Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Jonathan Ross ‘mortified’ over accusations of homophobia

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. If you are so mortified, Ross, then insist that those four gay men who sing on your program every week are called, by you at least, by some other name than “Four Poofs” . . . so that you will no longer be able to begin your weekly show with a show that implies gay men are focussed solely on having sex with each other and others.

    “Mortified”? Crap! I can hear you rehearsing the word before you wrote it.

  2. @Eddy

    The Four Poofs and Piano are self-named and have been around longer than the TV show. Of course, this raises other issues (about which reasonable people can reasonably disagree) in respect of groups trying to use and reclaim certain words for the purpose of their own empowerment.

  3. Hi, Ivan. Yes, I know the four gentlemen concerned have named themselves “Four Poofs and a Piano”. And I maintain that that in itself is sad. In the ferociously competitive entertainment world here in the UK these four gay guys have been willing to degrade themselves in exchange for being employed.

    And then along comes Ross and says, “Yes, I’ll buy into that. Come on my programme and I’ll degrade you a bit more at the start of each one of my shows to the amusement of the largely hetero audience”. And so the cycle of homophobia goes round.

    Now, if Ross were a man of principle he’d have taken these guys aside and said, “Now, look fellas (Ivan, can’t you almost hear him saying this?), I want you to open my programme, but, guys, I don’t want to use this degrading terminology which sort of invites me and others to poke jokes at your expense, so how about you change your name and I just treat you like the four intro singers. And if the audience thinks you four might be gay well that’s up to them, but YOU show them how well you can sing, and let’s get on with the programme!”

    Now, THAT’S how a man of stature would behave, don’t you think, Ivan?

    This isn’t how Ross has behaved though – as was cleverly pointed out in the other thread.

  4. Ivan
    I agree it is important to reclaim words to empower oneself. . .
    Unfortunately this is double edge. When a word is used which also allows others to normalise abuse, this is not empowerment.

    For example, when a big brother contestant used the term Puff in relation to another house mate a few years ago, Offcom disagreed that it was homophobic citing Ross’s Four Puffs and a piano as justification.

  5. Robert, ex-pat Brit 14 May 2009, 1:47pm

    Do any of us really buy Ross’ claim that he’s not homophobic? Of course he is, most homophobes deny they are when confronted, its a reflex action. He’s not too bright!

  6. Which ever way you look at it the Four Poofs and Piano is discrimination! It would be illegal to have four N**g*rs and a Piano. The BBC could get into trouble with the law if they had that. But even though we are supposed to have equality in this country, the law ignores the 4 poofs.

    Of course the BBC know what they are doing they had Stephen Fry on the first returning show after Ross’s suspension to bolster and support the 4 poofs. That Fry has “sold his soul” to the BBC for money.

  7. Robert, ex-pat Brit

    . . . and I guess that you would probably agree with me that the knee jerk reaction usually goes something like . . . some of my closest friends are gay.

  8. Get over yourselves. Four Poofs named themselves and as for the Hannah Montana comment it was said in jest. I listened to the show as it was broadcast and there was no offence or malice implied. This sort of complaining is what get’s us a bad name. It was a joke . . . . LIGHTEN UP!!

  9. I always thought he was married to an Italian transexual -

  10. Jay Hunt, Controller of BBC One will be on Points of View on Sunday. Maybe we should email the programme to ask why Jay allows Jonathan to get away with homophobic remarks, considering she had a zero tolerance policy regarding Carol Thatcher’s comments which weren’t even broadcast.

    Points of View’s email is pov@bbc.co.uk

  11. @Simon

    Regarding the fact that the band named themselves, do you really believe that the BBC would allow a band calling themselves 4 Pakis and a Piano, or 4 Golliwogs and a Guitar. Maybe you should ask the BBC if they would use such a band as I’d be very interested in their answer to the question.

  12. I go with Simon. Lighten up for crying out loud. Everyone goes into headless chicken mode screaming accusations every time someone makes a vague reference to minorities. Stop bleating on about how this exacerbates homophobia and hatred; It doesn’t. If certain people dislike gays, or blacks, or Muslims, it’s sure as hell not been caused by some bloke making off-the-cuff jokes on the radio.
    Learn to laugh at yourself once in a while, if four poofs and a piano can do it, so can you.

  13. Woss, homophobic? That’s widiculous. Have you seen who’s been on his sofa? Life’s full of rough-and-tumbe – hang around a few straight lads and you’ll learn that one. Stop hiding behind homophobia. Woss wocks!

  14. I’ll admit I like Jonathon Ross in general, but I just don’t understand how someone with gay family members he gets along with (presumably) could blurt out something that crass on air.
    I don’t wish him to be sacked, but if you shoehorn any other minority group into that off the cuff remark heads would roll.
    I think he needs to understand the difference between laughing with us and laughing at us, and the social fallout from inadvertantly sanctioning homophobic attitudes.
    There are certain jokes only gay people can make about themselves, from the perspective of someone on the receiving end of that type of discrimination. I hope he understands that now.

  15. RobN why don’t you just mince off down to some bare stainless-steel gay bar for silly Eurovision-type brainless bimbos who just want to get pissed & pretend that the whole world is “just fabulous, dahling, fabulous”! Sounds to me like the last place someone who wants to avoid reality should visit is PinkNews. Put yourself out of your misery, sweetie, and go listen to Kylie!

  16. Dennis Hambridge 14 May 2009, 3:02pm

    It appears that everyone refers to GAY, why do you not come into the modern world—Gay refers to GAY–MEN these days—Lesbians Bisexuals and Trans quite rightly have their own automony, each and every sexualality face their own type of Homo/Transphobio, even from their own sort, Do you bleat when a LGBT person makes equal comments on TV/Radio.

    Get a life and a sense of humour, John Ross is no more phobic then yourselfs

    and yes i am a Gayman

  17. Chris: You obviously have no idea about me. I can’t abide the gay scene and all it’s pretentious crap. Equally, I also hate whinging little left-wing queens coming on here moaning about trivia. If I can burst any of those “save the single-parent black lesbian whale” bubbles, I will. Now fuck off back to reading your Guardian and leave the rest of us to voice our own opinions.

  18. Ian Laughlin 14 May 2009, 3:26pm

    Surely, if it weren’t for those whinging little left-wing queens and dykes, there’d never have been any Stonewall Riots, no Gay Liberation Front, no Switchboards, no Gay News/Gay Times, no OutRage!, no Terrence Higgins Trust, no AIDS activism, no gay bookstores, no anti-bullying initiatives, no “Families and Friends” groups.

    The coming of age of the gay and lesbian movements has meant that everyone – from gay Conservatives to gay Communists can forge their own identity, and this is as it should be. But history cannot be re-written: the fact is that the social groups, organisations and commercial structure of the gay community derive from the leftist GLF and their successors. After that whirlwind few years, nothing would be the same again, and every gay person today – regardless of their political orientation, lives in the space crated by those radical times.

  19. Simon Murphy 14 May 2009, 3:27pm

    RobN – are you deliberately missing the point perhaps?

    What Ross said isn’t really offensive I agree. But you cannot deny that the BBC has a zero tolerance policy towards ANY sort of racism however mild (see Carol Thatcher). They do however seem to be happy enough to tolerate mild homophobia.

    I’m not offended by mild homophobia so long as mild racism or sexism or ageism is equally tolerated.

  20. Ian Laughlin your words are so true – “the social groups, organisations and commercial structure of the gay community derive from the leftist GLF and their successors. After that whirlwind few years, nothing would be the same again, and every gay person today – regardless of their political orientation, lives in the space created by those radical times.”

    I don’t get guys like Rob, not that I know any thank heavens. But they must be awfully unhappy if they can’t “abide the gay scene” but also can’t abide reading about all the prejudice reported in the Pink. They must exist in some kind of homo-hell I guess! :-)

  21. Pumpkin Pie 14 May 2009, 3:58pm

    Don’t be silly, Ian Laughlin. RobN doesn’t need any of those things, because to him anything is better than being mistaken for a stinkin’ leftie. ANYTHING.

    I’ve never liked the way you use exaggerated terms like “headless chicken mode”, RobN, when most of your posts are so full of ANGER and RAGE. GODDAMN LIBERAL LEFTIE COMMIE SCUMBAGS RAWR! Do you even actually like anything? Seriously, totally open question there, anything at all – barring that which is merely the absence of something you dislike (that’s cheating!).

  22. Hi Dennis… there are two problems with “LGBT”:
    - It’s not a word and not everybody understands what it means
    - Even LGBT isn’t inclusive – for one example, it excludes asexual people.

    But “Gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals and asexuals” is often far, far too clumsy.

  23. Brian Burton 14 May 2009, 5:01pm

    Poor Old Wossy, will he ever be wright about anything?

  24. ‘Political Correctness’ is the censorship of the left. We are all being a little too sensitive, I would argue. I think most here who were offended are only offended on an intellectual level (i.e: they feel they should be offended, so they are). It is all rather pathetic and has taken time away from more important issues. Imagine if we applies the same strict standards to Drag Queens? What a sad, sad world it would be.

  25. Is Jonathan Ross Homophobic?

    I don’t think he is. I’ve seen many programmes with him in where he has spoken in favour of equality and against homophobia.

    Is what he said homophobic?

    A statement of itself cannot be homophobic. But it can reflect homophobia. Therefore, yes – his statement was implicitly homophobic.

    So – how does that work, then?

    I think Ross made a comments that is consistent with societies tolerance of homophobia – and it was misguided and ill-thought out.

    Where’s the problem here?

    The problem is that we live in a society where it’s all too ok to work with ideologies and discourses that are implicitly homophobic….but this seems to justify the PC brigade???

    The question for me is – what are his responsibilities? He is hosting a late night comedy chat show and therefore this sort of comment (in that context) is fine. So long as there is balance in his programme over time i.e. does he support LGBTQ issues and individuals where he can? I think he does.

    I’m ok with it.

  26. StreetLads 14 May 2009, 5:45pm

    I agree. Maybe we should all lighten-up a little? I think there are far more important people out there, spreading real HATE messages that we need to go after than Jonathan Ross. As someone else said, just look at his shows guest list to see if he’s homophobic. If any of you have actually watched him… He is the first to poke fun at HIMSELF.. It’s the very nature of comedy.

    Let’s use our clout and ammo against more worthy opponents… Like the Westboro Baptist Church etc… those who actually HATE us and would seek to wipe-out our very existence. Those who advocate murdering us.. Please guys, let’s not diminish our message here..

  27. Chris James 14 May 2009, 5:50pm

    I listened to Jonathans show and I didn’t find anything offensive.

  28. vulpus_rex 14 May 2009, 5:51pm

    I don’t particularly care if Jonathon Ross wants to take the p8ss out of gay people, even if to do so he resorts to cheap, low-brow stereotyping.

    I do on the other hand object to the suggestion that any parent should find their child’s sexuality a source of disappointment.

  29. Richard (Thread 25)

    Insightful . . . incisive . . . instinctively to the heart of the issue

    Please contribute more of your wisdom

    What a bright star . . . Bravo

  30. I have no problem with “Four puffs and a piano” calling themselves that; although I think it sounds lame, dated and unattractive.

    But as a general remark, I don’t necessarily agree “reclaiming words for self-empower”, whatever that means. If there are words that are offensive when used by people in general, they remain offensive when used by [insert minority].

    Example: a month or few ago on Channel 4 there was a black, stand-up comedian, who kept on referring to himself as a ni’gger. What kind of message does it send if black people are “empowering themselves?? by” using language at which most black people would take the deepest offence? If it’s racist when white people say it, it’s racist when black people say it. And that’s just as true for members of the gay community.

    But it’s rarely as clear-cut as the example I gave. For much of language, it comes down to this: “what is said in hate is hate speech, what is said in jest is jest” – it’s the intention as much as the words.

    At the same time, like it or not, we’re members of a community. I’m personally really comfortable being called lots of names that would offend many gay people. But I wouldn’t use those words to speak publicly – even about myself, because I don’t want to hurt my community.

  31. Tsuchan wrote
    “But it’s rarely as clear-cut as the example I gave. For much of language, it comes down to this: “what is said in hate is hate speech, what is said in jest is jest” – it’s the intention as much as the words.”

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Surely the intention is also carried forward in your choice of words, turn of phrase and what you do not say.

    What you say is that it is not clear cut. .. But then you contradict your self by presenting it as clear cut. Hate is hate, jest is jest . . . is it really like that

    You neglect what is really clear cut . . . The murderous intent in the sanitised, normalised common turn of phrase; word or gesture of exclusion.

    Four Poofs and a Paino . . . is unacceptable.

    The thugs may well shout you fucking Puff when you kick you to death …

  32. Abi Chrisopher 14 May 2009, 7:45pm

    Have you ever seen a well rounded normal LGBT person represented in BBC in fact any TV programming.

    You can only be a gay man on the BBC if you fit the Julian Clary/Graham Norton stereotype. This is just a continuation of the subtle slow drip drip of homophobia that is evident in BBC programming.

    Alf Garnet is not excepted on TV/radio today why is this stuff.

  33. Richard (Comment 25) we have digressed a little to discuss Ross’s “Four Poofs and a Piano” but the point at issue here is not what he has said on a late-night comedy show but what he said on a Saturday morning radio programme. So, now you know, that families and children were listening, does that make any difference to your process of reasoning?

  34. Abi Chrisopher

    I also see the slow drip drip of homophobia.

    In relation to the neglect of the well rounded LGBT person, I would say that there are lots of a “Particular type” of LGBT person on TV.

    I would also say that the full spectrum of LGBT people appears inconspicuous by an absence of this neglected diversity.

  35. No matter where you stand on what he said, I find it impossible to believe that ANYONE would be “shocked” that someone might be offended by a statement, even in jest, that the mere hint that a son might be gay/non gender stereotypical is enough to cause a parent to consider putting him up for adoption.

    I would have preferred that he just said that it was an off the cuff joke that he didn’t give much thought to but upon reflexion he sees how it is offensive, hurtful and, even if unintentionally, plays into that most dangerous of homophobia, the subtle, almost unnoticed form that is so easily dismissed and explained away. TRUST ME, to a kid who is struggling with their sexuality, it’s not subtle at all. It’s VERY much noticed and it’s THIS kind of “gentle” homophobia, more so than blatant, that probably does more damage to the psychy than any other.

  36. Just to clarify . . . My comment on thread 29 . . . I was being sarcasitic !!!

    Does any one see the inherent flaws in Richard (Thread 25) ?

    Richard Wrote:
    “Is Jonathan Ross Homophobic?

    I don’t think he is. I’ve seen many programmes with him in where he has spoken in favour of equality and against homophobia.

    Is what he said homophobic?

    A statement of itself cannot be homophobic. But it can reflect homophobia. Therefore, yes – his statement was implicitly homophobic.

    So – how does that work, then?

    I think Ross made a comments that is consistent with societies tolerance of homophobia – and it was misguided and ill-thought out.

    Where’s the problem here?

    The problem is that we live in a society where it’s all too ok to work with ideologies and discourses that are implicitly homophobic….but this seems to justify the PC brigade???

    The question for me is – what are his responsibilities? He is hosting a late night comedy chat show and therefore this sort of comment (in that context) is fine. So long as there is balance in his programme over time i.e. does he support LGBTQ issues and individuals where he can? I think he does.

    I’m ok with it.”

  37. Eddy wrote
    “Richard (Comment 25) we have digressed a little to discuss Ross’s “Four Poofs and a Piano” but the point at issue here is not what he has said on a late-night comedy show but what he said on a Saturday morning radio programme. So, now you know, that families and children were listening, does that make any difference to your process of reasoning?”

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Eddy . . . spot on

  38. @Eddy

    I wasn’t expressing an opinion either way on Four Poofs and a Piano calling themselves so, just that it is an issue upon which reasonable people can reasonably disagree – which is exactly what has happened here.

    As another example, Peter Tatchell uses the word “queer” in an attempt to reclaim and empower the community and makes persuasive arguments for doing so. Personally, that word sits ill with me but I accept that’s probably as a result of something lurking unresolved in a dark corner of what passes for my brain.

    Basically, I think self-description (and how we would like to be described by others) is an unresolved issue for more than just one minority community and a resort to euphemism is the result.

    You don’t hear many people describe themselves as “negroid” or “homosexual” when “black” and “gay” are available as more neutral alternatives. Again, this is OK to a point but I can’t help feeling it’s a bit like calling women “ladies” except that “negroid” and “homosexual” are more mediacalising and historically very loaded.

    And of course, there is a heap of difference between black people calling each other “nigger” or gay people calling each other “poof” and black and gay people being called that by someone from another group.

    Similarly, a joke about LGBT people by Brad Pitt (who we all know is a big supporter as well as being impossibly hansome) would be seen as joshing between friends who understand each other. The same words used by Jeremy Clarkson (an ugly as fuck olympic standard git) would be seen very differently.

    As those two venerable old dudes who were the first to sign the partnership register (and who advise the Met Police on LGBT issues) are fond of saying, there are no such thing as offensive words, only offensive intent.

    The upshot is, I think the problem with Jonathan Ross is three fold. Firstly, perhaps many of us are unsure of where he’s coming from and, secondly, many of us are heartily sick of having the media and authorities treat our rights as less important than that of other groups.

    Thirdly, in fairness, it can be kind of tough even for straight people of good will to know what they can and can’t say when there is no clear message either from us or the authorities.

    Taking his subsequent comments at face value (which I’m inclined to do), it seems Jonathan Ross has just found that out.

    Having said all that, I’m happy for anyone to disagree.

  39. Ivan wrote:
    “And of course, there is a heap of difference between black people calling each other “nigger” or gay people calling each other “poof” and black and gay people being called that by someone from another group.”

    Ivan . . . Exactly . . . and so to those people that fail to get it . . . of which Richard (thread 25 is an example of this)

    . . . so when four gays refer to themselves as “Four Poofs and a Piano” . . . this is not empowering when it allows heterosexuals to inadvertently neutralise a word which is abusive. . . this gives permission for boundaries of what is unacceptable to be pushed further. . . and Mr Ross is no stranger to this is he not.

  40. He’s not homophobic. He’s well meaning, but the BBC as an institution is to some extent.

    - gay hate crimes virtually ignored;
    - LGBT people if presented at all, only presented in ways which reinforce stereotypes; (and how much airtime does religion get??!)
    - defamatory jokes about LGBT people are deemed fine, while jokes while other minority groups treated with sensitivity.

  41. Eddy and John – we seem to agree…..

    Eddy – yes, it does make a difference (ref: thread 33) because it is a change of context. I am a situation ethicist although I do believe that deontological and consequentialist formations can serve and inform as meta principles by which to evaluate the situation. I would even go so far as to apply virtue ethics too – in some, relevant cases. Therefore I stress I am arguing context-specifically.

    So – I am saying that we have to consider the matter of the conscious/unconscious – and where children (as an audience) are concerned we have to aim for greater transparency in awareness. I would not patronise adult viewers by suggesting that they need to be spoon-fed PC since they are (or should be) capable of identifying irony, as well as implicit and structuralist dialogues that reflect the in-between of communication rather than intenitonality (whether it is conscious or sub-conscious) – it is plausible that Ross’ comment was a piece of comic irony designed to ridicule the role that he was taking…..or it could be that he is affected unconsciously by this far reaching prejudice. I can’t tell you how often I have heard/seen/experienced gay men and women (for example) making implicitly homophobic statements.

    Therefore, yes, the situation does change when children and families are involved because there is the potential for peddling agendas to a less than critical eye. I would therefore suggest that in those circumstances there would be more of a problem with what he has said.

    I am not saying, in all of this, that his comments are positive – I stress they reflect a (hopefully) dying acceptability. However, I am saying that this should not be an enforced acceptability in comedy (or adult circles) – this is dangerous.

    To see how it is dangerous we just need to examine current racist attitudes now despite a thirty year (or so) drive to lead against it. Racism has been driven under ground – people know they are not allowed to say certain things because they have become socially unacceptable – but this hasn’t challenged (in the most) people’s prejudices – it has just told them what not to say – and therefore these prejudices are harder to identify. I am also not saying that ‘free for all’ is best either. I am saying it’s tricky and complex – but if we are going to be targetted in our goal to eradicate sexuality or race based prejudice then silencing it is not the answer. At least (and of course this is the least bad of two bad options) people are now mentioning explicit, unconscious and ideological homophobia in forums like this – this gives avenues for us all to explore the arguments in a new light.

  42. Richard Wrote
    Is Jonathan Ross Homophobic?
    I don’t think he is. I’ve seen many programmes with him in where he has spoken in favour of equality and against homophobia.
    Is what he said homophobic?
    A statement of itself cannot be homophobic. But it can reflect homophobia. Therefore, yes – his statement was implicitly homophobic.
    So – how does that work, then?
    I think Ross made a comments that is consistent with societies tolerance of homophobia – and it was misguided and ill-thought out.
    Where’s the problem here?
    The problem is that we live in a society where it’s all too ok to work with ideologies and discourses that are implicitly homophobic….but this seems to justify the PC brigade???
    The question for me is – what are his responsibilities? He is hosting a late night comedy chat show and therefore this sort of comment (in that context) is fine. So long as there is balance in his programme over time i.e. does he support LGBTQ issues and individuals where he can? I think he does.
    I’m ok with it.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    (Is Jonathan Ross Homophobic?)
    . . . Yes he is

    (I don’t think he is. I’ve seen many programmes with him in where he has spoken in favour of equality and against homophobia.)
    . . . Psychologist are interested in how a person can be gay affirming in one context, then homophobic in an other. This is not a case of one thing cancelling out the other. Ross is still homophobic, but what is not clear is why he is electively homophobic.

    (So – how does that work, then?. I think Ross made comments that is consistent with societies tolerance of homophobia – and it was misguided and ill-thought out.)
    . . . This idea is interesting, and possibly a factor behind the process of selective homophobia

    (Where’s the problem here?. The problem is that we live in a society where it’s all too ok to work with ideologies and discourses that are implicitly homophobic….but this seems to justify the PC brigade???)
    . . . PC is some what of a euphemism for . . . I do not want to understand and empathise with what the other person finds offensive and unacceptable; because I have the gold standard of decency.

    (The question for me is – what are his responsibilities? He is hosting a late night comedy chat show and therefore this sort of comment (in that context) is fine. So long as there is balance in his programme over time i.e. does he support LGBTQ issues and individuals where he can? I think he does.)
    . . . So what is the difference between homophobia expressed on a late night show and homophobia expressed in prime time TV . . . is their really a difference . . . Does the hatred change?
    So as long as Ross is selectively homophobic that justifies him being homophobic . . . .

    (I’m ok with it.)
    Richard many of us are not ok with the following
    1. Selective homophobia
    2. Homophobia what ever the time of day
    3. People not taking responsibility for their homophobia

  43. 1. Selective homophobia
    2. Homophobia what ever the time of day
    3. People not taking responsibility for their homophobia

    I agree with all of these points and they are consistent with my argument.

    Number 3 is particularly pertinent – but also in terms of where this responsibility lies in relation to the social.

    What I don’t accept is that Ross is necessarily homophobic (as a personality trait) – I do go along with your description of selective homophobia associated with matters of awareness.

  44. Richard wrote

    “What I don’t accept is that Ross is necessarily homophobic (as a personality trait)”

    Whether or not Ross is inclined to constitutional homophobia or is motivated by some other source or sources . . . Is that really important at this level . . . Homophobic comments are homophobic comments . . . how homophobia is conceptialised onto-epistemologically is very interesting . . . but unpacking covert homophobia and its teleological focus has to be a priority as well.

    *Charting the changing nature of homophobia as it becomes more covert
    *Unpacking covert homophobic messages
    *Making explicit the intention behind a covert homophobic message

    I challenged your previous thread because I found it rather obtuse . . . but interesting to find that we are both on the same track.

    Apologise
    Kind regards
    John K

  45. @Richard
    I understand you argument about context/situation . . . I agree, very important . . . but in my view . . . Mud sticks . . . and the rhetoric of denial concerns me. . . For example “some of my best friends are gay” rhetorical manoeuvres.

    If only every one were brave enough to challenge these devices head on . . . disturb, penetrate and force into the open for what they are . . . !!!

  46. John – this is a very poor medium for making human contact and therefore I premise what I am about to say with the realisation that I am working on the basis of supositions. However, my revised way of thinking can be summarised as:

    1. Your decency (in particular, thread 44) is very well noted and appreciated – aswell as respected by me – thank you for being open to experience.

    2. Your frankness (particularly with regard to ‘how obtuse’) you found my original posting – humbles me, as yes – I can see that, although it was not my intention. My failing here.

    3. And – absolutely your posting (thread 45) which quite appropriately highlights the challenge of denial issue I would unreservedly support.

    So, thanks I have learned a good deal from this exchange – and am very grateful to you for your challenge and respect.

    Best wishes……

  47. Hanna Montana joke was funny. get over yourselves. Your trying to be equal but pushing yourselves to be special, and we aint that special if we cant take a joke like the thin and fat people, the jewish and indians, the scots irish and everyone else. Go to any gay bar and hear worse jokes, look at some of your friends mobile messages and see worse. PC = pathetic commenting

  48. Pumpkin Pie 15 May 2009, 2:52am

    Can someone tell me what the joke was supposed to be? I don’t get it.

  49. Jean-Paul, the Colonial 15 May 2009, 4:23am

    Today, May 14, 2009, we have celebrated here in Canada the 40th Anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality when the House passed Bill C-150. Yea P.E. Trudeau !!!

    To read a brief article on the subject and to see a video clip of today’s opinions on the matter click onto www dot xtra dot ca.

    As for the subject of this thread, I agree 100% with RobN (12, 17).

    Peter Tatchell wanted to go to the Moscow Pride Parade in support of international solidarity of the LGBT community. From what I’ve read on the posts of the comments on PinkNews (and I’ve read a lot), Peter would not have to travel to Russia to promote solidarity; he would have his work cut out for him right here on this website.

    RobN understands that better than most of you, and so do I.

    Way to go, RobN !

  50. StreetLads 15 May 2009, 6:46am

    “From what I’ve read on the posts of the comments on PinkNews (and I’ve read a lot), Peter would not have to travel to Russia to promote solidarity; he would have his work cut out for him right here on this website.”

    I totally agree. I have said for a long time that often, a gay persons worst enemy is… another gay person! If you want offensive ‘humour’, if you want ‘witty’ acidic put-downs, if you want cruel bitchy comments, then you need go no further that a gay bar.

  51. Agree with Pumpkin Pie – what was the joke exactly? Can anyone explain it, other than a pathetic (and homophobic, in that it makes use of the concept of ‘gay’ as an outsider in society to have any meaning at all) attempt to be ‘hip’. The fact is that Ross relies on such crutches for his ‘act,’ as his talent has drained away. However he is not as stupid as he, and some here, like to pretend. He cannot be other than well-aware of what he is doing. Using a term like ‘mortified’ was patently disingenuous, bearing in mind his history.

  52. Oh good grief, this thread is really heavy going! All jokes, all asides and witty remarks are uttered at the expense of someone or some group. Who cares. Just grow up and learn to laugh. You do not have the right not to feel offended or insulted.

    Sometimes humour is just humour and you’re going to be the butt of it. Too bad. Act like adults and smile a little and stop being so sensitive and so precious. Learn to laugh at yourselves, for there is much to laugh at in each self-defined group of human-beings.

    Reading this thread makes me ashamed to be a gay member of the human race. I’ve never read such uptight bullshit in all my life. How about you should vent your spleen on the majority of so-called British Muslims who want to kill us rather than on some unimportant, third-rate, vastly overpaid entertainer who hasn’t even got two brain cells to rub together and who, by his own admission, sees our side of the argument and has apologised for any inadvertent offence which he may have caused.

    You’re just navel-gazing and responding to the fourth estate’s agenda – not something which we gays should do, ever.

    Honestly, grow up! Fight the real battles!

  53. Is Jonathan Ross homophobic? Well I think he answered this question himself last year. He’d received an award from ‘Lavender News’ for the celeb who’s been nicest to gays. So on 22nd February 2008 he introduced his Friday night programme by proudly talking about the award. Then he said that it made him think – had they never seen his show? We then saw clips of him introducing 4 Poofs and a Piano from previous Friday Night programmes:

    1 Speaking of unemployment, let me introduce the men who regularly take the sack on the chin..

    2 .. are never happier than when their privates are in the rear

    3 .. who often end the night with a mouthful of Gordon’s

    4 .. who are never happier than when they’re being taken up the Orinoco

    After that Jonathan said “Maybe they tune in after the first few minutes. It’s only when I found that Jim Davidson came second that it all made sense to me.”

    So it seems that Jonathan knows perfectly well the implications of what he says and does.

  54. Zeke 35: “TRUST ME, to a kid who is struggling with their sexuality, it’s not subtle at all. It’s VERY much noticed and it’s THIS kind of “gentle” homophobia, more so than blatant, that probably does more damage to the psychy than any other.”

    I completely agree. It’s the subtle general homophobia of society that makes some LGBT children afraid to come out or confused about how they’re feeling. It doesn’t have to be vicious to hurt – in fact, ‘gentle’ homophobia is more insidious. It worms its way into your head and spreads like a poison.
    Ross should have apologised and shown some understanding of that fact, and the fact that not all of his audience may have taken his joke in the way he intended.

  55. Jean-Paul, the Colonial 15 May 2009, 10:23am

    StreetLads (50), John M J (52):

    What is this I hear…. Gay Wisdom on PinkNews ? ? ?

    We are all under construction, aren’t we?

    I’m no expert, really, a lot of you guys have it all over me.

    All I can do, and you know I can, is hold up a mirror to you, like RobN.

    And today’s mirror is:

    William Friedkin’s 1970 American movie called ‘The Boys in the Band’. Set in NYC just after Stonewall, the movie starts pretty well with six or seven great looking gay guys cheerfully getting ready to go to birthday party for ‘an ugly, aging, pock-marked- faced Jewish fag’.

    Then when everybody’s at the apartment in Manhatton or somewhere like that, the conversation slowly takes a turn for the worst as drinks are served.

    Drinking in moderation can be a life-time support for a lot of people; drinking excessively is something else, not to mention the money the pirates are making. They don’t call the stuff ‘spirits’ for nothing !

    If you think British gays can be bitchy, and you can, you know you can (mirror), you need to check out this movie to see how bitchy NYC gays can be towards each other. They can publicly humiliate a guy till he’s ready to slit open his wrists.

    I wouldn’t call that a ‘diva moment’. It’s downright cruel; we are only human; each of us carrying an enormous phychic baggage; we can only take so much.

    I should talk! I was the same way back in the 60′s and 70′s and then there it was… a miracle… I found myself looking in a mirror, stoned on a joint my kid brother had given me, and laughing at myself. Everyone line up for a joint now ! !

    So when I say I’m no better than you guys, I’m only saying the truth, except that I have found that laughing with others and laughing at myself is a fulfilling personal experience. It is actually enriching. Imagine that! I don’t mean laughing ‘at’ someone now, you know what I mean.

    There I go pontificating again… someone pass me an aspirin!
    I feel so full of hot air ! ! ! Did somebody fart? Has any one seen my powder blue Porch?

    Back to the colonies for me. See ya later, guys.

  56. “The Boys in the Band” was a very nasty little play about a very nasty subset of people. Very little relevance to UK gay life today.

  57. Dave, it couldn’t be put more clearly. Thanks.

    “Is Jonathan Ross homophobic? Well I think he answered this question himself last year. He’d received an award from ‘Lavender News’ for the celeb who’s been ‘nicest to gays’. So on 22nd February 2008 he introduced his Friday night programme by proudly talking about the award. Then he said that it made him think – had they never seen his show? We then saw clips of him introducing 4 Poofs and a Piano from previous Friday Night programmes:

    1 “Speaking of unemployment, let me introduce the men who regularly take the sack on the chin . . .”

    2 “. . . are never happier than when their privates are in the rear”

    3 “. . . who often end the night with a mouthful of Gordon’s”

    4 “. . . who are never happier than when they’re being taken up the Orinoco”

    After that Jonathan said “Maybe they tune in after the first few minutes. It’s only when I found that Jim Davidson came second [in the Lavender awards] that it all made sense to me.”

    So it seems that Jonathan knows perfectly well the implications of what he says and does.”

    And, Dave, if these comments were directed a gay employee in the workplace that gay employee would most likely and rightly succeed in suing the perpetrator. And this sort of thing IS happening in the workplace and in the school . . . and who is PARTLY responsible for it? Jonathan Ego-Ross.

  58. Absolutely, Janis! If I remember rightly some drag-queen tried to resurrect that play back in ’87 or thereabouts and take it round the UK and it rather fell flat on its face . . . because it didn’t relate. Mind you, take a look at the “quality” of comments on North American gay blogs, like Queerty, and so on and I reckon it would still go down a bomb amongst some people over there.

  59. Pumpkin Pie: You may not like my expressions about “headless chickens” but it just basically sums it up. 40 years ago gay men had to bust a gut for recognition and fight for real issues. Over the years that flood has been reduced to a drip, and now all these lefties feel it necessary to go into fits of apoplexy every time the slightest derogatory term is brought up against them, like it was a major event. This website constantly trawls the news for even the most tenuous connections to homosexuality just so people like you can kick off and do your “community thing”. People now complain about the most trivial of minutiae whilst the rest of the world collapses around us. We have soldiers in Iraq buying their own boots, and helicopters falling out of the sky due to lack of funding. Old people are being left to fend for themselves, children are being systematically beaten up by parents, the country is awash with economic migrants and black marketeers and all the politicians just help themselves to more money. For God’s sake, get some fucking perspective!! We all want equality, but some people are never going to like homosexuals. Face that fact. There is nothing you can do about it. Nitpicking on people like Jonathan Ross is pathetic. The man is quite obviously not homophobic, and it is better that people are accepted, warts and all than become so overprotective that a broadcaster cant even open his mouth for fear of offending someone, somewhere.

    As for not wanting to be classified about being a leftie, your dead right on that one. Eddy seems to think that there is no such thing as a right-wing gay man, well I am one of many. You don’t have to be a stinking commie bastard (rawr) to protect ones interests; (or be a mincing, Kylie-loving little scene-queen either.)

    And in answer to your question, yes there are many things I like, but due to a lengthy exposure to their vicious, selfish and egotistical nature, gay men are not one of them.

  60. I think there are many, many people far more worthy of criticism than Jonathan Ross when it comes to homophobia. Some perspective, please….

  61. Jean-Paul, the Colonial 15 May 2009, 11:50am

    Well, I’m glad to hear that ‘The Boys in the Band’ didn’t relate to the gays in the UK.

    I sincerly hope that is so, and that you just don’t like what you see in the mirror. You sure sound like a bunch of bitchy queers and I can’t imagine a better background than a birthday party to humiliate someone, eh Janis.

    Now let’s all gang up on Jonathan and see if we can get him to throw himself into the Thames with both feet entrenched in a cement block.

    Oh, I do carry on!

  62. Jean-Paul, the Colonial 15 May 2009, 12:02pm

    RobN (59):

    Give ‘em hell, pal!

    You must have been pressed for time though, because I’m sure you would have added a memo about climate change.

    What are we going to do when we have a foot of water in our basements?

    Bitch at one another?

    Oh, shut up, JP !

  63. JP: Based on recent research, the simple factor of you making inane comments on here generates at least five kilos of C02, thus affecting global warming. However, had it been Eddy, we would have had enough hot air to float a Zeppelin. ;o)

  64. Robert, ex-pat Brit 15 May 2009, 1:27pm

    John K, a resounding “yes” to your first comment.

  65. No wonder we fail at promoting hiv prevention, no wonder we fail to get our equality over to the masses, no wonder we are the butt of jokes. All this hot air!!! Theres enough on here for a whole hours comedy show.

  66. Going back to the original point, surely what the “Four Homosexual men and a Pianoforte” decide to call themselves is their right, and those that do not like it should avoid the bitch-fits as above. Of course, we should all have some kind of freedom of speech to express our disagreement, but if that offends “Four Poofs and a Piano” then aren’t those saying the offensive stuff being hypocritical? (I get the feeling some of the extreme gay lefties would allow all kinds of freedom speech as long as they agreed with it á la Animal Farm!)

  67. On another point, I think some people have lost the plot and have no idea about gay history. Do they not realise that ‘gay’ was a term of abuse, adopted by the gay community and now has almost lost its original meaning. So threads like #30 describing ‘gay’ as neutral clearly have no idea what they’re talking about or interest in learning from history about the power of using someone else’s term of abuse as a self-descriptor.

  68. BrazilGayScene 15 May 2009, 2:08pm

    “”The Boys in the Band” was a very nasty little play about a very nasty subset of people. Very little relevance to UK gay life today.”

    Absolutely. But I for one was not talking about the American scene, or an American movie. I was speaking about gay pubs and clubs in the UK.

    Let’s stop bitching about ourselves, let’s stop being the ‘butt’ of drag queens cruel jokes… dressed-up as being ‘funny’. A cruel comment is no less cruel just because it comes from another gay man! Why is it okay for us to rip someone to pieces, but not okay when someone else does it?

    Honestly, downright cruel and heartless? WE could give Mr Ross lessons!

  69. Great thread to thread developing with passion on both sides. . .

    I very rarely sit on the fence

    . . . The call to “lighten up . . . take a joke . . . etc etc etc”

    Perhaps its also time to . . .

    * Get serious about subtle as well as in your face homophobia
    * Get some self esteem and reject being the butt of the joke
    * Get real . . . when the fucking thugs are kicking your head in . . . its you fucking puff they will shout as they rearrange your face.

    Alternatively . . . lighten up and float away so that you can be some other fucking homophobes door mat.

  70. Last night I saw an advert on the TV, for a book Jonathan Ross has just re-released in paperback (Book title: Why Do I Say These Things?)

    Ssurly controversy sells books. In affect he is using homophobic discrimination to sell his book. This arrogant self-indulging pratt should be sacked. Doesn’t he know incitement to homophobic hatred is against the law?

    I will be making a “formal complaint” to the BBC over this outrageous incident of homophobic discrimination!

    Anyone else want to complain with me?

  71. Abi Chrisopher 15 May 2009, 4:16pm

    Give us Parky in the BBC1 chat show spot any day.

  72. OMG! what a storm over nothing. The four poofs on his show are a band called “Four Poofs and a Piano”. That’s their real name. They do real gigs! So every week Mr Ross is PROMOTING a gay band.

    The same words can heal or harm. The difference is the intentions of the user. I think Jonathan is one of the best supporters of tolerance and acceptance.

    I’m sick of being treated like a victimised minority that needs handling with kid-gloves. Jonathan treats gays like he treats everyone else – one of many diverse human beings.

  73. Martin wrote
    “I’m sick of being treated like a victimised minority that needs handling with kid-gloves. Jonathan treats gays like he treats everyone else – one of many diverse human beings.”

    We are a victimsed minority . . . when are you going to wake up to that . . .

  74. RobN (63):

    inane: adj., from the Latin ‘inanis’: empty, insubstantial. Webster’s.

    True enough, and don’t think I am not aware of it. In a way, it’s what I do best, only I call it holding up a mirror to society. Don’t forget, I was an A+ student, graduated with honors, and am paying for it dearly as an alumni. There are at least three fund-raisers a year, for gawd’s sake, and it is always a challenge to buckle my monthly budget.

    You’re right in another sense. We are all responsible for global warming and unemployment, just as Thomas Hardy predicted in the late 19th century, (‘Mayor of Casterbridge’, etc.). Nobody listens to a prophet, and that includes me.

    Also, reading the very best of English Literature is becoming PASSÉ according to the comments I read here about GB’s new Poet Laureate. You should read how she is praised in the USA and Canada.

    The second part of your post did make sense to me also, although I would use the word ‘drearisome’, like in an Edgar Allen Poe setting, to describe what’s-his-name’s posts.

    The real gem of your posts is to be found in (59) where you wrote:

    ‘People now complain about the most trivial of minutiae whilst the rest of the world collapses around us.’ It’s a universal statement.

    Nothing inane or drearisome about that comment.

    Furthermore, the most substantial item I have discovered on PinkNews is the word ‘Cymraeg’ which opened up a whole new world for me. I should add that it has been a slice getting to know more about contemporary British culture from the LGBT’s viewpoints. I was actually doing research, and I want to thank all of you for your contributions.

    However, commenting on PinkNews is more time consuming than I can afford at the moment. I will continue to receive e-mail weekday journals from PinkNews, I may check one of them from time to time, although I doubt that I will be contributing any more of my hot air to the comments’ section.

    Those of you I have grown fond of know who you are, and I especially enjoyed hearing from ‘rantersparadise’.

    So here I go, lost in the Canadian wilderness. Bye, and good luck,

  75. John K: EVERYONE is victimised in one way or another at some time. You just have a massive chip on your shoulder and a permanent victimisation complex. I suggest it is YOU that wakes up, and stops complaining every time someone has a pop at you, whatever the criteria.

    Jean-Paul: Well thanks for the gay banter. Shame I will lose one of my most ardent supporters, but I guess you will still be reading in spirit. Oh, and “Cymraeg” is much the same as your Arcadian French-Canadians – wearisome. Have fun!

  76. You lot are so two faced. Your quite happy to be the brunt of jokes thrown at you by some rancid drag queen in pubs and bars.

  77. BrazilGayScene 16 May 2009, 4:34am

    Tony T, my point exactly.. Let’s clean up our own ‘acts’ first.. Let’s stop being bloody cruel to each other, before we go after ‘celebs’ for some perceived slight. It is not what is said, but the way it is said, and the intent behind it. I have heard some totally vicious things said….. IN GAY BARS.

  78. Why are we, as a community, so easily offended? Get over yourselves! Jokes are entertainment, and will always be at someone’s expense… The ability to laugh at ourselves is one of the most important aspects of being a member of a society…

  79. RobN Thread
    “John K: EVERYONE is victimised in one way or another at some time. You just have a massive chip on your shoulder and a permanent victimisation complex. I suggest it is YOU that wakes up, and stops complaining every time someone has a pop at you, whatever the criteria.”

    RobN wrote – “EVERYONE is victimised in one way or another at some time.”
    John K response – Why is it ok for you to be victimised? . . .

    RobN wrote – “I suggest it is YOU that wakes up, and stops complaining every time someone has a pop at you, whatever the criteria.”
    John K response – If you do not complain nothing will change. . . why do you want to remain a target for victimisation?

    RobN wrote – “You just have a massive chip on your shoulder and a permanent victimisation complex.”
    John K response – Yes, I am concerned that Gay people are being victimised, I understand you are not. . . It is interesting that you resort to put downs instead of constructive arguments? . . .why is that?

  80. John K: Being victimised is a fact of life, from the school yard, to college, to work, to home. That’s the way its always been. It is the human condition. I agree there is a line that one has to draw at what can be considered personally acceptable, or unacceptable.
    I just think you, and many others on here have become so hypersensitive about absolutely anything and everything, you complain at the drop of a hat. God forbid anything actually serious might happen to you, I doubt you could stay conscious if somebody called you a faggot to your face. Like I and many others have already said on here, it’s not that any of us support bullying, or homophobia or any other kind of chastisement, but for crying out loud, get a fucking grip! We are now 80 posts deep on a subject so pathetically trivial, it didn’t deserve a story in the first place.

  81. “We are a victimsed minority . . . when are you going to wake up to that”

    You might be a victimised minority, and I’m sorry to hear that if its true, but the differing opinions on here may be because don’t all see outselves like that.

    Many of use lead our lives on a equal footing to the rest of society and therefore are more comfortable with the odd joke at our expense, in the same way as fom time to time at the expense of others in society.

    Part of our growth out of the victimised minority rut is to be comfortable enough with ourselves to be able to take things like this in the good humour they were intended.

  82. RobN Wrote
    “Being victimised is a fact of life, from the school yard, to college, to work, to home. That’s the way its always been. It is the human condition. I agree there is a line that one has to draw at what can be considered personally acceptable, or unacceptable.”
    JohnK Response
    Where many of us on this thread have drawn our line, I understand that you find this unacceptable. . . . Get use to it

    RobN Wrote
    “I just think you, and many others on here have become so hypersensitive about absolutely anything and everything, you complain at the drop of a hat.”
    JohnK Response
    Some one needs to take a stand against homophobia, I understand you are not going to be that person . . . Why is that?

    RobN Wrote
    “God forbid anything actually serious might happen to you, I doubt you could stay conscious if somebody called you a faggot to your face. Like I and many others have already said on here, it’s not that any of us support bullying, or homophobia or any other kind of chastisement, but for crying out loud, get a fucking grip! We are now 80 posts deep on a subject so pathetically trivial, it didn’t deserve a story in the first place.”
    JohnK Response
    So why are you addressing something so trivial?

  83. theotherone 17 May 2009, 12:16am

    if there’s one thing I hate…

    so if you referance the fact you like it up the bottom you’re homophobic? I take it that the best thing to do is to be #straight acting.’

    I’m Queer, you’re Queer – where’s the problem?

    As to Mr Ross: he’s got a habit of opening his mouth and riffing on a particuler idea but homophobic? He’s never came across as such.

  84. Theotherone wrote
    “if there’s one thing I hate…
    so if you referance the fact you like it up the bottom you’re homophobic? I take it that the best thing to do is to be #straight acting.’ I’m Queer, you’re Queer – where’s the problem?
    As to Mr Ross: he’s got a habit of opening his mouth and riffing on a particuler idea but homophobic? He’s never came across as such.”

    I understand that you are not bothered about Mr Ross’s
    *Covert homophobia
    *Selective homophobia
    *Use of gay stereotypes

    What I do not understand is what you mean by the following

    “so if you referance the fact you like it up the bottom you’re homophobic? I take it that the best thing to do is to be #straight acting.’”

    Can you explain what you mean by this?

  85. theotherone 17 May 2009, 1:30pm

    No it’s not that I’m ‘not botherd’ by Ross’ comments – I’m sad that he’s put his foot in it yet again but this is a man that produced programs about John Waters and Fashbinder (sp!), joked in an open and non judgmental way with David Bowie about having sex with men, interviewed Gay Fashion designers…

    Ross has, yet again, shown himself to be rather rash and I’m saddend by this as he’s a better interviewer, better comedien and nicer man that he’s painted by the press jumping on every stupid thing he says.

    As to my point on Straight Acting: I’m sick of Poofs getting ofended at overt shows of my and other people’s sexuality, I’m sick of Straight Action Anti-Queers. The real threat to Queers on show here is not a stupid comment by Mr Ross for which he has apoligiased and said he disn’t mean it or that three Gay Man call themselfs Poofs but the Poofs on this site who want us all to not mention our sexuality, that want us all to be polite Non-Queers.

    I’m a Lesbian that was born male, a peice of Gender Trash, my partner wears mens clothing, carries a wallet and wears aftershave – I’m Queer and I flaunt it, I force people to look at my Sexuality to make it easier to allow others to do the same. The Poofs on this site? Well alot of them don’t do they?

  86. Theotherone wrote
    “As to my point on Straight Acting: I’m sick of Poofs getting ofended at overt shows of my and other people’s sexuality, I’m sick of Straight Action Anti-Queers. The real threat to Queers on show here is not a stupid comment by Mr Ross for which he has apoligiased and said he disn’t mean it or that three Gay Man call themselfs Poofs but the Poofs on this site who want us all to not mention our sexuality, that want us all to be polite Non-Queers. ”

    I could not agree with you more

    Well said . . . Right On

    “Striaght acting”
    “Acting to protect heterosexuals” . . . in my view

  87. Pumpkin Pie 17 May 2009, 6:23pm

    I’m still waiting for someone to explain the joke to me.

  88. Hi Pumpkin Pie

    “The Joke”

    Long or short answer – lol

  89. Craig has found this excellent list of everyone who has appeared on the Ross show.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guests_on_Friday_Night_with_Jonathan_Ross#A

    or click here to go to list of guests

    Now it’s a matter of locating one of those websites that give you addresses of celebrities. I propose using as a basic template that Comment left by someone-or-other re. Ross being awarded a Lavender Award, then questioning why by citing four instances of the homophobic jokes with which he starts every show when introducing the self-styled “Four Poofs”.

    Let’s devise a good letter, folks, publish it here, then get to work sending them.

  90. theotherone 17 May 2009, 9:20pm

    eddy:

    yiu’re sugesting stalking selebreties? nice touch. you must get on realy well in the workplace if you think that acuse every bloke that says anything to you of being a homophobe. Imagine the scene…

    ‘did you get some cock at the weekend eddy?’

    ‘you’re a homophobe! you mentioned my sexuality!’

  91. Theotherone, you’re out of touch with the general consensus of opinion in the two Comment threads here on Jonathan Ross. I suggest you carefully read through both threads and consider the argument that has been arrived at.

  92. Pumpkin Pie 18 May 2009, 1:52pm

    “Hi Pumpkin Pie
    “The Joke”
    Long or short answer – lol”

    Aww, I was trying to set someone up to describe the joke in black and white terms, which would serve as my cue to leap into action. :p

    The insinuation of the gag was that gay children are undesirable and should be disposed of. There’s nothing funny about that in and of itself. The humour comes from the set-up: gays are an acceptable minority to pick on, people don’t like them, let’s be outrageous by implying that bad things should happen to them in a roundabout way.

    I don’t see Ross as a homophobe, but the problem is that he’s pandering to them and that the BBC were OK with it. I don’t even think the gag was supposed to be about gays in the first place, just about Hannah Montana fans, but Ross saw an easy gag in there and went for it. Why does he say these things, indeed.

    I love it when people make gags about stuff that’s intrinsic to me – my sex, my nationality, my sexuality (and being bi, I get plenty of that even within the LGBT community!). Makes me feel a part of something. Saying I should have been sent off to a children’s home if my parents didn’t approve of my sexuality is not humour, that’s an offensive attempt to get a cheap hyuk out of armchair homophobes. Me no likey that.

  93. Sister Mary Clarence 18 May 2009, 5:46pm

    “Part of our growth out of the victimised minority rut is to be comfortable enough with ourselves to be able to take things like this in the good humour they were intended.”

    Personally I couldn’t agree more. I am just as happy with Jonathon Ross making light-hearted comments about gay people as I am Graham Norton doing the same about homosexuals.

    For those who didn’t think it was funny, they didn’t have to laugh

  94. theotherone 18 May 2009, 7:42pm

    eddy:

    you’re out of touch with the general consensus of opinion in the two Comment threads here on Jonathan Ross. I suggest you carefully read through both threads and consider the argument that has been arrived at.

    —and if i dare to disagree?

  95. Pumpkin Pie Wrote
    “The insinuation of the gag was that gay children are undesirable and should be disposed of. There’s nothing funny about that in and of itself. The humour comes from the set-up: gays are an acceptable minority to pick on, people don’t like them, let’s be outrageous by implying that bad things should happen to them in a roundabout way.”

    wow . . . eloquent succinict . . . an observation I personally share as well Pumpkin Pie

  96. Sister Mary Clarence

    I agree that we need to develop an ability to laugh at ourselves, since this is a sign of psychological and emotional maturity. However, I feel we also need to be careful with what we are laughing at; which I think is the essence of this debate.

    Thanks for raising this . . .

  97. dave wainwright 19 May 2009, 12:55am

    what self respecting human being watches or listens to Mr Ross anyway ?

  98. dave wainwright 19 May 2009, 1:01am

    what self respecting human being listens to or watches Johnathan Ross anyway? , he panders purely to the lowest common denominator, presumably why he is employed by the BBC in order to perpetuate stereo-types thus improving the average chavs opinions of themselves, four poofs and a piano should be ashamed of themselves , presumably they already are , hence the name.

  99. ROB N:

    Thanks for saying goodbye and ‘Have fun’.

    I’ve just re-read this whole thread, and I do believe you are wearing the GOLD MEDAL with a wreath of gold stars around your head.

    Even Sister Mary Clarence, who is probably the most brilliant commentator on PinkNews, appears to be agreeing with you about ‘getting a fucking grip’.

    I am still interested in the gay scene in the UK. For the moment I am exploring a site called ‘The London Gay Man’, without making any comments. Too time consuming.

    When I finish my research, sometimes next year, I may write a paper and submit it first to NYC’s White Crane’s Gay Wisdom blog.
    I don’t really have all of your complete names so that my paper will not be harmful to anyone in particular.

    By the way, there is a gay website in the USA called the Log House Gay Republicans.

    Oh, and the reason I couldn’t find my powder blue Porsh(55) was because I had been driving my run down, dirty, midnight blue Ford Focus that day. What was I thinking??

    Adieu, Rob. Ah will always love ya :0)

  100. David Skinner 19 May 2009, 10:08am

    Jean-Paul, go enjoy your group for Catholic queers. What do you call it? “Dignity” or something?

  101. David Skinner (99):

    My, but we are having an off-day this fine Monday morning. What’s the matter? No action over the week-end? Severely hung-over, perhaps. And not one spelling mistake!

    Resorting to personality persecution again? What a miserable life you must lead in jolly old England.

    When was the last time you read a good book? You know what a book is don’t you?

    I am presently vacationing in the Bahamas for the rest of the week, then I have to go to Greece to meet family, Greece looks nice on postcards, but frankly the place is starting to stink. You wouldn’t believe the confusion at airports these days. Would you believe my Maltese ended up in Jamaica?

    In the meantime, why don’t you put your tongue to really good use and give Jonathan a good rimming? You gotta admit, the man is a dreamboat!

    Or you can shove a fish hook up your ass! I don’t mean that; I’m just fooling around, that’s all!

    ‘Ominus Patrium noster’ an all that Catholic rigamorole.

    Give my best regards to my friend, RobN will you, old chap.

    Queerio, and all that!

  102. Oh come on, to even utter Jonathan Ross and Moyles in the same breath is laughable. There’s a huge difference between a heterosexual man having a bit of banter with his gay mates (even if he sometimes misjudges it, you can see it’s done with genuine affection), whereas Moyles thinks it’s acceptable to use ‘gay’ as a derogative term

  103. @mark

    They aren’t his ‘mates’ they’re his employees. Basically they are paid to take insults and have about as much dignity as prostitutes.

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