We Can Make A Difference!

[Guest fountainhall]

"Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death" disgrace

 

Much of the news last week involved the untimely death at the age of 33 of Boyzone singer and openly gay Stephen Gately. Passions in Britain have been inflamed by an article in a tabloid national newspaper, The Daily Mail. Under the heading "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death" journalist Jan Moir suggests that his death was not a result of natural causes, as found by the coroner, but more by his leading a gay lifestyle. Referring to the fact that Gately and his long-time partner has been clubbing before returning home with a young Bulgarian on the night he died, she hits out at the idea that gay civil partnerships have the commitment gay activists claim they have. She adds: “Once 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.”

 

I never knew much about Boyzone and less about Stephen Gately. From all accounts he seems to have been an extremely likeable and loveable guy in addition to being very talented. However, having now read the article and a Facebook entry –

 

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=151083562155

 

- which was motivated by public outrage from gay actor Stephen Fry and calls on all those similarly outraged to write to The Press Complaints Commission in the UK and, more importantly, to the major companies who have long-term advertisers contracts with the newspaper, I was spurred into action. I have written short emails expressing my disgust at the article and calling on the advertisers to withdraw their advertisements until the newspaper issues a public apology to Gately’s partner, family and friends. There is nothing companies fear more than a large motivated group of consumers possibly moving away from their brands.

 

So if anyone reading this feels the same, do please write a short concise email to the following companies –

 

Proctor & Gamble - PGpress.im@pg.com

 

Nestle - nestleukpressoffice@uk.nestle.com

 

Kodak - julie.taylor-butt@kodak.com

 

Marks & Spencer (which has branches in Thailand)

Use the form on this page -

https://www.marksandspencer.com/gp/contact/actions/subject-form-actions.html/276-1978723-8286164?ie=UTF8&mnSBrand=core

 

Clinique

Use the form on this page - http://www.clinique.co.uk/customerservice/cservice_email_us.tmpl

 

The text can be very simple and along the following lines –

 

I write to express my disgust at the article in The Daily Mail by Jan Moir headed "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death." It is disgraceful that any media outlet should publish such an article at any time, let alone immediately prior to the deceased's funeral. I am also concerned about your company's involvement with any publication which publishes such trash. It breaches not only any normal code of ethics, it involves a major invasion of privacy.

 

I trust that, as a responsible corporate entity, you will insist that the publication immediately retracts the article in full and publicly apologizes to Stephen Gately's partner, family and friends - and to the general public, most of whom are as disgusted as I. I trust also that you will express your company’s extreme concern by withdrawing advertising from The Daily Mail until such time as these apologies are printed. Until then, I will purchase none of your products as a mark of my own indignation.

 

Thank you

[Guest fountainhall]

Whilst I regret that no-one else seemed to agree with my views on the dreadful article concerning pop-singer Stephen Gately's death almost 2 weeks ago, I am heartened that the journalist yesterday did publicly apologise (after a fashion). To the singer's partner, family and friends, she wrote "I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral." She added, "Obviously, a great deal of offence has been taken and I regret any affront caused. This was never my intention."

 

There is no doubt that it was pressure from the public and from advertisers that forced this mea culpa.

[Bob]

Silence shouldn't mean disagreement with the principles you noted. For me (perhaps I've lead a sheltered life), I had no recollection of ever hearing his name or the name of his group until I saw the mention of his untimely death in the papers and on the net.

 

I still haven't read the original newspaper article (and won't given the reviews) but I did read a few of the comments on Facebook that you linked. I rather liked the one comment which made reference to the fact that being homosexual is not a lifestyle choice whereas being homophobic certainly is.