Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Daily Mail editor: Not a homophobic bone in Jan Moir’s body

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Just because the bones are not homophobic it doesn’t stop the mind being a bigot!

    1. I think he really meant she was spineless !

      at least that’s how I read it ;)

      1. Anyone who does not have the courage to be unambigious should be ignored.

        The man has to sell papers and will not alienate an audience in this situation where the press are hated as muuch as the bankers

  2. Paul Dacre is the editor of a poisonously homophobic rag – the Daily Heil .

    So of course he will defend his bigot columnist.

    The PCC is an entirely useless and irrelevant organisation.

    It should be scrapped and replaced with an independent outside regulator (ie in the absence of proper privacy laws the British press cannot be trusted to regulate itself).

    The PCC should be replaced with a body which can impose financial penalties on newspapers.

    Jan Moir’s article about Stepnen Gately in the Daily Heil was once of the most unpleasant, hateful pieces of bigotry ever printed.

    The fact that it was allowed to be printed shows how utterly incompetent and bigotted both Moir and Dacre are.

    1. I think I read that Dacre is or was the head of the PCC as well as editor of the Mail. Surely some conflict of interest?

      Good to see the Inquiry is getting to homophobia in the press. What about the series of at least 5 seriously homophobic articles in one week in the Mail, possibly intended to whip up homophobia amongst readers? I hope they get to those.

    2. Dacre seems to have gone AWOL from the Inquiry. Levenson miffed.

  3. a chilling, near frozen day in East Yorkshire has just dropped another few degrees as I read that headline – I suppose Richard Littlejohn is Mother Theresa in drag king mode too! I can think of nothing more obnoxious than this scandalizing publication. Perhaps editor (sic) Dacre should ask the thousands of people whose lives have been made worse by his paper project. Excuse me whilst I retch …

  4. I read and kept a copy of this blog at the time of Moirs homophobic and bigoted article about Stephen Gateley, which I think puts it very well:

    “”Another real sadness about Gately’s death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

    Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately’s last night raise troubling questions about what happened. It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death.

    As a gay rights champion, I am sure 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. For once …

    1. … 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”.

      How do you call that? This appalling vulture takes two tragic cases: a young man who died in his sleep and another who hanged himself, to give off the most homophobic sh!t ever written in about a decade. What the hell has their sexuality got to do with their “hedonistic lifestyle”, let alone their death?

      How obnoxious would it be if, the day after Jan Moir finally pops her clogs, opinion columnists start pontificating about “the dangerous lifestyle” of eating too much and earning too much money for writing sh!t articles in tabloids?

      Is Jan Moir really that thick not to register that scores of heterosexual celebrities engage in the same “hedonistic lifestyle” she stupidly assumes Stephen Gately and Kevin McGee were leading?

      And yet she should know better. Half of what her newspaper is about is that sort of …

      1. sordid stuff. The Kerry Katonas and the Jordans, the Amy Winehouses and the Russell Brands, the Ashley Coles and the Steve Joneses…Or how about the list of heterosexual celebs who killed themselves? What stuff are you on, Jan Moir, to be capable of writing such a low, vile, judgemental little story in the wake of a personal tragedy?

        How can such levels of intolerance be printed on one of Britain’s most popular brands of arse paper a mere two days after the news of yet another homophobic murder in London?”

        Is there a limit to the shameful, distasteful, hate-soaked drivel the Daily Mail can put into print?

        1. Well said, Stu. Thanks for taking the time and trouble. I honestly couldn’t come up with a comment about the Daily Heil or Jan Noir that didn’t involve copious amounts of masked cursing.

        2. Well said Stu, there is clearly now lows to which this so called paper would stoop and yet still claim to be the voice of the people!

        3. “….stupidly assumes…”

          I remember reading that appalling article at the time.

          Disgusting then, disgusting now, and just as disgusting in all her tomorrows.

  5. I think Dacre knew full well what was in the column and that his night at the opera with his unfortunate wife is a barefaced lie.

    Considering the monstrously bigotted, homophobic scumbags employed by the Daily Heil – Jan Moir; Richard Littlejohn; Melanie Phillips and Amanda Platell – I think Dacre revels in homophobic bigotry and when he saw Moir'[s column he would have laughed.

    He would have been more than happy to dance alongside Jan Moir on Stephen Gately’s grave to sell a few newspapers.

  6. No no no, Jan Moir is not homophobic, the BNP aren’t racist, politicians don’t lie, and the BBC NEVER repeat shows.

  7. Ref: “He added that he would “die in a ditch to defend a columnist’s right to have her views. Lets hope your wishes come true! As for “There isn’t a homophobic bone in Jan Moir’s body”Hate and homophobia by any other name (Including a columnists views) are still hate and homophobia

    1. His comment “there isn’t a homophobic bone in Jan Moirs body” made me think of two things:

      i) the similarity to those popular phrases from bigots in denial “I have many friends who are gay” or “I’m not homophobic but …”

      ii) why did someone on the editing team find the need to edit the proposed headline from Moir of “Why there was nothing natural in Stephen Gateleys death” … if she isn’t homophobic, then she would not have proposed such a headline (that even the editors on the Mail found a step too far)

  8. Dr Robin Guthrie 7 Feb 2012, 3:17pm

    I like reading the Daily Mail web site.

    The comments sections give me a good chance to laugh at all of the small minded thick poisonous bigots who think that they fully represent all people and opinions of the UK.

    1. You have a strong stomach, Dr!

    2. Don’t read their website. They get advertising revenue every time you click on one of their pages.

      I’ve set my preferences on Google News to not show me any DM stories. That way I can’t click on them by mistake.

  9. By the look of the old sow’s face their isn’t a single bone in it either.

  10. If Jan Moir wrote those comments about Stephen Gately on a web page, she would be called an offensive internet troll. Publish it in the daily mail and it’s called journalism.

  11. what many people see as a crime to free press is actualy a cry for responsible reporting.

  12. I sent stuff to the Leveson Inquiry, but it was ignored. It seems as if gay people don’t count in this bent Inquiry!

    How was it that the intermate details of the Police investigation and sordid details of the death of Kristian Digby was all over the press?
    http://tinyurl.com/7tpogzl

    And the sordid details of the death of the MI6 guy, Gareth Williams :
    http://tinyurl.com/33yhv3c

    The Homophobic Murder of Stuart Walker. The Police passed a ‘false report’ to the Press which implied Mr Walker was beaten and burned alive for an alleged child indecency incident.
    http://tinyurl.com/7nhje4o

    The Murder of William John Saunderson-Smith
    http://tinyurl.com/6w7tv4v

    And there are loads more stories like these!

    1. To Anon

      When you sent in your evidence to Leveson, did you get any acknowledgement? If so, was it along the lines of the one I received –

      Dear xxxx,

      Thank you for your email. The Inquiry’s full terms of reference can be found here http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/terms-of-reference/ and further information about the Inquiry in the FAQs section http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/faqs/ on the website. The Inquiry is currently working on Module 1, the press and the public.

      Kind regards,
      The Leveson Inquiry Team

      1. The same email I received, dave

      2. No acknowledgement at all!

        I find it quite incredible that this Inquiry is not looking into the overwhelming evidence that must be there of the Police selling info to the Press. Where are the gay people taking the stand? Have any gay been invited, I haven’t seen any yet.

        This Inquiry is not for everybody, it’s only for straight people, gays are not included.

  13. One good thing to come out of this is that now Jan Moir realises that gay people are not such a pushover anymore- she hasn’t tried this kind of homophobic comment since, has she? It’s like the BBC and Stephen Green- I don’t think I’ve seen him on BBC or referred to – since that bigoted comment on Elton John and David Furnish’s child was born.

  14. I can actually believe that Jan Moir as an individual harboured no specific ill will or hatred towards Stephen Gately. However considering the culture of far-right homophobic extremism that pervades the Daily Heil, she would have felt her poisonous article.

    I absolutely believe in a free press. But irresponsible journalism designed to foment hatred is not in the public interest and extremist rags like the Heil need to be aware that a free press does not give it license to spit in the face of a dead person’s family (remember that Gately was a singer – he was not a politician or policy maker whose actions effected anyone else.)

  15. The Stephen Gately article was vomited up by Moir and the Heil and the sole purpose of the article was to cause offense and stir up homophobic bigotry among its readers.

    The timing of the article (the day before Gately’s funeral) and the fact that the Irish version of the Daily Heil refused to run the Moir article because of hoe offensive it was shows that Dacre is telling bare-faced lies to this inquiry,

  16. It occurs that if Moir isn’t homophobic herself, that she made a conscious and specific decision to throw LGBT people under the bus to sell column inches. So either she is homophobic scum, or she is amoral mercenary scum who panders to the hateful quite on purpose and with malice aforethought. There is no way for her to come out of this with clean hands.

    1. right on…either or….

      Moir will never live this down, and it would take more than Dacre’s delusion to erase her stupid prejudices.

  17. Craig Denney 7 Feb 2012, 4:36pm

    His testimony to the Inquiry (starts 3min – 50sec):
    http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearing/2012-02-06pm/

    1. Craig Denney 7 Feb 2012, 4:45pm

      14min 4 sec’s long pulse!

  18. as expected one sided article on DMonline , the bit about jan moir is missing important sentence “…it could have benefited from a little judicious sub-editing…” , then again you wouldn’t expect DM to be self critical in the name of accuracy, well so much for DM’s self proclaimed integrity

  19. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Feb 2012, 4:49pm

    Absolute bull-sh_t. Would Moir have used the same words had this been a hetero celebrity and denigrating their “marriages”? The Daily Mail shouldn’t exist. It’s nothing more than a filthy rag of yellow ” journalism”, unsurpassed anywhere in the English speaking world. She’s way up there with that other awful piece of human detritus, Melanie Phillips.

  20. If Jan Moir isn’t a homophobe, I’m not a Geordie with a fondness for real ale and red wine.

  21. Once a rag, always a rag.

  22. Spanner1960 7 Feb 2012, 5:19pm

    “There isn’t a homophobic bone in Jan Moir’s body”.

    I agree.

    The woman is spineless.

  23. If she is not homophobic, what she did was more morally reprenhensible than if she was homophobic. She used gossip, hate and fear to profit. Not a person I would want in my corner of life.

  24. Breaking news Prop 8 in California has been ruled unconstitutional, now Ms NO Moir and her homophobic scum pals are going to have a real fight on their hands. Bring it on, we are not taking any more crap from the likes of her.

  25. Darren Taggart 7 Feb 2012, 6:14pm

    I’d like to see Dacre die in a ditch, if he’s serious about that offer?

  26. like he has any ability to judge…

  27. As I always thought (just from the basis of lookking at her photograph), Jan Moir is a jellyfish. She’s not pudgy after all, she just doesn’t have any bones in her body.

  28. Jan Moir’s article about Stepnen Gately was very honest, that’s why the homosexuals are up in arms about it, there wasn’t anything natural in Stephen Gateleys death, just as that about the guy called Kristian Dibgy

    1. Spanner1960 7 Feb 2012, 11:11pm

      I wish you would die, naturally or otherwise.

    2. The article was the worst sort of sleaze.

    3. “Jan Moir’s article about Stepnen Gately was very honest”

      You mean as honest as your are in here with your consistent and bigoted lies hidden behind the veil of anonymity?

      Prejudice is the mark of a ,lower intelligence, you do know that, don’t you?

    4. People like you will develop cancer and die the justifiable painful death – you deserve & alone – you monster

    5. What exactly was unnatural about his death? What is it you know that no-one else knows, including the experts who carried out the post-mortem?

  29. Other countries have free press, but are shocked by our tabloids. They seem to have more professionalism and less sleaze. How did we end up with this sort of press, and how do other free countries avoid it?

    1. We have it, because we have people who want to read it. We need to look at that.

      1. Other countries have privacy laws which Britain is sorely lacking. .

        Where the British notion that a free press means that a newspaper can print whatever they like, whenever they like, about whoever they like, using whatever means they like, with no thought to the consequences, really needs to be addressed.

        independenf regulation of the print media is required. Self regulation has failed dismally.

        Broadcast media has an independent regulator (Ofcom) but no-one is claiming that TV news is censored

        1. I entirely agree that there needs to be responsible regulation of newspapers in the UK …

          The fallacy that regulation leads to dilution of a free press is shown to be a lie by the fact OfCOM has not acted to restrain the broadcast media on partisan lines.

          The newspaper industry need something similar to OfCOM. I do agree with two of the suggestions of Dacre yesterday. i) that any regulation should including photo agencies and ii) that PRESS cards should be issued by the regulating authority and be able to be withdrawn.

  30. Amazing how they say about freedom of te press and they arent their to judge oppinions and what is put in the press.

    Surely they should be including this. Its not just how they get their info its what they say thats damning.

    The filth wrote at the time was truly horrid and they may have freedom of apeech but certainly no decency or professional integrity

    1. Freedom of speech does not mean that a paper can spit in the face of a grieving family, and the gay community, simply to sell a few newspapers.

      Moir’s article was toxicand hateful, it served no public interest and was written solely to cause offence.

      Yet we are meant to believe that punishing a paper for such bigotry damages freedom of the press.

      I support press freedom – however if the press is incapable of behaving with integrity then it needs outside, independent regulation.

      1. @dAVID

        How many times have we heard the press claim they will clean their act up and resolve it with self regulation …

        You are right, its time for an external body to ensure propriety and morality in the industry – not to stifle legitimate journalism …

        If the industry conducted itself with propriety and an awareness (and aherence to) morals then legitimate journalism would win….

  31. Dacre is a rancid turd. And so is Moir.

  32. “Daily Mail editor: Not a homophobic bone in Jan Moir’s body”

    Not an honest one either it seems….

  33. A really weak defense by the editor of this sad rag.

    While tabloid journalism exists in other countries, it seems to be in the British who are the most gluttonous for this style of journalism. I struggle to understand after all the problems the tabloids have caused why people don’t just turn to other forms of media. The whole thing just seems to make the all a bit trashy to the outside world.

    The British as a people have always had far more class than this. Time for the Brits to move on – you can do better.

  34. Oh, not her ugly mug again.

  35. the typical bigot is a coward. they try to find a victim and when they are challenged they lie and hide cause they have no courage.

    I would have some respect for them if they said we don’t like gay people and we will not apologise.

    Now I think they are weak and pathetic like that other cnut melaniw philips the sour faced old ditch rat

  36. I’ve spent the last ten years covering up the Daily Mail with a copy of another newspaper every time I see it for sale; in the desperate hope that it will reduce sales :-) it’s a horrid paper.

  37. Why is it that whenever anything homophobic is published, newspaper editors, politicians etc clutch their chests and give tortured speeches about their willingness to be martyrs for free speech? Why is that always used as a defence against homophobes and homophobic journalism? People who couldn’t care less about free speech suddenly decide that this is the most fundamentally important of human rights. All because they want to publish and read this homophobic sh!t . I see in this case he comes up with a diabolical excuse to absolve himself of any blame. Why not have the courage to say he agrees with every word she wrote? Why not declare that not only did he read her article prior to publication but he encouraged her to make it more sordid? Even after a couple of years, i get furious about this article and Jan Moir. To then cry foul and say how she is the poor little victim in all of this. It beggars belief.

  38. She doesn’t have a homophobic bone in her body, she has several. All of them. Yet another other weak woman allowing herself to be the homophobic, misogynist and all-round vile mouthpiece of the Daily Mail. These women write for The Mail, a publication that hates them as much as it does gay people, in the hope they’ll get a little pat on the head and be thought of as one of the good, well behaved women. Of course, on the next page The Mail will be criticising women just like her for being old, fat, divorced, etc. So the joke is on her. Pathetic.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all