Comments on: Jan Moir apologises to Stephen Gately’s parents but attacks ‘hysterical overreaction’ of critics

By: J Carter

J Carter — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:41:07 +0000

“If I caused distress”?
No Jan. I’m sure over 22,000 people complained about you because they got out of bed on the wrong side!
Is there an award for the most hated media person in the UK?
If she had any decency she would resign and go away, maybe into a convent or something.

By: flapjack

flapjack — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:56:07 +0000

Casey – coming from the USA as you do, you probably don’t realise that the newspaper Jan Moir writes for is barely less reactionary than she is. The Daily Mail sacking Jan Moir would be like Hitler sacking Goebbles for being “too right wing”.
Remember an editor most likely gave her article the seal of approval before it went to press.
To get a general flavour of the Daily Mail’s editorial bias, check out this glossary of well used phrases and words which are used liberally in every issue…
http://www.angrymob.uponnothing.co.uk/daily-mail-dictionary

By: Rich

Rich — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:54:35 +0000

Is she a member of the BNP – she should be the BNP publicity office worker.

By: casey

casey — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:12:35 +0000

um, that was an apology? coming from the USA, i’ve never read her column before, but it’s clear she needs to be fired. she has no clue, and she’s mean and vindictive. what can be done to facilitate this? it seems 22,000 letters/emails isn’t doing it.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:23:06 +0000

Jan Moir – Rancid last week, rancid this week. Most likely rancid next week, if she hasn’t been sacked.

By: Jean-Paul Bentham

Jean-Paul Bentham — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:26:21 +0000

Jan Moir would be quite an acquisition to the Taliban.

After all, look at how easily she could spread Sharia Law in the land of Shakespeare.

Also, she would look good in one of those burquas, a lifeless brown one, and no high heels and make-up allowed now!

I doubt very much she will be fired and neither will she retire. The Daily Mail are having a field day with this one, and that includes a windfall. $$$$$ Ding!

By: Abi1975

Abi1975 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:47:38 +0000

No difference exists between Jan Moir’s comments in the Mail and Nick Griffin’s on question time.

I bet Jan Moir would agree with the labels we attach to Griffin (fascist and homophobic) yet she can not see why the first edition of that article was deeply homophobic. One wonders how somebody that blind manages to write her trashy column.

The only orchestrated campaign I can see is by Jan Moir herself using the print media to imply things about her critics.

By: flapjack

flapjack — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:36:11 +0000

Completely agree with you Vicki, how she can attempt to spin the words “Striking another blow to the happily ever after myth of civil partnerships” into anything other than a crude attempt at disparaging all gay relationships based on a single example is just plain brazen.
Not only did she not have all the facts on Gately’s death and blithely ignore the coroner’s verdict in favour of bigoted innuendo, but she used that as an ill informed test case to generalise about all gay relationships which is what grates the most.
Perhaps if she opens her mouth wide enough she might just get the other foot to fit in there.
Someone teach her how to apologise properly, as apparently her long experience in journalism hasn’t given her the know-how to write a proper apology yet.

By: Chester

Chester — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:33:26 +0000

many homophobes claim it’s about political correctness and never see how or why they are homophobes
it’s no surprise she made her apology into a platform for a second attack and even claimed she was not homophobic

By: Vicki Morley

Vicki Morley — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:46:01 +0000

It amazes me that she has still managed to spin a defensive story about this, and turned it into a ‘worrying’ observation of society that we are all over the top when it comes to being politically correct.

But what amazes me more is the fact that she genuinely thinks the public were making something out of nothing. I accept that it was distasteful to talk about Gately’s death as being sleazy, but – as a gay person – that wasn’t what offended me. What offended me was having the death linked to civil partnerships and the gay lifestyle.

Moir has since said that she would have written the same article had Gately been heterosexual, but I’m sorry – I can’t see her having written that his death struck a blow to the happy ever after myth or marriage. That just sounds insane.

And so, no, I don’t think we are making something out of nothing.

By: George

George — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:42:32 +0000

If she received bile emails in response to her article, it is nothing compared to the vitriolic bile she wrote. If those are the best responses she can come up with by way of a supposed “apology”, then perhaps she should step away from the word processor and drink a nice cup of “shut the f*** up”.

By: Julie

Julie — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:08:47 +0000

Moir’s article today was written for one reason and it wasn’t to apologise. It was to give her a platform to defend her article and its content. She gave a short and unconvincing apology before launching into how everyone else in the world is simply ‘hysterical’. Can’t believe how she continually referred to Gately’s “lifestyle” and used words like ‘troubling’. It’s even more unbelievable that someone could talk about the ‘myth’ of happy gay marriage and wonder why they’re being labelled a homophobe. Hopefully someone will buy Jan a clue for Christmas.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:07:11 +0000

If anything, this week’s rant just confirmed what she wrote last week. She has not apologised fort the hateful, homophobic things she said, only about the timing if them. If she seriously thinks that what she said is not homophobic, then I would hate to see when she writes a real homophobic piece. She is a hideous woman who has as no ethics or morality whatsoever. And as for the PCC, well’ they’ve shown they aren’t capable of regulating themsleves, haven’t they? What a useless bunch of wankers.

By: Rose

Rose — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:52:20 +0000

In other words she would have said the same thing at a less sensitive time. So she is still a rabid homophobe all year round, not just when there is a convenient dead man to pick on.

By: Harthacanute

Harthacanute — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:43:28 +0000

Notice that there were no adds on today’s article

By: barry

barry — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:49:36 +0000

In One, Sister Mary; resignation’ by far the best option; falling on her sword may puncture her inflated ego, and that would never do, would it………..

By: Sister Mary Clarence

Sister Mary Clarence — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:32:46 +0000

She should do the decent thing and fall on her sword … failing that resign at least

By: barry

barry — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:06:31 +0000

What a silly, unguarded statement from an intelligent woman. Talk about trying to wriggle out of a cespit of her own making!
What collective noun could one offer for 22,000 “hysterical overreactors” to her disgraceful piece of tatty journalism, which is too nasty and vicious even by the Mail’s apalling standards.
Jean, my dear, your writing days on Fleet street are at an end; if your Editors are not shot of you soon, then I suggest that if any of the twenty two thousand overreactors who purchase (God forbid) this rag of a newpaper, boycot it for six months, or preferably for good, then maybe the hysterical minority could make a point.
Know when you’re beaten and bow out gracefully – there are plenty more journalists with standards just waiting in the wings.

By: Ian750

Ian750 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:42:39 +0000

This woman should be sacked. Her comments, completely without foundation caused distress to Stephen’s family and friends and were insulting to a huge section of the community. To have the gall to apologise for the insensitive timing merely adds to the insult.

By: Dougie

Dougie — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:19:19 +0000

She will only ever understand the folly of her way when the Knightsbridge dinner party invitations start to dry up. She’s probably persona non grata already.