Daily Mail go for Gately

herya

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So she hasn't actually lied - she has just managed to subtly imply (without stating it overtly) that his gay lifestyle was something to with his death. Even in so far as to remind us that he died on the sofa whilst his husband was doing unmentionables with another man.

You're most likely right, and the most sickening aspect is that they must have a solicitor sitting next to her and screening every word with regard to potential legal traps before they publish this thing.

Then they sit back and count our clicks.

mike65

Now the ads have all been pulled, the article will be gone before you know it.

bertie4evr

What a fupping bitch.Horrible article.

General Zod

Jan Moir insulting the Nolan Sisters weight is quite hypocritical.

Degsy

That cnunt Robbie Williams is still alive..there is no justice at all.

me-skywalker

there is some amount of anti-gay vitriol in that article which sounds like some mid-western american tv evangalist getting his twopence worth in...

but in seriousness 'pulmonary oedema ' is a stage of heart failure but this is due to the amount of pressure put on the organ, if there is fluid on the organ then this would cause pressure which in turn would lead to ''pulmonary oedema'.

Now another question is what was this fluid and how did it get there? alcohol? and why was this 3rd party Gregoroi(or watever) saying it wasnt a natural death?

Strange altogether

herya

me-skywalker wrote: »

but in seriousness 'pulmonary oedema ' is a stage of heart failure but this is due to the amount of pressure put on the organ, if there is fluid on the organ then this would cause pressure which in turn would lead to ''pulmonary oedema'.

Now another question is what was this fluid and how did it get there? alcohol?

No it's the other way round. Normally you have some sort of fluid in your lung walls and other organs which is normally filtered and changed through your system. If your heart starts failing it can't make the fluid circulate properly and it builds up, effectively drowning you.

KetchupKid

The Mail is a rag and by all accounts Gatley seemed like a good bloke, but you do have to question his death. Yes, fit young people occasionally die due to sudden and unprovoked heart failure, but usually there's an underlying problem such as a heart defect or an abnormal heart valve, didn't seem to be the case with Gately, otherwise I assume this would have been reported.

Pulmonary oedema is typically due to previous cardiovascular disease and it would be very unusual for someone who wasn't sick and Gately was healthy and apparently very fit since he was dancing and performing on stage without any previous symptoms or complaints. Fluid can build up in the lungs for many reasons. This fluid makes it difficult for the lungs to give oxygen to the blood. The low oxygen in the blood and the fluid itself cause symptoms. Another cause is pneumonia, but this too should of had previous symptoms.

Now, fluid can also get onto the lungs via aspirating fluids. This can happen if someone is drunk and aspirates fluids while vomiting or it could also occur other ways!!. Now I know the family want and deserve their privacy, but just throwing out Pulmonary oedema as the cause of death with no other details is also a bit unresponsible since it could send fears and false signals to many.

Snakeblood

KetchupKid wrote: »

The Mail is a rag and by all accounts Gatley seemed like a good bloke, but you do have to question his death. Yes, fit young people occasionally die due to sudden and unprovoked heart failure, but usually there's an underlying problem such as a heart defect or an abnormal heart valve, didn't seem to be the case with Gately, otherwise I assume this would have been reported.

Pulmonary oedema is typically due to previous cardiovascular disease and it would be very unusual for someone who wasn't sick and Gately was healthy and apparently very fit since he was dancing and performing on stage without any previous symptoms or complaints. Fluid can build up in the lungs for many reasons. This fluid makes it difficult for the lungs to give oxygen to the blood. The low oxygen in the blood and the fluid itself cause symptoms. Another cause is pneumonia, but this too should of had previous symptoms.

Now, fluid can also get onto the lungs via aspirating fluids. This can happen if someone is drunk and aspirates fluids while vomiting or it could also occur other ways!!. Now I know the family want and deserve their privacy, but just throwing out Pulmonary oedema as the cause of death with no other details is also a bit unresponsible since it could send fears and false signals to many.

I don't really know anyone who is wandering around more afraid of pulmonary oedema than they were before. Most people haven't a clue what it is, and from my limited experience, they care that Gateley is dead, and not particularly what from.

glaston

it has just been revealed that he at least smoked cannabis on the night he died.

This made me laugh.
He probably drank some really strong espresso too :eek::eek:

herya

KetchupKid wrote: »

just throwing out Pulmonary oedema as the cause of death with no other details is also a bit unresponsible since it could send fears and false signals to many.

If it makes some young blokes/gals go for a heart test I don't see it as a problem...

me-skywalker

So we're all agreed that Pulmonary Oedema is NOT a direct result of his sexual preference or of his lifestyle in the main.

BUT could have been aided and brought on from a heavy night of drinking(which ppl of ALL sexual persuasions indulge in - along with an underlying medical condition which is in no direct correlation with being a homosexual.

Case closed on this then I say? and let the guys family and stop all this chinese whisper bollocks.

rovert

Incoherent article is incoherent

Not to mention HORRIBLY researched.

me-skywalker wrote: »

BUT could have been aided and brought on from a heavy night of drinking(which ppl of ALL sexual persuasions indulge in - along with an underlying medical condition which is in no direct correlation with being a homosexual.

An agrument could be made that his death has more to do with being Irish than being homosexual.

Venom

Its the usual daily mail gutter posts.

Ballerina

I had just happened to read this article as well and was sick to my stomach.

WHAT on earth does it matter to that b*tch how the hell he died?its like people think we have a right to know?so what if the family are trying to cover something up by saying there is a heart condition in the family???its absolutely none of her or anyones business what he died from for god's sake.

Someone said in a different thread that they needed to know if he simply just died in his sleep cos they wouldnt be able to sleep if this is the case.if it came out that he did simply die in his sleep would that person never sleep again.

I dont care if he is a celebrity and as people say "put themselves in the spotlight" they are still human beings that do not deserve people writing the sort of absolute sh*t about them such as this article.

makes my blood boil.

Insect Overlord

Disgusting excuse for an article, disgusting excuse for a publication.

'Nuff said.

Stark

KetchupKid wrote:

Pulmonary oedema is typically due to previous cardiovascular disease and it would be very unusual for someone who wasn't sick and Gately was healthy and apparently very fit since he was dancing and performing on stage without any previous symptoms or complaints. Fluid can build up in the lungs for many reasons. This fluid makes it difficult for the lungs to give oxygen to the blood. The low oxygen in the blood and the fluid itself cause symptoms. Another cause is pneumonia, but this too should of had previous symptoms.

We had teenagers dropping dead on football pitches all too regularly last year, teenagers who were perfectly fit and seemingly healthy beforehand.

markesmith

rovert wrote: »

An agrument could be made that his death has more to do with being Irish than being homosexual.

Great point. And doesn't the Mail have a history of anti-Irish opinions?

Warfi

It is quite obvious to me that Jan Moir is homophobic, and this article is nothing but a thinly veiled attack on homosexuals and their lifestyle.

Her writing is offensive on two levels...

1. She's attacking people for doing something that's natural to them
2. She believes that people are stupid enough to think that her article is borne of concern.

Fratton Fred

Horrible article from a nasty cow.

Tacky, sick, homophobic stuff like that would never ever be uttered in After hours would it??

Busi_Girl08

Derren Brown really did sum up that vile, bigoted, sleazy wench perfectly.

Kalashnikov_Kid

markesmith wrote: »

Great point. And doesn't the Mail have a history of anti-Irish opinions?

Yes. The 'opinion' writer of the Al Mugrahi release was Ruth Dudley Edwards - author of 'Aftermath: The Omagh Bombing and the Families' Pursuit of Justice' and was basically an out-of-context blind rant on terrrrism and the IRA. Compare this to the Independent's piece, written by a Swedish academic who sat as UN observer during the actual trial, who stated the facts about what actually happened (and question marks hanging over these) and you quickly realise what the target market of the Daily Mail is.

EDIT: Not condoning anything, just an interesting comparison,

Fratton Fred

Isn't Ruth Dudley-Edwards Irish?

Diabhal Beag

She just a woman trying to get her fifteen minutes of fame

Mollywolly

I don't think I've ever read any of this woman's articles before, and I don't think I want to read any again. What a disgusting, foul-mouthed creature, but it's her kind of sensationalism that sells papers unfortunately :mad:

Won't be buying the Mail in a hurry - not even the Irish version.

MikeC101

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Isn't Ruth Dudley-Edwards Irish?

Yup. You'll see her called a "west brit" and "not really Irish" sometimes due to her opinions on Unionism and so on though.

Edit: She had a good old rant about "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" and the political viewpoint it contained, and then later admitted she'd never seen the film, and that she would never see it, but she knew what it would contain anyway, which marks her as something of an idiot in my books, regardless of her political views.

Dave!

Vile, rancid, disgusting, idiotic rag.

My folks read it every day, I've decided my protest is that I'm no longer buying it for them if asked..... I've berated them over it before, but I reckon this is the final straw tbh.

I'll get them something classy like the Sun instead :rolleyes:

stovelid

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Isn't Ruth Dudley-Edwards Irish?

She sounds like she doesn't want to be, half the time.

PrettyBoy

They just mentioned the article on Sky News. Shower of fucking pricks at that paper.

Lollipops23

dear god, they have 0 morals. the man is barely cold, how dare they pick it apart like that as if it's a soap opera storyline?!:mad:

First off, his grandmother died quite young (50s/60s) of a major heart attack, so heart complaints do run in the family. (my mother grew up opposite them).

Secondly,who ever suggested that civil partnerships had a fairytale ending...??surely the fact that gay couples want to be treated like straight couples mean that they have **** times as well as good?

wtf is this bitchface whore on??!!

dr.bollocko

To be expected really from that paper.

Here. Predict next weeks trash with the aid of a handy online tool.
http://www.geocities.com/wyrmalicious/DailyMailGen.html
Just f5 the evening away with that and you'll lose 10 IQ points.

DeVore

Who cares if the guy was out of his gourd and shagging anything he could hop into bed with.... they make it out like "normal hetrosexuals" would never do anything like that....

Someone should take a investigative trip to Coppers some time!!

Omg... what a totally obnoxious piece of smearing...

DeV.

Morlar

Lollipops23 wrote: »

dear god, they have 0 morals. the man is barely cold, how dare they pick it apart like that as if it's a soap opera storyline?!:mad:

When a celebrity dies there is speculation over what caused it, specially if they died young. Get over it.

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Secondly,who ever suggested that civil partnerships had a fairytale ending...??surely the fact that gay couples want to be treated like straight couples mean that they have **** times as well as good?

I think this is more to do with the contrast between the usual presentation of gay civil unions/marriages as 'child -adoption friendly' and 'just exactly like the heterosexual lifestyle' and so on, in comparison to the group sex, casual sex hedonistic side of things. Which of course also exsists in married heterosexual couples but perhaps not to the same extent.

Stark

Morlar wrote: »

I think this is more to do with the contrast between the usual presentation of gay civil unions/marriages as 'child -adoption friendly' and 'just exactly like the heterosexual lifestyle' and so on, in comparison to the group sex, casual sex hedonistic side of things. Which of course also exsists in married heterosexual couples but perhaps not to the same extent.

No, married couples were off having tapas while their young children were at home alone drugged up on Calpol instead.

They had a guy in the apartment with them. There are a million innocent reasons why they would have had a third person in the apartment for the evening. I don't think there would be this much speculation if it was a straight married couple who had a friend over.

DeVore

Morlar wrote: »

When a celebrity dies there is speculation over what caused it, specially if they died young. Get over it.




I think this is more to do with the contrast between the usual presentation of gay civil unions/marriages as 'child -adoption friendly' and 'just exactly like the heterosexual lifestyle' and so on, in comparison to the group sex, casual sex hedonistic side of things. Which of course also exsists in married heterosexual couples but perhaps not to the same extent.

You have seen Ibiza Uncovered... right?

DeV.

Snakeblood

Morlar wrote: »

I think this is more to do with the contrast between the usual presentation of gay civil unions/marriages as 'child -adoption friendly' and 'just exactly like the heterosexual lifestyle' and so on, in comparison to the group sex, casual sex hedonistic side of things. Which of course also exsists in married heterosexual couples but perhaps not to the same extent.

Let's sh!t out a couple of articles based on perhaps then. Let's not actually say what we mean though, but just use hints and innuendo, because the Daily mail is a newspaper for and by cnuts.

IvySlayer

Charlie Brooker hits back.


Why there was nothing 'human' about Jan Moir's column on the death of Stephen Gately

Jan Moir's rant about the Boyzone star Stephen Gately is a gratuitous piece of gay-bashing

The funeral of Stephen Gately has not yet taken place. The man hasn't been buried yet. Nevertheless, Jan Moir of the Daily Mail has already managed to dance on his grave. For money.
It has been 20 minutes since I've read her now-notorious column, and I'm still struggling to absorb the sheer scope of its hateful idiocy. It's like gazing through a horrid little window into an awesome universe of pure blockheaded spite. Spiralling galaxies of ignorance roll majestically against a backdrop of what looks like dark prejudice, dotted hither and thither with winking stars of snide innuendo.


On the Mail website, it was headlined: "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death." Since the official postmortem clearly ascribed the singer's death to natural causes, that headline contains a fairly bold claim. Still, who am I to judge? I'm no expert when it comes to interpreting autopsy findings, unlike Moir. Presumably she's a leading expert in forensic science, paid huge sums of money to fly around the world lecturing coroners on her latest findings. Or maybe she just wants to gay-bash a dead man? Tragically, the only way to find out is to read the rest of her article.


She begins by jabbering a bit about untimely celebrity deaths, especially those whose lives are "shadowed by dark appetites or fractured by private vice". Not just Heath Ledger and Michael Jackson. No: she's eagerly looking forward to other premature snuffings.


"Robbie, Amy, Kate, Whitney, Britney; we all know who they are. And we are not being ghoulish to anticipate, or to be mentally braced for, their bad end: a long night, a mysterious stranger, an odd set of circumstances that herald a sudden death."


Fair enough. I'm sure we all agree there's nothing "ghoulish" whatsoever about eagerly imagining the hypothetical death of someone you've marked out as a potential cadaver on account of your ill-informed presumptions about their lifestyle. All she's doing is running a detailed celebrity-death sweepstake in her head. That's not ghoulish, that's fun. For my part, I've just put a tenner on Moir choking to death on her own bile by the year 2012. See? Fun!


Having casually prophesied the death of Robbie Williams and co, Moir moves on to her main point: that Gately's death strikes her as a bit fishy . . . "All the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances . . . But, hang on a minute. Something is terribly wrong with the way this incident has been shaped and spun into nothing more than an unfortunate mishap on a holiday weekend, like a broken teacup in the rented cottage."


That's odd. I don't recall anyone equating the death with "an unfortunate mishap on a holiday weekend". I was only aware of shocked expressions of grief from those who knew or admired him, people who'd probably be moved to tears by Moir likening the tragedy to "a broken teacup in the rented cottage". But never mind that – "shaped and spun" by whom, precisely? The coroner?


Incredibly, yes. Moir genuinely believes the coroner got it wrong: "Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again. Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one."


At this point, I dare to challenge the renowned international forensic pathologist Jan Moir, because I personally know of two other men (one in his 20s, one in his early 30s), who died in precisely this way. According to the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (c-r-y.org.uk), "Twelve apparently fit and healthy young people die in the UK from undiagnosed heart conditions" every single week. That's a lot of broken teacups, eh Jan?
Still, if his death wasn't natural "by any yardstick", what did kill him? Moir knows: it was his lifestyle. Because Gately was, y'know . . . homosexual. Having lanced this boil, Moir lets the pus drip out all over her fingers as she continues to type: "The circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy," she declares. "Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta . . . was not what was on the cards . . . What happened afterwards is anyone's guess."


Don't hold back, Jan. Have a guess. Draw us a picture. You specialise in celebrity death fantasies, after all.
"His mother is still insisting that her son died from a previously undetected heart condition that has plagued the family." Yes. That poor, blinkered woman, "insisting" in the face of official medical evidence that absolutely agrees with her.


Anyway, having cast aspersions over a tragic death, doubted a coroner and insulted a grieving mother, Moir's piece builds to its climax: "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 . . . 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."
Way to spread the pain around, Jan. Way to link two unrelated tragedies, Jan. Way to gay-bash, Jan.


Jan's paper, the Daily Mail, absolutely adores it when people flock to Ofcom to complain about something offensive, especially when it's something they've only learned about second-hand via an inflammatory article in a newspaper. So it would undoubtedly be delighted if, having read this, you paid a visit to the Press Complaints Commission website (www.pcc.org.uk) to lodge a complaint about Moir's article on the basis that it breaches sections 1, 5 and 12 of its code of practice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir

IvySlayer

Too slow rovert :pac:

JupiterKid

Pure naked homophobia - but that should be no surprise coming from such a hatred filled rag that is the Daily Mail.:mad:

Does no-one else see the supreme irony in the Mail now having an Irish edition? Less than 20 years ago the Mail were claiming that us Irish were basically terrorists or their sympathisers and that we were all basically uncouth savages.

efb

Evil vile paper! Doesn't even know which side of the Cervecal Cancer Debate it's on! ( Depends on juristiction).

drkpower

Morlar wrote: »

When a celebrity dies there is speculation over what caused it, specially if they died young. Get over it.

Except she doesnt speculate. Speculating involves some kind of reasoning based on some kind of evidence, albeit inconclusive evidence. She engages in puerile innuendo based on nothing more than her own prejudices.

For instance, if I saw you go back into your house with two mates of yours, a 2L of coke and a DVD casing, I might speculate that you and your friends were going to enjoy an evening of mindless light entertaiment with some snacks. She would suggest that you were going to spend the evening smoking drugs (using half the 2 litre as a home made bong), followed by watching illegal child porography and engaging in high-risk gay sex threesomes, using the lid of the 2 litre as a sexual aid.

Can you see the difference?

Dont even try and defend this woman; its dishonest cowardly gutter journalism of the worst kind and those who lend it credence are almost as bad.

Lollipops23

drkpower wrote: »

Dont even try and defend this woman; its dishonest cowardly gutter journalism of the worst kind and those who lend it credence are almost as bad.

+100000000

longshanks

popbitch had a piece on her earlier

http://www.popbitch.com/home/2009/10/16/the-life-of-jan-moir/

Morlar

drkpower wrote: »

watching illegal child porography and engaging in high-risk gay sex threesomes,

Ahem. Once more for the retards. . . . . .

When a celebrity dies very young, it is *not* unusual for there to be media speculation over their death. Get over it.

efb

“The sight of Jan Moir’s weird face in today’s Daily Mail was deeply shocking. It wsn’t just that another hate-filled, frothing journobot was as ugly outside as in.

Through the recent travails and sad deaths of Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and others, fans know to expect the expected of low-rank journalists- that the moment someone a bit famous drops off the twig, a weird face like Jan’s will start flapping on about how there’s more to it than meets the eye and making prurient , twitchy, offensive speculations dressed up as moral weariness.

Now look- don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Jan Moir’s weird face. Some of my best friends are Jan Moir’s weird face, although I wouldn’t let it adopt children as they might be bullied. But let us be absolutely clear about this. Normal faces don’t wake up in the morning looking like that. Whatever happened between Jan Moir and her weird face is anyone’s guess. But it strikes a blow against the happy-ever-after myth of loathsome gutter journalism spewed by people with weird faces.”

Bit of a low blow on my part, huh? After all, the poor woman can’t help the way she looks (which, by the way, is HORRIBLE). But if the horrible, upsetting death of a 33 year old man can be poked and pried into in order to further a slimy, bigoted agenda, I don’t see why I shouldn’t point out that the person doing the sliming has a horrible, upsetting face. Moir and her like argue that celebrities forfeit some of their right to privacy when, through their courting of publicity, they ask for our attention. Well, by the same token, Moir has forfeited her right to me not commenting on her weird face by putting a picture of it on the internet. Oh, and by indulging in net-curtain gossiping about someone who never did her (or, so far as we know, anyone) a moment’s harm, before his young body is even cold.

And in many ways, she got off lightly. I could have concentrated on the even more spectacular ugliness of her soul.
Via Stepheb Fry @ Twitter

efb

Morlar wrote: »

Ahem. Once more for the retards. . . . . .

When a celebrity dies very young, it is *not* unusual for there to be media speculation over their death. Get over it.

You wriite for the daily maiil too? Love the offensive language
She was casting aspersions on him his lifestyle and homoseluals in general

Nodin

Morlar wrote: »

Ahem. Once more for the retards. . . . . .

When a celebrity dies very young, it is *not* unusual for there to be media speculation over their death. Get over it.

You seem to have missed where she ignored the postmortem results to get her digs in. "speculation" was what went on before the postmortem. She has it in for gays, for some reason. Its blatantly obvious.

Sir Oxman

Moir has issued a statement defending her awful piece of trash peddled in the Mail.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44483&c=1

She's squealing that there's an orchestrated campaign against her now.

rovert

gambiaman wrote: »

Moir has issued a statement defending her awful piece of trash peddled in the Mail.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44483&c=1

She's squealing that there's an orchestrated campaign against her now.

Having no real defence is a defence?

deadhead13

gambiaman wrote: »

Moir has issued a statement defending her awful piece of trash peddled in the Mail.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44483&c=1

She's squealing that there's an orchestrated campaign against her now.

Lol, she is backpedaling at a furious rate.