Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay Labour minister accused of ‘hypocrisy’ for attacking Cameron

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 11:36am

    Labour Minister lieing?

    What a fvck1ng surprise.

  2. I actually thought this when I saw the comments.

    This just proves the nasty Labour Attitude that Britain needs to rid of. The “what your doing is so wrong and it’s not the point if I’m doing it too!”

    Labour Hypocrites? Definitely!

  3. But giving a free vote on these issues for the rabid homophobes the Tories currently have in the Commons and the Lords is as good as setting a three line whip.

    Ben Bradshaw is a hypocrite though just look at the amendment 70 vote!

  4. I can’t believe that anyone as unpleasant and dishonest as Bradshaw used to be a GP. I always thought that to be a medical professional required intelligence, integrity and a commitment to public service.

    How did he get from there to being a lying, unprincipled new liebour shill?

  5. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 12:36pm

    oh come on Abi! Both the Labour and Tory Parties have free votes on Queer Rights and it’s fine for Labour but not for the Tories?

    I suppose it’s also fine for Labour to be running a Homophobic poster campaign? Heard about the ‘Boy George’ posters of George Osbourne is Make-Up?

  6. Re. Ben Bradshaw’s comments on the the unmasking of Call-Me-Dave’s actual ignorance of LGBT concerns, The Guardian’s report is worth reading.

    In particular, Ben Bradshaw’s observation that:

    “[Cameron has] talked a good talk on some of these issues but his voting record hasn’t been very good. He’s learned a script, but when he’s actually scrutinised and forgets the script, he doesn’t have the fundamental core belief to support him in his argument.”

    Posh public-school boy toff, “Call-Me-Dave”, has been caught out and revealed for what he is.

    Folks, it will now be necessary for us to be even MORE RESISTANT to Tory electioneering twaddle, because after this disaster Call-Me-Dave will have gone away kicking his own ars* and we can be sure that he has already given his LGBT stooges the job of whipping up clever answers to all the questions that Gay Times put to him . . . and he’ll be back very soon to peddle them with all the “sincerity” of the PR/salesman that he is.

    Remember: used-car salesmen or brand-new Jaguar salesmen, all of them will nod their heads and tell you SH*TE in order to make a sale.

    Beware Call-Me-Dave and his toadies EVEN MORE now!

    Will the likes of Tory candidate Matthew Sephton now have the guts to quit the Tory party immediately and cross over to either Labour or the LibDems?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/24/david-cameron-stumbles-gay-rights

  7. This is coplete hogwash.

    The point is the Tories are trying to appear as a progressive party, particularly in relation to sexuality.

    If Cameron is unwilling to place a whip on votes, the party will simply continue acting in a homophobic way.

    This Government’s record on voting for Equality stands for itself.

  8. With Labour it’s a case of “Listen to what I say But Ignore what I do!”

    Labour are a bunch of Hypocrites, that’s all they stand for.

    I’ve Never voted Tory in my life, this will be the first. This to me just says how bad Labour are and why I feel they need the good ol ‘Good Riddance’ ploy!

  9. The point I was making theotherone, was based on voting on LGBT issues its not party political. Its not my fault if Labour have done better on these free votes that the Tories.

    Knowing how so many or his MPs have voted on LGBT issues, you must ask the question of Cameron why does he continue to do it when its not working!

  10. OK, Squidgy, fine, go put your head in the sand. You’ve seen Call-Me-Dave’s body language, caught on camera for all time, for all the world to see.

    He’s a laughing stock amongst all gay and lesbian people at this time, right around the world. I’m following threads all over the place, the States, Canada, Australia, NZ, and everybody is killing themselves with laughter over the unmasking of this typical English public-school boy with his eyes on becoming the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, trying to act like an important statesmen but now revealed as a fraud.

    But you, Squidgy, you quickly stick your head in the sand, right down in that hole, as far as you can get it. “I didn’t SEE that! It’s NOT true! Jesus lives! I believe in David! Hallelujah!”

  11. Bloody ‘ell Eddy – mores to the point when you gonna grow/wake up and realise just because we’re gay we Don’t have to follow everything you say. We are not force by our sexuality to agree with everything you say. Just because I’m gay doesn’t mean I have to close my mind to any other opinions.

    So my, and others, thoughts differ from yours, So what? Get Over it and stop being so small minded. I am allow to voice my opinion. You make yours Very well known. If your allowed to so is everybody else. Regardless of weither they agree with you or not!

    It would help if you read threads to rather than just make assumptions.

  12. Sorry I didn’t realise that when you’re gay you automatically give up all democratic rights to your own opinion in favour of yours.

    That surely would be a communist stance and I realise more suited to the likes of yourself and the Labour Party.

  13. Dominic of Ballymena 24 Mar 2010, 1:14pm

    In spite of this humiliating revelation (well done Gay Times!), inflated pride and stubbornness will disallow many gay Tory supporters from transferring their allegiance to a genuinely worthy party.

  14. Oh please, there is a WORLD of difference between a free vote from the largely pro-gay Labour party, and a free vote from the virulently homophobic Tory party

    All those people kneejerking against labour – check the vote records! The Tories are very very very clear on their anti-gay practices

  15. On the matter of “Equality”, it should always be spelt with a lower case “e” since we don’t have FULL equality yet. Neither party can claim they’re for full equality until they allow those of us who want to, the freedom to have a civil marriage. Why should we have to leave our own country to get married elsehwere? That’s not about equality at all. If we’re banned from marrying, how can anyone say we have equality? We may have gained some rights, all well and good, but equality? NOT! A lot of denial going on for sure, Labour and Tory alike. Now if Cameron would support marriage equality, although I don’t think it will ever happen because his party hasn’t evolved that much, then perhaps I’d vote for him. Until then, neither party gets mine.

  16. Beware the Tory Party.

    They now have the ‘Gay Uncle Toms’ of the LGBTory Group(such as Matthew Sephton) defending the homophobia and hypocrisy of the Tory Party.

    Remember that despite the long, long list of examples of how the Tories commitment to LGBT rights is nothing but PR, that the LGBTory group have not been ALLOWED to comment.

    It is crystal clear that the LGBTory group was set up as a smokescreen to disguise the homophobia of the Tory Party.

    David Cameron has basically admitted that he is not in control of his own party.

    And yet he expects us to believe his lies about the Tories commitment to equality.

    Worra Laff.

    I wonder how soon it will take for Call-Me-Dave to be replaced as Tory leader once the Tories lose the election?

  17. Sister Mary clarence 24 Mar 2010, 2:15pm

    Simon Can we try not to start all the personalised attacks again please. We can all have an opinion, and we all have a vote, but maybe we can avoid another thread degenerating in the same way as the last few political stories have.

    ICM are now showing the Tories as being 9 points ahead with an increase of 3 points since last month. The latest scandals are likely to have a further impact of the voting intentions of those undecided further damaging the Labour vote.

    Gay voters weighing up everything, like straight voters, are going to vote Labour out, so maybe rather than directing negative energies towards damning the Tories, time might be better spent ensuring that one their arrival in power the gay community is not seen as a bunch of left wing extremists that are doing nothing other that trying to undermine the government.

    Really I think we’ll get a lot more out of them that way.

  18. SimonM wrote: “It is crystal clear that the LGBTory group was set up as a smokescreen to disguise the homophobia of the Tory Party.”

    So true, Simon, so true. And the members of the LGBTory group are nothing short of gullible decoy-ducks, meant to make the rest of us flock to them and hand over our votes so that the HTP will get in.

    (HTP : The Homophobic Tory Party)

  19. SMC: No 17: “Simon Can we try not to start all the personalised attacks again please.”

    Mary Clarence – can we try not to start all the fake accusations that I am engaging in personalised attacks?

    Stating that Matthew Sephton and the LGBTory group are being exploited as a PR stunt by the Tory Party as a method of deceiving the public about the Tories pretend commitment to equality issues is not a ‘personalised attack’. I would regard that as a highly relevant statement of fact.

    Perhaps the ‘Gay Uncle Tom’ reference offends you. But it is an attack on the uselessness of the LGBTory group and their utter irrelevance. It is not a personal attack on the individual members.

    Matt Sephton is a parliamentary candidate. The fact that his sexuality is being exploited by the homophobic Tory Party to peddle their lies about their ‘commitment’ to equality is a very relevant and pertinet topic for discussion.

    I do not ever comment about the LGBTory Group or parliamentary candidate on a personal level. I do not know them so I can’t comment on them on a personal level.

    However their contemptible little group absolutely deserves derision for their willingness to be exploited for PR purposes.

  20. Evidence that the LGBTory Group are merely a PR stunt with absolutely no clout:

    - LGBTory group are opposed to same sex marriage equality
    - LGBTory group are in favour of religious exemption from equality laws
    - LGBTory group are in favour of massively increased funding to homophobic ‘faith schools’
    - LGBTory group are in favour of the alliance in the Europarliament between the Tories and the extreme right Law and Justice Party of Poland
    - LGBTory group are in favour of catholic bigot Iain Duncan Smith being minister in charge of families despite his efforts to reduce the parental rights of non-biological gay parents

    Perhaps they now can offer their support to Call-Me-Dave’s pathetic attempts to downplay the fact that he believes that Tory MP’s having a free-vote on issues relating to gay equality (but certainly not racial equality) is a reasonable thing.

    Just to prove beyond all reasonable doubt what a toothless PR exercise LGBTory actually is.

  21. Pumpkin Pie 24 Mar 2010, 3:15pm

    Gay voters weighing up everything, like straight voters, are going to vote Labour out, so maybe rather than directing negative energies towards damning the Tories, time might be better spent ensuring that one their arrival in power the gay community is not seen as a bunch of left wing extremists that are doing nothing other that trying to undermine the government.

    Really I think we’ll get a lot more out of them that way.

    What.

    As opposed to right-wing extremists that are doing nothing but trying to undermine the (current) government? If feeble subservience is such a fantastic idea, why not start right now with the current Labour government? Or does it only work for your favourite party?

    Really now, I don’t care if you like the Tories. I certainly don’t like them, but I guess it’s OK if you do. But it’s not OK to constantly attack one party and then claim that people who are constantly attacking another party should play nice and behave. You should never have that sort of attitude for any party, including your personal choice, or they’ll walk all over you.

    Also, backbone before PR. I don’t give a **** what your average man on the street thinks of me. Playing the popularity game gets you nowhere. Dogs do tricks for treats, not people (well, maybe politicians).

  22. Looks like they can’t then Sister Mary. Understandably I suppose hen he end is in sight for their beloved Labour. Personal attacks are their last refuge.

    The polls speak for themselves Labour and its corrupt and reckless government are gone, gone, gone.

    I have the deepest admiration for David Cameroon for his tranformation of the Tory pary.

  23. See, this is why we never get anywhere… any political discussion turns into a bitch-off.

    The right wing Christians are probably smaller in number than members of the group generally known as LGBT (i.e. us), but they have more impact politically because they can unite with one voice and one political will. While we just trash each other because of different political views.

    This is why they get heard, and we get dismissed. We’re not focused, nor untied. Until that day comes when we are able to put aside our differences to unite for a common political goal, so a political party sees us as a real voting block, this is all we have: a bunch of outspoken bitches on a chat room who can’t tolerate difference of opinion.

    Sad. But true.

  24. I have to say We’ve had a Tory Mayor for two years and it hasn’t effected us as gay people! He still gets my vote too if he continues.

  25. Niall - London 24 Mar 2010, 4:18pm

    When Tory Gay voters crack their own internal denial and self hatred, only then will they understand the semantic nonsense they proffer as ‘policy’. The Tory party has never created initiative to promote fairness in the UK. I will now add that New Labour under Blair gave us freedoms of lesser children. In the interest of self interest, Blair promoted ‘choice’. This same ‘choice’ is baton passed to Tories. They are one and the same despite Labour’s watery centralised drip fed freedoms to us grateful gay folk. Lib Dem it is for me!!!!

  26. Personally I can’t wait to see William McCrea, Reg Empey, Peter Robinson and all fighting for the LGBT vote in Northern Ireland.

    GB is in a very fortunate position, you actually have politicians who need and care about your vote, you may question their motivations and past, but at least you are able to engage with them.

    Maybe instead of concentrating on why not to vote for someone else, it would be better to learn why someone should vote for your candidate.

    Oh and on the way will one of you please ask them which party will ensure that our LGBT freedoms, now in a devolved parliament, will not be left to the religious bigots which WILL be elected here.

  27. “Maybe instead of concentrating on why not to vote for someone else, it would be better to learn why someone should vote for your candidate. ”

    None of the Tory supporters on this site can offer a good reason to vote Tory (and considering the homophobia of the Tory party I sort of understand their difficulty)

    The ONLY reason I have ever heard on these boards why I should vote Tory is ‘They are not Labour at least’.

    That is SUCH a pathetic reason to vote Tory. Especially considering how homophobic the party remains.

  28. vulpus_rex 24 Mar 2010, 5:40pm

    http://www.conservatives.com/

    There you go Si – plenty of reasons to vote Tory, fill your boots.

    You are wrong though about “not Labour” as a valid reason to vote Tory – “not labour” is just a convenient way of summing up that they are not incompetent, economicly illiterate, sleazy, hypocritical, civil liberties supressing and all the many other unsavoury things that Labour are.

    “Not Labour” therefore represents a very positive and strong reason for voting Tory in my book.

  29. When is David Cameron going to get around to answering our questions?

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/16/exclusive-david-cameron-to-answer-your-questions/

    Or does Tory towers need a week or three to dream up a response!

    Seems like call me ‘Dave’ is ducking out of answering us!

  30. “Dominic of Ballymena”, well said at #14:

    “In spite of this humiliating revelation (well done Gay Times!), inflated pride and stubbornness will disallow many gay Tory supporters from transferring their allegiance to a genuinely worthy party.”

  31. Let’s not forget that LGBTory and LGBT Labour aren’t part of their respective parties, they’re external lobbying organisations only open to party members. Only the Lib Dems have an LGBT body that’s actually part of the party, and has formal powers over policy.

    This recognition of the importance of gay rights, since 1975 if not before, is why the Lib Dems have the best record of any political party on LGBT equality – http://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/always gives details.

    I don’t agree with the claims of hypocrisy over whipped votes; Labour have a much better voting record on free votes than the Tories (though not as good overall as the Lib Dems). On the other hand, a one-line whip is a good way of saying “This is what the party thinks is wrong, and if you don’t go along with this then you’re rebelling against what this party stands for”, so perhaps using them (like the Lib Dems do) is appropriate.

  32. the great cunning master-plan of the Tories has been rumbled!

    we queer guys and gals equal 10% of the electorate and the Tories know it!

    they’ve been lying through their teeth, even set up LGBTory to try and deceive us!

    now their Great Leader has been shown up as a fraud

    and every LGBT person who has been rooting for Cameron is now feeling horribly embarrassed

    hopefully they will have the integrity now, and the sense, to dump the lying PR-man

    and maybe certain people at PinkNews will stop plastering David Cameron all over their pages in the hope that if they shove his ugly gob at us enough we will come to like him

    won’t work, sorry, not now we’ve seen the truth

  33. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 7:26pm

    abi: the issue around Free Votes is simply that what BB attacked DC for is what BB’s Party does.

    If Labour do not whip people on Queer Rights then what right do they have for criticising the Tories for it?

    If it’s so damn important then why don’t Labour whip on it? Will I tell you why? Because they really don’t give a fvck that why, because they have to be forced to bring in Equality Legislation by Europe and then often refuse to do it.

  34. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 7:34pm

    All I can say (having checked the news today) is that no Queer person should vote Labour:

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/24/clergy-assured-they-will-not-be-sued-for-refusing-gay-civil-partnerships/

  35. I find it hilarious that people on here can snap about “personal attack” when the whole article is one big personal attack! Call-Me-Dave clearly shows he is poorly briefed, and has not got the “fundamental core belief to support him in his argument” and who gets slagged off? Oh yes, Ben Bradshaw!

    I was at the Exeter parliamentary question time on Friday, and Hannah Foster (Ben Bradshaw’s conservative opponent) admittedly performed better than her predecessor, that notorious homophobe Adrian Rogers. Yes Hannah loves the Gay. Unfortunately, Hannah forgot her script, and irritatingly had to be corrected on a number of points by the lib-dem candidate who had documentary evidence to the contrary on virtually every point she tried to make.

    Yes, them pesky lib-dems showing the tories to be totally unlike lying labour…oh…wait…

  36. What a normal person would say, theotherone, is that having checked the news today no queer person should ever ever ever even THINK of voting Tory!

    That Mr Cameron has run into trouble on the issue of gay equality is wholly predictable. That he went into meltdown in front of the TV cameras was not predictable.

    But the pressure has all been getting a bit much for Mr. Cameron. He’s only a boy. So perhaps he felt that a deliberate car-crash TV interview, in which he could show the whole world how he’s not up for the job, was the best way to make sure every rational and liberal thinking person will drop him like a hot potato! Everyone I know has!

  37. Good point, Mattb, and you know why poor Ben got slagged off? Because PinkNews is trying to brainwash us all into voting for Call-Me-Dave!

    Call you Dave? I call you one great big clown, Mr. Cameron!

  38. Ben Bradshaw has a thousand times more conviction than David Cameron has. There isn’t a video in existence of Ben Bradshaw being caught on camera as being a confused lying dic*head like David Cameron.

  39. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 7:50pm

    mattb: are you claiming that pinknews is pro-Tory?

  40. Sister Mary clarence 24 Mar 2010, 7:52pm

    “In the interest of self interest, Blair promoted ‘choice’”

    Forgive me if I choke. Choice for who? It is choice for those most able to choice and no choice for the rest.

    Choice of hospital. Lovely idea, but not all hospitals are good hospitals, so who gets to go the the worst hospitals? Those least able to throw themselves to the front of the queue.

    On your own? Mental health problems and no family or close friends around? It doesn’t take a genius to work out which hospital you’ll end up in. I’ll give you a clue – it ain’t the best.

    Which parents choose the the cr@p schools for their kids. None of them. Its the ones there are least able to fight their case that end up in then. Probably from the most disadvantaged backgrounds – and so the cycle of poverty continues.

    Choice if fine, but if you elderly, have mental health problems, do not speak English as a first language, have a poor standard of education, or any one of a number of other factors your ability to chose is probably somewhat diminished.

    Labour has been a party that has chosen to favour the able. With our supposedly socialist government taking that position, the Conservatives have had no choice but to re-position

  41. Sister Mary clarence 24 Mar 2010, 7:55pm

    “nd every LGBT person who has been rooting for Cameron is now feeling horribly embarrassed”

    I’m not. Not in the least.

  42. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 7:57pm

    if you’re on about Labour kicking the poor then it may be worth mentioning that Labour doubled the Tax burden on the poorest paid workers in the country.

    What a bunch of Socialists!

  43. Ben Bradshaw could not even turn up and vote on the amendment 70 vote! I guess LGBT kids are not worth his time or vote!

    So I guess Ben Bradshaw is a hypocrite too

  44. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 7:58pm

    ohm god alex i don’t want this to descend into another frenzy of name calling. Can we please keep this argument on track?

  45. your GREAT and NOBLE LEADER is a fool, Sister Mary Clarence

    and the whole world is laughing!

    yes, have just done that google check

    yep, 67,100,000 internet pages reporting the fool’s hypocrisy

    your great Titanic has sunk, sweetie!

    not sinking!

    SUNK!

    gurgle, gurgle, gurgle

    awwwww … how sad

    bye-eeeeeeeeee!

    down you GO!

  46. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 8:00pm

    they’re all hypocrites Abi, every last one.

    All the good ones are either dead or pursuing other careers.

  47. Alex, I’ld say theotherone must completely lack a brain!

  48. gurgle gurgle gurgle

    almost no more bubbles

    byeee “DAVE”

    even those pictures of leggy Samantha with her legs apart and showing her knickers won’t save you now!

    byeeeee!

    gurgle

    (one final bubble!)

    ah, at last!

  49. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 8:09pm

    more personal insults, more bullying…

    Grow the hell up people will you? Why are you so scared of myself and SMC? SMC presents coherent arguments for his viewpoints, I present the viewpoint of a large tract of both Queer and Het people – Labour need to be booted out even if we’re not exactly charmed by the Tories.

  50. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 8:10pm

    ‘even those pictures of leggy Samantha with her legs apart and showing her knickers won’t save you now!’

    how tasteful.

  51. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 8:21pm

    ‘There isn’t a video in existence of Ben Bradshaw being caught on camera as being a confused lying dic*head like David Cameron.’

    But Mel this is proof he lied, this story unearths a lie.

  52. Sister Mary clarence 24 Mar 2010, 8:39pm

    Bitter, bitter, bitter.

    Ooohhh, lets check the polls again since Dave’s ‘gaffe’.

    Tory’s still roaring ahead. Kind of suggests some people on here are a wee bit out of touch with the minds of the voting public.

    Thank you for the support again theotherone. It was a bit naive of me earlier to think we might avoid the name calling. However I’m happy to bask in the knowledge that Labour are finished and weather the insults.

  53. Mumbo Jumbo 24 Mar 2010, 8:46pm

    vulpus_rex (comment 28) called Labour:

    “economicly illiterate”

    Priceless.

  54. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 8:50pm

    alas sister i left for some days but was in correspondence with the editors of this here publication and felt confident to come back.

    As to the insults: it’s standard here. I think i p1ssed them off by pointing out that Labour have started pedaling in reverse on Queer rights but then to be told that I’m stupid and no one likes me (on the thread on religious CPs) – well my cat plays better psychological games than that but then he’s probably more intelegent that those fools,

  55. Mumbo Jumbo 24 Mar 2010, 8:55pm

    Sister Mary Clarence (comment 54) said:

    “Tory’s still roaring ahead. Kind of suggests some people on here are a wee bit out of touch with the minds of the voting public.”

    Lots of people bought Joe Dolce’s “Shaddap Your Face”. It’s still a total crock though.

  56. Sister Mary clarence 24 Mar 2010, 9:03pm

    That comparison would have been all the more relevant if Joe Dolce had been elected Prime Minister, Mumbo.

    Perhaps if he had of course the economy many not have crashed due to poor regulations of the financial section, crime may not have been through the roof, millions may not have been out of work, and we may not have been an international laughing stock.

  57. Theotherone and Sister Mary Clarence: two dementers against the world.

    You two should have babies? Would it possible? Have you ever met? Would you fancy each other? Sounds like it. You’ld both be very happy I think in a cosy little fantasy world for two.

    “You and me, against the world, sometimes it feels like you and me against the world. . . “

  58. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 9:35pm

    does alex feal abel to engage in reasoned debate? It would appear not as they have resulted to Transphobic name calling.

    Let’s all watch another thread go down the tubes…

  59. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 9:37pm

    oh and racism too.

    Hey alex: you sure sound like eddy.

  60. Sister Mary clarence 24 Mar 2010, 9:38pm

    “Poor Sister Mary lives on the dreams of her island, ancestral home”

    Where’s that then alex?

  61. @ SMC

    it looks like alex is the latest incarnation of that racist c**t that abuses you on this site.

    We may disagree politically but I just wanted you to know I fully support you against this wanker. I’m sure the rest of the posters do too.

    Please PinkNews ban the IP address of alex not just the user account.

  62. transphobic name-calling? er? is there a trannie in here then? is it the one called Sister Mary Clarence? i don’t see anybody’s called her anything rude. misguided she is, but no-one put her down for a being a trannie. you don’t think your being over-sensitive THeotehrone???

  63. Racism just as homophobia and transphobia is not welcome on this site.

    SMC report this to the police they can find this person via the IP address and the person can face upto 7 years in prison.

  64. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 9:52pm

    ‘Please PinkNews ban the IP address of alex not just the user account.’

    I have asked them to do that myself Abi and I would ask anyone else who finds these views abhorrent to do the same.

    Use the news@ email to report your concerns.

  65. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 9:54pm

    ‘you don’t think your being over-sensitive THeotehrone’

    oh god here we go again…

    If you disagree with some of the posters here they’ll call you everything under the sun.

    Way to go to create a safe site for Queer people to debate the news…

  66. You can change your username all you want, your IP address stays the same!

    Hope the police knock at your door scum

  67. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 9:57pm

    don’t get involved abi, they’ll only turn on you.

  68. Its the same person theotherone, they have just changed the user name.

  69. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 9:59pm

    I’m aware of that Abi but I’d advise you not to get involved. So far you’ve been below their radar but if they notice you they’ll hound you off pink news like they did angiers

  70. Sister Mary clarence 24 Mar 2010, 10:02pm

    Thank you Abi.

    As for you Alex, that’s a bit of a non-posting really – I ‘lives on the dreams of her island, ancestral home’ (Africa).

    Now what does that actually mean when we look at it?

    Firstly an island is a land mass (smaller than a continent) surrounded by water. Africa IS a continent, so that doesn’t REALLY make a great deal of sense.

    Secondly, ‘lives on the dreams of’, what exactly does that mean? ‘lives on the dreams of’? Had you said ‘lives on protein shakes and pasta’ I’d have had to have conceded your point, but ‘lives on the dreams of’ …. I’m not really understanding what point you’re making to be absolutely honest.

    I know its a dig (or at least that’s the sense I’m getting9, but go on spell it out for me,imagine I’m stupid. Go on – what are are you talking about mate?

  71. It is laughable and extraordinary that it should be thought that Matthew Sephton and Iain Dale could conceive of Ben Bradshaw as having been hypocritical when Call-Me-Dave’s record has been just mind-bogglingly erratic, revealing a complete lack of integrity.

    I am sure Ian (from the other thread) won’t mind me posting here his evidence suggesting that hypocrisy and lack of integrity are dominating characteristics of Call-Me-Dave.

    He wrote:

    “Here’s a timeline of David Cameron’s gay rights hokey-cokey, back and forwards he is like someone who has got not the vaguest idea of what he actually thinks at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1999 Shaun Woodward, a Conservative frontbencher, is sacked by William Hague for refusing to back the party’s stance that Section 28 should not be repealed. The controversial legislation banned local authorities from promoting homosexuality in schools. Mr Woodward quits the party, leaving the safe Tory seat of Witney available.

    2000 David Cameron is chosen as the Tory candidate for Witney and on the campaign trail he attacks both Mr Woodward, in a letter to The Telegraph, and Tony Blair for their pro-gay rights approaches.

    He told the local paper: “The Blair government continues to be obsessed with their fringe agenda, including deeply unpopular moves like repealing Section 28 and allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools. . . Blair has moved heaven and earth to allow the promotion of homosexuality in schools”.

    2003 Once he is elected MP, Mr Cameron votes against the Labour Government’s repeal of Section 28 in the House of Commons.

    2005 By the autumn of 2005, Mr Cameron is elected party leader and he tells the BBC that he is pleased that Section 28 has been abolished.

    “At the end of the day, one section of our community did feel discriminated against by Section 28, and so I’m glad on that basis that it’s gone,” he says.

    2008 He then puts his credentials as a modernising politician on hold by voting against a law making it easier for lesbian couples to receive IVF treatment. He sides with the right of his party saying that the issue goes to the heart of his message that Britain’s society is broken.

    2009 Mr Cameron appears at a gay pride event and apologises for the Tory record on Section 28. “Yes, we may have sometimes been slow and, yes, we may have made mistakes, including Section 28, but the change has happened,” he says.

    2009 Two months later, Tory MEPs refuse to back a cross-party European Parliament vote to condemn a homophobic law passed in Lithuania

    2010 In an interview with gay magazine Attitude, he criticises the Church of England over its attitudes to homosexuality, calling for it to accept equal rights for gays.”

  72. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 10:05pm

    I’m guessing they’ll back off sister, they’ve had another poster post against them.

    either that or just scream about you being a dumb nigger.

  73. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 10:07pm

    oh jesus! it’s patrick now!

    Run! Run from the 10 page long posts punctuated by SHOUTING, threats of violence and personal abuse.

  74. Sister Mary clarence 24 Mar 2010, 10:09pm

    We seem to have started down a familiar road don’t we.

    Money on the second of the two!!

  75. Sister Mary clarence 24 Mar 2010, 10:11pm

    Might be a different Patrick …. although it might not ….

  76. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 10:12pm

    alas sister it’s the same old same old.

    I’m grateful to Abi for her support – I just wish other people would do the same.

  77. Whenever I go to my local gay pub there’s always a gaggle of screaming queens there taking offence if anybody such as looks at them to be quiet! Seems we have the same on here?

  78. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 10:14pm

    there’s only one patrick who reposts such profuse verbiage.

    I just wish this person (let’s face it it’s only one person) would allow discussion on this site.

  79. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 10:15pm

    what john? Transphobia and racism are acceptable?

  80. Sister Mary clarence 24 Mar 2010, 10:16pm

    Are they screaming because the locals are punching them by any chance John?

    Take a look at some of the comments threads that have had to be closed down over the last month or two.

  81. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 10:21pm

    I asked for a series of threads to be closed sister. Looks like we’ll have another one before the week’s out

  82. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 10:30pm

    looks like they ran away.

    All hail Abi! Striding Pink News like a Colossus! All Hail Abi!

  83. I wouldn’t call Pat’s post “profuse verbiage”, he is merely reporting on Mr Cameron’s record – quite pertinent really since Mr Bradshaw is being criticised…for criticising Mr Cameron.

    @theotherone: I would not accuse the pink paper of pro-tory bias per se, but I would accuse the pink paper of lifting whole articles nearly verbatim from the mainstream (and often hostile) mainstream press, with little critical comment.

  84. Personally, I would rather criticise Mr Bradshaw for allowing the pope to visit, and I told him so too!

  85. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 10:46pm

    Pink News has, I would argue, all to often fallen foul of posting up blatant Labour propaganda as in the blatantly untrue story about DC’s voting record on Clause 28 and of mixing news and opinion as in it’s report on the ‘fit lads’ poll but this story is infact factual correct: Labour Minister attacks DC for doing what Labour do. that is the dictionary definition of hypocrisy is it not?

    We are not, in commenting on this story, passing judgment on callmedave’s woeful interview but on what Ben Bradshaw said.

  86. I don’t think I deserve any praise.

    What I said was the decent thing to say and decent people should not stay silent in the face of hate.

  87. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 10:48pm

    well since the pope harbors Pedophiles perhaps he should be deported under the European Arrest Warrant and deported all over Europe to be questioned regarding the church’s involvement in Child Sexual Abuse.

  88. theotherone 24 Mar 2010, 10:50pm

    quite true Abi but you scared the bad people away and for that you deserve a pat on the back and a (figurative) cigar.

  89. There seems to be a lot of screaming here by people who are like a bevy of unintelligent queens. This is particularly so of Sister Mary Clarence and theotherone who are unable to see the force of arguments contrary to their views. Any attack on Cameron must be lies, which suggests that they are briefed by party activists. It is unfortunate that they are unable to think for themselves and to accept the force of truth, the truth being that conservatives are not to be trusted over gay rights. When will they ever learn!

  90. theotherone shows her ignorance as usual, this time over the status of the Pope. He is head of the Vatican State, and, like the head of any other state, has diplomatic immunity. Such screams by theotherone are to be deplored, for they, like any scream, are not based on reason, on logic. They smack of a distorted hatred which this individual frequently exhibits.

  91. Yes hypocrites and in addition he and his party don’t even know their facts very well eg Chris Bryant and PM declaration of a push for recognition of the CP in Europe – claim of current ongoing negotiations with France and Spain for recognition – it’s been done already and without their help !!!! see website – http://www.uklgig.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2213

  92. SMC and Theotherone appear to have a persecution complex.

    Convenient.

    They can focus on their perceived persecution to avoid the discussion at hand.

    The discussion at hand, being the homophobia of the Tory Party.

    Which on a gay news site is a very relevant discussion.

    BTW. Personally I’ve NEVER engaged in a personal attack on here.

    If I refer to LGBTory as ‘spineless, self-hating hypocrites’ I am referring to their position as the group pretending to represent LGBT people in the Tory Party. I am not referring to them as individuals.

  93. And apropos of nothing, don’t you think that Ben Bradshaw looks like The Joker from the Batman film, in the photo that Pink News uses in this story?

  94. Sister Mary clarence 25 Mar 2010, 4:37am

    Simon, to quote you EXACTLY, what you said was:

    “hey now have the ‘Gay Uncle Toms’ of the LGBTory Group(such as Matthew Sephton) defending the homophobia and hypocrisy of the Tory Party.”

    On your denial of any personal attack (#97), you said (and I will quote you exactly, “I am not referring to them as individuals.”

    So you see Simon, by using the phrase, “such as Matthew Sephton”, putting aside for the moment that you have spelt his name wrong, you are actually referring to an individual.

    So you are incorrect in your assertion I’m afraid.

    As to the my ‘perceived’ persecution. I don’t think I’ve ever suggested I have been persecuted, however there has been a fair bit of racist cr@p flying about lately and an equal measure of transphobia. Although to be fair I think its just human nature – unhappy people lashing out in any way they can – I suspect if I was deaf or had three nipples they’d be using that as a weapon

  95. Jean-Paul Bentham 25 Mar 2010, 4:55am

    I didn’t find anything offensive in Pat’s comment(76); I thought it was quite informative… and he spoke to the topic, didn’t he.

  96. David Chameleon will change his colours once in power. Then the silly stupid queens will shut up.

  97. People only accuse PinkNews of being a Tory paper instead of seeing it’s actually a paper that reports equally on all parties because they are so used to the watching the five main TV channels which are so bias to Labour, esp Channel 4!

    It’s no good trying to get these people to see another point of view because it goes against them not being told what to do and what to say. An open mind is clearly new to them.

    I, for one would find it Extremely boring if everyone had the same point of view. Personally I like a challenge. What I don’t like is (usually Labourites) people who take another opinion as offensive because it’s nothing like their own and get abusive with it.

    I’m sure their must be websites/chat forums catering for these people with a extremely low IQ’s that would suit them better and leaving this site for the Labour/Tory/Lib Dem… etc to debate ie leaving this site for the grown ups.

    Thanking you!

    :)

  98. Mihangel apYrs 25 Mar 2010, 9:46am

    SMC, I didn’t know you came from Anglesey :)..

    on a realistic note, what do you think the Tories would have done differently vis s vis city and financial regulation? In truth, we only really HAD the city to finance the country and its spending aspirations. We know a Tory govt would have been in exactly the same wars, and that education, police, and health would probably have been ringfenced, so cuts may have been made to the social budget, or by more PPP or PFI, and outsourcing (just transferring debt off one sheet onto another, OR pushing it into the future). To have had a different outcome would have required a significant change of direction, not least one away from encouraging greed and consumption at the cost of “society”. In short, we aligned the City with Wall Street, our society with Main Street, and tried to retain a golden social service budget as in the rest of the western EU, thus totally f*king up the economy.

    Or at least that’s my simple take on it (please no-one post a full treatise!!)

    And SMC, you have my total support against the nasty, racist remarks; we can bitch at each other, argue, etc, but no-one deserves personal attacks, especially not here

  99. Sister Mary clarence 25 Mar 2010, 10:33am

    “on a realistic note, what do you think the Tories would have done differently vis s vis city and financial regulation?”

    To be honest apYrs, I do. I think there was a lack of understanding of what was going on and I think the advice was probably there that tighter control was needed but I think the urge to increase revenues from the financial sectors overrode commonsense, much in the same way that the gold reserves were sold at rock bottom prices against all advice.

    I don’t think the Conservatives would have made the ‘boom and bust is over claims’ and the good times are here forever atmosphere that Labour had us believe. I think maintaining those myths was a lot to blame.

    I would imagine that the Conservatives would have been more along the lines of things are good, but there is still more to do, and I think they would have been looking more closely at anything the financial sector came up with with a view to taxiing.

    Although obviously we’ll never really know because the government of the day is what it was.

  100. Sister Mary clarence 25 Mar 2010, 10:34am

    apYrs – oh and thank you on the other issue as well.

  101. I too would like to add my support for SMC.

    It’s one thing to battle christians and the like, at least its a, in part, debate but when we have to start battling against each
    other, who should know better but clearly need to understand equality better it becomes a very sad day.

    Racism etc surely has no place here, we should be showing people we as gay people are much better than that. Sadly, as always its a minority that end up pulling the rest of us down and those of course that when it backfires it’s never their fault.

  102. Sister Mary clarence 25 Mar 2010, 11:06am

    Cheers too Squidgy!

  103. Did anyone here see the David Cameron/Gay Times kerfuffle reported anywhere on the BBC? I can’t see it mentioned on their website.

  104. theotherone 25 Mar 2010, 11:58am

    ‘There seems to be a lot of screaming here by people who are like a bevy of unintelligent queens. This is particularly so of Sister Mary Clarence and theotherone’

    ‘theotherone shows her ignorance as usual’

    ‘Poor theotherone lacks common sense, lacks education and lacks understanding!’

    ‘Because, dear dunderhead Mary, you lack insight, lack intelligence and lack education. A poor, pathetic soul!’

    ‘Poor Sister Mary lives on the dreams of her island, ancestral home. Perhaps she should live there in reality!’

    ‘Poor, semi-literate theotherone.Perhaps ‘it’ could join the Sister of Perpetual indulgence on her ancestral home!’

    ‘transphobic name-calling? er? is there a trannie in here then?’

    and so on and so on but it is us (I and SMC) who are the bullies.

    Oh and thank’s a fvck1ng lot folks: you all find racism disgusting but find no need to say anything about blatant Transphobia? So much for a fvck1ng comunity.

  105. I repeat my last comment to theotherone:-

    Racism “etc” surely has no place here, we should be showing people we as gay people are much better than that. Sadly, as always its a minority that end up pulling the rest of us down and those of course that when it backfires it’s never their fault.

  106. Jean-Paul Bentham 25 Mar 2010, 12:11pm

    SimonM @93:

    Yea, he does look like the Joker…ha ha!! More of a grin than a natural smile, innit.

  107. theotherone 25 Mar 2010, 12:11pm

    My apologies Squidgy. When every comment on this board results in a personal attack you then to get a little paranoid.

  108. Understand that theotherone, though personal attacks thend to come from people who aren’t used to people having an opinion and they’re not used to being stood up too, bullies never are!! :)

    See the point about that smile – gives me the creeps… lol

  109. SMC – Matthew Sephton is a parliamentary candidate for the Tories and a leading figure in the LGBTory Group.

    When I refer to him as a ‘Gay Uncle Tom’ I am referring to his position in the LGBTory Group and the fact that in his pathetic attempt to be part of a party which doesn’t believe he deserves equal rights or treatment in the law, that he is willing to put all our rights up for sale. That is not a personal attack on him.

    Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t be allowed to condemn him (or ANY member of LGBTory) for their moronic stupidity in being part of a meaningless PR stunt such as LGBTory?

    Let’s remind ourselves of who the LGBTory group are:

    - LGBTory group are opposed to same sex marriage equality
    - LGBTory group are in favour of religious exemption from equality laws
    - LGBTory group are in favour of massively increased funding to homophobic ‘faith schools’
    - LGBTory group are in favour of the alliance in the Europarliament between the Tories and the extreme right Law and Justice Party of Poland
    - LGBTory group are in favour of catholic bigot Iain Duncan Smith being minister in charge of families despite his efforts to reduce the parental rights of non-biological gay parents

  110. Mihangel apYrs 25 Mar 2010, 12:25pm

    Sister, as youi say, we do not know what the results of a different govt would have been, but I am not convinced a Tory govt would have been more stringent on city regulation, not quashed the feelgood mood of the country while it overspent on consumer goods and topping up mortgages to get cash for goodies.

    What we would have missed would have been the Blair grin and the Brown boast, bith of whom I thoroughly despise (along with the majority of the front bench); they appeared to think tick-boxing and targets while putting highly-paid commercial people in charge of complex and unique public-service organisations would solve all the problems. This was a sign of naivety and superficialism.

    I hope that whichever govt we now get will actually look at problems rather than cheap, flashy solutions

  111. Mihangel apYrs 25 Mar 2010, 12:40pm

    theotherone
    I’m not sure whether the attack made on you was (just!) personal or was generated through transphobia. Neither is pleasant, but at least the former isn’t exhibiting a particular intolerance. But I will make it clear to you, and I’m sorry if you felt isolated, NO hate staements or attacks are acceptable here. This should be OUR space where we can discuss with rational people (including RobN), and also, yes, bitch, whine, whatever. If someone says soemthing that drives someone else away then that person has either deliberately tried to do so, or is an insensitive cnut who should be ashamed. All opinions are equally valid, though some are wrong, wrong headed, or plain silly. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard, and ignored according to their validity (as we should ignore “Hank”)

    So don’t give in to the bullies.

    x

  112. theotherone 25 Mar 2010, 12:52pm

    thyankyou mihangel.

    Looks like the bullies have largely given up anyway so expect me to rejoin some proper ‘debate’ soon. ;-)

  113. Jean-Paul Bentham 25 Mar 2010, 12:55pm

    @111:

    m-m-m…right on.

  114. Sister Mary clarence 25 Mar 2010, 1:27pm

    Which ever way you look at it, by referring to him directly by name, it is a personal attack. Whether he is or isn’t standing for election he is still a person.

    Personal attacks seem to be the current fashion on here whenever a political news item comes along. Myself and theotherone have been largely on the receiving end of those attacks seemingly because we are different in some way from many of the other people posting on here and its somewhat disappointing that the gay community, so often persecuted for being different, so freely does it to others.

    Clearly you consider Matthew to be fair game and whilst you may be clear in your head where you are drawing a line, it possibly isn’t so clear in the heads of others and gives a green light to others to launch into personal attacks.

    Its a a shame this site seems to have degenerated into ‘get your point across at any cost’

  115. Sister Mary clarence 25 Mar 2010, 1:30pm

    Sorry you’ve been getting so much cr@p too theotherone. I very much appreciate the support you have shown me when I have been targeted and I am sorry that has then focused insults on you.

  116. theotherone 25 Mar 2010, 2:11pm

    Sister: making Ad hominem attacks on Political figures is regrettable and not very adult but, lets face it, it’s something we all do from time to time. ;-)

    Such ‘rough play’ in political debate is, however, no excuse to ‘get personal’ with other people.

    I would suggest that perhaps the use of ‘Uncle Tom’ comparisons is, however, problematic as it is a rather loaded term and, wither intended or not, casts a bad light on the user.

  117. Mihangel apYrs 25 Mar 2010, 2:39pm

    theotherone and SMC, “Uncle Tom” carries a hell of a lot of cultural baggage, and is clearly racist abuse. I prefer the word “appeaser”: it means either someone who sucks up to the oppressor, or makes a deal with devil while preparing a defence (as Chamberlain did with Hitler before WWW2 )

  118. “I prefer the word “appeaser”: it means either someone who sucks up to the oppressor, or makes a deal with devil while preparing a defence (as Chamberlain did with Hitler before WWW2 )”

    The problem with ‘appeaser’ is that it doesn’t go anyway to indicate that the person is from the same cultural group. What about ‘betrayer’ instead?

  119. theotherone 25 Mar 2010, 3:09pm

    I’d say ‘appeaser’ is the better term – it carries the correct weight of Historical and Cultural disgust. One can hear Chamberlain declaring that he has achieved ‘peace in our time’ as the Ghettos of Warsaw burned.

  120. theotherone 25 Mar 2010, 3:12pm

    As a aside: I always think of Chamberlian as being like the Officers in Renoir’s le grande illusion but without the foresight to realise that their time was over. He was a Gentleman so why wouldn’t Hitler be? History shows us that Tyrants do not play a Gentelman’s game.

  121. “Which ever way you look at it, by referring to him directly by name, it is a personal attack. Whether he is or isn’t standing for election he is still a person.”

    True.

    And therefore any negative comments you make about Gordon Brown are also personal attacks. After all he is still a person too.

    It’s quite simple in my view – both Gordon Brown and Matthew Sephton have put themselve in positions where they are public figures or representatives.

    Therefore to engage in a strongly worded condemnation (or ‘personal attack’ using your words) on either Sephton or Brown is perfectly acceptable so long as it relates to their public position.

    I do not make comments about Matthew Sephton’s private life. You do no make comments about Gordon Brown’s private life.

    Therefore when I refer to Matthew Sephton as a ‘spineless, hypocritical pawn in the hands of the homophobic Tory Party’, I am referring to him in his public position. I am NOT referring to his position as a boyfriend, brother, uncle, friend. son, whatever.

    Therefore in my view it is perfectly acceptable.

  122. “I would suggest that perhaps the use of ‘Uncle Tom’ comparisons is, however, problematic as it is a rather loaded term and, wither intended or not, casts a bad light on the user. ”

    Why?

    I did a quick little search and found the explanation for the term ‘Uncle Tom’ and here’s what I found:

    “Uncle Tom is a pejorative term for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to white authority figures, or as seeking ingratiation with them by way of unnecessary accommodation.”

    When it comes to the LGBT population the expression ‘Gay Uncle Tom’ would describes both Stonewall UK and LGBTory perfectly.

    And I did preface my use of the expression ‘Uncle Tom’ by referring to them as ‘Gay Uncle Toms’.

  123. Or to put it more simply when I refer to Stonewall UK or LGBTory as ‘Gay Uncle Toms’ I do not have any racial intent.

    It is just an accurate and descriptive way of describing them.

    After all both groups are opposed to equality for gay people and exist mainly to do the bidding of their heterosexual masters.

    Stonewall’s existence seems to have been reduced to simply rubberstamping government policy relating to LGB (but not T) people. They do not represent the broader community – as evidenced by their grossly offensive opposition to legal equality for same sex relationships.

    LGBTory’s existence is to fool LGBT people into believing that the Tories are no longer the nasty homophobes they always have been.

  124. Mihangel apYrs 25 Mar 2010, 4:06pm

    theotherone, after “Munich” Chamberlain had no illusions, but he had to buy time to accelerate our preparedness. For this he sacrificed Czechoslovakia (to our shame!)

    I’m not an apologist for him, but he went with the spirit of the time (that was against Churchill) and did his best, and did try to recover after seeing his error.

    The problem with some history teaching is that it overlooks nuance, and also simplifies and loses the tones of grey.

    But we’ve got away from vilifying our present politicians…

  125. Simon, you over-simplify the case with Stonewall. It is insulting to compare a campaigning, lobbying human rights organisation with a strong record of achieving legislative change to a group of LGBT people who, in my experience, are Tories first and LGBT second. LGBTory people are a pretty inexperienced bunch of activists and hangers on loving the limelight now they can more safely be out as Cameron needs to be seen pointing at gays and smiling.

    However, it is easy to forget how important Stonewall has been in encouraging and supporting legislative and cultural change, even if it has not been to everyone’s tastes; and there will always be more battles to fight e.g. homophobic bullying, gay marriage etc. But in the end Tories are Tories – whoever they have sex with – and they will support all the right wing, regressive Tory ideals of attacking the public services (as if it was the NHS or schools that went bankrupt through their own actions and not banks).

    Within our system we need an organisation to fight homophobia and represent everyone who suffers as a result of it. Stonewall’s work on homophobic bullying has been excellent and quietly very well-received, including the excellent FIT by Rikki-Beadle Blair: see:
    - http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/theatreblog/2008/nov/18/theatre-homophobia-bullying-stonewall
    - http://www.stonewall.org.uk/at_school/fit/default.asp
    - http://www.stonewall.org.uk/media/current_releases/3638.asp

    In fact it could be argued that some of Stonewall’s work has been more effective than other more supposedly ‘radical’ LGBT organisations. Sure, I disagree with some of the ways Stonewall works such as the exclusion of trans issues but I would rather have a strong, well-organised lobbying group which does what it says on the tin than none at all. Most of us cannot remember pre-Stonewall times and how terrible they were with no organisation to represent us nationally.

  126. Give me Stonewall anyday! They’ll always get my support!

  127. But Squidgy – Stonewall believes that you should be denied access to the legal contract of civil marriage because of your sexual orientation?

    Granted Stonewall are nowhere near as ridiculous and contemptible as the LGBTory Group. In the past Stonewall have been involved in very worthwhile and useful campaigns. But it remains a fact that in March 2010 Stonewall UK are now opposed to legal equality for gay people.

    Whether or not someone personally wants to get married or not is irrelevant. We are meant to live in a democracy where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

    Stonewall’s opposition to legal equality for those gay couples who DO wish to marry is homophobic.

    And they are quite clearly out of touch with the LGBT population through their moronic insistence that we should all be satisfied with our 2nd class status.

  128. Sister Mary clarence 25 Mar 2010, 6:02pm

    Simon, would you be offended by a straight person using a pejorative (negative) term for gay people?

    Whacking ‘gay’ on the front of a negative term for black people (or racial slur as it is sometimes referred) doesn’t really make it any less negative surely?

    Clearly its a term you like using, and apparently you’re not going to stop or acknowledge that anyone is going to find it offensive, so carry on expecting cr@p whenever you do.

  129. vulpus_rex 25 Mar 2010, 6:15pm

    I think after Darling’s 10% increase in cider duty Liebour are going to find themselves very unpopular in the west country so Bradshaw wil be toast at the election anyway.

    Only 42 days left until the end of new Liebour – how will YOU be celebrating?

  130. theotherone 25 Mar 2010, 6:33pm

    I think, Simon, we where in agreement that ‘Uncle Tom’ was too loaded a term so please use another.

    By your way of viewing things I should not be offended by the term ‘White Paki’ but I am and have told people off for useing it.

  131. Words are just words.

    It’s the intent behind them that’s important.

    If the intent is not aggressive then it should not be read as aggressive. On occasion, a good friend will say to me ‘oh you stupid faggot’. I will laugh. However if I was walking home alone late at night and I heard some stranger shouting ‘you stupid faggot’ at me, then I would be very scared. It’s all about the meaning behind the words. Not the words themselves.

    When I refer to Stonewall UK and LGBTory as ‘Gay Uncle Toms’ I am referring to their servile craving to obey their straight bosses.

    Nothing else.

  132. theotherone 26 Mar 2010, 12:35pm

    Words are not words they are weapons and, frankly, as a Queer person I’m shocked you don’t know that. Either that or you’re ignoring it.

    A friend can refer to you anyway they like as a group can use the language of ‘the oppressor’ to refer to themselves and by that action remove the sting but…well I assume you’re not Black.

  133. Words are not weapons. Words are just words.

    It is the meaning behind their use that is important.

    I am well aware that people use words to abuse and degrade people.

    I don’t ever have that intention.

    But some people are just very sensitive I guess.

  134. Since when did the term “Uncle Tom” become a racist slur. My understanding of the term is that it is and was always a term used to deride a person who was seen to be sucking up to the boss etc.. It was first termed in the “deep south” of the US during the shameful days of slavery , to deride a fellow slave who was seen to be toadying up to the “master” in order to gain favor over his fellows. How many of you now calling it a racist slur knew that……. Very few i’ll bet…..Get your facts right people.

  135. PS…. Read Uncle Toms Cabin…….by Harriett Beecher Stowe. It was instrumental in Abe Lincolns fight against slavery.

  136. In the meantime lets get back to the real topic of this thread….Callmedaves Law and Justice homophobic Racist Tory Party and have a read at this from Sundays Independent.
    Tory MEPs shame leader over women and gay rights

    Conservatives in European Parliament consistently vote against resolutions to promote equality

    By Jane Merrick, Political Editor

    Sunday, 28 march

    David Cameron faced fresh embarrassment over Europe last night, after it emerged that Conservative MEPs have consistently voted against a string of measures to protect women’s rights.

    Analysis of the record of 25 Tory members of the European Parliament this year shows they voted against, or abstained, eight times on issues relating to sexual equality, family-friendly working hours, maternity leave and reproductive health – often in clear defiance of official Conservative Party policy.

    The MEPs also failed to back an EU resolution expressing concern about homophobic attacks in Croatia, which is seeking EU membership.

    The disclosures come amid new pressure from Brussels on the Conservative leader after the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, called for a new EU treaty on closer European economic co-operation – a move that would force a Tory government to hold a referendum on Europe within months of taking office.

    To the annoyance of Eurosceptics in his party, Mr Cameron ruled out a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty last year, but promised a nationwide vote on future treaties. Labour has also committed to a referendum on a new treaty. Ms Merkel’s intervention on Friday means that the difficult issue of Europe will loom sooner than anticipated for Mr Cameron, should he win the election.

    The Tory leader has found the stance of his MEPs, many of them hardline Eurosceptics, including the controversial critic of the NHS Daniel Hannan, difficult to balance with his promises of a socially progressive Conservative government.

    Last week, TV footage emerged of Mr Cameron’s interview with Gay Times in which he appeared flustered over separate votes by Tory MEPs and Tory peers opposing gay rights.

    Now the IoS can reveal details of eight votes on women’s rights and a further vote on homophobia in the European Parliament last month, compiled by the Liberal Democrats.

    On 25 February, 22 out of 25 Tory MEPs voted against a resolution calling for the EU to become a party to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. The remaining three did not vote.

    On 10 February, seven measures on a report on equality for women in the EU saw the majority of Tory MEPs voting against or abstaining. The measures included giving better protection to women on maternity leave, backing women’s easy access to contraception and abortion, and making men more aware of their responsibilities for sexual and reproductive health.

    Also on 10 February, one Tory MEP opposed, with 16 abstaining, a motion calling on the Croatian government to do more to crack down on homophobic attacks in the country. No Tory MEPs voted in favour.

    Fiona Hall, leader of the Liberal Democrats in Europe, said: “For the Tories to suggest that it is in women’s interests to vote for them is downright cheek. We have looked at the voting record of Conservative MEPs and one thing is very clear: the Conservatives are a danger to women.”

    A spokesman for Tory MEPs said: “We have repeatedly made it clear in the European Parliament that we fully support equality. However, we believe that it should be for sovereign nation states to legislate on social issues in their own countries, and not the EU.

    “Matters relating to reproductive rights are conscience issues and therefore members are given a free vote.”

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