Friday is going to be insane/epic/amazing/incredible/possibly the best day ever (until something comes along and has the same effect hahaha)
But aside from all that it is going to give me a sense of achievement and spur me on to do more and to know that I can grab goals and hopefully reach that ultimate one that is starting to look a little more attainable.
Big reveal is coming probably Friday some time, might be Saturday, it depends on how busy I am over the weekend. I'll try and squeeze in some internetting haha.
Stay tuned
Monday, 26 October 2009
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Not An Apology
“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.”
How is this in anyway showing sympathy and remorse for the hateful words that were published by this vile woman I will never understand. Let’s look at the points she makes in her “statement”
“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.
Intention or not, she may have said he was a charming and sweet man, however she also stated that he was a pointless decorative member of the band who couldn’t sing a note – missed that one out didn’t she.
“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.”
Absolute and trivial BS. She appears to think she’s being remorseful by presenting her article as being her own opinion, that may be so, however to assume that people haven’t read the article thoroughly, which anyone who is going to complain will have done, since there needs to be an understanding about what you are complaining about. She still goes on to maintain that she believes that it is unlikely he would have died had he not have gone out that evening, also once again insinuating and presuming that Stephen had spent the entire night taking illegal substances,which is conjecture and grounds for libel. Not forgetting the fact that while an opinion piece, she has blatant disregard for the facts, which in this case are that he died of natural causes and there was nothing in his system that would have had any bearing on his health that would have provoked or assissted in his death.
“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.”
Again ignoring the facts, yes we can not say what went on behind closed doors, however to specualte into his private life is breeching the standard and basic codes of conduct. To outright say that he was taking x-amount of drugs and being overly promiscuous is a damning accusation and one that holds no ground of truth. This whole part of her supposed apology still holds disregard for her actions, rather than apologising for what she wrote and how she worded the piece, she is attempting to prove that she was right in stating what she had, again it was proven by medical officials that there was nothing in his system that could have caused his death, it was a tragic but very natural health issue, this woman seems to be deluded into thinking that there was something else going on, can she not even wrap her head around what is fact?
“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.”
This last part, there was no heavy orchestration, what it was was in fact people disgusted and disturbed that someone in her line of work could be so hateful and disregard everything that has been said about the case. Ignoring official facts and findings in order to communicate her own issues surrounding his death. Clearly she cannot handle the fact that there was nothing suspicious or sinister about his death, which makes her a troubled and very sad individual.
As for it being extreme to suggest her article has homophobic and bigoted undertones? I just have no words, none at all. Read it and tell me if the comments are undertones, to me it was a blatant and obvious attack.
Jan Moir is a disgraceful and sick individual who seems unable to take responsibility for her actions, I just hope that the friends and family of Stephen find solace in knowing that thousands of people respect them for their actions and keep them in their thoughts.
“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.”
How is this in anyway showing sympathy and remorse for the hateful words that were published by this vile woman I will never understand. Let’s look at the points she makes in her “statement”
“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.
Intention or not, she may have said he was a charming and sweet man, however she also stated that he was a pointless decorative member of the band who couldn’t sing a note – missed that one out didn’t she.
“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.”
Absolute and trivial BS. She appears to think she’s being remorseful by presenting her article as being her own opinion, that may be so, however to assume that people haven’t read the article thoroughly, which anyone who is going to complain will have done, since there needs to be an understanding about what you are complaining about. She still goes on to maintain that she believes that it is unlikely he would have died had he not have gone out that evening, also once again insinuating and presuming that Stephen had spent the entire night taking illegal substances,which is conjecture and grounds for libel. Not forgetting the fact that while an opinion piece, she has blatant disregard for the facts, which in this case are that he died of natural causes and there was nothing in his system that would have had any bearing on his health that would have provoked or assissted in his death.
“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.”
Again ignoring the facts, yes we can not say what went on behind closed doors, however to specualte into his private life is breeching the standard and basic codes of conduct. To outright say that he was taking x-amount of drugs and being overly promiscuous is a damning accusation and one that holds no ground of truth. This whole part of her supposed apology still holds disregard for her actions, rather than apologising for what she wrote and how she worded the piece, she is attempting to prove that she was right in stating what she had, again it was proven by medical officials that there was nothing in his system that could have caused his death, it was a tragic but very natural health issue, this woman seems to be deluded into thinking that there was something else going on, can she not even wrap her head around what is fact?
“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.”
This last part, there was no heavy orchestration, what it was was in fact people disgusted and disturbed that someone in her line of work could be so hateful and disregard everything that has been said about the case. Ignoring official facts and findings in order to communicate her own issues surrounding his death. Clearly she cannot handle the fact that there was nothing suspicious or sinister about his death, which makes her a troubled and very sad individual.
As for it being extreme to suggest her article has homophobic and bigoted undertones? I just have no words, none at all. Read it and tell me if the comments are undertones, to me it was a blatant and obvious attack.
Jan Moir is a disgraceful and sick individual who seems unable to take responsibility for her actions, I just hope that the friends and family of Stephen find solace in knowing that thousands of people respect them for their actions and keep them in their thoughts.
Friday, 16 October 2009
Generic Response Of PCC Regarding Jan Moir Complaints
Dear _______________
Thank you for sending us your complaint about the Daily Mail article on the subject of the death of Stephen Gately. We have received numerous complaints about this matter.
I should first make clear that the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail. I can inform you that we have made ourselves available to the family and Mr Gately's bandmates, in order that they can use our services if they wish.
We require the direct involvement of affected parties because the PCC process can have a public outcome and it would be discourteous for the Commission to publish information relating to individuals without their knowledge or consent. Indeed, doing so might unwittingly add to any intrusion. Additionally, one of the PCC's roles is dispute resolution, and we would need contact with the affected party in order to determine what would be an acceptable means of settling a complaint.
On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and wemay not be able to pursue your concerns further. However, if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this.
Press Complaints Commission
Thank you for sending us your complaint about the Daily Mail article on the subject of the death of Stephen Gately. We have received numerous complaints about this matter.
I should first make clear that the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail. I can inform you that we have made ourselves available to the family and Mr Gately's bandmates, in order that they can use our services if they wish.
We require the direct involvement of affected parties because the PCC process can have a public outcome and it would be discourteous for the Commission to publish information relating to individuals without their knowledge or consent. Indeed, doing so might unwittingly add to any intrusion. Additionally, one of the PCC's roles is dispute resolution, and we would need contact with the affected party in order to determine what would be an acceptable means of settling a complaint.
On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and wemay not be able to pursue your concerns further. However, if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this.
Press Complaints Commission
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)