Showing posts with label Jan Moir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jan Moir. Show all posts

well, well, well

I suppose this shouldn't have come as a surprise. The Press Complaints Commission - after allowing some considerable water pass under the bridge (possibly hoping that people might have forgotten about the initial outrage by now?) have decided to totally ignore all the thousands and thousands of complaints they received.
"the sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath"

Oh well, I guess the next step is going to have be for someone to take the old poison-pen welding pie-munching munter (if she can do it - so can I) to court for plain old libel. Sue her and the Daily Mail for damages. If the PCC had done their job properly - she would have got off lightly and just had to have to written a proper apology.

Just to point out - The Daily Mail is signed up to 'The Editors' Code of Practice'

Well, let's have a little run through it here:

1. Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

[Oh where to begin - it'd be a shorter list to point out where Moir wasn't inaccurate, misleading and distorting information? Otherwise that's a description of her article from beginning to end really.]

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.

[Moir never published a follow up apology - merely a self-pitying self-justification for her obnoxious outpourings.]

Get out clause:
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

[Mmmmmm. Can't help if she'd written something similarly inflammatory concerning race - or religion - she wouldn't have got off so lightly from the PCC. But then, the gays, along with the working class, single mothers and 'chavs' -oh and now bankers are among the few groups that's it's deemed ok for everyone to be nasty about. (Although bankers really do deserve to be pilloried.)]

3 *Privacy

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.

[Intrusion into grief - and calling the circumstances of someone's death 'sleazy' -is showing respect is it?]

talking of which:

5 Intrusion into grief or shock

i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings, such as inquests.

[oh, but she did say sorry to his family for the timing of her article a whole week later - so that's OK then. Get that - an apology for the timing but not for the contents. Classy.]

12 Discrimination

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

[Wow. Complete fail overload here.]

But the PCC thinks - that NONE of these points were breached. Not one.

Worse, they claim pretty much: - 'oh that Jan Moir - everyone knows what's she's like. Oh, and it was buried on page 37 - that section of the paper only the girlies read.' Which totally ignores the fact it was -and still is - up there on their website. Which also gives lie to their claim most of those people complaining had never read the article.

So. Now we see how self-regulation works. I think we can safely say bollocks to that - and get that abolished in favour of a properly wholly independent regulatory body - and definitely one that doesn't have the Editor of the Daily Mail sitting as a chair on the same Commission. Can you say 'conflict of interest'.

*Eyeroll*



'Mail' article on Stephen Gately cleared by PCC.


PCC ruling leaves press in the gutter.

Tatchell attacks PCC ruling on Jan Moir

Former Evening Standard theatre critic attacks newspaper's defence of Jan Moir.

Even the editor of Web user magazine has his say - pointing out the absurdity that while someone can get arrested and charged for just making a stupid joke on Twitter (I mentioned this only the other day) - Jan Moir gets off scott free with flaunting the Press's own Code of Practice.

Will someone pass this article onto Jan Moir

The boy who died for 11 minutes
Every year 600 outwardly healthy young people die from sudden death syndrome.

I know it's a bit late, and I know she's not one to let a bit of factual research get in the way of a snidey bitchfest with big bold headlines - but yes, young men do suddenly and unexpectedly drop dead from congenital heart defects.

Wonder how that press complaints thing is coming along?

More Moir

So the results of the autopsy are out - Stephen Gately DID die of an undiagnosed heart condition - of actual natural causes and not from drink and/or drugs or from being homosexual.

Proving the amateur forensic 'expert', professional pie-eater and bitter twisted hate-monger Jan Moir was wrong. Wow - who woulda thunk it?

And his partner has made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

Wonder if Jan is considering a move to Uganda, not that she's a homophobe or anything...

A strange, lonely and troubling Daily Mail columnist ...

Jan Moir - A strange, lonely and troubling Daily Mail columnist
Here's my comment which I've left on the Daily Mail site in response to Jan Moir's rather bizarre, deeply spiteful and breath-takingly nasty little piece on Stephen Gately's death:

A strange, lonely and troubling death . . .

(and that's the toned down headline - which used to be: "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death.")

(no doubt it won't be published there. I never have any luck getting my comments published on official sites. It's a conspiracy I TELLS YOU - EITHER THAT OR IT'S BECAUSE I DON'T USE ALL CAPS and don't sound demented enough. Especially for the Daily Mail site - if this is the calibre of people it is employing...)

Jan Moir - I just simply cannot believe what I have just read what you have written about Stephen Gately - I really can't. How heartless, wrong headed and downright nasty can one person be to pour out this utter bile? Seriously - you either need to seek out some sort of psychiatric help - since you have some pretty warped, very dark fantasies about gay men's lifestyles - or else you need to stand as a candidate for the BNP - because it's plain to see what you certainly shouldn't be doing is working as a journalist for any national newspaper. Not when you couldn't be bothered to let even the tiniest bit of research get in the way of pouring out your despicable prejudices. What I find even more worrying is the thought that you might even thrive on the attention this will bring you.

Nevertheless I shall be adding my voice in complaint about this article to the Press Complaints Commission.

Here's Charlie Brooker on the issue - he's a professional so does this sort thing a lot better than me.