Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay club clashes with local council over ‘kinky’ sign

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “Development committee chairman Councillor Mike Bird said that members of the community such as faith groups or the elderly would find the images offensive.”

    If everything faith groups found offensive was taken down we’d live in a vacuum. There has to be a point where you just tell them to go fuck themselves, and this seems like such a point.

  2. I wonder how many Wonderbra adverts the council insisted on being removed?

  3. For Counsellor Mike Bird to assume that the elderly are all homophobic bigots is presumtuous, patronising and downright ageist. As for faith groups, they have no special right whatsoever of censorship over the rest of us. Besides, Counsellor Bird makes the same mistake here in arrogantly presuming he knows what they all think.

  4. This sign is clearly colourful, humorous, and stylish. The fact that people are outraged by it shows that after all these years Britain remains a dull dull country heaving with dull dull people. This sign doesn’t go well with their grey, brown, and black anoraks.

  5. Rick George 3 Jan 2009, 10:51am

    Absolute crap. Theres nothing particularly out of the ordinary about this sign in comparison to any of a dozen signs you could find outside nightclubs anywhere in the country. It is not remotely offensive just tongue in cheek. The only reason for this objection is homophobic prejudice, nothing more, nothing less. This is 21st century Britain, not the Victorian era. Grow up!

  6. Rick George 3 Jan 2009, 11:03am

    Absolute crap. There is little difference between this sign and any of a dozen other similiar kinds of signs you could observe outside nightclubs, theaters or shops up and down the country. There is nothing remotely offensive about this sign whatsoever. This is 21st century Britain, not the Victorian era. Grow up Mr Bird! The only reason for these objections is homophobic prejudice, nothing more, nothing less. I should like to see the complainants questioned about the broken windows.

  7. There are two issues here. One is that councillors (and their constituents) may be a bit homophobic.

    But the second is that they did not seek planning permission for it, which it seems they should have done. Any large sign covering a street window needs planning permission. It could be almost blank, it’s nothing to do with the picture.

    They should apply for retrospective planning permission like any business should. It is just a case of paperwork.

  8. Jenny & Jessika 3 Jan 2009, 2:10pm

    While there may be a planning issue with the boards, the council isn’t taking that approach, instead they are upholding bigitory instead, which has no real place in law.

    Really they’ve tipped their hand in regards to the bigitory involved.

  9. I think people should write into the council and commend the club for being bold, colourful and cheery in order to couneract all those prudes whom have felt offended by it.

    I am an atheist yet I see great buildings dedicated to religions which berate homosexuality, prosessions organised by churches. As for faith groups, don’t they already (unjustly) have enough space and voice?

  10. Har Davids 3 Jan 2009, 6:05pm

    You don’t see guys dressed like that very often, but offensive?

  11. Harry, London 3 Jan 2009, 10:37pm

    where is this Darleston place anyway?

  12. they should plaster the sign all over the town hall. And wrap the councillors up in it.

  13. @Harry: just outside of Walsall (they’ve mispelled it – it’s supposed to be Darlaston)

  14. Colin is right – the local planning authority’s enforcement action has nothing to do with the picture of the man-in-boots, it is the hoarding which has been erected without the necessary planning permission.

    Some gay people are so over-sensitive they would accuse a cat of homophobia if it caught a pink cockatoo or say it was a rascist cat if it chased a brown mouse!

    Get real folks – what some of you are actually suggesting is that a gay business is somehow above the law of the land and does not need to to comply with national planning regulations. That is patently absurd and makes us look ridiculous. The owner of the premesis should remove the unauthorised signage and comply with the law of this land. By all means submit a planning application with the same image on – but go through the proper channels but DO NOT bleat ‘homophobia’.

    Falsely playing the homophobia card, just like the race card, is crying wolf and demeans the cause of genuine victims of homophobia.

  15. Thomas: what you say is perfectly correct, but if that were the case why are the complaints from the ‘faith groups’ etc even mentioned? It shouldn’t be part of the issue at all.

  16. Mike Harley 5 Jan 2009, 2:58pm

    Tell the faith groups to look at the half naked pictures they put out of Jesus when we was wondering around, he has less cloths on than the picture on the sign for Kinky Boots and as for distracting signs all the girly pics on the advertising boards in and around our cities showing naked woman are not a distraction to all the heterosexual men who work for the council. what a load of crap.

  17. Lovely picture! I get the bit about distracting the traffic though!

  18. Sister Mary Clarence 8 Jan 2009, 7:09pm

    I entirely agree with Thomas. Why people are on here yelling for us to man the barricades when the club has, probably quite knowingly, flouted planning regulations, I do not know.

    Whether Tom, Dick or Harry thinks that a particular image will or won’t offend one individual or another is really here nor there. The advertising should not be there without planning consent. You can’t put up illegal signage, be told to remove it, and then claim its homophobia – those same planning laws apply to every other premises in the borough. Jesus, talk about play the victim.

    If they had obtained planning permission for the signs like every other business in the borough, there wouldn’t be a story head.

    The headline should read, “Gay business falsely claims homophobia after flouting the law” or “The law applies equally to gay or straight, illegal sign posting publican told”.

  19. Muddied water much? Yes the club should seek planning permission, and this is a separate issue to the complaints about the sign being OFFENSIVE. I very much doubt that anyone was offended by the signs planning status… Bad journalism right there, Pink News.

    And shush faith groups – you’ve offended plenty in your time!

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all