Reader comments · Ken tours London’s gay bars with his posse · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Ken tours London’s gay bars with his posse

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Ken was on an election broadcast this evening. He was seen meeting muslim leaders but not a hint of any interest in London’s gay and lesbian community. We are very low on his list of priorities.

  2. Charles Caselton 17 Apr 2008, 1:27pm

    Hi,Can we get serious here? Ken a friend us? he welcomed an Islamofascist as a ‘most honoured guest’ to our fair city, someone whose most recent statements included, “It is ok to hit women, but only with your hand”(well, that’s alright then isn’t it?) and “Homosexuals should be thrown from a great height.” Ken is no friend of ours and if you vote for him…..well, get some respect for yourself…..unless you think that, actually, we should be taken to a great height n thrown off…..? wake up people

  3. George Broadhead 17 Apr 2008, 1:30pm

    Quite right, and never forget the warm welcome he gave to the ultra homophobic Muslim cleric Dr Yusuf Quaradawi at City Hall a few years ago. When it comes to gay and Muslim interests, the latter wins hands-down.See gay activists’ response to Ken’s defense of the Qaradawi welcome:

  4. All major faiths oppose homosexuality … read your Bible. Mr. Livingston is right to lend his support to people of faith rather than to the homosexual agenda.

  5. Robert, ex-pat Brit 17 Apr 2008, 6:01pm

    Alan, FYI….there is NO “homosexual” agenda, never was. Such an agenda exists only in the minds of people such as yourself. Since when does lobbying for equal rights under the law smack of an agenda? In a modern democratic society, all citizens should be treated equally and fairly. To deny or discriminate against one group because those in that group are attracted to the same sex has nothing to do with an agenda. Its about equal rights for all without exception. If gay people are subjected to paying the same taxes, fight in wars and die for our country, they should be accorded equal protection and equal rights under the law without without prejudice. Politicians as well as religious leaders need to keep their biased opinions to themselves in the interests of justice and equality for all. What part of that don’t you understand or refuse to understand? Why should straight people enjoy more rights than one particular group, assuming you are straight? How would you like it if you were told you were not entitled to the same rights as the rest of society? Walk in some of our collective shoes for a while to find out what discrimination is really like and maybe you’d think differently and not so ready to make asinine comments.Just because most major faiths oppose “homosexuality” doesn’t mean that they have a right to discriminate and violate the laws of the land either. Nobody is exempt or should be. You should consult the following website, wherein you will find many biblical references that the majority of the major faiths deliberately choose to ignore or withhold from their collective belief systems with the exception of course to an arguably questionable reference in Leviticus. All of them need to get their own houses in order before they start resorting to villifying and discriminating against a particular group. Remember, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and judge not and ye shall not be judged”. Seems pretty clear to me that none of them aspire to any of that, including you.

  6. Oh dear, the usual weasel moral equivalence arguments about Christianity and Islam when anyone dares point out Ken’s love affair with Islamic clerics who want to turn our deaths into a spectator sport. In nominally Christian Europe and Jewish Israel, gays have far more rights than they do in any Islamic country. For those that think otherwise, which would you prefer? A discussion about gay rights with the spineless Archbishop of Canterbury or a trip to any Islamic country and a chat about gay rights with a genocidal Islamic cleric of your choice.Ken’s remarks about Yusuf Quaradawi’s views that we should be murdered are simply a “philosophical question” are a disgrace. They should show him videos of gays being hung in Iran and see how philosophical that is. Ken Livingstone is the absolute last person that any gay person should vote for.

  7. Wake up people. ken Livingstone believes has has the automatic right to your vote, then he becomes best friends with Islamic extremists. Boris Johnson would never do the same

  8. “The lesbian and gay and trans community played a huge part in creating this city.”Oh well, I’ll take my bisexual vote and give it to Paddick then, y’snooty sod!

  9. Oh, looks like we have another Luke! That 7:59 post isn’t from, erm, me.

  10. This news item isn’t biased against Ken at all is it? No wonder the gaypers have such bad standing in the media.

  11. The fact remains that Ken has stood up for gay rights when it was deeply unfashionable and was attacked on a daily basis in the Tory media. That was recognised in Soho where I saw his walkabout – he was greeeted like a film star. Boris Johnson himself says if you support two men getting married, you might as well support three men and a dog. He regularly shares a platform with homophobes – all of the Tories who supported Section 28 and who shout homophobic abuse at the out gay MPs in the Commons.

  12. I would love Brian Paddick to become mayor, but we all know he won’t. So then from a gay perspective who is best for us? Ken or Boris?I am afraid that by voting for Brian Paddick, we open the door to Boris Johnson, So the real useful vote is, unfortunately Ken.

  13. Sister Mary Clarence 18 Apr 2008, 12:25pm

    I’m sorry Liam, for every homophobic Tory, that’s an equally homophobic Labour MP, councillor or worker. The only difference is that Labour when re-branding themselves decided to pay lip service to a number of agendas in order to secure more votes. Ken Livingstone is a shining example of this. Gay rights, equality in general, the green agenda – if you scratch the surface, you’ll see that they have no real commitment to anything but worshiping at the alter of power and control.You only have to look at the Miranda Grell episode to see not only the true colours of some of their elected members, not just Miranda herself, but all the fawning sycophants that moved hell and high water to get her off the hook, and also the party in itself that took anything but decisive action when she had been convicted and failed in her appeal.Ruth Kelly, laughably the former equalities minister is another example of Labour’s commitment to gay equality. Callum Macdonald and Jim Dobbin appear to be no friend of Dorothy either.Ken Livingston and New Labour have played the public like a fiddle for years and the Tories spin doctors have been much slower in bringing the party up to speed. Under David Cameron we are seeing the Tory party catching up with Labour, yes, only to get a few more votes, but this is exactly what Labour did some years ago – check out the shift in a number of Labour MPs voting records on issues like the repeal of section 28.I worked for Labour for many years and I’m acutely aware of the agendas behind many of their policies

  14. To Sister Mary Clarence,Thanks for that information. I checked on the net as I’d never heard of Miranda Grell before. Its shocking to see that Labour were originally supporting her appeal.

  15. SMC, when you say you are aware of the agendas behind many of their policies, what exactly do you mean by that? Are you able to clarify further without breaching confidences?Also, is it not the case that the repeal of section 28, gay civil partnerships and equality legislation happened under Labour and, also, that progress under the Conservatives would have been unlikely had they remained in power from 1997 to today?I ask these questions because the issues you raise in your post would appear to make sense in respect of the far left in this country, rather than the centre left of Labour.

  16. Sorry, the last post was written by myself. I forgot to enter my name! Sorry!

  17. Sister Mary Clarence 18 Apr 2008, 10:00pm

    In reverse order David. Labour has had little (no) choice on moving forward the gay equality agenda because of policy coming from Europe. Whilst it can opt out of the odd treaty here and there as it has done (although I think one of these opt outs has either just been, or is about to be challenged), it can’t opt out of all of them. Enactment of various treaties signed in Europe have had an enormous effect , but in reality would have done so under any government that wished to remain in the EU, whether Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem. We are seeming similar legislation to our own popping up all over Europe. We are never the first to introduce it and ours is never the most radical, but we are never the last and there are always other countries that are giving just a little bit less.In answer to your first point, without doubt too many to go into detail on here, but when I started working for them I would never had even considered voting for anyone but Labour and knowing now what I do I’d sooner burn in hell than endorse New Labour’s governance of this country by voting for them. They have jettisoned every socialist principle that the Labour Party ever stood for in their thirst for power, and what they will do to keep that power knows no bounds.I am fully aware that in the long run the Conservatives are no better, but power breeds corruption, and its certainly been busy doing so in New Labour lately.And lastly, New Labour long ago ceased to be left of centre ….

  18. Sister Mary Clarence 18 Apr 2008, 10:01pm

    Peter – I have to say I wasn’t shocked at all, however after exhausting every avenue to get herself of the hook and being found guilty by two courts for what was a despicable crime that ruined at least one man’s life, she was allowed to resign from the Labour party rather than be booted out, thus leaving the way open for her to rejoin in a year or two and pick up where she left off.


  20. someof the comments here reminds me of what my granny’s said when her local priest had been convicted of abusing children. “but he did so much for charity” was her reaction. Its the same with ken, it is true he has supported gay rights in the past, but there are somethings that you just dont do, and befriending islamic nutcases is one of them. my vote is going to paddick or boris.

  21. George Broadhead 19 Apr 2008, 6:11pm

    Ken Livingstone’s defence of his welcome for the Muslim cleric Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and his attempt to brush aside the homophobia of the previous pope are pathetic. He is clearly woefully muddled about the homophobia coming from religious sources.

  22. The sad answer to all this sycophantic arse-licking is that Ken will do anything to retain power. He is London’s answer to Robert Mugabe.Why is it that anyone seen as slightly right of centre is automatically branded anti-gay and one shade from being a Nazi? Boris has good, original concepts and won’t kowtow to either the government or his own party. Paddick has good intentions, but I don’t trust any gay man as far as I can spit, because they are all way too selfish to look beyond their own wardrobes. As an avid Telegraph and Spectator reader, I for one trust Boris, as his consistency of opinion and goals has proved his integrity over many years.Ken, by contrast, swaps, changes and moves whichever way the wind blows to suit the current political climate, when it is pretty obvious he has no allegiance to anybody but himself and his own self-importance. I once thought his independence was a good thing, but he has turned out to be just another hypocritical socialist with his own agenda. Some may not like the Tories, but at least they have the guts to tell you before they fuck you over, instead of purporting to be “The Peoples Party ™”, whilst feathering their nests, taking bungs from all directions, and then stabbing everyone in the back.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.