Dear Mr Dacre
I am aware that you have received a number of emails from people about the awful homophobic, disrespectful, badly researched and ill-conceived article written by Jan Moir that the Daily Mail decided it was appropriate to publish on Friday 16 October 2009 – the day before Mr Gately’s funeral! I know that many of these are extremely well worded and clearly make a number of points. I’m not sure that my verbosity allows me to be as concise as those people but I must make myself clear.
Don’t get me wrong. I have never, and will never, buy a Daily Mail in my life. Your stance on immigration, homosexuality, crime, gender differences and your general politics jars the very core of my being. But – and I think even you must agree with this – the article written by Jan Moir was distasteful at best, and at worst it was a clear and shrewd act designed to make the author a martyr to the “heavily orchestrated campaign” that she mentioned in her clarification.
It has been 4 days now since the article was written, and yet still the feelings that I have about this piece scream out to me that I cannot stand by and let this lie. And nearly 30,000 other people on Facebook, and goodness knows how many on twitter and out in the real world feel the same. Contrary to what Ms Moir may think, I have indeed read the article that she wrote, both the original (“Nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death”) and the slightly sanitised “A strange, lonely and troubling death…”
It seems clear to me that you, as the head of the Daily Mail, seem to have decided to revel in the further notoriety that the article has gained you. It is disappointing that – despite what is clearly a feeling that is shared by much of the general public (and indeed it seems, a large proportion of your own readership) – Neither you, your publication nor Ms Moir have seen fit to publish even an apology. Personally I feel a full an unreserved retraction is in order. I have seen that you have however decided to mobilise Janet Street-Porter and Suzanne Moore to try to mitigate the damage. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but IT HASN’T WORKED. We’re still here, we’re still appalled by the article and we’re still angry.
If you want to know what to do it’s simple. Stand beside Jan Moir and apologise – both of you – apologise for the timing of the publication (come on – even you can’t agree that the day before the man’s funeral was appropriate! Was this a time-sensitive piece that simply couldn’t wait two or three days? I think not!) and the distress that it could have caused for a grieving family. I understand from more reputable and thoughtful publications that it seems many of the family have chosen not to read the article – you should be very grateful for this.
Ms Moir’s apology should then continue to apologise to the family, the medical professionals who performed the post mortem, the public and her profession for the incorrect, ill-informed and baseless allegation that she made when she said “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.” As I am sure you are more than aware, the results of the post mortem confirmed he died of “natural causes by acute pulmonary oedema”. A court reporter confirmed, “Stephen’s death has nothing to do any alcohol he drank that night, it has nothing to do with drugs and he did not choke on his own vomit,”.
This would also be an excellent opportunity for Ms Moir to use her notoriety to raise the profile of the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (c-r-y.org.uk) who use their freedom of speech to raise the profile of this sort of situation. In fact, according to the charity, twelve apparently fit and healthy young people die in the UK from undiagnosed heart conditions every single week.
Of course, once the personal apology is out of the way, I would then expect you both to apologise to those people who have been justifiably outraged at the underhanded assault that Ms Moir made against the Gay Community. The article insinuates that Gay men have ‘dark appetites’ and ‘private vices’. This, combined with the idea that if a partnership of consenting adults choose to invite someone home (whether it be for a game of canasta or even for sex), and that partnership is Gay then the circumstances become “more than a little sleazy” is a direct and blatant attack on the Gay community.
I have seen a number of people discuss this part of the article, and many of them state that most Gay couples don’t involve themselves in threesomes and more. Personally I think that the argument is a moot point and entirely irrelevant. What consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own homes is their business. And I think that even your readership will have to agree with me as it is them that discuss the use of male escorts in your own Femail forums: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/chat/r/t-10008606/index.html?threadIndex=13.
But of course, the attack on the Gay community doesn’t stop there. She chose to continue with “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. … 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.”
I have read this section a number of times and I still do not understand what questions that a suicide by the FORMER husband of Matt Lucas and the unfortunate tragedy that affected Stephen Gately may raise. The only question that these two disparate deaths raise in my mind is “how on earth can anyone link the two?” But of course it did allow Ms Moir (who is allegedly on the record as supporting Partnership Registration you know!) to explode the “happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships”. She is however correct, equal rights activists (not just the gay ones Jan!) are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same -sex relationships because they are just the same as heterosexual ones. We laugh, we cry, we argue, we make up – we even (believe it or not) raise well ajudsted and supported children who turn out to be heterosexual! Certainly sometimes Gay men and Lesbians stray, sometimes the couples choose to do something to “spice up the relationship” – in exactly the same way that heterosexual couples do. But one thing that we have not said is that Partnership Registration is a ticket to happy-ever-after.
I understand that the PCC will investigate the matter in response to the unprecedented number of complaints received about the article. In recognition of this, and of the fact that this article was at best ill-judged and at worst, malevolent, I urge you to consider your position and retract the article in advance of that investigation.
Yours sincerely
Ethan Kristopher-Hartley
Please note, I have published this email on my blog – you can find it at http://efan78.com/140/JanM2. I will also publish any response that you send to this email.
Very early on Monday morning I wrote 
It’s difficult to know what to say. As I type this I know that the 
