Comments on: Stephen Gately’s partner Andrew Cowles appears at Stonewall awards

By: Mari Mendez

Mari Mendez — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:22:31 +0000

I can not understand why Mr Cowles was there to get the award,he is just Stephen husband, better, he was it, and who should get this was the boyzone, and not him!

By: Jean-Paul Bentham

Jean-Paul Bentham — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:12:56 +0000

The purpose of setting up a moderator was to get rid od disrsuptinve ex-gay homophobis fundamnetalist who easte both space and time talkinga asolute rubbish.

The moderator is expected to know who the regualr legitimate commenters are, left, right or whatever and we do not expect our friends’ comments to be delete.

I don’t know who the moderator is, but I do know Jessics Gen, and you value your your job, you will think vçcarefully before pushing that klittle deltete button; get the picture!

By the way, I have saved a copy of this comment and I am prepared to sent it it Jess Geen, if need be,

By: Rose

Rose — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:25:27 +0000

Well, Chester, mainly becase the prime target is our right-wing friend RobN. We could be wrong. It might have been because his joke wasn’t funny. But if they were to hit threads because of good taste, I could think of a lot of really empty discussions in past weeks.

This isn’t even an especially important topic. We were just having a go at the fact that Stonewall awards seem to be just a bit prone to populist bandwagoning, and comments start disappearing. It’s just not on. As I said, Reb’s comment was a bit silly. He was essentially rehashing tabloid gossip. And we’d dismissed it as such. there was no need. I think RobN was hit because i then commented ‘what, Reb is censored but RobN’s rubbish joke stays’, my point being that NO censorship should have been applied. The joke then vanished as well, which wasn’t what i meant at all. And now instead of the wonders of Boyzone winning a coveted prize – note sarccasm – we’re discussing a fundamental issue of human rights – free speech and censorship of the press. And I am in the odd position of defending somebody whose political views and warped sense of humour I dislike because I think nevertheless he has a right to be heard. The left-wing slant here is perfectly capable of shouting down a lone tory in the ranks if they feel they have to. But let the man speak!

By: Chester

Chester — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:09:37 +0000

removing comments doesn’t mean it’s a left-wing thing
why do so many think it’s cos of lefties?

By: Sister Mary Clarence

Sister Mary Clarence — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:58:45 +0000

Panic at the thought of Chancellor Brown’s elite Anti-Terrorist Boot Boy Police Unit forcing their way through the hand-made waxed pine bedroom furniture I now have piled against the front door has had a devastating effect on my spelling, so please excuse the last posting of mine that should have said:

“Its a said reflection on Blair’s Britain that censorship has gone mad ….”

Rather than the tosh I actually wrote.

I await the morning to see if this posting lasts the hour

By: Rose

Rose — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:32:40 +0000

Wow. Twice in a week I agree with RobN. Especially the second paragraph of post no. 18. There is a lot of sloppy journalism in Pink and there is no excuse for it. On top of that, this censorship of comments that didn’t need censoring.

Am I in danger of being censored too, for criticising the editors? If so, so be it.

By: RobN

RobN — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:21:56 +0000

Is there any point in having a debate when some invisible hand with their own political agenda decides who or what is acceptable?

We all know most LGBT people are left wing, and this site has a very socialist slant, just by what it reports. If it spent a bit more time getting its facts right and less about trying to sensationalise headlines, maybe we might get a more balanced viewpoint.

Incidentally, just clock this comment and check to see if it’s still here in a day or two. If it isn’t, then you can see what I’m getting at.

By: Rose

Rose — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:37:23 +0000

I didn’t realise your comments had gone, too, Sister Mary. It really is unacceptable. This is supposed to be a news service for people who want to break free from suppression of their way of life and those who would curtail their freedom of expression and yet opinions are censored. It’s not on. I disagree with almost everything RobN says, but he has the right to say it. if he oversteps the mark the howls of protest from everyone else are censure enough. censor isn’t necessary.

By: Sister Mary Clarence

Sister Mary Clarence — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:25:03 +0000

Not sure why my comments were deleted, I merely speculated that one of the previous (now deleted) comments might be conjecture.

Irs a said reflection on Blair’s Britain that censorship has gone made. I’ve pushed the wardrobe up against the front door in case the secret police try to come through it tonight.

Tomorrow I off the Clacton in the Winnebago to lie low for a month or two until its all blown over.

By: rose

rose — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:04:38 +0000

er… i have to say, it IS like that. At least four comments have been removed from this thread. Granted they were not nice comments. But Reb was only repeating what has been said elsewhere. He is guilty of no more than lacking a capacity for judgement. RobN’s ‘joke’ was in bad taste as well as unfunny. But we have reams of rubbish from idiots spouting Romans I that we have to put up with on other threads and they never get deleted. So, frankly, I am supporting RobN’s right to make bad jokes in the wrong place without being censored. And i would like to know why we can’t criticise the BBC on another thread that has been closed altogether.

However, I do agree with the sentiment, Stephen RIP.

By: Chester

Chester — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:40:11 +0000

RobN – it’s not like that

RIP Stephen

By: Jean-Paul Bentham

Jean-Paul Bentham — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:35:46 +0000

Ain’t that cute! Paying lip service to the morond at “Stonewall” UK. BARF!

By: Anon

Anon — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:47:12 +0000

Has PinkNews “Sold It’s Soul” to the BBC for money?

By: RobN

RobN — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:38:32 +0000

Oh, it seems to have disappeared, for some bizarre reason.
How very odd. Must be this Interweb thingy I can’t get the hang of.

Oh, how I love left-wing, democratic free speech.
(Say what you like, unless we don’t like it.)

By: Rose

Rose — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:32:01 +0000

in that case, i stand corrected on that point.

By: pam

pam — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:35:42 +0000

the better video was in the last 12 months

By: Rose

Rose — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:30:19 +0000

yes, I agree they did all that, Pam. But they didn’t do any of that this year. That’s the point. Why did they get the award this year? It does seem a little as if it’s a sympathy vote. I mean, I don’t mind, really. I don’t think there’s any harm done, except to the credibility of the awards.

By: pam

pam — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:35 +0000

boyzone deserve this award. the gay pairing in the video for better is the 1st time a boyband has done that and hopefully it will go some way towards gay, lesbian and bi equality. 10yrs ago stephen was the 1st boyband member to come out and that inspired other ppl in the music industry to do the same.
congratulations to u boyz x

By: Rose

Rose — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:10:14 +0000

hold on? Reb’s comments are deleted, but RobN’s tasteless joke remains? The randomness of the censorship here is puzzling. I suppose RobN might be pleased it isn’t him this time.

By: Rose

Rose — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:13:23 +0000

Sister Mary, certainly not suggesting that at all. I just wonder about the way these awards were allocated. Mark of respect? Maybe if it was a special award of some sort, but not the Entertainer of the Year. I’d expect that to be somebody who had made a significant impact this year. Boyzone’s comeback album hadn’t even made much of a mark.

RobN, I don’t even get that joke, but it sounds tasteless even for you.

Reb, don’t listen to tabloid gossip.