Jan Moir’s Statement On Stephen Gately ‘Gay Bashing’ Article in Full
JAN Moir responds to comments made in reaction to her Daily Mail article – “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death” – in which she opined:
Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this.
The piece is vile. But Moir’s just been misuderstood, which is not all that good if you’re a journalist. Moir has issued a statement via the Mail’s PR firm explaining herself.
“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.”
The gay community. Because all gays get together. They have secret meetings. Possibly with sex and drugs. Make that probably. Ok, definately. Sex and drugs and more sex with more drugs and loada gays.
“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.
We read it. and then we re-read it. It is vile. And that is our honest opinion.
“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.
Unlikley. Could. That’s more like the jobbing hack we know. Stick to the facts.
“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.
Dang! How unlucky to have been so misunderstood – and what with Moir being an amateur pathologist, we expected clarity.
“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.
Er, no. That is not what you said. You never mentioned non-gay 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.”
It’s not her – it’s us. It’s you. You sick bastard.
How ‘Loathsome’ Jan Moir Buried Herself And Stephen Gately
Posted: 16th, October 2009 | In: Reviews Comments (2) | TrackBack | Permalink
