This is absolutely ridiculous. To see how the comments were actually made, the program needs to be watched because the words don’t bounce very nicely off the printed page. The fact is that, from the beginning of the show, Frank Skinner (playfully) made Duncan’s sexuality central to the show and Duncan was taking most opportunities to make light of the fact that he’s gay through jokes throughout the show. He went a bit far and said something stupid; Katy Brand’s response was not a sincere look of surprise, it was jesting because it was obvious Duncan was just being silly in the context of everybody already emphasising the fact that OMG look this is the gay one, what does he have to say? …
Duncan is an utter moron. How he can make these types of lunatic comments when he himself and his political party are against gay marriage (the Tories and Duncan believe the unequal civil partnership legislation is sufficient). He threatened to kill Miss California for having the same bigotted opinions he and his party hold. Disgusting hypocrite.
Simon, you took the words right out of my mouth. Duncan shouldn’t be bothered by Prejean’s comments since there is NO such thing as “gay marriage” in the UK. The majority of UK gays apparently rejected it for civil partnerships or get nothing at all. I’m only stating what I’d been told by the same-sex marriage haters who post here. The fact of the matter is, its not just the Tories who are against it, Labour is too. So be it. The rest of western EU members will get on board eventually as we’ve recently seen with Norway and now Sweden. The UK won’t unless its dragged kicking and screaming or its mandated. Its going to catch up with us because as more countries abandon the various legal unequal unions outside of marriage, its going to become increasingly difficult to have them recognised in all of those countries that offer only marriage in terms of employment and couples taking up employment and residence therein.
It was only a joke… He was not actually seriously threatening to kill her.
I know it was only a joke but why on earth was he pretending to support gay marriage? Neither Duncan nor his party support equality so his joke was inappropriate (actually even if he did support equality his joke was inappropriate).
Some people need to get a sense of perspective and a sense of humour. Most politicians who appear on this show make attempts to be funny that come across as clumsy and embarassing. Their job is to be serious, whilst most of their fellow participants do comedy for a living.
And when will the Left start to realise that trying to put this anti-gay spin on the Tories just doesn’t wash anymore? Wasn’t it a 12 point Tory lead amongst gay voters in a recent poll? Get up-to-date, you guys!
This article is blown out of proportion – if you saw the show as i did it you would not be as horrified as you may be from reading this article!
GavinF – why are you criticising the so-called “anti-gay spin” placed on the Tories.
Are you claiming that the Tory party supports equality in gay relationships and that if they get elected they will abolish the CP’s in favour of equality?
I know that Labour don’t support equality either but to pretend that the Tories do support equality is absurd.
Interesting to read yesterday about David Cameron’s jolly to South Africa during the Apartheid regime in 1989. He was opposed to sanctions against that evil regime (along with his party) at the time. So he had no moral objection with having a luxury holiday paid for by the regime. The Tory party claims to be all liberal these days but I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them.
Robert’s comment “The majority of UK gays apparently rejected it for civil partnerships or get nothing at all.” is a little odd. I don’t remember voting against it – I don’t remember being consulted…. is he making stuff up?
Stonewall, our unimpeachable representatives to govt, chose for us – hopefully because they thought it the least bad option, though maybe to avoid a fight with NuLabour, their sponsors.
Oh, Lordy. Just when you think an absurd story can’t possibly get any stupider, a Tory MP steps in.
I’m no Conservative – but to all of you who have a go at the party for being anti-gay are way off the mark. I see more openly gay MPs/members in the Conservative party than in Labour – things have changed since Thatcher and Section 28…let’s move on – because if you continue to slap them with this homophobic label you are essentially saying that people cannot learn, cannot grow and can never accept – which is a load of old tripe!
Didn’t see the show, and the remark may not have been funny. But this hysterical reaction? Have I Got News for You isn’t meant to be taken seriously, is it?
Ryan Haynes – actions speak louder than words. I would need to see some real signs of progress on gay rights from the Tories instead of meaningless spin. David Cameron seems pleasant enough (despite sucking up to the Apartheid regime earlier in his career) but he seems like such a lightweight Blair – he will say ANYTHING to get a vote. Quite simply I don’t trust him and his party remains the spiritual home of nutters like Norman Tebbit and Margaret Thatcher.
a joke but still a bit strong. and rich, coming from a man with a bit of power in a country that doesnt allow gay marriage. glass houses mate.
Robert, ex-pat Brit: I think you probably need to calm down a little. I know this is your own little drum to beat and all. But we do have gay marriage in the UK, they simply have a different name. And to suggest that there are “same sex marriage haters” all over Pink News is nothing short of nonsense.
I’d much rather take the differently named legislation now and change the terminology later rather than not have legislation at all. You’ll have to point out a country to me that does recognise gay “marriages” as legal unions but doesn’t accept our UK “civil partnerships”. I’m not aware of any country that does this.
Simon, respectfully, civil partnerships are not marriages and not defined as such under the marriage causes act of 1973. Its not a question of semantics, its the law of the land and as such, gay couples are not allowed to marry. The public, the media may regard them as such, but in reality they are not unless the law is changed to reflect that.
Holland, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden (May 1), Canada and South Africa all have reciprocal recognition of each other’s same-sex marriages. Some of them may recognise civil partnerships, unions, PACS whatever for what they are but NOT as marriages. You have to provide evidence of a marriage certificate for that to occur. Unfortunately civil partnerships do not provide a marriage certificate nor are they considered equal to same-sex marriages in those countries mentioned but as something separate, not mainsream. Simple as that. Why do you think more countries are now abandoning them for marriage, including 4 states in the U.S. so far?. Interestingly, the American public in recent polls appear to be in support of full marriage equality, up now from 48% to 51%. We don’t have one county in the UK that permits it yet, though I doubt if it ever will unless compelled to. Ideally, the UK could be a world leader to allow both types of legal union to be available to either opposite or same-sex gender if they so choose.
Mihangel apYrs, thank you for clarifying for KJN regarding Stonewall representing the LGBT community on the civil partnership issue.
Simon, I was bashed and continue to be bashed for defending same-sex marriage by people who post here who admomished me by saying that most LGBT people in the UK didn’t want hetero marriage or anything associated with it and to mind my own business because I no longer have permanent residence in the UK, therefore I was not qualified to make any comment or statement to that effect. There were several people (and they know who they are) who claimed to speak for the majority of British LGBT people on this site regarding this issue, so its not “my” nonsense but theirs. I do not hear any proactive marriage equality movement in the UK with the exception perhaps in Scotland. Even in the Irish Republic there is a very proactive movement lobbying for full marriage but nothing in England.
In one way you make a valid point about opting for civil partnerships as opposed to nothing, but in several emails I sent to Stonewall UK asking why they are not proactive in the same-sex marriage issue, I was told that civil partnerships were sufficient, that there was no reason to believe that they would become involved in full marriage equality. I find that remark and attitude extraordinary, unlike any gay organisation anywhere in the western world. Now that the trend seems to be for full marriage, already five nations in Europe, Stonewall’s indifference becomes even more extraordinary and bizarre. Inevitably, marriage will be the norm, its just a matter of time but I doubt if the UK would get on board unless of course it was compelled to for a lot of reasons. I predict Denmark and Finland will be the next to reject civil unions now that Sweden joins the other 6 come May 1. Luxembourg, Switzerland, perhaps Germany and even France could come next. Its going to happen.
The real issue here is that yet again Hargreaves is seeking to limit free speech. This is the same man who complained about a Gay Police Association advert that depicted the Bible with blood on it to indicate Christians selective use of scripture to promote antigay sentiments. The Bible calls, afterall, for gays to be killed. If a childish death threat made in jest is a crime then equally the content of the Bible, by inciting the killing of two men sleeping together, also violates the law. When Christians cite Leviticus they are, in effect, inciting the murder of gays. In this case the police should investigate them, but of course the Christians then claim their religious liberty, which they claim is absolute, is being infringed. Has Hargreaves ever cited Leviticus by reference to gays? If so We need Stonewall and individuals, gay and ungay, to complain to the police that he is promoting the killing of gays. I demand the police investigate those who publish and distribute the Old Testament for inciting murder, ritual child killing, etc and the New Testament for formenting anti-Semitism (racism).
How can we turn young people away from murder when the leader of the Christian Party derives his opinions about homosexuality from a book that incites the murder of gays. Young people reading the Bible might easily and understandably be led astray into believing that killing is ok because the Bible says so. I suggest the police investigate those who promote and distribute such literature and ideas to impressionable young people instead. Leviticus after all incites treating minority races as property which promotes racism! It is worth recalling that all the leading Nazis were morally raised as Christians. Had they been raised as Muslims, the Holocaust could never have happened as the Prophet Mohammed promoted religious tolerance.
All is popycock and balderdash. I saw the ‘Have I Got News For You’ BBC Show and Alan Duncan ment to say he would scratch her eyes out like any self respecting queen would. Can’t you politically correct persons read between the lines? (Give me streangth!)