Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tatchell claims he was ‘barred’ from Downing Street gay event

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. doesnt surprise me. the govt wants a bunch of sycophantic yes-men to agree with them on their policy of keeping us unequal while pretending we’re not. tatchell is too radical- equality… MINDBLOWING CONCEPT!

  2. Even if you do not agree with Peter Tatchell, he should be recognised for his tireless work supporting the LGBT and human rights movements.

    What’s he going to do, just offer some harsh words over a glass of Bolly? Big deal! It comes across as extremely petty.

  3. David Henry 30 Jun 2009, 1:19pm

    What an oversight, and a total insult to one of the original co-founders of Pride in the UK.

    Of course it must have all been a clerical error, an intentional “mistake” not related to any political difference political affiliations between Peter Tatchell and Pride London and the Mayor of London’s office. Perhaps we should blame the BNP. Maybe they were wise to assume Peter would turn up anyway ;-)

    I happen to know some rather less prominant campaigners have been invited. I have a spare VIP ticket if you want one!

  4. Oh dear. All his lefty mates have snubbed him. I wonder why?
    It wouldn’t be because he invaded Parliament, or perpetually stands outside official buildings waving placards with ridiculous commie statements, now would it? Or his incessant whinging about how badly done by we all are. How beautifully symmetrical, and woefully ironic.

    I bet Gordon’s laughing all the way to the buffet table.

    Bad Karma Peter.

  5. Our dear heroic Peter is a man of sponteaneity and absolute conviction. So I can imagine Gordon and ANY Prime Minister or any person of influence, regardless of party, being wary of coming face to face with Peter.

    May Peter always remain a very loose cannon. That’s his remarkable value. When there’s an outrage he reacts, without hesitation and with true GUTS. Peter is therefore formidable. Any PM would be wary of him.

    It’s to Peter’s credit that those in power are wary of letting him inside the front door for polite drinkies etc. That’s not what Peter, thank heavens, does best.

  6. Brian Burton 30 Jun 2009, 2:12pm

    Gordon wants young window dressing not elderly Tatchell dressing I’m afraid. You’ll just have to kick him in the slatts!

  7. Letter sent to No 10 in disgust.

    Is it not time it Peter was called Lord Tatchell, it would be better than having Lord Summerskill that’s for sure.

  8. God, you can just feel the calculation in these stories, can’t you – hmm, well there’s 5% of the population who might still vote for us….

    Gordon Brown’s still infinitely more powerful than Peter Tatchell, the fact that he’s intimidated (and fretting over the invitation list) just speaks volumes for his paranoia and insecurity. Not very statesmanlike, is it?

  9. About the only good thing Gordon Brown’s ever done! Tatchell’s not the only ‘gay in the village’, and perhaps he should remember that!

  10. Maybe the PM is worried Tatchell will try and arrest him like he is always doing to every leader…….. for me personally I would use the handcuffs in a more traditional gay way he he

  11. Yes, Peter Tatchell has done a lot and deserves thanks and recognition, but he’s a political enemy and critic of the PM, and pun intended, I’ved no doubt that he’d have been the bad fairy at the party, so what the hell did he expect?

  12. gordon grant 30 Jun 2009, 4:33pm

    Yea sure it is St Peter, the patron saint of self-publicists. Why would Gordon Brown invite a failed politician, who has now hooked up with the Green Party, to a Pride London event? What has St Peter of Publicity Stunts got to do with Pride? Is he one of the organisers? I think you will find he isn’t. And while we are on the topic, I can list Stonewall’s practical achievements – what exactly are St Peter’s? Apart from getting his mug in every picture he can, there is actually nothing AT ALL he can point to and say he has achieved. His cloying piety sickens me and many other people. Please remember he is not some saint, he is a weird extremist who believes men his age should be allowed to shag 14 year old boys cos “children have sexual rights.” Perhaps another reason he is shunned by right-thinking people.

  13. We’ve hardly got any civl libeties left:

    1) We’re the most watched nation on earth…..why?

    2) Each mobile phone gives off a unique signal…..again, why?

    3) The NHS is vastly becoming a post-code lottery, people are DYING because of ‘cost-effectiveness’……the ultimate Government control, deciding who lives and who doesn’t!

    4) ‘Litter police’ are now bing fitted with facial recogniton head-cameras……why?

    5) Animals are now microchipped……it will be us next, the ‘Mark Of The Beast’.

    6) NASA has 5,000 satellites, five thousand!……Again why? And ye they still can’t catch Bin Laden?

    7) Chip and pin is everywhere, even in taxis…….all little baby steps designed to get rid of actual money, giving banks more power to even refuse staright away to sanction the sale, of say food, even if you’re just a penny over!

    8) Because a few Muslims protested against the Iraq War outside Westminster, now we can’t protest within a square mile of it no matter how genuine our cause (tax, animal welfare)

    etc, etc, etc.

    Problem (usually created by government anyway) + reaction (public outcry) = Solution ( more control given to Government)

    Problem (Muslims protest against government’s Iraq War) + Reaction (slightly xenophobic public outcry after being fed anti-Muslim cak by the press i.e only showing extremist Muslims protesting with horriffic slogans, completely ignoring the normal ones) = Solution (No protests outside Westminster, Terrorism Act, which entails searches without warrants, bank accounts frozen for no reason, arrests of anyone who dares to speak up, whether it be a Muslim or an animal rights activist doing nothing except talking and waving placards!)
    F–k me, I do go on. Rant over :)

  14. Ooops, I didn’t mean that face with the sunglasses on……how did I even do that?

    P.S The MP’s are not the ones wanting to do/implement these things, it’s the ‘shadow government’ of bankers, freemasons and ‘men in suits’.

    Goodnight I’m ‘ere all week-thankyooooooou!

  15. Peter Tatchell is very uncomfortable to have around, but so are all gadflies and prophets. His dramatic direct action events have brought lgbt issues into the media spotlight in ways that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. It would be worrying if the PM had invited him!

  16. I understand why Gordon didn’t invite him, he can be a bit of a loose cannon, but at the same time he is one of, if not THE, most prominant LGBT campaigners since the movement began.

    Gordon should probably have gritted his teeth and born out the unpleasant couple of hours in his company, simply as a mark of acknowledgement for his work.

  17. lithotomist 30 Jun 2009, 6:06pm

    If Peter tatchell isn;t bothered that he wasn’t invited, what’s he moaning about ? Do you rally expect ANYONE to invite someone who’re recently heckled them to a small private event they’re organising ? get real!

  18. Peter has principles. Something dear Gordon scrificed a long time ago.

  19. lithotomist 30 Jun 2009, 6:33pm

    Do you want to note that Boris Johnson also left Peter Tatchell off the guest list for the pre-Pride recption at London’s City Hall, or that David Cameron has let it be known that he’s “too busy” to attend Pride, though Gordon Brown’s wife is going to be there ?

  20. Simon Murphy 30 Jun 2009, 7:36pm

    No7: Abi1975: You ask:

    “Is it not time it Peter was called Lord Tatchell, it would be better than having Lord Summerskill that’s for sure”

    Perhaps but seeing as Peter is a republican that will never happen. He would refuse any honour from Queenie as he believes (quite rightly in my view) that she has no right to grant honours to people seeing as she is unelected.

  21. Mihangel apYrs 30 Jun 2009, 9:20pm

    @lithotomist
    it’s a “small private event” if Gordie pays for it. It’s public if WE pay for it. ANd if he excludes people for personal reasons he is NOT acting professionally

  22. This is just Labour fishing for the pink vote. I say tell them to stick their reception up their arse.

  23. Martin from Bromsgrove 1 Jul 2009, 12:28am

    I do like Pete Thatchell, but what the hell is he slagging off the Labour Goverment for? They have introduced a lot of equality laws for gays over the past 12 years, more than can be said for the bloody Tories. Why can’t Peter acknowledge the good things Labour have done, and stop acting like Oliver Twist, and continuing to keep asking for more!!!

  24. Be fair – No 10 can only hold so many people – and when it’s choked full of Stonewall poodles…
    Stonewall privatized gay politics and we only have ourselves to blame for having no say left.

  25. Sister Mary Clarence 1 Jul 2009, 10:20am

    “They have introduced a lot of equality laws for gays over the past 12 years, more than can be said for the bloody Tories.”

    Dig a little deeper Martin and find out why they have. Its got nothing to do with making a better life for us, it got all to do with European legislation that have to enact and rulings from the EU Court of Human Rights.

    On other posts people are banging on about how unjust it is for the US to have its Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, but it was a EU Court ruling that forced the UK to accept gay servicemen and women

  26. Labour introduced legislation to provide equality well before European court rulings made this a necessity Sister – so please dig a little deaper yourself before slagging off a government which has done more to promote and safeguard your rights than any other in history!

    Some work remains left to be done, but don’t expect team Cameron to deal with unfinished business.

  27. It embarrasses me as a green party supporter and a gay man sometimes how pathetic and bitchy Peter Tatchell can be. He wasn’t alowed to stand for the Labour party because of his sexuality many moons ago when homophobia was rife with the public. The situation has changed and for the better and the public have voted in a government which has increased gay rights but we are not the only minority in this country and the whole country is not gay – its about time we forgot the past and were pragmatic about gay rights – working at grassroots levels to change public opinion and subsequently political pary policys rather than attack the parties for the few inequalities that remain. Peter Tatchell is an embarrassing millitant outdated voice which no-one in the gay community has asked for.

  28. Leave Tatchell alone. He’s a great practitioner of active citizenship. He doesn’t just moan like most people in this country but actually does something to promote a progressive agenda.

  29. theotherone 1 Jul 2009, 1:56pm

    ‘freemasons?’ Lesebella: the Freemasons are a body of Business People (there is a section open to women before you start screaming) meeting to sement business deals not some shady ‘shadow goverment.’

    Oh and it raiases a hell of alot of monery for charity.

    It’s also camp as hell. I’ve got a Bisexual Catholic friend who’s a member.

    Grow up.

  30. theotherone 1 Jul 2009, 2:16pm

    andy: I disagree with Thatchel on alot of things and have discussed these with him but I still respect his stance. I still respect his principles – unlike Gordo and his naughty friends.

    No one asked for him? No but i’m glad he’s there.

  31. Lezabella 1 Jul 2009, 3:16pm

    “‘freemasons?’ Lesebella: the Freemasons are a body of Business People (there is a section open to women before you start screaming) meeting to sement business deals not some shady ‘shadow goverment.’

    Oh and it raiases a hell of alot of monery for charity.

    It’s also camp as hell. I’ve got a Bisexual Catholic friend who’s a member.

    Grow up.”

    Don’t be such a tool, I know very well the ordinary fellas who are Masons are not involved in this. Even if they do go through weird rituals to get in.

    For example, my friend’s uncle has a good job and was stopped for drink driving, completely over the limit 2 sumemrs ago, he’s a Mason, he was allowed one phonecall and called the Commissioner, also a Mason; and was released without charge. This is what happens within this organisation, they help eachother out, and it gets more sinister and money/power orientated the higher it goes.

    Also there are many, many powerful leaders of the world who have been members.

    Blair was a 33rd degree freemason. As was Winston Churchill. George W. Bush is a member of the similar secretive skull and bones society in the U.S, as was his opponent, John Kerry . There are tons, and tons, of powerful leaders who were members. Even Prince Phillip at the moment, is the head or patron? If I’m not mistaken.

    The vast majority are normal blokes. But the top is littered with law-makers, politicians bankers and royalty. All men. (There IS a women’s lodge but it means fuck all).

    So excuse me if I think this old boy’s network, littered with the rich and powerful-especially bankers like the Rothschilds (at the top), may just have an influence or a hand in some laws etc.

  32. theotherone 1 Jul 2009, 6:02pm

    ‘So excuse me if I think this old boy’s network, littered with the rich and powerful-especially bankers like the Rothschilds (at the top), may just have an influence or a hand in some laws etc.’

    So from FreeMason battering to Anti-Semitism? Good going.

    Bush was a part of a-n-o-t-h-e-r secret sociaty so that impacts on the Masons? Wow, what a strange world we live in where the Masons and the sculls and bones are the same thing. Diffrent contanents my dear, diffrent contanents and diffrent membership criteria.

  33. I really think Peter’s brand of militant politics are outdated.

    Despite a huge debt of gratitude for his early work and admiration for sticking so loyally to a cause, his tactics not really relevant or palatable to forward-thinkers. In short, it’s not 1990!

  34. Dan -

    He’s hardly a militant. He uses direct action. He’s not exactly a revolutionary. Plus he’s a member of the Green Party. Surely a ‘militant’ would be more inclined to ally themselves with the likes of the Workers’ Revolutionary Party?

  35. theotherone 2 Jul 2009, 10:07am

    you mean, Dan, that he dosn’t suport Labour right?

  36. “So excuse me if I think this old boy’s network, littered with the rich and powerful-especially bankers like the Rothschilds (at the top), may just have an influence or a hand in some laws etc.’

    So from FreeMason battering to Anti-Semitism? Good going”

    How is that anti-semitic? The freesmasons are not Jewish in any way whatsoever, they’re religion-free as far as my understanding is concerned. The Rothschilds are a giant banking family who happen to be Jewish, so what? I don’t care ‘what’ they are I just know they have major, major financial clout in the banking insudtry. I also mentioned Tony Blair and Winston Churchill, George Bush and John Kerry, none of whom are Jewish.

    So why have you levelled at me, a sickening accusation of anti-semitism? I’ve studied Nazism and the history of Germmany for much of my adult life, (aswell as Europe where the Jews have also been shit on by nearly every country, they were blamed for the Plague at one point in England!) I have also studied in detail the Middle East conflict wherein my support for Israel and it’s right to exist is clear. Out of 5 people I mentioned who are members of one secret society or another, 1 happens to be Jewish so that makes me an anti-semite? I suppose I’m anti-white too since 4/5 of those I mentioned are white?

    You shouldn’t throw around HURTFUL names like ‘anti-semite’ unless you genuinely believe I am and that you have come to that conclusion because of something distinctly anti-semitic I’ve said. Which I clearly haven’t.

    My point was that a disturbing number of world leaders, bankers and royalty are mebers of ONE secret society or another, and that this pattern has been formed throughout history; and I don’t think it’s fair to have powerful people who are at the whims of their rich and powerful chums in their ‘boy’s clubs’.

    I suppose you’ve heard of Bohemian Grove aswell then? Don’t you think it’s even just a bit weird what they do there?

  37. Trevor Ruth 2 Jul 2009, 1:03pm

    The modern Labour Party is run by a secretive society known as “The Fabians”. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Stonewall Chief Executive Ben Summerskill are members.

    The Fabian Society is a close cousin of the Society of Freemasons. So people’s claims are not untrue. Yes folks, this is the GAY MAFIA in action.

    No-where is safe.

  38. Trevor Ruth 2 Jul 2009, 1:07pm

    If you want to find out what happened last year type “Stonewall Illuminati” into google and look for the gay mafia watch article – it talks about how Gordon Brown did this in 2008 at Pride London! history repeating.

    Gordon Brown is also a freemason.
    Gay Mafia = Fabians = Freemasons = Illuminati = New World Order

  39. Lezabella 2 Jul 2009, 1:34pm

    Trevor Ruth-

    I am unfamiliar with any sort of ‘Gay Mafia’.

    My only knowledge, interest and concern about these societies is the disproportionate amount of powerful people who are in them; making decisions based on money (not people) behind closed doors a la The Bilderberg Group.

  40. There are lots of people around the country who battle for equal rights day in day out but have not been invited to Downing Street. I am very sorry Peter but you do not have the automatic right to be invited. However, it seems that you feel you do and when you don’t get your way the press releases start and you use your media contacts to get the “hard done” to story out there.

  41. theotherone 6 Jul 2009, 12:04pm

    why, lesibelia, are the rosthild’s ‘at the top’ why not someone else? Why the Jews?

  42. Lezabella 6 Jul 2009, 1:11pm

    It’s not just the Rothschilds, they’re a very powerful and rich family and are at the top with the rest, even the Windsors. However, the Rothschild’s are more noticeable as they’re famous in their own right and have a fantastic influence in the banking industry as they own so much of it, probably more than any other family. Here’s a few of the things the Rothschild’s banking dynasty owns/has infulence in:

    1) The Rothschild Investment Trust, now known as RIT Capital Partners Here which holds controlling investment interest in Royal Dutch Shell Oil.
    2) Lazard Brothers & Lehman Brothers
    3) Evelyn Rothschild has served in Directorships of the internationally renowned, The Economist, and newspapers owned by Lord Beaverbrook, which include the London Evening Standard & the Daily Express. He has also served as Director of Lord Black’s Daily Telegraph. He is also honorary director of De Beers Consolidated Mines & IBM United Kingdom Holdings Limited
    4) NM Rothschild & Sons is the primary investment adviser for China’s Petro China, the largest oil company in Asia
    5) Political donations from overseas are illegal in the US, where John McCain’s campaign team was under investigation for allegedly accepting a benefit in kind from two mega-rich British citizens, namely Nat Rothschild and his father, Jacob, the Fourth Baron Rothschild.
    6) Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, married the New York businesswoman Lynn Forester, they spent the night of their wedding dinner in the White House as guests of Bill Clinton.
    7) The Rothschilds have also gave money (they’re worth hundreds and hundreds of billions) to Israel in various ways, to the Supreme Court et al.

    So as you can see from just a snippet of what they own/do, this family is very rich (good luck to them in that respect since they started out in a ghetto in bavaria) but they are also extremely political and hence meddling.

    Then if you look at the The Bilderberg Group’s (get together of the world’s most powerful/rich people where foreign policies and economic policies of the West are decided) annual attendee lists you’ll see that it’s not just The Rothschilds atall, it’s representatives of the Rothschilds’ banking corporation and :

    Other banking corporation’s heads/CEOs, like Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserves’ Chairman, don’t forget the Federal reserve is a private bank that creates money and then charges the U.S Govt (taxpayer) for it. Only TWO Presidents in American history have tried to end the Fed’s power and print their own money, Abraham Lincoln and John. F. Kennedy…..both were shot by ‘random’ assassins.

    Other prominent attendees are the CEOs of Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft, Nokia and other large companies.

    European royalty (Queen Beatrix, Prince Charles, former princes of Greece, the Crown Princes of Spain and Denmark, Norwegian Royalty, Belgian Royalty etc).

    Tony Blair and Bill Clinton have both attended too. Right before each was put forward and elected. As did Hillary Clinton and Obama.

    This is a private group who meet once a year. Prime Ministers, Royalty, and bankers all meet in secret once a year, and the media doesn’t even report it. Why?

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