any actual examples of this? Or are you just projecting stuff?

3. 'Jan Moir should be criticised because she is a bigot, not because she is a woman. What place do sentiments like 'Burn the Witch' 'fat bitch' and 'She is a cunt and a bitch' have on a thread opposing homophobia?' Quite agree, however, I can't control what other people say or write. In a large group of people, soem will swear and say bad things.

4. Finally, for all the carping from a few people, I stand by the fact that I think this is an extraordinary thing that is happening. The advertisers have pulled - a first. The Mail's standard bigotry and homophobia is being widely discussed and challenged. Thousands and thousands of people have spoken out against it. Media commentators, publishers, journalists, advertisers, marketers are all taking notice. If people with self-claimed 'media expertise' haven't noticed that this is a big industry/media story, I'm genuinely surprised. Because it is.

Nobody is saying it is the only thing in the world, so don't try that straw man. And if it doesn't interest you, feel free to go and read/do something else.


----------



## john x (Oct 20, 2009)

Originally Posted by *Badger Kitten*

1. Orang Outang was asking what had happened; well how about reading the thread he was commenting on?
_
The thread I've posted over 50 times on?
_
2. How interesting that you see 'backslapping' John X. I don't see that at all. I do see people being pleased by the extraordinary response. And rightly so, why not?

_Being pleased is one thing, saying 'look at me I'm wonderful' does make you wonder._

Also this: 'While I can understand people getting over-excited when stuff like this happens, there does seem to be a disturbing tendency to turn on anyone who isn't caught up in that excitement and accuse them of everything from being unsupportive of the to cause to being in league with the forces of homophobia'.

Any actual examples of this? Or are you just projecting stuff?

_Plenty of examples in the last 40 pages or so._

3. 'Jan Moir should be criticised because she is a bigot, not because she is a woman. What place do sentiments like 'Burn the Witch' 'fat bitch' and 'She is a cunt and a bitch' have on a thread opposing homophobia?' Quite agree, however, I can't control what other people say or write. In a large group of people, soem will swear and say bad things.

_Nobody is saying you can control it. The point I was making was about how these comments went largely unchallenged on a thread about homophobia._

4. Finally, for all the carping from a few people, I stand by the fact that I think this is an extraordinary thing that is happening. The advertisers have pulled - a first. The Mail's standard bigotry and homophobia is being widely discussed and challenged. Thousands and thousands of people have spoken out against it. Media commentators, publishers, journalists, advertisers, marketers are all taking notice. If people with self-claimed 'media expertise' haven't noticed that this is a big industry/media story, I'm genuinely surprised. Because it is.
_
Nobody is disagreeing with that. _

Nobody is saying it is the only thing in the world, so don't try that straw man. And if it doesn't interest you, feel free to go and read/do something else.

_Kind of proves my point_

john x


----------



## Pie 1 (Oct 20, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Have you been asleep for the last 4 days?



Well I have been away being busy & missed it all going postal until this morning. Last I saw was a little bit of a stir on friday.
I'm not interested enough tbh, to read all the in & outs, but from my uninformed fence, it does rather seem that your FB page, all the twittering & whatever else have done exactly what everyone was lambasting the DM for doing over Brand & Ross. I don't know what your position on that was personally BK,  but this whole thing smacks of the same outrage by proxy as that one. I'm kinda with OU on this.
(The Guardian's looking very silly as well imo, it's glee at some juicy "payback" reporting, barely hidden)


----------



## XR75 (Oct 20, 2009)

john x said:


> While I can understand people getting over-excited when stuff like this happens, there does seem to be a disturbing tendency to turn on anyone who isn't caught up in that excitement and accuse them of everything from being unsupportive of the to cause to being in league with the forces of homophobia.



Gay Diana springs to mind.


----------



## john x (Oct 20, 2009)

XR75 said:


> Gay Diana springs to mind.



What it reminds me of is the car thief in america who was caught after the owner of the stolen car posted on a car enthusiast website. 

The search went global and the guy was eventually caught. A couple of people on here linked to it (pK was definitely one of them) and got very excited. When someone pointed out the amount of racist, homophobic, misogynist and anti-disabled shit that polluted the thread (the car enthusiast web-site was mainly used by white, teenage boys) they were shouted down among claims that this was the greatest thing in the history of the internet.

While the 'Jan Moir campaign' is infinitely more worthy than one which basically returned a stolen car to some dodgy car dealer, there is a certain similarity in the 'tolerate no criticism' aspects of both cases.

john x


----------



## gosub (Oct 20, 2009)

Both Stephen Gately's husband and his mother have spoken publically about his death.

Google currently associates 120 articles with that, 810 with Jan Moir's article, just from today


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 20, 2009)

john x said:


> What it reminds me of is the car thief in america who was caught after the owner of the stolen car posted on a car enthusiast website.
> 
> The search went global and the guy was eventually caught. A couple of people on here linked to it (pK was definitely one of them) and got very excited. When someone pointed out the amount of racist, homophobic, misogynist and anti-disabled shit that polluted the thread (the car enthusiast web-site was mainly used by white, teenage boys) they were shouted down among claims that this was the greatest thing in the history of the internet.
> 
> ...



You mean you said you thought calling moir a bitch was sexist and someone else disagreed with you and everyone else just got on with what they were doing rather than have the thread derailed by an argument that's been had over and over again elsewhere. 

Personally I have no problem with her being called a bitch.  I don't find it sexist. It is insulting, but it is meant to be.  Burn the witch stuff is just childish and I've not much time for it but not bothered by it really.  It's not like it was said in sincerity. 

This has been a pretty thoughtful thread.  Yes there has been a lot of buoyed up enthusiasm which has carried it along.  That doesn't mean people aren't aware that results might be limited and some actions might be of less use than others, but for example nick h voiced his scepticism and retracted later when he saw the results.   We don't know what will come out of this. We're trying to go as far as we can with what we have. Nothing wrong with a little optimism and enthusiasm.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 20, 2009)

I think it's very easy to sit back and read a thread like this from start to finish and conclude it's self-congratulatory. I think it's more amazement that so many people were as appalled by the article and we were all galvanised by a need to do something. I've had the Mary Whitehouse argument on another board and tbh I don't think it really holds water. But of course you're all entitled to your opinion. I think the article crossed a line and made statements which were blatantly untrue and it was horribly homophobic. I don't want to read that kind of crap in any national paper. And I don't think the fact that she was 'expressing an opinion' is a valid challenge. If were okay for everyone to use our public media to express whatever twisted views they happened to hold, no one would have an issue with Nick Griffen going on Question Time. Or the National Front could have their own TV channel because it's just expressing their views. I believe that freedom of speech should be balanced by freedom for individuals from all sectors of the community to live their lives without abuse being hurled at them because of their sexuality/race/religion/gender, whether that be face to face, on print, on tv or on the internet.


----------



## TAE (Oct 20, 2009)

Newspaper said:


> 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.


He was not healthy. He died from natural causes. 

Sadly, yes, seemingly healthy people do go to sleep on the sofa - never to wake up again. It happens.

Strange article.


----------



## berniedicters (Oct 20, 2009)

I think that the initial phase of the campaign has run its course - those who speculate about retractions, etc. are, I suspect a small minority. All this really was, to start with, was a huge collective "Oi, you can't say that!", and as such it has been enormously successful. 

I think that whatever is done now needs to be seen as a separate achievement building on that base - a record number of complaints to the PCC, and a real demonstration of the power of the Internet as a communications medium that can "talk back" to the Press and make our views known. Forcefully.

The DM might secretly delight in the notoriety, and, from watching a little group of people whom I know think that way, I can say that they have said what a lot of their core audience really wants to hear, and I expect they know it. The price they have paid in overall credibility was presumably, from their point of view, worth it to be able to set the cause of equality and diversity back another notch amongst their supporters.

And I can't think that there's anything to be gained from hoping this woman gets the sack, either: the DM can no doubt line up 5 more to replace her without breaking step.

No, I think the only thing that may bave been achieved as far as the DM is concerned is that they now know the 'net has teeth.

On the other hand, the huge benefit of this massive faux pas by the Mail, and the backlash that has resulted is the awareness among more and more people of just how nasty and reactionary the views of the Daily Mail , and therefore those whose opinions are represented by it, are. That's a lesson I don't think we can see too often - there are too many people who see the DM as a bit of a loony, but innocuous in a Colonel Blimp kind of way, kind of Middle England Tory rallying mag. The truth is that it's a bit nastier than that, so I'm more than pleased to see them doing a fine job of making that clear.

But  think that's all the outcome we can reasonably hope for - anything else is probably going to need a lot of work.

I'd like the PCC's status to be very carefully looked at in the light of this - no newspaper should have ever thought it would be appropriate to publish material quite so obviously in breach of their Code. Perhaps Dacre might like to ponder on a conflict of interest here...?


----------



## kained&able (Oct 20, 2009)

I'm really not liking how the guardain especially have jumped all over this and are having diggs at the mail at every opportunity.

Makes them look petty.


dave


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 20, 2009)

That element of their readership who only read the hard copy of the DM could still be quite unaware of the 'story' - certainly the small number of DM readers I know who I spoke with seemed completely unmoved either by the reaction or the initial piece.. 

It seems to me for an impact to be made above the great strides made through BK etc. (and this isn't meant to detract from what everyone has done) the printed paper needs to publish something more prominent than the Janet Street Porter article?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

trashpony said:


> I believe that freedom of speech should be balanced by freedom for individuals from all sectors of the community to live their lives without abuse being hurled at them because of their sexuality/race/religion/gender, whether that be face to face, on print, on tv or on the internet.



This

The Moir article went one further in a newspaper that already has a very poor attitude to race/gender/sexuality/class/religion. The Fail constantly places itself on what it considers to be a 'moral high-ground' pedestal, constantly accusing every group that it has in its sights. Calling it out in such a way, is not only right, but way overdue.


----------



## electrogirl (Oct 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> well there is something rather unseemly about it. there's a lot of sanctimony in the air at the moment.



I've stayed away fromthis thread but I kind of agree. I think the article is disgusting, but I think it's all getting a bit 'LOOK HOW OUTRAGED I AM! ME! I am SO OUTRAGED!'


----------



## berniedicters (Oct 20, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> I've stayed away fromthis thread but I kind of agree. I think the article is disgusting, but I think it's all getting a bit 'LOOK HOW OUTRAGED I AM! ME! I am SO OUTRAGED!'


There's always going to be some of that, yes. And by its nature, it'll tend to be more visible than the situations where someone quietly says "Bloody hell, that's disgraceful" but doesn't choose to post all over the web saying so.

Perhaps a handful of people are grandstanding their way around the FB group, now. But there's 10,000+ people in that group...so the vast majority aren't doing what you describe.

The same goes for this thread. I've been quite impressed with the thoughtfulness of the debate, which has been in quite marked contrast to the few people who are behaving somewhat attention-seekingly and annoyingly in the way you describe.


----------



## nick h. (Oct 20, 2009)

The ends justify the means. A bit of 'Look at Me' is a small price to pay for effecting a change in the editorial policy of the Mail. As one of its former writers I honestly believe this campaign could achieve that, so long as nobody discredits it with SHAC-style stupidity.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 20, 2009)

I hope that things change as a result of the unprecedented level of complaints. I want the PCC to investigate and for a House committee to explore why the PCC isn't a public body and challenge that. Ideally, I would like the PCC to become a public body and to investigate complaints about the press in the same way Ofcom do about broadcast media. It's a bizarre system in this country that print isn't subject to the same rules and regulations as other media. 

The other thing that has been interesting about this is the battle between old media and new media. New media has totally changed the geography of the way people absorb and share information and the DM failed to understand that I suspect. 

I'm delighted that so many people haven't affected a faux ennui about the issue - without them getting off their arses and making their voices heard, there wouldn't have been so many complaints and, without them, the PCC would never have issued the statement they did.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 20, 2009)

nick h. said:


> The ends justify the means. A bit of 'Look at Me' is a small price to pay for effecting a change in the editorial policy of the Mail. As one of its former writers I honestly believe this campaign could achieve that, so long as nobody discredits it with SHAC-style stupidity.



I didn't know that! So, care to dish any dirt? Is there any dirt? I'm slightly (weirdly) fascinated just what goes on inside the Daily Fail machine!


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 20, 2009)

Pie 1 said:


> ...the twittering & whatever else have done exactly what everyone was lambasting the DM for doing over Brand & Ross...this whole thing smacks of the same outrage by proxy as that one. I'm kinda with OU on this.
> (The Guardian's looking very silly as well imo, it's glee at some juicy "payback" reporting, barely hidden)



Looking at the reaction, it looks like genuine outrage, not outrage by proxy to me. For the timing as much as the content - the eve of a man's funeral. Sure, the Mail's been foul for years and I'm sure there's an element of schadenfreude in some people in seeing it get hoist by its own petard. But why do you think people are manufacturing outrage? The initial response can be seen on the Mail's very own website, within an hour of it being published in the early hours of the morning, Mail commenters were voicing revulsion. Then peopel started to twitter it, then it started to spead. I read the whole first 4 hours of twitter with the janmoir tag and all I saw was genuine 'OMG it's FOUL!  can't believe it' type reaction.

There's a lot of stuff in _Media_ Guardian, but that is a huge section and TBF it is a huge _Media_ story. And it brings in celebrity controversy as well, which is why it went nuclear. 



gosub said:


> Both Stephen Gately's husband and his mother have spoken publically about his death.
> 
> Google currently associates 120 articles with that, 810 with Jan Moir's article, just from today



Well, yes, but that is because the Moir thing has gone on since Friday and the mother speaking and the partner speaking only happened today. And they're straight reportage, whereas the Moir thing is a) opinion/reaction/debate AND b) reportage of a developing story - Moir's reaction, the number of complaints, the reaction of the Irish Mail, etc etc. 




trashpony said:


> I think it's very easy to sit back and read a thread like this from start to finish and conclude it's self-congratulatory. I think it's more amazement that so many people were as appalled by the article and we were all galvanised by a need to do something. I've had the Mary Whitehouse argument on another board and tbh I don't think it really holds water. But of course you're all entitled to your opinion. I think the article crossed a line and made statements which were blatantly untrue and it was horribly homophobic. I don't want to read that kind of crap in any national paper. And I don't think the fact that she was 'expressing an opinion' is a valid challenge. If were okay for everyone to use our public media to express whatever twisted views they happened to hold, no one would have an issue with Nick Griffen going on Question Time. Or the National Front could have their own TV channel because it's just expressing their views. I believe that freedom of speech should be balanced by freedom for individuals from all sectors of the community to live their lives without abuse being hurled at them because of their sexuality/race/religion/gender, whether that be face to face, on print, on tv or on the internet.



^^ this



agnesdavies said:


> I think that the initial phase of the campaign has run its course - those who speculate about retractions, etc. are, I suspect a small minority. All this really was, to start with, was a huge collective "Oi, you can't say that!", and as such it has been enormously successful.
> 
> I think that whatever is done now needs to be seen as a separate achievement building on that base - a record number of complaints to the PCC, and a real demonstration of the power of the Internet as a communications medium that can "talk back" to the Press and make our views known. Forcefully.
> 
> ...



^^^ this as well.


----------



## nick h. (Oct 20, 2009)

stephj said:


> I didn't know that! So, care to dish any dirt? Is there any dirt? I'm slightly (weirdly) fascinated just what goes on inside the Daily Fail machine!



Hmmm.  You'll have to wait for my book. The walls have ears.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 20, 2009)

I definitely think that there is a bigger issue here regarding the PCC and would like to see a light shone in that direction.  It's finding the best way to do that that is the question.

Are there anyself-appointed existing bodies (argh mary whitehouse flashback) which monitor print media, other than on single issues?


----------



## kained&able (Oct 20, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Are there anyself-appointed existing bodies (argh mary whitehouse flashback) which monitor print media, other than on single issues?



The vatican?


dave


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 20, 2009)

Can't we just get the BBC or CH4 to do some investigative journalism into the self-regulation print media enjoys? It's (in)effectiveness, comparison to ofcom, etc.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 20, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Can't we just get the BBC or CH4 to do some investigative journalism into the self-regulation print media enjoys? It's (in)effectiveness, comparison to ofcom, etc.



I wouldn't be surprised if ideas are already being discussed.


----------



## malice (Oct 20, 2009)

ok, here's my two-penny's worth. The bullying internet argument doesn't work because no one is saying she shouldn't be allowed to say what she thinks, just that she shouldn't be able to say it unchallenged. Free speech isn't a woolly "everyone's entitled to their opinion and everyone's valid" point of view it's that everyone says their opinion, then you have a good old barny about it, and you get to see which argument has holes. And the point is her argument has big old, factual, opinion-based and snide underhand holes, and some good responses have shown those holes (and shown what a shoddy publication the mail is for allowing them to be published). Does that makes sense?

Also, as an aside, not only did she use decorous wrong, if she was saying he was decorative, a "posh spice" of boyzone,  she was wrong - he was more a mel b - he did quite a lot of lead vocals. Shows again what a crap, poorly research article it was.

ho hum, not sure this is all that relevant


----------



## berniedicters (Oct 20, 2009)

malice said:


> ok, here's my two-penny's worth. The bullying internet argument doesn't work because no one is saying she shouldn't be allowed to say what she thinks, just that she shouldn't be able to say it unchallenged. Free speech isn't a woolly "everyone's entitled to their opinion and everyone's valid" point of view it's that everyone says their opinion, then you have a good old barny about it, and you get to see which argument has holes. And the point is her argument has big old, factual, opinion-based and snide underhand holes, and some good responses have shown those holes (and shown what a shoddy publication the mail is for allowing them to be published). Does that makes sense?
> 
> Also, as an aside, not only did she use decorous wrong, if she was saying he was decorative, a "posh spice" of boyzone,  she was wrong - he was more a mel b - he did quite a lot of lead vocals. Shows again what a crap, poorly research article it was.
> 
> ho hum, not sure this is all that relevant



It is relevant, yes. It's a good description of what the protest over the page was really about - there is a tendency by those who are maybe more sympathetic to her arguments to try and undermine the opposition - "the gay lobby", "the bullying internet" - rather than stand up and defend the article. Because even they know that it was an indefensible bit of rabble-rousing nonsense built on surmise and conjecture: and they loved it for all that.


----------



## gosub (Oct 20, 2009)

"no one is saying she shouldn't be allowed to say what she thinks, just that she shouldn't be able to say it unchallenged."

if by that you mean subs or editors, saying "we can't print this", fair enough. 
That doesn't even need the PCC code changing,


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 20, 2009)

The thing is, this, in itself changes nothing at all. The Mail doesn't care, they get this every now and then and they just ride it out. They don't get it that often because the magic combination of astoundingly obvious insensitivity, celebrity and mass adoption as an Internet Thing don't coincide that often. They also know that the _really_ offensive stuff they publish never gets that sort of stick because they balance it so that there are enough bigots who will agree; this was just a balance failure on their part, an editor's mistake.

The PCC doesn't care, they get it quite frequently and they're an entirely pointless body which couldn't do anything significant even if it wanted to, which it doesn't. I would say that the only real positive effect that might come out of this is that people realise how completely useless they are.


----------



## nick h. (Oct 20, 2009)

I was hoping this 'single article' campaign might be the birth of a sizeable pressure group which responds to all the fascism in the Mail, every day.


----------



## gosub (Oct 20, 2009)

I think the Press do care, they have gone very quiet this afternoon only First Post and Stern doing articles, I think thats coz they would rather the notion of PCC reform went away.  Trouble is new media has built connects to the other Estates and if a conserted effort IS made they could have a problem

eta  as Brendan O'Neill says "The end result of this twitch-hunt could well be an even bossier PCC"  As merely a consumer of media I'm not sure that isn't just pompous outrage


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 20, 2009)

I think there may have been more people publishing articles than that. I see the BBC front page is full of them for instance.


----------



## gosub (Oct 20, 2009)

Could be, google news as a tool is a bit of a blunt instrument


ETA unless you are being facitious - I accept a lot of other news has been happening today, but not enough for every news desk to have moved away.

I could be wrong, but think it is a position worth considering


----------



## rollinder (Oct 21, 2009)

got a reply from m&s today -
"Dear Ms .........,

Thank you for your email.

At  M&S we do not tolerate any form of discrimination against a person.

We have contacted the Daily Mail and asked for our advertisement to be removed.

Many thanks again for contacting us about this matter"

and apparently this has made it to Wales - 
was on an S4C news/discussion programme this afternoon, according to my mum (watching with english subs) they mentioned Facebook and Twitter, the Mail article attacking it, and that she's blaming it all on Stephen Fry.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

I hope you put her right.


----------



## rollinder (Oct 21, 2009)

^ Jan Moir I think (not my mum lol)


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

Oh.  

In that case do give your mother my best regards.   I hope she's well and her bunions aren't playing up.


----------



## rollinder (Oct 21, 2009)

seriously, my mum's an occasional Mail buyer and not the most approving of the "homosexual lifestyle" but even she agrees that the article shouldn't have been written.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

tell her to write in.


----------



## rollinder (Oct 21, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> tell her to write in.



tried that - she just said "you're the one with the email addresses, send a letter from both of us"


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 21, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is, this, in itself changes nothing at all. The Mail doesn't care, they get this every now and then and they just ride it out. They don't get it that often because the magic combination of astoundingly obvious insensitivity, celebrity and mass adoption as an Internet Thing don't coincide that often. They also know that the _really_ offensive stuff they publish never gets that sort of stick because they balance it so that there are enough bigots who will agree; this was just a balance failure on their part, an editor's mistake.
> 
> The PCC doesn't care, they get it quite frequently and they're an entirely pointless body which couldn't do anything significant even if it wanted to, which it doesn't. I would say that the only real positive effect that might come out of this is that people realise how completely useless they are.




Well to anybody paying attention the papery tiger nature of the PCC has been obvious for a fucking long time.

If retractions and apologies were forced to be of the same length and word count as original articles, that would be a start. Rather than brief 'sorry lol' tiny chunk just before the adverts for sex lines about GILFS and dickgirls.

Yes I am looking at YOU, The Sun!

s


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2009)

Be fair, not even Offcom do that, BBC2 complaint night after Jerry Springer would have been very strange.


----------



## Pie 1 (Oct 21, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is, this, in itself changes nothing at all. The Mail doesn't care, they get this every now and then and they just ride it out. They don't get it that often because the magic combination of astoundingly obvious insensitivity, celebrity and mass adoption as an Internet Thing don't coincide that often. They also know that the _really_ offensive stuff they publish never gets that sort of stick because they balance it so that there are enough bigots who will agree; this was just a balance failure on their part, an editor's mistake.
> 
> The PCC doesn't care, they get it quite frequently and they're an entirely pointless body which couldn't do anything significant even if it wanted to, which it doesn't. I would say that the only real positive effect that might come out of this is that people realise how completely useless they are.



This.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 21, 2009)

Yeah

*wiggles backwards*


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 21, 2009)

Group still growing...

Monday 8.20am - 24,942
Monday 6.30pm - 27,539
Tuesday 8.23am - 29,164
Tuesday 6pm - 30,409
Wednesday 8am - 31,414 (up 2 in the time it took to post this)


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 21, 2009)

Still 4th and 5th most read on Graun


4  Charlie Brooker | Why there was nothing 'human' about Jan Moir's column on the death of Stephen Gately
5  Jan Moir: more than 22,000 complain to PCC over Stephen Gately piece


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

> I believe that freedom of speech should be balanced by freedom for individuals from all sectors of the community to live their lives without abuse being hurled at them because of their sexuality/race/religion/gender, whether that be face to face, on print, on tv or on the internet.



Ho ho! And who is going to get to decide what constitutes offensive? Would that be offensive by your subjective standard, or by someone elses, say a Christian, a red-red socialist or a conservative Muslim? 

The 'free speech must have limits which are nice' argument is bollocks, quite frankly. Sorry.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 21, 2009)

gosub said:


> Could be, google news as a tool is a bit of a blunt instrument
> 
> 
> ETA unless you are being facitious - I accept a lot of other news has been happening today, but not enough for every news desk to have moved away.
> ...



Oh, I see what you mean I think; no, there aren't many articles _about Jan Moir_. That's hardly "gone very quiet" - why would there be? People get angry about awful Mail story, Mail doesn't retract story, PCC does nothing - it's not news. The only reason it was there in the first place really is because of the use of Twitter and the novelty of that will wear off soon.


----------



## newbie (Oct 21, 2009)

yes, i think it's very important that writers are free to publish stuff which causes offence 

of course it's equally important that those offended should bite back.

far better people are offended and respond in kind than there are restrictions on the causing of offence- whether through the rich using libel to silence critics or the religious citing blasphemy or issuing a fatwah or some sort of censorship on the grounds of taste.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

newbie said:


> yes, i think it's very important that writers are free to publish stuff which causes offence
> 
> of course it's equally important that those offended should bite back.
> 
> far better people are offended and respond in kind than there are restrictions on the causing of offence- whether through the rich using libel to silence critics or the religious citing blasphemy or issuing a fatwah or some sort of censorship on the grounds of taste.



Exactly - the importance is in the ability to have the discourse itself. Reformation of the libel laws, and some form of compulsion to print answerback/make a big deal out of apologies on the part of newspapers would be a good way of re-balancing things, and also ensuring that no one can claim their voice isn't heard.

As I said - it's the bikers revving their engines against Phelps and the Westboro Baptists.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 21, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh, I see what you mean I think; no, there aren't many articles _about Jan Moir_. That's hardly "gone very quiet" - why would there be? People get angry about awful Mail story, Mail doesn't retract story, PCC does nothing - it's not news. The only reason it was there in the first place really is because of the use of Twitter and the novelty of that will wear off soon.



And the ads pulling. Don't forget the ads pulling. That put the wind up their sails.

You might be interested in this Graun article FridgeMagnet


> The Moir case, on the other hand, illustrates how little accountability there is at some newspapers. If you were offended and wanted to complain, what options did you have? The Daily Mail has no readers' editor, and no formal complaints process that is publicly accessible in the newspaper or on its website. The only reference to the PCC on Mail Online is not linked to from any other page on the site and is therefore, to all intents and purposes, invisible. This is a newspaper whose editor is the chair of the PCC's editorial code committee and who sits on the PCC's appointments and funding body, Pressbof. Yet his newspaper lacks the most basic public accountability mechanisms.
> 
> And, if you escalated your complaint to the PCC, as thousands did, you would probably find yourself equally dissatisfied at the outcome. This is not the fault of the PCC's secretariat, who are diligently working their way through the largest number of complaints over one article in their history. Rather it is due to the rules that artificially limit the complaints they can accept, and the limited sanctions available to them. All 22,000 of these complaints can, according to the rules laid down by the industry, be rejected – since they are considered "third party complaints" (complaints not made by someone directly referenced in the article). In this case, the PCC has said it will consider the complaints and write to the Daily Mail for a response. However, when that response is a small apology tucked inside the paper, many will feel the Daily Mail has got off considerably more lightly than, say, the BBC after the Ross/Brand affair.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 21, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Ho ho! And who is going to get to decide what constitutes offensive? Would that be offensive by your subjective standard, or by someone elses, say a Christian, a red-red socialist or a conservative Muslim?
> 
> The 'free speech must have limits which are nice' argument is bollocks, quite frankly. Sorry.


Fuck.  I just lost a long post expanding upon this.  I'm going to have a coffee and decide whether I can be bothered recreating it.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

rollinder said:


> tried that - she just said "you're the one with the email addresses, send a letter from both of us"





''And another thing, My Mum says you should wash that little madam's mouth out with soap....''


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 21, 2009)

OK, here goes.

There are people on both sides getting needlessly confused about this.

*Side 1.*  The journos whining that a ‘baying mob’ has ‘endangered freedom of speech’ have a point only if _freedom of speech_ is defined as something that  only journalists have, or even that journalists particularly have, or have more than muggles do.

What happened was that Jan Moir exercised her freedom of speech, and thousands of members of the public exercised theirs in reply.

You have to accept that if you say something that makes someone angry, they may react angrily.  If you are a journalist, your words may reach thousands of people, so you may very well make thousands of people angry.

Most people understand that saying certain things may result in a black eye.  And you shouldn’t see this as a bad thing; we’re social animals.  This is how we learn what is acceptable in our community.


*Side 2.*  Anyone who thinks that the state should regulate what journalists (or anyone else) say is starting down a dangerous path.  If you are appalled that in the early 20th century in the ‘land of the free’ that Emma Goldman had to handcuff herself to podiums in order to finish talks on birth control, before being carted off by the police, then you will have also to put up with the fact that in the early 21st century, Christian and Muslim clerics may well be telling halls up and down this country reactionary things about homosexuals.

Offending liberal sensibilities should not be a crime.  I wrote to the PCC, not because I wanted the state to intervene, but because I knew that the PCC is not the state, but the press themselves.  I merely thought it a fun way to make my point.  


So where does this leave us? If  Jan Moir and the Mail think that what they had to say was important and needed to be said, then they should carry on saying it.  This doesn’t, however, mean they are special people, with a special license to offend, and that nobody can challenge or reply.


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2009)

newbie said:


> yes, i think it's very important that writers are free to publish stuff which causes offence
> 
> of course it's equally important that those offended should bite back.
> 
> far better people are offended and respond in kind than there are restrictions on the causing of offence- whether through the rich using libel to silence critics or the religious citing blasphemy or issuing a fatwah or some sort of censorship on the grounds of taste.



But there are limits, and rightly so, on face of it the Gately family should not have been expected to media firefight up to and beyond Stephen's funeral. If the paper had sufficient evidence of a cover up, then depending on the strength of that evidence their would be grounds to print and be dammed -that's journalism.

The trouble stems from the current fashion for comment piece where there is more emphasis on opinion, that titillates / offends whatever. This type of thing on the face of it should move closer to OFFCOM broadcast  rules, but do that and there is case for extending it to ALL UK based web content, even urban. It is not hard to see that happening, internet libel laws are up for review, Tory candidates who look enviably at the Great Firewall of China are actually being selected...not good. 

Like it not, the electronic ink is in this together with dead tree, and there should be a spirit of Voltaire, but that means defending a code that has organically grown through previous batterings, hard to do when the current Chair is the seemingly  contemptuous party.

Fortunately, as the Press is at the moment self regulating, this is currently the dilemma of 11 more experienced minds than ourselves (i think  Alan Rusbridger has done enough to exclude himself on conflict of interest)

The other problem is the petition time bomb -you have to ask yourself whats in state regulation for the likes of Mr Campbell? and whether a month can go by without the likes of Jonathan Ross tweeting about it


New Chair please!


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

> *The trouble stems from the current fashion for comment piece where there is more emphasis on opinion*, that titillates / offends whatever.



You really don't know anything about the history of newspapers, do you? There have _always_ been commentators and op-ed and columnists, all of whom rely on their opinions for content rather than bothering with any actual 'facts'.



> But there are limits, and rightly so, on face of it the Gately family should not have been expected to media firefight up to and beyond Stephen's funeral. If the paper had sufficient evidence of a cover up, then depending on the strength of that evidence their would be grounds to print and be dammed -that's journalism



See, here _you're_ just making stuff up. Where was this media firefighting from Gately's family? Aside from a couple of quotes they'vre pretty much remained above the throng (which is obviously proving contentious and annoying re: the PCC complaints process). The rest of that sentence means nothing - they have published _and_ been damned for it.

The rest of your post seems to be really confused - are you _for_ greater regulation of the press or _against_ it? Are you in approval of there being specific laws about content and meaning in journalism or against it?


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2009)

I think that:
 you can make a distinction between journalism and comment, and  that there is a place for both.
 that the internet largely squats on the space where scandal sheets grew into newspapers.
 that the Gately family have handled themselves with some dignity.
that self regulation means doing something.


----------



## newbie (Oct 21, 2009)

gosub said:


> But there are limits, and rightly so, on face of it the Gately family should not have been expected to media firefight up to and beyond Stephen's funeral.



so writers should tiptoe around the death of a sleb?  tbh I'm not sure I see why- if this young man was someone who had never previously been mentioned in a newspaper, never appeared on TV, had no public image at all, then to use his death to push some malign agenda should be off limits, imo, but that doesn't stop the press doing it.  

But that's not the case here.  He'd spent some years consciously developing a public profile, for his own benefit in pursuit of his career. Anyone who purposefully hires a publicist (or manager) and carefully builds an image has to anticipate the possibility that they might be torn to shreds by a fickle media, and that applies just as much in death as in life. I feel sorry for his family, as for the family of anyone who dies young, but neither they nor anyone else should expect that every single article about him will emphasis only the most glowing aspects of his celebrity. Icons get used as illustration.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 21, 2009)

A depressing yet sensible article about what is likely to happen once the PCC get going on it. By Matthew Cain.



> *Why Jan Moir and the Daily Mail will escape disciplinary action'*
> Posted: 21/10/09 By: Matthew Cain
> 
> The Press Complaints Commission has indicated that it is investigating Jan Moir’s article about the death of Stephen Gately, after receiving more complaints in three days than the previous five years combined. So what will happen next? My prediction is that Jan Moir and the Daily Mail will escape any disciplinary action.
> ...


----------



## john x (Oct 21, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> A depressing yet sensible article about what is likely to happen once the PCC get going on it. By Matthew Cain.



Why is that depressing? It is not something that wasn't known before. It is only depressing if we truly believed that there would be some other outcome.

That was one of the points I was trying to make earlier. Whip everybody up into a frenzy that this is going to change the world then you are setting everyone up to come down with a bump.

The PCC was never going to take any meaningful action against the Mail. It can't. The point of making complaints was to log our feelings. And this has been done. The fact that they will probably reject pretty much all of them is neither here nor there. What is now on record is that Moir's article received more complaints than any other in the history of the PCC.

That is the good news.

john x


----------



## berniedicters (Oct 21, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Ho ho! And who is going to get to decide what constitutes offensive? Would that be offensive by your subjective standard, or by someone elses, say a Christian, a red-red socialist or a conservative Muslim?
> 
> The 'free speech must have limits which are nice' argument is bollocks, quite frankly. Sorry.


In a way, this isn't a free speech argument.

Jan Moir exercised her right to free speech by writing a despicable and insensitive argument. 22,000+ people exercised their right to free speech by objecting - something that Moir and the Mail seem unwilling to confront, preferring instead to mutter about "orchestrated campaigns".

I think that there needs to be a limit to freedom of speech to prevent incitement of hatred, and excessively inflammatory comments being made, though I'll happily accept that finding where that line is to be drawn iw a fraught business, and one I'm glad I don't have to do.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> In a way, this isn't a free speech argument.
> 
> Jan Moir exercised her right to free speech by writing a despicable and insensitive argument. 22,000+ people exercised their right to free speech by objecting - something that Moir and the Mail seem unwilling to confront, preferring instead to mutter about "orchestrated campaigns".
> 
> I think that there needs to be a limit to freedom of speech to prevent incitement of hatred, and excessively inflammatory comments being made, though I'll happily accept that finding where that line is to be drawn iw a fraught business, and one I'm glad I don't have to do.



It becomes a free speech argument as soon as you, or anyone else, introduces comments like: 



> I think that there needs to be a limit to freedom of speech to prevent incitement of hatred, and excessively inflammatory comments being made



What can 'incite hatred'? Lets say we have a drama like Eastenders. One of the 'bad' characters happens to be gay. Does this mean EE would be inciting hatred against homosexuals by portraying a gay person in a bad light, even if their behaviour was clearly _nothing to do_ with them being gay?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 21, 2009)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...e-right-between-free-speech-and-censorship.do

Roy Greenslade has a go in the Standard




> Getting balance right between free speech and censorship
> Roy Greenslade Roy Greenslade
> 21.10.09
> 
> ...


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2009)

I'm not sure what all the fuss re: retracting the article etc. is about.

The article is perfectly in keeping with the journalistic standards and values of the _Daily Mail_ and its readership.


----------



## berniedicters (Oct 21, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...e-right-between-free-speech-and-censorship.do
> 
> Roy Greenslade has a go in the Standard



And talks a lot of sense.

I think the important bit is the last bit - the idea that censorship actually leads to something worse, which is that the thoughts remain, but the words are driven underground.

It's the same thing with Griffin, whom Greenslade mentions - all the time the BNP are being marginalised, they can quite legitimately encourage the white, working class "man in the street" to identify with them in his own sense of marginalisation. Give them a platform, and you have at least denied them the soapbox of martyrdom.

We mustn't make martyrs out of people like Jan Moir and Nick Griffin - martyrdom offers these people a status of "victim", and it's a status they know only too well how to play to. Far worse for them is to be held in the public eye and forced to justify or account for each and every one of their strange views.


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...e-right-between-free-speech-and-censorship.do
> 
> Roy Greenslade has a go in the Standard



Thats a good article, I do hope the press accepts as reliable as some bloke down the pub as a benchmark.

And he's also got BNP bit bang on but that is for another thread me thinks


----------



## story (Oct 21, 2009)

Has this already been mentioned? Sorry if it has, but maybe worth mentioning again.

Radio Four's Feedback programme is discussing this issue today. Now-ish... or the next item....

Listen live here


----------



## story (Oct 21, 2009)

Mini bump...

On right now


----------



## boskysquelch (Oct 21, 2009)

now...on old fashion wavelengths.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

> I think that there needs to be a limit to freedom of speech to prevent incitement of hatred, and excessively inflammatory comments being made



45 minutes later:



> I think the important bit is the last bit - the idea that censorship actually leads to something worse, which is that the thoughts remain, but the words are driven underground.


----------



## john x (Oct 21, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> I think that there needs to be a limit to freedom of speech to prevent incitement of hatred,



There is. 

It's called incitement to racial hatred and Nick Griffin has been charged with it and at least one Islamic cleric has been convicted of it.

john x


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 21, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> What can 'incite hatred'? Lets say we have a drama like Eastenders. One of the 'bad' characters happens to be gay. Does this mean EE would be inciting hatred against homosexuals by portraying a gay person in a bad light, even if their behaviour was clearly _nothing to do_ with them being gay?


As an actual example, a (bad) Asian character in Corrie a while back made a mildly racist (towards white people) remark.  This outraged the following people with no sense of proportion:

- people who thought it meant that the scriptwriters were condoning anti white racism. (Presumably those people also think the Corrie scriptwriters also condone the murder of cheeky Manc lads with designer stubble by Scottish entrepreneurs with bulging eyes).

- people who thought it was racist to portray Asians in a bad light.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> OK, here goes.
> 
> There are people on both sides getting needlessly confused about this.
> 
> ...



I agree with your side 1 and side 2 points.   As I said before I'm happy to see certain people offended on certain things and therefore should and do accept that people might offend me and they may well be within their rights to do so. And of course what we are doing here is exercising our own freedom of speech and encouraging those of a like mind to do similar. 

I am also a little uncomfortable with the mob justice aspect. It always seems to be a lot easier to get big support for things I consider pernicious like locking up those boys who killed James Bulger for ever and ever or for hanging paedophiles, than causes I consider worthwhile.   Biggest mob =/= right anymore than biggest army does.  Which is why I'd say we need a decent code of conduct that people should adhere to whatever the size of their facebook group. Not easy, I'll agree. 


This case has brought to my attention the PCC. I would like to see the PCC examined.  I think we should be able to ask why it differs so much in character from Offcom.  Why it is not independent and why it has so little power.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> - people who thought it was racist to portray Asians in a bad light.




That's a hard one that.   Of course it isn't.   But if every time an Asian is depicted on telly they are depicted in a bad light, in comparison to the depiction of white people then there is a problem.  If this problem exists then you will get people objecting to single incidences of it, even though one swallow does not a summer make. 

Reminds me of a sketch on something or other where black actors discussed their acting jobs, 10 bit parts in the bill, prisoner no. 3, murdered drug dealer, but nothing much in the way of accountant, florist etc.


----------



## newbie (Oct 21, 2009)

Up until a very few years ago broadcasting was a near monopoly and was set up and regulated as such, by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and more recently by Ofcom & the BBC Trust.  It's not even close to a monopoly any more, not since the internet.  Which makes it somewhat more akin tot the paper based press... and leads to the question why the unduly centralised Ofcom isn't constituted more like the PCC.  Why do _we_ need a nanny at all?


----------



## john x (Oct 21, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Biggest mob =/= right anymore than biggest army does.  Which is why I'd say we need a decent code of conduct that people should adhere to whatever the size of their facebook group.



I'm not saying there is any real comparison other than playing the numbers game but the highest ever number of complaints to the BBC was over the Jerry Springer-The Opera show.

In that case however, the vast number of complaints did not represent a groundswell of genuine, general outrage, but a clearly orchestrated campaign by well-organised christian groups. 

As the interweb becomes more important and people know how to play the 'critical mass' game, these 'huge numbers of complaints' will be devalued. How soon before someone creates a software that with one-click will 'seed' a complaint or opinion in all the right places?

Then we may even have to go out and protest in the streets again.

john x


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

I could do with some fresh air.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

> But if every time an Asian is depicted on telly they are depicted in a bad light, in comparison to the depiction of white people then there is a problem



That's a systemic rather than specific issue tho, only becomes apparent over time and even then you've got to weight it against the portrayl of _all_ ethnicities playing bad characters and a ton of other stuff (it could simply be that there has been a run of shows where an Asian has been the bad guy, for example).

The 'roles offered' thing is a far better way of looking at it than scheduling, IMO, as it demonstrates the (lack of) range etc that writers and more specifically casting directors, are happy and comfortable with.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

newbie said:


> Up until a very few years ago broadcasting was a near monopoly and was set up and regulated as such, by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and more recently by Ofcom & the BBC Trust.  It's not even close to a monopoly any more, not since the internet.  Which makes it somewhat more akin tot the paper based press... and leads to the question why the unduly centralised Ofcom isn't constituted more like the PCC.  Why do _we_ need a nanny at all?



Why not get rid of laws?  Why not get rid of the police?  



Who says it's a nanny. 


And: because we behave like spoilt little children soooo much of the time.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Why not get rid of laws?  Why not get rid of the police?



There's been many a thread devoted to _that_  particular subject...



> Who says it's a nanny.
> 
> 
> And: because we behave like spoilt little children soooo much of the time.



Possibly because we're treated like children; saved from the worst consequences of our actions? Insulated from abrogating our responsibilities to someone else who 'knows better' what's good for us?

Having said that, I don't necessarily disagree with your comment about spoiled children either (and it applies across the political spectrum)...


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> A depressing yet sensible article about what is likely to happen once the PCC get going on it. By Matthew Cain.



some very useful links within that article, worth reading in situé


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> That's a systemic rather than specific issue *tho,* only becomes apparent over time and even then you've got to weight it against the portrayl of _all_ ethnicities playing bad characters and a ton of other stuff (it could simply be that there has been a run of shows where an Asian has been the bad guy, for example).
> 
> The 'roles offered' thing is a far better way of looking at it than scheduling, IMO, as it demonstrates the (lack of) range etc that writers and more specifically casting directors, are happy and comfortable with.



Yes. 

Where does 'tho' come into it?


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> There's been many a thread devoted to _that_  particular subject...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are we?  Or do we just need some rules and to not bleat on about having rules meaning we're being ''nannied''. 


People behave badly regardless of age.  And if you behave badly there should be consequences.  Someone has to be responsible for those and as it can't really be your mum past about age 14 someone else has to take it on.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

Bad editing, is where it comes into it. Should read ....issue, which only becomes apparent...


----------



## newbie (Oct 21, 2009)

well, I say it's a nanny 

the point being that you're asking for the press to be regulated in the manner of broadcasters... does that include the sort of 'balance' nanny requires of TV docs? Aspects of this thread certainly give the impression that the press should be regulated, to prevent people being offended.

Yet we voluntarily expose ourselves to the internet, which has no such Ofnet, no regulatory body, no Complaints Commission, nothing to prevent people being offensive, no requirement for balance or truth. Why is there an impulse towards regulation in one medium and not another?.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Are we?  Or do we just need some rules and to not bleat on about having rules meaning we're being ''nannied''.
> 
> 
> People behave badly regardless of age.  And if you behave badly there should be consequences.  Someone has to be responsible for those and as it can't really be your mum past about age 14 someone else has to take it on.



cf. all the threads about anarchism _ever_ for my responses to this line of inquiry 

The question really lies in 'whom do we make responsible'. At present we allow the state this role in pretty much every area of life to a greater or lesser degree. It's interesting you use the word rules and not laws too, but that's a whole other thread...


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 21, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> cf. all the threads about anarchism _ever_ for my responses to this line of inquiry
> 
> The question really lies in 'whom do we make responsible'. At present we allow the state this role in pretty much every area of life to a greater or lesser degree. It's interesting you use the word rules and not laws too, but that's a whole other thread...



I'm not _that_ interested.   

Responsible for what?  For making laws/rules?  for behaving themselves? For taking the consequences when they misbehave?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

A mixture of all of those really - we expect the state to take up the consequences of substance abuse, for example. For the care of children in poor circumstance. It's who we make responsible for overseeing us, for telling us what we should and should not be doing...and then provide us with a comforting narrative when it all goes wrong.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 21, 2009)

Speak for yourself matey.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 21, 2009)

Well, when I say 'we' I mean 'the body politic' and it's being done in the context of quimmy's question...


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 21, 2009)

*more news*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/21/stephen-gately-polydor-jan-moir


Polydor Records, the label representing Stephen Gately's band Boyzone, has filed an official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about Jan Moir's controversial Daily Mail column about his death.

Moir's article, which was published on Friday, the day before Gately's funeral in Dublin, has so far attracted more than 25,000 complaints.

A spokeswoman for Polydor Records confirmed to MediaGuardian.co.uk that the label has submitted a complaint to the PCC, but would give no details as to the specific issues raised. "The PCC is now considering this new complaint," a commission spokesman confirmed.

It is understood the Polydor complaint is similar to those already received by the PCC and centres on issues such as accuracy and intrusion into grief, which relate to clauses one and five in the commission's code of practice.

Many staff at Polydor have worked with the Boyzone band members – Gately, Ronan Keating, Keith Duffy, Mikey Graham and Shane Lynch – for years.

"All of us at Polydor are shocked to hear the tragic news about Stephen," runs a statement on the homepage of the Polydor website. "Everyone who worked with him loved him. Our thoughts are with Andrew, Stephen's family and Keith, Mikey, Ronan and Shane at this terrible time."

No complaint has been received by the PCC from Gately's family or from the band or individual members. It is thought that options are still being considered but all parties have up to this point wanted to avoid getting involved in the media furore while grieving.

The PCC has not yet made a decision as to whether to investigate the complaints, the most the commission has ever received over a single article.

However, the PCC has already written to the Daily Mail for its response "to the more general complaints from the public before considering whether there are any issues under the code to pursue".

The PCC rarely investigates complaints not made by people directly involved in articles, unless they are complaints about accuracy. The regulator did last year investigate third-party complaints about press coverage of Alfie Patten after the Sun falsely reported that the 13-year-old had fathered a child, although it eventually dropped its inquiries.

In this case the PCC could launch an investigation to see if Moir's article violated parts of its code that deal with intrusion into grief, accuracy, discrimination and homophobia.

Moir, who has won a British Press Award, made a statement defending her column late on Friday, saying it was not her intention to offend, blaming a "heavily orchestrated internet campaign" for the furore and adding that it was "mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones".


----------



## berniedicters (Oct 21, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> 45 minutes later:



Your point?


----------



## berniedicters (Oct 21, 2009)

john x said:


> There is.
> 
> It's called incitement to racial hatred and Nick Griffin has been charged with it and at least one Islamic cleric has been convicted of it.
> 
> john x


I know.


----------



## gosub (Oct 21, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> And the ads pulling. Don't forget the ads pulling. That put the wind up their sails.
> 
> You might be interested in this Graun article FridgeMagnet
> .



Made another trade publication too


----------



## Strumpet (Oct 21, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/21/stephen-gately-polydor-jan-moir


----------



## john x (Oct 21, 2009)

How long do articles stay up on the Mail online?

The piece in question is still there (albeit re-headlined and edited) five days later.

Is this normal or is the Mail trying to make a point? 

john x


----------



## nick h. (Oct 21, 2009)

john x said:


> How long do articles stay up on the Mail online?



Years.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 21, 2009)

I can't keep up to speed on this and this may have been asked.
Does anyone know who the sub was on Thursday evening whilst everyone else was out on the lash?
Thought I'd drop him a hand written recorded delivery letter.

So far no answer from my one to Dacre -surprise.
^^^ it has been signed for


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 21, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> And the ads pulling. Don't forget the ads pulling. That put the wind up their sails.
> 
> You might be interested in this Graun article FridgeMagnet
> .



Yeah but that's what I've been saying. This is just another example of lots of people getting involved, kicking up a fuss, but in the end the paper does nothing and the PCC does nothing. Positive results are really limited to people realising that they're going to have to look elsewhere.

And a good place to look to see the possible future is the States, where there's no PCC anyway and even less chance of actually stopping a news outlet from publishing something using the law, and where advertising is even more important. What you have there is large organised political groups sending around emails and threatening advertising boycotts, and far by the most successful of them are the "pro-family" ones; these groups are thoroughly infiltrated by party and corporate interests. The result is that advertising-sponsored news in the US is even *more* biased towards a conservative, pro-state viewpoint than it has been in the past.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 21, 2009)

That is a really interesting point, FridgeMagnet 
I did not know about that.


----------



## berniedicters (Oct 21, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> That is a really interesting point, FridgeMagnet
> I did not know about that.


It's one of those unintended consequences of an almost-totally free market economy - suddenly, speech - or its absence - has a price.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 21, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> It's one of those unintended consequences of an almost-totally free market economy - suddenly, speech - or its absence - has a price.



He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If you can afford to pay for people's time, then you can afford to kick off an outraged campaign. 
This kind of co-option is an interesting problem for the new 'disintermediated' forms of communication.
Tech PR types are already well up on it, from the little I have read.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 21, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> He who pays the piper calls the tune.
> If you can afford to pay for people's time, then you can afford to kick off an outraged campaign.
> This kind of co-option is an interesting problem for the new 'disintermediated' forms of communication.
> Tech PR types are already well up on it, from the little I have read.



They're not really IMO; they're still messing about with it and don't understand what they're messing with, they just have the time and money to do basic stuff which other people don't. The people at the moment who *do* understand what they're doing the most - and note that's not "completely", just "the most" - are in US political PR, and their understanding is quite specialised to the US market.


----------



## berniedicters (Oct 21, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> He who pays the piper calls the tune.
> If you can afford to pay for people's time, then you can afford to kick off an outraged campaign.
> This kind of co-option is an interesting problem for the new 'disintermediated' forms of communication.
> Tech PR types are already well up on it, from the little I have read.



But it's also that in reverse. If that were all it was, you'd find altruism would fill in a lot of the gaps. The real problem is, somewhat ironically in view of the subject of this thread, the chilling effect that potential withdrawal of advertising revenue had.

For decades, the US's freedom of speech laws have decreed that pretty much anything could be broadcast on TV, for example...but the risk of losing advertising revenue for "unpopular" themes, and rather lax rules on advertiser interference in programme content meant that US TV (and all the other media) has ended up being far more restricted and conservative (small 'c') than in countries where freedom of speech was nowhere near so carefully protected.

I'd hate to think we'd get there, but we're always wobbling along on that curve somewhere, just because.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 22, 2009)

But surely for the ''please pull this ad, anyone can see the content it is next to is awful'' to wash, _the content it is next to has to be seen to be awful by most reasonable people_. Hence it is society's prevailing views that ''win''

i.e. in the Moir case, a reasonable person - or an advertiser media buying department can look at the article and think, yeah, pretty hideous.

Whereas Christian Voice can whinge about an article about, say, mini-skirts, and a media buyer/PR person will think ''wtf? you're in a minority of one there son''


----------



## john x (Oct 22, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Hence it is society's prevailing views that ''win''



It's not quite as simple as that. Advertisers are targeting Daily Mail readers when they advertise in the Mail and it is those readers' prevailing views that "win" in that case and those views are largely sympathetic to Moir's article. Society's prevailing views only win when attention is drawn to the wider market, that the advertiser is trying to sell its wares in some pretty unsavoury places. 

Given that what happened last week was the exception rather than the rule, I can see most advertisers taking the chance of not being 'found out' so as not to lose the lucrative 'Mail market'.

That is why it is important that this needs following up.

john x


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 22, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> But surely for the ''please pull this ad, anyone can see the content it is next to is awful'' to wash, _the content it is next to has to be seen to be awful by most reasonable people_. Hence it is society's prevailing views that ''win''




There is a logical fallacy here though. The number of people complaining doesn't necessarily correlate to the proportion of people in wider society who find the article offensive. How is the publisher to know the extent to which the majority of society - who haven't written in to complain - feel about it?

In this case, 22,000 complaints tell us that 22,000 people found it objectionable, and we infer that a lot of other people support that view too. If Christian Voice managed to get 22,000 people to complain about an article about miniskirts, it wouldn't reflect the majority of people who might think they were wackjobs.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 22, 2009)

The _Mail_ comments on the Mail site are almost universally negative, starting with Audrey from Scotland at 1.59am, well before all the tweeting etc started - from which I infer that it is Mail readers who were put off  just as much as liberals, gays, twitterers...

 There's no shortage of Mail readers posting typically Mail-reader-like opinions on the rest of the site, so it is reasonable to think that many of the commenters were genuine Mail readers, who were genuinely repelled.


----------



## john x (Oct 22, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> The _Mail_ comments on the Mail site are almost universally negative, ........ so it is reasonable to think that many of the commenters were genuine Mail readers, who were genuinely repelled.



I wasn't using the complaints as evidence of how Mail readers viewed the article. I was using the fact that there has been no apology, no retraction and the article (though edited and re-headlined) is still on the Mail's website. 

That says to me that Paul Dacre is quite confident that the article reflects his readers' views.

john x


----------



## paolo (Oct 22, 2009)

john x said:


> That says to me that Paul Dacre is quite confident that the article reflects his readers' views.
> 
> john x



Can you think of any other reasons why the article is still there?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 22, 2009)

Have had a reply to my letter to the Mail:



> Thank you for your correspondence regarding the Jan Moir article. We
> welcome feedback-whether positive or negative - about the paper and our
> writers.
> Our Columnist's views have prompted a widespread response and debate, and
> ...


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 23, 2009)

the wriggling jan Moir said:
			
		

> Last week, I wrote in this column about the death of Boyzone star Stephen Gately.
> 
> To my horror, it has been widely condemned as 'homophobic' and 'hateful'. Obviously, a great deal of offence has been taken and I regret any affront caused. This was never my intention.
> 
> ...


----------



## strung out (Oct 23, 2009)

new article from jan moir... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1222246/The-truth-views-tragic-death-Stephen-Gately.html



> Last week, I wrote in this column about the death of Boyzone star Stephen Gately.
> 
> To my horror, it has been widely condemned as 'homophobic' and 'hateful'. Obviously, a great deal of offence has been taken and I regret any affront caused. This was never my intention.
> 
> ...


----------



## strung out (Oct 23, 2009)

doh, beaten to it


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 23, 2009)

Last week, I wrote in this column about the death of Boyzone star Stephen Gately.

_To my horror,(Good, glad it caused her to feel horror) _ it has been widely condemned as 'homophobic' and 'hateful'. Obviously, a great deal of offence has been taken and _I regret any affront caused (good, so you should)_. This was never my intention.

To be the focus of such depth of feeling has been an _interesting ( heh) _ experience, _but I do not complain 
(Oh how saintly you are)_. After all, I am not - unlike those close to Stephen Gately - _mourning for the loss of a much-loved partner, son, family member and close friend.(No, you aren't. So why did you write it and have it published the eve of his funeral?) _

_To them, I would like to say sorry_ if I have caused distress by the _insensitive timing (The core DM readership are angry at the 'speaking ill of the dead; she gambles that this is what she needs to address, and what she fucked up on)_ of the column, published so close to the funeral.

The point of my article was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, Stephen _Gately's death raised many unanswered questions (what business of yours were they, after an autopsy/post-mortem, a family statement and  with a cremation the next day?_. What had really gone on?

After all, _Stephen was a role model for the young (oh, interestingly you said 'young men' in the last column - yet his fans were mostly female - so now it's the 'young' is it - and who is a 'role mode'l on a night out on holiday?  _ and _if drugs were somehow involved
 (they weren't, as the coroner said 3 days before your first article ran) _ in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest?

We were told that Stephen died of 'natural causes' even before toxicology results had been released. _This struck me as bizarre (but it didn't strike the coroner or family as bizarre, and they knew quite a bit more, eh Jan?)_, given the circumstances.

_Absolutely none of this had anything to do with his sexuality ( Bollocks: I can't be bothered to go through it all again, see Charlie Brooker and others) _. If he had been a heterosexual member of a boy band, I would have written exactly the same article.

Yet despite this, many have interpreted my words as a 'bigoted rant' and suggested that my motive was to insinuate that Stephen died 'because he was gay'.

_Anyone who knows me (well we can only go on your writing and your previous column, love, and if you need to have personal contact with you to understand  your views you shouldn't be a national columnist as there's rather a lot of us )_ will vouch that I have never held such _poisonous views ('I can't be a racist, my friend is black' argument)._

It is worth stressing that [tI]he version of events I recounted (no, the 'natural causes verdict was known on 13th, you wrote your column on 13th/15th, do you have subs or fact-checkers?)  [/I] in my column had already been in the public domain, having been described in detail in several newspapers.

What had been reported about that night is that Stephen and his civil partner Andrew Cowles went to a nightclub and brought back a Bulgarian man to their apartment.

There were also reports of drug-taking. Following this, it was reported that Cowles went to the bedroom with the Bulgarian, while Stephen remained on the sofa. _I have never thought, or suggested, that what happened that night represented a so-called gay lifestyle; (why talk about the myth of civil partnership and not all gay people being like George Michael, then?_ this is not how most gay people live.

Rather, _I thought it a louche lifestyle (why? He spent 5 hours out on holiday, spoke to his family at midnight, went to sleep at 4am - is that so 'louche'? _; one that raised questions about _health and personal safety. (What, going to clubs means you might die?)_

There have been complaints about my use of the word 'sleazy' to describe this incident, but I still maintain that _to die on a sofa while your partner is sleeping with someone else in the next room is, indeed, sleazy (actually the police statement is that the other man was in the spare room, had known the couple in their island home for years, and in any case, what is 'sleazy' about dying? If anyone is to be called 'sleazy', by her morality, it is the partner, not the man alone on the sofa. Not that I am saying it was sleazy )_, no matter who you are or what your sexual orientation might be.

My assertion that there was 'nothing natural' about Stephen's death has been wildly misinterpreted.

What I meant by 'nothing natural' was that the natural duration of his life had been tragically shortened in a way that was shocking and out of the ordinary. _Certainly, his death was unusual enough for a coroner to become involved * wriggle, wriggle, read up on how Sudden Adult Death Syndrome works and why it is not ''sleaze'', or what people are doing in the next room that causes it./I]

As for Stephen's civil partnership, I am on the record as supporting same-sex marriages. (only in so far as you ''thought there might be great gossip ensuing''

The point of my observation that there was a 'happy ever after myth' surrounding such unions was that they can be just as problematic as heterosexual marriages.

Indeed, I would stress that there was nothing in my article that could not be applied to a heterosexual couple as well as to a homosexual one. ( Utter rubbish. 

This brings me back to the bile, the fury, the inflammatory hate mail and the repeated posting of my home address on the internet.

To say it was a hysterical overreaction would be putting it mildly, though clearly much of it was an orchestrated campaign by pressure groups and those with agendas of their own. (In a month where a man was kicked to death for being gay, pointing out a gay-bashing article in the msm is ''hysterical')'

However, I accept that many people - on Twitter and elsewhere - were merely expressing their own personal and heartfelt opinions or grievances. This said, I can't help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged? Or was it a failure of communication on my part?(Oh, I can't wait to see Private Eye)

Certainly, something terrible went wrong as my column ricocheted through cyberspace, unread by many who complained (canard: to complain you have to point out exactly where the code is breached, which 25,000 did, traffic to her page went up 22%, PCC confirmed most letters were 'individually written'/I], yet somehow generally and gleefully ( little glee, Jan, little bloody glee) accepted into folklore as a homophobic rant.

It lit a spark, then a flame and turned into a roaring ball of hate fire, blazing unchecked and unmediated across the internet.

Yet as the torrent of abuse continued, most of it anonymous, I also had thousands of supportive emails from readers and well-wishers (oh, the classic, classic bully/troll defence of ''I've had loads of PMs agreeing with me , many of whom described themselves as 'the silent majority'. The outcry was not as one-sided as many imagine.

Their view, and mine, was that it was perfectly reasonable of me to comment upon the manner of Stephen Gately's death( she thinks she is reasonable, even when 25,000 pointed out she wasn't, as well as dozens of her peers, the whole Question Time Panel, including Nick Griffin, even if there are those who think that his celebrity and sexuality make him untouchable. (canard: nobody has said any such thin, only that misinformation is wrong and speculation should be backed up with more than personal conspiracy theories)

Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling.

Finally, I would just like to say that whatever did or did not happen in Majorca, a talented ('Talented'? Last week he 'couldn' t carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk[/I]' ) young man died before his time. This, of course, is a matter of regret and sadness for us all. ( back-pedal, career horizon in sight....sheesh._


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 23, 2009)

Have they changed their comment rules?  I don't think I left one last time.  If I did they've defo changed them.


----------



## TAE (Oct 23, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Jan Moi said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Absolutely none of this had anything to do with his sexuality



Then why make it such a prominent part of the article ?


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 23, 2009)

"Certainly, his death was unusual enough for a coroner to become involved"
jeeze she really is an imbicle,its a pefectly common place and routine procedure ffs!!!!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 23, 2009)

Why does she still think hardly anyone read it?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 23, 2009)

> Yet as the torrent of abuse continued, most of it anonymous



facebook is hardly anonymous. Hence people losing their jobs over it

That is a really really pathetic article. I'm quite disappointed in it.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 23, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> <Moir article response>



Excellent deconstruction BK - a version of that really ought to be posted on the FB group, then tweeted


----------



## Mooncat (Oct 23, 2009)

Jan Moir apology first draft:

http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/20...-views-on-the-tragic-death-of-stephen-gately/



> After all, Stephen was a role model for the young and if drugs were somehow involved in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest? Or at least voyeuristic and parasitic gutter journalism?


----------



## tommers (Oct 23, 2009)

She's had PMs of support apparently.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 23, 2009)

When does Private Eye come out? I can't wait.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 23, 2009)

Next issue of Private Eye on sale : 27th October.
Goody,goody.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 23, 2009)

Come on, folks, the BNP issue is potentially much more disturbing than what Jan Moir is up to now, and yet the internet appears to coming out in favour of Griffin! Can't we get folks to respond on the question time forums?

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7149&edition=1&ttl=20091023132832


----------



## TAE (Oct 23, 2009)

That "Have your say" always gets flooded with BNP supporters for some reason.


----------



## gosub (Oct 23, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> When does Private Eye come out? I can't wait.



More importantly looking at this  when is the next time the Culture, Media and Sport Committe talks to the Chair of the PCC code whoever that is


----------



## gosub (Oct 23, 2009)

TIME Magazine


----------



## leftistangel (Oct 24, 2009)

Of course what she wrote was ignorant, crude and stupid. But I think any wise person should be disturbed by the prospect of an 'investigation' of someone's opinion. In free societies, opinions aren't investigated.

As for being for her being more 'careful', I wonder again what people mean, or intend to mean, or whether they realise the implication of what they are saying. Do you want a society in which people are afraid to say what they really think? Or just a society in which people whose views you don't share are afraid to say what they really think? You will find that if you seek the latter, you will get the former as well.


----------



## gosub (Oct 25, 2009)

Somewhere in all this there is a nth level integrity problem.


----------



## gosub (Oct 25, 2009)

You can do anything you want in this life provided you accept responsibility!


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 25, 2009)

Suzanne Moore gives Moir a kicking in the Mail on Sunday in a remarkable article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/c...-I-know-Im-culture-wars--silent-majority.html

predictably, the pro-BNP astroturfers are out in force.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 26, 2009)

As I type - facebook has 34,992 members!


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 29, 2009)

from coaches@nationalexpress.com



> Thank you for taking the time to contact us.
> 
> I note your concern about an article that appeared in the Daily Mail,
> concerning the death of Stephen Gately.
> ...


----------



## nick h. (Nov 4, 2009)

The Jan Moir Twitterstorm will be debated on the Moral Maze on Radio 4 at 8 pm:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nkcfk

_When does a popular and spontaneous protest become mob rule? Fans of Twitter, the micro-blogging site, have chalked up a couple of notable victories of late. Followers helped to expose a legal injunction against The Guardian and Twitter-led protests generated tens of thousands of complaints against Jan Moir when she wrote a column using the death of Stephen Gately to criticise gay marriage. Is this net-based protest a valuable tool to demonstrate popular opinion or are we sacrificing traditional political engagement for the instant gratification direct action?

Witnesses:

Professor Andrew Chadwick of the New Political Communication Unit at Royal Holloway, University of London, and author of the book Internet Politics

Brendan O'Neill, journalist, writer and editor of Spiked Online

Nick Cohen, author and Observer kournalist

Ben Locker, 'Twitterer'._

And on this page it says Melanie Phillips will be on.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/programmes/schedules/fm

Moral Maze 
04/11/2009 
Michael Buerk chairs. With Kenan Malik, Melanie Phillips, James Panton, Clifford Longley.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Nov 4, 2009)

Oh... Thanks for that link nick. I was just wondering what if anything was happening with this.. 

Will listen in..


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 5, 2009)

nick h. said:


> The Jan Moir Twitterstorm will be debated on the Moral Maze on Radio 4 at 8 pm:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nkcfk
> 
> ...



So it's creating a false dichtomy (implying that longer term and 'instant gratification DA' are incompatible with each other), and have a panel who, from the look of it (especially if Mad Mel is there) have little or no real idea of how contemporary media works. And Nick Cohen.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 5, 2009)

Apols if this has already been cited, but did anyone read this Guiardian article by Jon Henley on Saturday 31st?

Article caption :



> *The power of tweets*
> 
> What have Jan Moir, AA Gill and Jimmy Carr got in common? They have all provoked storms of protest on microblogging website Twitter. But is this a new age of democracy, or a danger to free speech?



IMO he cocked up to quote an article appearing on Spiked Online with approval. Given Spiked's fairly well known predeliction for deliberate 'contrarianism'  ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2009)

> a danger to free speech?


Yes.  Lots of muggles having their say is Bad For Free Speech.  Only Special People may have Free Speech.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 5, 2009)

Henley was covering broader ground than that tbf ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 5, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Henley was covering broader ground than that tbf ...


Aye, I didn't read it.  I'm just railing against a view I've seen & heard.


----------



## gosub (Nov 16, 2009)

PCC is both effective and genuinely independent ; when even Jan Moir thought she may have intruded into grief : " _I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral."; _will be interesting to see how those record complaints get on. 


Read an disappointing anti Fry twitter rant in the Times last week as well, apparently whole episode generated "over 1000 compaints to the PCC", personally think keeping head of PCC code in place is not worth debasing truth by a factor of 20.


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2009)

There is something truely wrong here,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...Jan-Moir-wrote-Stephen-Gatelys-sad-death.html, 

Rusbridger resigns from the Code Committee because he can't prove journalistic standards aren't being met, whilst Dacre publishes another article where this time, HIS breach of PCC code over "intrusion into grief" is merely insensitive. This on top of the R4 Media show last week where it was also painted as purely homobophia, but in an interesting addition by Baroness Buscombe, she said PRIOR to the article Gateley family had been contacted by PCC to say that they would attempt to assist sensitive handling.

So much as I like standards being a base, and to be as reliable as a bloke down the pub, is pretty base, the Chair of the Code now finds it hard to find fault in ignoring his own committee's standards.


----------



## paolo (Dec 3, 2009)

That latest mail article is verrrry devious, trying to distract from the core nudge-nudge "young men don't just die" thing.

Some of the first few reader comments are very good though. Hope the writer has the integrity to read them.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Dec 17, 2009)

Stephen Gateley's partner has made a formal complaint about the original Moir column:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/17/stephen-gately-pcc-jan-moir

So the PCC is now going to investigate it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 17, 2009)

temper_tantrum said:


> Stephen Gateley's partner has made a formal complaint about the original Moir column:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/17/stephen-gately-pcc-jan-moir
> 
> So the PCC is now going to investigate it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Dec 17, 2009)

Updated FB group


----------



## gosub (Dec 31, 2009)

program on radio 4 on relationship between press and pcc: episode 3 internet(not unrelated)
worth listening to becasue the whole thing is up for consultation at the moment. Dig back through the links in this thread (may do later) there is open invite to give evidence, I seriously think urb editorial should give that some thought, coz not only has u75 had more to do with this story than is publicly portrayed, as a communication model  it brings stuff to the table even if there is some ethical baggage


----------



## Badgers (Feb 17, 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8521105.stm


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 18, 2010)

No surprises there then


----------



## Voley (Feb 18, 2010)

Interested to hear people's views on the CPS decision, particularly those that were involved in the campaign.


----------



## TAE (Feb 18, 2010)

Important to note this was a legal ruling, not a 'I agree with the sentiments' ruling.

"It recognised there were flaws in the article but the price of freedom of expression was that columnists said things which other people might find offensive or inappropriate."

Hard to argue against that. 

I wonder if she had a layer go through the article before she published it to make sure there were no actual 'claims' which could be challeneged.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 18, 2010)

TAE said:


> Important to note this was a legal ruling, not a 'I agree with the sentiments' ruling.
> 
> "It recognised there were flaws in the article but the price of freedom of expression was that columnists said things which other people might find offensive or inappropriate."
> 
> ...



There were some bits which were a bit dubious in terms of breach of the PCC code but I'm not at all surprised that they ruled in her favour - there is not much precedent for them doing otherwise. 

I don't think this is a legal ruling as such is it?


----------



## gosub (Feb 18, 2010)

trashpony said:


> I don't think this is a legal ruling as such is it?



Gately report did not break the law


from the Mail's reportage : "The Commission said this showed a ‘healthy system’ for challenging a columnist’s opinions.",


----------



## gosub (Feb 18, 2010)

Full adjudication


----------



## Kanda (Feb 18, 2010)

Probably helps that the Daily Mail's Editor is on the PCC.


----------



## 8den (Feb 18, 2010)

Oh for fucks sake...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2010)

OK, what were the other options open to the PCC? What the hell did you actually want in real life?

From what i can see this is an entirely right judgment by a bunch of arseholes defending themselves thoughn a weak body.


----------



## gosub (Feb 18, 2010)

What would I want?


On the basis of that ruling, all columnists kicked out of the NUJ, what with them now having a special relationship with accuracy and decency.

Talked to my mum about this, (she used to cover inquests) had she done the same to a UK coroner she reckoned she would have been up on a contempt charge


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2010)

A decency clause, like the taliban? No, another vote against press freedom from you.


----------



## gosub (Feb 18, 2010)

intrusion into grief is already a "limit" on press freedom. 


or should the " be on press seeing as saying what you like in the face of evidence shouldn't be what journalism is about


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2010)

You're talking about what 'good' journalism is about - don't you see the danger of that?


----------



## xes (Feb 18, 2010)

Daily mash take on it
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...eing-wrong-about-jan-moir-again-201002182485/



> @Nickking said: "Don't understand why PCC are not acting on #janmoir comments on Stephen Gateley. When 25,000 offended people complain it has to be offensive."
> 
> But Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, explained: "No it doesn't."
> 
> ...


----------



## gosub (Feb 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You're talking about what 'good' journalism is about - don't you see the danger of that?



No I'm talking about journalism. Read the judgement and it was acceptable because it was comment, without better demarcation things slip to lowest common denominator


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2010)

gosub said:


> On the basis of that ruling, all columnists kicked out of the NUJ,



how would that help anything?  The Mail doesnt give a shit if its writers are in the union or not (actually, it prefers them not to be) so it wouldn't have affected that column.  

And the right to be an offensive motherfucker is absolutely central. today they camee for Jan Moir, tomorrow they'd come for someone 'offensively' supporting te right of (say) afghans to self-defence.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 18, 2010)

Given that there is no such thing as objectively free speech it doesn't really matter one way or another, we live in a society where a young girl can be hauled before the courts for writing poetry, it doesn't mean anything if someone writes some offensive shit and doesn't get done for it, or if they do get done for it. Neither has anything to do with 'free speech' and everything to do with the balance of cultural power.


----------



## gosub (Feb 18, 2010)

belboid said:


> how would that help anything?  The Mail doesnt give a shit if its writers are in the union or not (actually, it prefers them not to be) so it wouldn't have affected that column.
> 
> And the right to be an offensive motherfucker is absolutely central. today they camee for Jan Moir, tomorrow they'd come for someone 'offensively' supporting te right of (say) afghans to self-defence.



Fair enough, all hail the rise of the "i think" paragraph, should make the bits between the adverts far more interesting at any rate


----------



## dylans (Feb 18, 2010)

It's not rocket science. Yes she is an offensive twat. Being an offensive twat however isn't illegal. If you don't like what someone writes then write a reply.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 18, 2010)

dylans said:


> It's not rocket science. Yes she is an offensive twat. Being an offensive twat however isn't illegal. If you don't like what someone writes then write a reply.



which in fairness is what happened and jan moir didnt like it one bit


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2010)

Summary of the 100% correct FA here



> The commission had three opportunities to condemn the Daily Mail for publishing Moir's piece only six days after Gately's sudden death in Majorca, and the day before his funeral. The complaint brought by Gately's partner, Andrew Cowles, argued that the Mail had breached clause 1 (accuracy); clause 5 (intrusion into grief or shock); and clause 12 (discrimination) of the editors' code of practice.
> 
> In a detailed adjudication, the PCC explains why it has not upheld any of these complaints. In terms of accuracy, it reasons that Moir's piece was clearly labelled as her opinion, and that any inaccuracies in the piece were repeated from other coverage in the days since Gately's death. In terms of her intrusion into the family's grief, the commission argues that the sheer volume of other press coverage had already placed the issue firmly in the public domain. And in terms of discrimination, the PCC sticks to its belief that discrimination against a group (gay men) is different from discrimination against an individual, and that, while Moir is clearly guilty of the former, she is innocent of the latter.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Probably helps that the Daily Mail's Editor is on the PCC.



No he's not.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2010)

dylans said:


> It's not rocket science. Yes she is an offensive twat. Being an offensive twat however isn't illegal. If you don't like what someone writes then write a reply.



and object  to the publisher.  After all, just cos she's written it, that doesnt mean they have to print it. Having to the right to an objectionable opinion doesnt mean that she has a right to its publication.


----------



## yardbird (Feb 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No he's not.



Paul Dacre Editor Daily Mail:

Chairman of PCC Editors Code Committee


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2010)

yardbird said:


> Paul Dacre Editor Daily Mail:
> 
> Chairman of PCC Editors Code Committee



Yep he chairs the codes committee - he's not on the deliberative committee that adjudicates on complaints - these are the people that impose the code that Dacre etc come up with. Given that it's a voluntary body for the newspaper industry all the main editors are on it almost by definition -that's the whole point. It's shit mind. Here are the members of the commison


----------



## Diamond (Feb 18, 2010)

The question is what would make a better system?

Ideally, public opposition to what Moir wrote would have lead to such a massive backlash that the Mail would have had to sack her in order to preserve their reputation or protect their sales. The problem is that that was never going to happen because the vocal minority who voiced opposition were just that - a vocal minority.

It seems to me that websites like Twitter and Facebook are able to massively distort any given perspective on society because of the way campaigns or causes can grow into perceived mass movements when, if you actually set them in their context, they are anything but.

I reckon the most salient example of this in the past year or so has been the Iranian protest movement. I think it was only last week that there was all this stuff in the media about how a massive counter-protest was going to result in violent confrontation and precipitate some wider popular revolution. But that never happened and reporters were lost for an explanation at the time. The bottom line is that Twitter had distorted the perceived size of the movement and it had always been a minority, elite interest.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2010)

Wrong example  -Iran been going on for 8 months and the rhythm of Iranian politics makes this normal - it was just the expectations and lack of knowledge of commentators that did that - not twitter.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No he's not.



He is chair of the Editors' Code of Practice

I am not convinced Moir didn't breach the code but I'm not a lawyer and I don't think they have ever upheld a complaint.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Wrong example  -Iran been going on for 8 months and the rhythm of Iranian politics makes this normal - it was just the expectations and lack of knowledge of commentators that did that - not twitter.



Well, yes, I didn't mean that the recent failure of the protests to ignite in any meaningful way and therefore meet the expectations of Western commentators was an isolated phenomenon. It's part of a broader pattern of reporting on the Green movement by the Western media and as such is only the most recent example of the distorted perspective that surrounded the same protests months ago. The way to think about the role of twitter and online media is to think about how they present information on a practical level and then how people make assumptions contingent on that presentation.

I'm not sure what you mean by the rhythm of Iranian politics - the lifecycle of a protest movement maybe, or the simple fact of the retrenchment of the status quo.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2010)

Diamond said:


> Well, yes, I didn't mean that the recent failure of the protests to ignite in any meaningful way and therefore meet the expectations of Western commentators was an isolated phenomenon. It's part of a broader pattern of reporting on the Green movement by the Western media and as such is only the most recent example of the distorted perspective that surrounded the same protests months ago. The way to think about the role of twitter and online media is to think about how they present information on a practical level and then how people make assumptions contingent on that presentation.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by the rhythm of Iranian politics - the lifecycle of a protest movement maybe, or the simple fact of the retrenchment of the status quo.



I meant that it follows, for one reason for another, long cycles - we're talking a few years here, not a few days.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 19, 2010)

Well you could you say that the politics of just about anywhere follows long cycles.

Talk of historical cycles is always a bit suspicious to me. Mostly it's the work of historians looking to post-rationalise in order to construct some kind of sense.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2010)

No. Iranian shit takes ages to get done. It's not a historical law.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 19, 2010)

xes said:


> Daily mash take on it
> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...eing-wrong-about-jan-moir-again-201002182485/



You forgot this bit:

Professor Brubaker explained: "No it isn't and, of course, it will only be independent up to the point where it does something you don't like."

This is about as good as it can get in a society that attempts to practice free speech. She's had her free speech, we've had our free speech, and that's it.


----------



## gosub (Feb 19, 2010)

Trouble I have with that is, my gripe was that a grieving family shouldn't have to put up with shit like this. It was bad enough that the brew hahaha it generated at the time meant it was even more in the families face, and now we have precedent that a grieving family may well have to face stuff like this all in the name of press freedom. 

Tom Courtney put it quite well on QT last night: freedom to do something is not the same as license to do something, I only hope the media have grasped that.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2010)

What's the difference 



> freedom to do something is not the same as license to do something



and how is it to be imposed?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2010)

trashpony said:


> He is chair of the Editors' Code of Practice
> 
> I am not convinced Moir didn't breach the code but I'm not a lawyer and I don't think they have ever upheld a complaint.



Which is an 'independent' body not part of the PCC.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 19, 2010)

For future reference gosub...it's 'brouhaha' ...


----------



## gosub (Feb 19, 2010)

brewhahah is like brouhaha but smaller, more a storm in a teacup


----------

