Reader comments · Met police defend decision not to ban homophobic performer · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Met police defend decision not to ban homophobic performer

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Ian Campbell 18 Nov 2008, 2:51pm

    Peter Tatchell is magnificent in his defence of our community.

    He deserves a knighthood.

  2. I agree

  3. Andrew Robertson 18 Nov 2008, 3:48pm

    Yip Peter Tatchell has been steadfast in the face of violent attacks and verbal hate.

    its people like him who deserve awards – not bloody celebs who do next to nothing for huge paypackets!

    BTW: email to be added to our mailing list to alert you to homophobic acts/incidents that require a response.

  4. Good for Peter … and yes he should be “Sir Peter”! As Bounty Killer has never signed the Reggae Compassionate Act, he should not be permitted by an police force to perform anywhere in Britain – until he does. Also, Brown’s government should not issue hime with the required work permit.

  5. Some use the police are – striving for good community relations at any price…? Peter Tatchell is spot-on. (I don’t know if he’d take too kindly to being called ‘Sir Peter’, Mark; he’s staunchly republican!)

  6. Robert, ex-pat Brit 18 Nov 2008, 5:08pm

    Well done, Peter, my friend! Consistently honest and courageous, a real “mensch”, one of the few.

  7. Let him perform
    Arrest and fine him!

  8. Just when you think authority and the law is on your side, the Met, once again, go and put their big size 10 foot right in it! We will remember this Met Police, and when you turn to us for ‘assistant’with your enquiries,in future ,you will be told
    where you can ******* go and get off! Dispicable double standards!

  9. As a loyal Conservative I have to say I applaud Peter Tatchell – he is a tireless and very brave campaigner on so many really important fronts across the political spectrum – gay equality, international affairs such as Zimbabwe, environmental concerns etc. I agree with all of the commentators thus far – arise Sir Peter! (providing you can drop the daft republican twaddle :~)

  10. Let’s not sell our man short. Arise LORD Tatchell of Bermondsey.

    As for Bounty Killer, why is he so keen to “prove” to everyone he is straight, eh?

  11. I put my money where my mouth is and donate £5 every month from my student loan to Peter Tatchell. I wish I could defend my gay family more robustly, but feel that by supporting Peter, I am at least supporting SOMOEONE who is fighting for my rights, regardless of the party in power; Labour, conservative and liberal are all hypocrites when it comes to power. I give what I can not spare and he speaks for me even when I am too scared to speak for myself.

  12. It’s tricky. One wants to have free speech and allow everyone to say what they think, yet at the same time stop people like this.
    It’s all something of a double-edged sword. If you want to promote Pride, Gay rights etc etc, then equally, by the same token, this man has the same right to spread his hatred.

    A law must apply to everyone, or none at all.

  13. Edward in Los Angeles 19 Nov 2008, 3:48am

    There is a difference between free speech and hate speech. There always has been.

  14. Graham in Greenwich 19 Nov 2008, 8:06am

    LGBT Liaison??? The Met has invested so much time and effort in courting the gay community but has, in my opinion, thrown it all out the window with this decision.

  15. Commander Thor 19 Nov 2008, 9:32am


    @Rob N: Consider replacing “Homophobia” with “Racism”. Discuss.

  16. Simon Murphy 19 Nov 2008, 9:42am

    Why not log on to the Met Police website to ask them why racist groups are ALWAYS prevented from performing regardless of whether or not they advocate murder but homophobic artists are treated more leniently. Ask them about this homophobic double standard.

  17. Robert, ex-pat Brit 19 Nov 2008, 1:14pm

    I’m all for free speech including what could be construed as hate speech and I would defend that person’s right to say it, but not when it advocates killing, committing or implying acts of violence against a group of people, that’s where the line has been crossed and we have to be very careful how we define what is and what isn’t acceptable speech. We saw where hate speech led in 1930’s Germany, a sobering reminder.

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.