When Stephen Gately’s death was first announced in hushed reverential tones on the BBC news, my first reaction was Stephen Who? Never heard of him.
By the time the ‘breaking news’ announcements had given way to long deferential reportage over the course of the evening, I had gathered that he was some sort of Pop Star. Hardly of the same standing as Michael Jackson, but his death apparently receiving the same coverage. I idly speculated that his coffin would be laid out for the adoring crowds on the fourth plinth at Trafalgar Square. You could sense the mounting hysteria.
I had, of course, missed the vital ingredient of this story. Stephen was Gay. A Pink Princess. That changes everything.
Heterosexual Princess’ can die in Parisian underpasses and the world may speculate as to the cause of their death, the nature of their sexual relationships, their last menstrual cycle; no need to cloak any claim in innuendo, the raucous cry of ‘free speech’ precedes every last intimate detail as it is chewed over by the rabid blogs of war.
A Pink Princess returns from a nighclub with her husband at 4.30am, accompanied by a third party, she so drunk that apparently the only solution is to climb into her pyjamas (that drunk, huh?) and sleep alone on the sofa whilst husband and third party take to the marital bed. She is then discovered 9 hours later squatting in a ‘praying position’ with her lungs full of fluid. This is a ‘natural death’ and any further speculation is greeted with hysterical outrage.
Jan Moir of the Daily Mail, not someone I habitually read, was brave enough to face down the pink posse and point out that had this been a heterosexual couple, none of this would have been described as normal. She is paying a high price for her temerity this morning. Marks & Spencers, mindful of the pink pound, has demanded that their advertisements be removed from the page on which her article sits bravely defending her right to free speech. They are not alone.
Free speech has its limits, and mightily politically correct limits they are too.
I well remember a crowded London dinner party some years ago at which at least half the couples present were openly gay. The exquisitely masculine half of one such couple began, uninvited, to discuss the recent claims from California that homosexuality was ‘genetic’.
Prawn cocktails lay half eaten as we listened in polite homage to free speech, to a monologue on how ‘even aged 7′ he had known that that the ‘taste and smell’ of a woman’s vagina would be ‘disgusting’, and he could never countenance entrusting his precious penis to such an orrifice. At 7? No one argued. No one queried the ‘taste and smell’ of the orrifice he did entrust his precious penis to, nor attempt to stop him or his fellow ‘believers’ as they gleefully extolled the delights of their chosen lifestyle, which memorably included insight into the world of voyerism otherwise known as ‘the window on the world’ carefully chiselled into the wall of our local public toilet, or cottage, as we were now educated. We all knew we would be dennounced as ‘homophobic’ if we dared to even change the subject, much less term it ‘gynophobic’. I’ve never been really keen on prawn cocktail since.
Jan Moir’s free speech has apparently attracted ‘record complaints’, after an extraordianry internet campaign, led by Stephen Fry and Derren Brown who have a million plus following on ‘Twitter’. Over 1000 of their devoted followers have complained to the PCC regarding alleged homophobia. The details of advertisers on her page were posted on a Facebook group called ‘The Daily Mail should retract Jan Moir’s hateful, homophobic article’. Jan Moir’s home address was posted, in a disturbing act of cyber-bullying.
Today, Jan has been forced to issue a ‘clarification’ of her words.
“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,” she said. “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.”
It would seem that ‘the internet’ only wishes to support ‘free speech’ for certain views.
It is quite willing to suggest that censorship should be supported, nay encouraged, for views which may well represent the majority of citizens, but do not accord with the world view that the shrillest voices wish us to hold.
Unlikely though it is, were I ever to return from a Majorca nightclub at 4.30am, sober enough to put my feet into the right legs of my pyjama bottoms, but drunk enough to countenance my husband taking a perfect stranger to our marital bed, leaving me to unsuccessfully fend for myself on the sofa, I trust Jan Moir will still be brave enough to point out that regardless of the coroner’s decision, that there is something ‘abnormal’ about this definition of ‘normal’ marriage.
{ 79 comments }
Good morning Anna.
Reversed discrimination.
Reminds me of a door-to-door salesman, long ago in Amsterdam, who would say every time someone wasn’t interested in his goods: “That’s because I’m Black.”
The reaction invariably would be: “Oh no, of course not! Do come in…”
BTW how’s your shower, eh, toilet?
Top floor returned to its pristine state. He’ll start on the second floor after lunch. M. Le P is lucky that there will be no claim on his professional insurance!
Anna,
I find the subject distasteful to be honest and query the need of the homosexual community to continually thrust the subject into the media. The need to use a word meaning happy to cover their ‘lifestyle’ also annoys me – what is wrong with the word ‘homosexual’? Do they feel shame – is that why their community will not use it?
It is peoples choice how they live and what they do in private – I just don’t believe it right that I should be confronted with outrage because I will not use the word ‘gay’ instead of ‘homosexual’.
Jan Moir should be congratulated, not vilified, for raising and writing about a topic that is in most normal peoples minds. The fact the ‘outrage’ has been organised by those amongst us with queer values speaks for itself!
It is the hypocrisy that offends me – yesterday the blogs were full of articles describing how ‘Twitter’ was used against Carter-Ruck to defend free speech – today ‘Twitter’ is used to silence free speech.
I am against the modern trend of discussing ones sexual habits at dinner parties – mainly because I am convinced that my neighbour whips his wife with a wet Tuna fish on a Saturday night, and I dread hearing the details over the H’ordeuves.
Anna,
Afterthought: Sorry should have said nice article – again!
The ultimate irony is, without us “Breeders”, their community would evetually become extinct….
Just a thought,
That arguement always reminds me of the hole that vegans fall into when they’ve given over ranting about the evils of chemical fertilisation and veal calves in crates…….
And then?
eventually
Or socialists despising wealth creating capitalists.
Hi Anna, glad you posted this, as ever eloquent, Article – I was going to comment on the doublespeak interpretation of “freedom of speech” demonstrated by the recent Twitter campaigns, but felt uncomfortable about the almost inevitable “homophopic” bricks that would be lobbed in my direction. I dislike the Daily Fail and Jan Moir’s usually irrelevant drivel, but an important point was raised – the freedom to discuss the lifestyle of a vocal minority in an open and frank way, from a ‘straight’ perspective. As opposed to the usual case; homosexuals forcing their rights of self expression down the majorities throat (sorry). Jan was simply amplifying the thoughts and questions that went through many of the silent majorities mind. If my husband had behaved that way he would be playing with his danglies; once I had extricated both of my legs out of the one pyjama leg.
Is the contents of her article suitable so very soon after the event?
IMO no, this is a comment piece and too early to start refuting grieving mothers.
Is the connection between one person in a civil partnership committing suicide and another dying accidentally on a night that sounded for them a helluva lot of fun relevant or useful in anyway?
IMO no. The ONLY connection was that gay people were involved and it resulted in a death. This link can only be the result of homophobia as there is no link whatsoever between a death of natural (sleazy or otherwise) causes and a suicide. What sort of logic is that.
About the most erroneous logical connection since the great Rev. Falwell blamed 9/11 on the gaylords. Tell me again how sheep’s bladders are employed to prevent earthquakes?
The only aspect of that opportune and rather thick article having perhaps some validity is that if they were hetro, the addition of a third person (recently picked up) might be examined more. It would have IMO been considered ‘sleazy’. There does seem to be an assumption here that ‘that’s just something gays do’. Perhaps that assumption is itself homophobic? I really don’t know.
I do however know I would be shocked if you were ever reduced to writing something that low on a blog Anna let alone in a national daily newspaper.
Personally, all I care about what goes on in peoples bedrooms is that they have as sordid and fun a time as possible. As for poor Stephen Gately, I wouldn’t have dreamed of ever listening to his 5th rate output, nor did I follow a moment of his career. However that article, especially spewed as soon as it was is pretty spiteful and something that should be drummed out of our discourse. Typical of the Daily HateMail.
Oh, and what was the hidden vice behind poor Heath Ledger’s death?
What’s pink, square and goes round and round?
Stephen Gately’s suitcase on the luggage belt at Palma de Majorca
Why is it called Homophobia? I am not afraid or intimidated by homosexuals. What is there to be scared of? I find all this posturing by the gay community as nothing more than agenda pushing.
What we need is a nationwide mass debate…
Sorry Anna.
Christ that’s funny Holborn. First good one I have heard.
‘…posturing by the gay community’. I am not gay and I found the article pretty grotesque. ‘
What ‘agenda’ are they pushing. That people shouldn’t sell illogical and poorly written tripe less than week after a young person with a family has died? Some agenda that is. Those evil conspiring pink bastards.
Roger,
Trafigura’s argument against publication of the infamous Minton report, was that it was an unfinished draft report written before the full facts were available.
The Internet was appalled at that poorly written and premature tripe being suppressed – and yet reserve the right to try to suppress another poorly written and premature tripe article.
And the difference is?
The comments on this article only serve to prove yet again, that I don’t actually have a valid opinion of my own on just about anything.
I always find myself agreeing with absolutely everybody.
“Yes, yes, I agree with that” …….. “Oh, er, sorry, yes you are right”.
It’s a terrible cross to bear. I hope you all feel sorry for me.
The agenda; thou shall not criticise me or my lifestyle, thou will respect me based solely on my sexual preference(s), thou will not compare me to you for I am special, thou will not call me misogynist or misandrist, thou will overvalue interior design and hairdressing?
Sorry Anna. How have they tried to suppress it?
Roger, if you read all the articles you will find that they did everything they could to persuede the Daily Mail to remove the article.
Surely, the taste and smell of an arsehole is even more disgusting?
John,
I have had to take expert advice before answering you – ‘apparently not’ is the considered response.
I have no expertise in this area.
Good morning Anna; This is a splendid piece of writing, written with an eloquence and an analytical precision that is admirable. I hope that it receives the widest possible coverage – doubtless you’re prepared for the onslaught that will inevitably head your way. I too had never heard of the late Mr Gately nor of his fellow musicians. So the resulting furore found me somewhat bemused. Having then read Ms Moir’s piece in the Mail, it seemed to me measured and very much to the point. The hysterical response articulated and led by the wretched Mr Fry (a gentleman somewhat passed his sell by date) seems to dictate that freedom of speech may only be so – if sanctioned and approved by both the homosexual and islamic communities. Somewhat ironic that the ladies and gentlemen of both persuasions should find that they have so much in common. Doubtless the wretched Mr Fry and colleagues can look forward to a cordial welcome and fraternal greetings the next time they visit to their local islamic bookshop or local mosque. Such are the blessings of multiculturalism.
“Twitter”. I’m afraid that I don’t know how to twit, but I shall be attempting to offer some sort of support to Ms Moir on the Daily Mail web site – if the moderator so allows.
All good wishes to you.
Blessings
Jez
Except take legal action.
What Carter-Ruck attempted was genuine suppression.
M & S removing advertising is their choice. If they consider something immoral they can make the case. Wishing and asking someone not to publish is not the same as telling them they legally can’t.
Therein lies the difference.
I am surprised you don’t see it. Or perhaps there are more articles for me to read, perhaps you could highlight one that is the equivalent to the goings on of Trafigura.
I didn’t say they were successful at supressing the article Roger, I disliked the fact that they would have liked to. Therein lies the hypocrisy, it matters not whether they were successful or not.
Ultimately Trafigura weren’t successful either.
Ola Anna
Left your e address and land line no blightyside sillymost. Could you text please?
07771 872298
Danada
J
What?
If one accepts that it was hurtful;, mistimed and ill thought out. What is wrong in expressing a wish that it should not be published. I express my opinion that Jan Moir should use her judgement and would therefore like to see the nasty and borderline retarded cow suppress herself.
Having the right to unpopular speech does not mean that the act of making it is in itself virtuous.
Me wanting you not to write something, me asking people to ask you not to publish is not the same as me getting a judge to stop you. You asked what the difference is. There it is.
This can go round and round. I mean are you therefore trying to suppress the speech of Charlie Booker, Stephen Fry and Derren Brown? It seems you would rather they did not say what they said about Jan Moir.
A further difference: Public Interest.
What is the public interest in printing the insensitve tripe now?
Where is the public interest in comparing a suicide and an accidental death by ridiculously saying Civil Partnerships are the link?
Where is the public interest in learning of corporate activities like those featured? A clear one. Who will it offend? Nobody.
Also, a further difference is that one is a newspaper the other is Parliament. That is another debate however.
An interesting discussion Roger, but you repeatedly move the goalposts!
I don’t seek to stop Stephen Fry saying what he did, I support his right to do so. I don’t complain to the PCC.
I reserve the right to criticise the ‘internet’ crowd en masse, as a homogeneous group, for jumping up and down with glee one day as an attempt to stop someone saying something bites the dust by using Twitter, and then the next day using Twitter in an attempt to bully someone else into silence. We can split hairs all day regarding who used legal means and who published authors home addresses as a method of acheiving their aims, and who was trying to suppress parliament and who was trying to silence a newspaper, but to me, the salient point is that one day the Twitter crowd wished to be hailed as heroes for facilitating free speech and the next day they were out in force trying to punish free speech.
You can’t begin to compare the public interest in the two articles. Again, as you say, that is another argument.
Oh Roger, shoot me down in flames by all means, but please don’t condemn me to write for the Daily Mail – that is too cruel!
Just a note to say that I have resurrected my internet connection three times in the last 20 minutes, it appears we have a storm brewing. If I don’t reply it is not becasue I have withdrawn to my bunker, but because the deadly Agent Orange has removed my ammunition!
Not that offence should be an issue in a case of public interest. Moir’s article does not qualify.
I would further point out that what I have written has been in response to the comments.
I think your article’s drawing parallels between the uses of Twitter is insightful.
It is further proof of your reliability in coming up with meritorious comment pieces. Pity you don’t write for the Mail.
I had no idea that Miss Moir was a ” nasty and borderline retarded cow “. I thought she was an informative and often very funny columnist.
Perhaps Mr G hammered a nail through it???
Huh! You’re back are you Ms Helpful – Rossi managed to hang on did he?
No idea! I’ve been having my Thora Hird perm re-crinkled.
Good stuff, Anna.
If ever one wants to see an example of groupthink one need only read the “me too” right-on outpourings of Britain’s celebrity twitter elite. Stephen Fry, Derren Brown, Grahem Linehan, Richard Bacon etc, all with the same worldview, all agreeing with each other on every topic while having their needy egos soothed by the mindless fawning of thousands of gibbering idiots.
Imagine if Stephen Fry, suffering one of his much self-publicised bouts of depression, told his online followers to go and kill themselves. The rest of the celebs would re-tweet the idea and before you know it we’d have the internet age’s very own Jonestown, only this time with tens of thousands dead. Here’s hoping, anyway.
If I was a homosexual (which I am not), I would be absolutely petrified at the thought of being “embraced by the Gay Community”.
Just because I was sexually attracted to members of the same sex, doesn’t mean that I would wish to be owned lock stock & barrel by a “Gay Community”.
I am heterosexual, I am not embraced (literally or otherwise) where ever I go by the “straight” community.
Homosexuals have renamed themselves with the acceptable sobriquet “Gay” and relegated us heterosexuals to the rather boring “Straight”. Why can’t we have a better label? I quite like “Jolly” or “Happy”
Suggestions on a postcard to, Chateau Raccoon at the usual address please.
Anna: Some people do not have a very good sense of smell and there is the no accounting for taste…
Love the photo of the fighting raccoon.
John – Just dodging ‘incoming’…….!!!
I am riveted. My poor brain is fast curdling.
You are all right, of course. Or is that a bit too subtle?
The Royal Draccoon Guards..
Saul: Very good!
Re: saul
Perhaps he’s a forward scout, out on a raccie?
OOPs, SHE!!!
Certainly she’s coming out with all guns blazing…. on second thoughts, perhaps not.
Hi Anna, I love your blog and your writing. As a 29 yr old gay lad, I completely agree with you. There is obviously something very fishy about the whole circumstances surrounding the death. As the story came out, it became even more suspicious.
I personally think the whole situation makes a complete mockery of civil partnerships, and the taking of a third party to any marital bed is just plain wrong whether consented or not – actually even worse when consented, as in this case. It is distasteful.
Tragic all round. Jan Moir is only voicing what everyone else is thinking!!!! I would hate this to affect freedom of speech any more
Ok Anna, the goalposts comment is fair.
I have never found myself on this side of the argument. I hate the mass hysteria brigades, I puked when Elton sang at the funeral. I want all hate crime laws considered thought crime and abolished. I am with Mark Steyn on the CHRC. I told many a Jade Goody joke and I happily accuse the MSM of paedonecrophilia with their policy being ‘as long as the victim is pretty and blond enough’.
However I still think there is something amiss here. I unfortunately don’t seem to have the linguistic prowess to explain exactly what I mean.
How about this: I get when there is the defence of truth in an argument. If people were to find metrics demonstrating that homosexual adoption was definitely (or even possibly) screwing up the prospects of the those kids being adopted, then I would never call an objection to the adoption ‘homophobic’. Nor would I criticise it. (The phobia being by definition irrational or innate. Nobody would call my fear of crazy people with knifes a phobia.)
However when something is transparently bollocks. And also insensitively timed. one can perhaps call such a thing homophobic (just a word, hateful, nasty, or whatever else will substitute). Her article seemed to display an irrational or innate dislike. That is wrong surely? Certainly irresponsible to express in that format/context.
When others feel it is wrong and hateful surely they should seek to oppose it. Oppose it because it is irrational and dishonest.
If this is free speech then let her really say what she means, go for it great guns. But no she hedges and skirts. Maybe Saul is right. Maybe she isn’t stupid. Merely cowardly. But she is surely one of those. That civil partnership connection was either retarded or a mask for her lack of sack to say ‘I hate benders’. It can’t be neither.
I guess in short. If she was really exercising the free speech you think she should be able to, then the article would look different. What it is the article sounds like to me should be opposed as it has no place in rational and honest debate.
I am taking up too much of your blog with this.
Jailhouselawer: Since you brought it to this level. I think the alternative to vagina is the taste of cock. Which if someone tells me tastes better I would not disagree with, it probably makes sense for ventilation reasons alone. Rim jobs and ATM’s are equally available to both types of relationship.
So again. Why don’t you just say ‘I hate gays’ rather than make a leap of logic you know to be false.
there was a wee singer named gately,who hasnt been singing much lately after a bottle of rum, a c–k up the bum,his trip to the sun ended fatally
As I understand it, Gately was 33 – and he died of “natural causes”? The only natural cause of death is one or more of the many problems that occur through old age. Since when has old age started at 33?
This whole episode is definitely Dodgy.
I didn’t know there were new laws about free speech, and why they apply only to Jan Moir.
I think Witterings has hit the nail on the head – the homosexuals have changed the name to gay because using homosexual makes them feel ashamed and we can’t have that now can we?
What is wrong with calling a spade a spade or a homosexual a homosexual? I know such bluntness is frowned on in our present PC society therefore we need to change society not have PCism change us.
Anna, your ending picture is inspired.
Okay, Pete. I definitely agree with you.
Roger Dodger. Her comments were insensitive at this time.
Jimmyriddle. Wash your mouth out with soap.
Some homosexual couples are not faithful. Guess what? Some heterosexual couples are not faithful. And I don’t particularly want to discuss in detail, what any of them get up to. Buggery against a woman is still an offence if the woman objects. So I can only presume that not only does it happen, but that some women object.
And that some women don’t.
And yes, I am a prude. I don’t know if I am frigid, but it remains a possibility. It is much more likely that I would rather not be subjected to what our so called Stars get up to.
Jan who was it? She pisses off most of the population. Yet another
person who probably has a degree in Humanities, and no knowledge of people.
Yeah lets all go back to the days before ‘PC’.
Jan Moir’s article would still fail on grounds of being terribly bad mannered, illogical and issued within an indecent time frame.
You don’t need some bullshit Havard, NLP, thought policeman to reject that nonsense. I’ve never been called PC in my life and yet I felt her article was unconscionable.
Anna: Not wishing to be pedantic, given the subject matter, shouldn’t “incoming” be cumming in?
Off to pedant’s corner with you John…..
So, there will be no cum back performance from Stephen Gately?
Brilliant way to exercise your free speech Jailhouse. His funeral is going on right now.
Charming old school manners. Pre-PC, I don’t think so.
I put the news on this morning and his funeral was all I saw! I had heard of him “vaguely” but being a heavy metal fan, am obviously not into boy bands.
I think the coverage was unnecessary, distasteful and hardly newsworthy. As I read the details of his death, the first thing I thought was, something fishy going on here…
Rodger Dodger: As Stephen Gately is in attendance I won’t bother going myself. I wonder if the mortuary attendant gave him a stiff seeing to?
Should I be found on our sofa in a foetal position with my lungs full of fluid, I do hope that mr bin asks questions if it is said that I died of “natural” causes.
An unusually good piece from Jan Moir and an excellent one from you, Anna.
I have taken the time to find and read again the offending column. During that time I came across (stop sniggering at the back) lots of articles vilifying Jan Moir. The main argument seems to revolve around the words “natural” and “unnatural”. This in my opinion is the crux of the matter. If two people, regardless of their sexual preferences decide to live together and then cement that relationship with a civil ceremony, then that is their right. That the gay community promote it is fine and dandy as well. The problem arises, as in Ms Moir’s article, when sex is talked about. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of heterosexuals consider gay sex as being unnatural. It is the sex act itself that the gay community struggle to make acceptable. Whatever two consenting or even three adults get up to is their own business, however in this case it can hardly be called natural. Perhaps Stephen Fry and his co complainers are more concerned with keeping their nice cosy sensitive image as opposed to the hedonistic alternative reported by Ms Moir. I am not for one moment suggesting that all gay couples behave in this manner, merely that drawing attention to the sex itself, is what landed Ms Moir in trouble.
Just been watching a very interesting debate on Sky between Mathew Paris (openly gay) and Roy Greenslade (would be heterosexual) – Greenslade of course wrote a long piece this monring condemning Jan Moir – Mathew Paris, to everyones surprise was supporting her right to write it, and expressed ‘some disquiet’ over the rise of ‘special interest’ groups and their ability to quickly marshall via the Internet, sufficient support to sway the opinion of newspapers and TV companies as to what they said or showed.
Like I said, very interesting.
In our prisons which are not mixed sexed, there is in all likelihood that same sex partnerships will occur. I have heard themselves describe this as only being prison queer.
I don’t judge this. It’s a fact of life. I accept this. And laugh at absurdity. A gallows sense of humour…(Allow the hang em and flog em brigade to enter stage left…)
Don’t be fooled …. Gately is just spending a year dead for tax purposes.
Jailhouse. Wit would let you get away with it maybe. Alas.
No offense but isn’t he Irish?
I have nothing against them but I hate the hypocrisy… very proud of being Irish (thats cool) but also likes to jump into the being ( British / part of the UK ) chair… and as we know Ireland isn’t part of the UK!
It is a shame when anyone dies, famous or not, straight or gay, whatever race or nationality etc. but what annoys me is him being hailed as a national hero and like I said, he was Irish… not English or British.
It is up to the individual to who their idols and heroes are but come on I think I have a point…
I agree if he wasn’t gay then it wouldn’t be such big news. The band he was in isn’t as big as it used to be – I wouldnt say he was specifically current and was pretty much out of the limelight – people forgotten about who he was. Most fans were listening to very old music from a decade or so ago.
Surely a way of selling papers in the credit crunch?
So its cos he is gay, because its a credit crunch and because the PC brigade are agenda pushing.
You numskulls make it so hard to be right wing.
I notice Boring and Demented are calling for a boycott of the Daily Mail and their advertisers.
In other words, they want to censor the Daily Mail. They want to turn it into something THEY would like to read. And stop it printing what they don’t want to read.
Every day, I see pseudo Libertarians who really, really should not be abusing the name.
http://www.boatangdemetriou.com/2009/10/theres-never-been-better-time-to-fuck.html
Makes a nice change OH, usually Boring & Demented are ranting that I should be ground into the dirt with a butch hob nailed boot for failing to follow ‘their’ Libertarian rules.
They are their own branch of the Fascist Libertarians. Or twig.
When Stephen Gately passed away he immediately became property of the media. Like a pod of Killer Whales with a seal pup, he will be tossed around (look, I’ve warned you about that sniggering at the back) until the next celebrity death.
Morning Saul,
I never metaphor I didn’t like.
Gately was Irish, Dublin born and bred … where, may l add, homosexuality is tolerated at best.
lf it wasn’t for his death he would’ve remained in virtual obscurity. Musically, the existance of Boyzone added absolutely nothing rememberable. We aren’t talking here of a Lennon, Hendrix, Cobain, Jackson etc so what else can the media report on?
He made the news because he was a celebrity, and yes, because he was homosexual and the lifestyle he led. This includes his ‘marriage’ that caused a deep rift within his family concerning his partner and in no small part the continuing views held by the population of Eire regarding homosexuality. He didn’t come out of the closet by choice, he was left with no alternative due to an impending press exclusive ‘tells all’ from a former lover or associate.
l note on a facebook campaign that he has indeed been elevated to a Princess Stephen and all that goes with it. l have no doubt that Gately’s family just wish they’d stfu as now more skeletons will be revealed because of the campaign against the DM and Moir. l say campaign but in the majority of cases it is more of a witch hunt far more vile than anything Moir is interpreted to have said.
l feel sorry for Gately and his family … not for the DM article but for the way he’s being used by others as a figurehead for their own selfish vindictive agenda.
Oh look, Iain Dale pulls the homophobe card, mentioning the Mail AND Gately.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2009/oct/17/my-week-iain-dale?showallcomments=true
Iain Dale pulls…..Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
After the death of Stephen Gately at his Spanish Villa, stars of stage and screen have been paying tribute. Ronan Keating said he was gutted,
Louis Walsh said he was devastated and Michael Barrymore said he was
innocent.
I haven’t been able to stop laughing my head off since I started reading this post. Thank you for making my day.
Totally off topic I love that raccoon pic.
Saul October 19, 2009 at 1:28 pm
After the death of Stephen Gately at his Spanish Villa, stars of stage and screen have been paying tribute. Ronan Keating said he was gutted, Louis Walsh said he was devastated and Michael Barrymore said he was innocent.
****
OUCH!
Comments on this entry are closed.