We didn't report on her first piece last Friday; the blaze of rage it induced just kept flowing and, quite frankly, it didn't seem fitting to even make reference to it given it was published before Gately's funeral.
If you've not read her original draft, which got The Daily Mail a load of notoriety last week, let me pass you over to the very capable hands of Charlie Brooker to run you through its highlights.
This week, Moir has come across with the following today:
"Obviously, a great deal of offence has been taken and I regret any affront caused. This was never my intention. To be the focus of such depth of feeling has been an interesting experience, but I do not complain. After all, I am not - unlike those close to Stephen Gately - mourning for the loss of a much-loved partner, son, family member and close friend. To them, I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral. This brings me back to the bile, the fury, the inflammatory hate mail and the repeated posting of my home address on the internet. To say it was a hysterical overreaction would be putting it mildly, though clearly much of it was an orchestrated campaign by pressure groups and those with agendas of their own. However, I accept that many people - on Twitter and elsewhere - were merely expressing their own personal and heartfelt opinions or grievances. This said, I can't help wondering - is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists (um, to quote her last article: "Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships") by people who are determined to be outraged? Or was it a failure of communication on my part?"
Nope, the glaring ignorance was communicated quite adequately, Jan.