Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Top Tory backs rights of bed and breakfast owners to turn away gay couples

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Niall - London 4 Apr 2010, 12:34pm

    Grayling’s position as shadow home secretary is now untenable. He is actually stating that the law of the land is ‘wrong’ and that the interest of ‘faith’ groups is greater than the rights of gay tax payers.
    Are our rights exchangeable under the Tories? It would seem so. Even worse, these rights seem to be as cheap as tax relief to those married with children…

  2. We must all, as Gay people, work tirelessly to ensure The Law and Justice homophobic racist Tory party never ever gets elected again, and this latest homophobic by no less than the shadow home secretary is proof of that. His position is now untenable and he should resign forthwith. I notice the usual homophobic racist tory apologists are posting any excuses on this story….yet…altho they will probably be here in their droves to castigate me and mete out the usual gutter personal abuse we have come to expect from them………….Meanwhile………………..The rumpus Callmedave is making about the rise in National Insurance contributions is all to do with the fact that he wants to be able to privatize the National Health should he by some “miracle” make it to Downing street.
    The National Health Service does need a rise in revenues and this is the way to do it. CALLMEDAVE the SALESMAN knows this but he already has his sights set on selling it off to his Tory big business friends.
    PLEASE PLEASE think before you vote to throw away a national institution, which voting for Callmedave the Salesman’s Law and Justice Racist homophobic Tory party would do.
    Don’t Vote for The Tory party.
    Don’t vote for David Cameron.
    Don’t vote for the Conservatives.
    Don’t vote for big business to run the country
    Don’t vote to roll back gay rights.
    Don’t vote for 18% interest rates.
    Don’t vote for 6 million on the dole.
    Don’t vote for religion to run your lives.
    A vote for any of the above will set the United Kingdom back Fifty years.
    If you don’t like Labour vote Greens, Liberal Democrats or any of the numerous Independents, but Please Please don’t vote for to ruin your own life by Voting homophobic Tory/Conservative.

  3. This guy Grayling seems to be contradicting himself. Says at one point the law is wrong, then at another that the law is right. So which Grayling should I believe?

    I’m still undecided who to vote for. One thing that does put me off parties is some of the childish posturing that goes on here; the name calling, the over-the-top posts. We have serious financial and discrimination issues and to deal with and I’m not going to vote on the basis of sixth-form mudslinging and who comes up with the best insults.

    Patrick suggests the Tories are going to privatise the National Health Service. This is the first I’ve heard of this since Thatcher. Is it true? I would expect it to be all over the press by now if it was, and it would certainly destroy any chance of the Tories wining the election. But if it is true I’d like to know now, so can we have some evidence of this intention, it will certainly help me decide which way to vote.

  4. c: #2 should read….and this latest homophobic attackby no less than the Shadow Home Secretary is proof that the tories aren’t to be trusted. His position is now untenable and he must resign forthwith.
    I notice the usual tory apologists aren’t posting any excuses on this latest homophobic story about the Racist homophobes the tories…..etc

  5. #3 I dont think the homophobic Tory party is really going to tell us the full extent of their intentions, do you? My experience up to now is that they will say one thing in public with the real intentions coming out by accident as in this latest gaffe bt Grayling.
    They HAVE NOT changed and if they should by some fluke make it into power we will see those real intentions writ large.

  6. So technically, those who run a corner shop and live above it can also freely discriminate under what he said, since that is also their home.

    And of course, no one would get away with this if it was based on race or if you refuse Christians.

  7. Stephen Ellis 4 Apr 2010, 1:24pm

    Well, another day and another load of Tory-bashing. Fact is this is his view – and there are many in the Labour Party and the Lib Dems who have the same view. Personally, I don’t share such an approach and it IS illegal. We should not tolerate discrimination and bigotry no matter how it’s disguised.

    The Conservative Party supported this legislation – including Chris Grayling himself.

    It’s about time some people on this site woke up and looked at the facts before trotting out the same dreary anti-Tory comments …

  8. Well before the rabid PC lefties swarm onto here with their usual anti-Tory rants, I think it’s fair to see the man’s point. After all, every party has to balance everyone’s opinions, and with a general election coming up, everyone is out to try and make compromises to try and cover all bases.

    I have to say, if I was a Christian running a B&B, I might be forgiven in not wanting two men sleeping together in one of my beds. Some may see this as homophobic, but there is one thing having an opinion, and totally another voicing it. This is not “hate crime”, this is simply personal preference. Even before the new draconian ‘smoking in public places’ bill was introduced, many B&B’s stated “No Pets or smokers” etc. So again, should that have been allowed, or was that wrong? As a smoker, I always checked first before going somewhere to see if it was OK. If they disapproved, I went somewhere else. They lost the booking and my patronage, and someone else gained. Personally, I see it as bad business sense if nothing else, particularly in the current financial climate.

    Homosexuality will NEVER be totally accepted by all sections of society, and anyone who thinks they can force people to change their views through legislation is a fool. One can only try to cope as best as one can. It is the way of the world. Homophobes have been around as long as homosexuals, and that fact is never going to change.

    As the minister says, there is a difference between a home B&B and a commercial hotel, and that is where the line *might* be drawn. I personally am rather at odds with all this, so I am trying to take a pragmatic approach. One must also recognise the flip-side to the argument that even running a B&B is still a commercial venture, and if people wish to invite the general public into their homes, then they cannot cherry pick. They take everyone or no one. My concern is that if these ‘opt-outs’ are used, that they could start to appear all over the place with varying rules that apply dependent on who that person is. This is a very slippery slope towards elitism and segregation, and ultimately amounts to apartheid. I guess sometimes compromises can do the opposite of what they set out to do by bring two factions to meet in the middle, by falling between two stools and appeasing nobody.

  9. We must remember the Tories of the 1980s and the rampant homophobia which obviously is there but barely surpressed. We need to keep vigilant to ensure that our hard won rights are not eroded or rolled back. If anyone thinks that can’t happen, look at Germany in the 1920s and its thriving gay culture. Then look again in the 1930s and see the contrast.

  10. I’m sorry but this was just a personal opinion he expressed not policy. The fact that it was ‘secretly’ tape is the thing that was in the wrong. Are we not allowed to have an opinion? Well I guess with some on here, we’re not. Unless of course it’s the same as yours. (How boring).

    I have to say Freedom of Speech does mean things we don’t like to hear as well as the things we do. I don’t agree with Chris Grayling’s comment but it was His opinion and even he is allow one of those. What is disgusting is the fact someone (probably paid by Labour – It has the smell of Mandyson about it) from the Observer felt the need to tape it, clear in the hope of exposing.

    It seems that it will be a minority of gay people that will indeed reck our chances of progress but screaming at every bloody thing, while the rest of us want to progress and be accepted.

    Will it be the Thought police next. This is a free country. Chris Grayling, like you Is entitled to his opinion.

    This is a pathetic story and the real disgrace is it was ‘secretly’ taped not that this man expressed his own personal opinion. The intent surely is clear.

  11. One wedge, thin end thereof, division for the causing of…
    Coming right up..!
    K

  12. See also http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7086814.ece for the Conservative’s Married Couple Tax Plan – details of the applicability to Civil Partners is, perhaps deliberately, vague.

    A couple of weeks ago, Pink News reported that there was scarce a hair’s breadth between the policies on LGBT rights of the three main parties. I sense clear blue water emerging.

  13. graylings opinion is contridictory to the current law and he could be the home secetary. I would expect a more rational response from someone who may have the power to affect my life. I think some guys posting haven’t fully accepted their right to be treated as an equal. if the b&b isopen to the public that means everyone.

  14. #8….So now it is ok to pollute everyone elses air just so you can indulge in the disgusting habit of smoking. There never was a law allowing smokers to pollute so there is no comparison……The law is the law and these people who think they can get round the law by claiming it is their right just because they happen to believe in a myth are just going to have to get it into their thick Tory homophobic xtian skulls that the Law wins right or wrong. If they dont want “Gays Blacks or Irish” then close and open an xtian bookshop somewhere.

  15. So , does that mean that Publicans who live above the pub, should be allowed th throw out Gays too. After all it´s their home is´nt it???? Typical Tory attitude. Get ready for lots more if they get into power!! God forbid.

  16. So discrimination against gays? A-ok for the Tories. Why we should even remotely trust these people to do anything other than screw us over is beyond me.

    The Tories will always pander to bigots – and if you don’t think there’s a difference between them and the other parties just check Stonewall’s record on GBLT votes http://www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/parliamentary/general_election_2010/default.asp

    Don’t believe what they say – hells, don’t believe what we say. just look at how they VOTE. Look at what they do

  17. Philip:-

    In that article is is Not vague it says and I quote (from the article):-

    Gays in civil partnerships are expected to enjoy the same privileges as straight married couples under the Tory plans.

    So your point is?

  18. Hi squidg. you stated “It seems that it will be a minority of gay people that will indeed reck our chances of progress but screaming at every bloody thing, while the rest of us want to progress and be accepted”. I would prefer to be respected than accepted or even worse tolerated. sorry but I think you know by grailings comments he would not accept you as an equal

  19. Mumbo Jumbo 4 Apr 2010, 2:05pm

    This man wants to be the Home Secretary, in charge of the legal framework of the nation, so let’s examine his thinking.

    He thinks Christian B&B owners should be able to refuse LGBT customers as they are entitled to allow who they want in their own home.

    However, once you start taking money then you are running a business and your home becomes your place of business subject to the law on the provision of services just like anywhere else. You cannot, for instance, opt out of “elf and safety” even if you have a sincere belief in Richard Littlejohn.

    Then, you have to consider other businesses which are also homes – such as pubs and corner shops. On Mr Grayling’s logic, LGBT people having the temerity to want non-discriminatory service might find themselves restricted to hotels, clubs and supermarkets.

    Let’s move on.

    If you are prepared to allow discrimination on the basis of one intrinsic quality, then, logically, you agree it is acceptable for others. Otherwise, you’re just simply being homophobic are you not?

    Mr Grayling should therefore say whether he thinks a racist should be able to turn away black and other ethnic minorities from B&B’s, pubs and corner shops. Or could a misogynist refuse to serve a woman? I could go on but you get the point.

    Does Mr Grayling see that, if carried through, what he has said would result in everyone being able to refuse services to everyone else? Jews refusing Muslims, Muslims refusing Jews, Protestants refusing Catholics, Catholics refusing Protestants, feminists refusing sexists, sexists refusing feminists etc. etc. etc. etc.

    Does that make the world a better place? Or is it just creating a hateful chaos just for the sake of satisfying the fantasies of a few nut jobs?

    Of course, the elephant in the room here is religion. So let’s chat about the big-eared trunky thing sitting there all big-eared and trunky in the corner.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Why should religious belief allow you to play a trump card and get you your own set of special laws and privileges over and above the rest of society?

    No-one pops out of the womb with fully formed, evidence-free ideas on the nature of the universe. Religion is an acquired belief system like socialism or conservatism. Black, gay, man, woman etc. constitute intrinsic qualities. Where there is a clash between the two it is the intrinsic quality that simply must prevail.

    Of course, Mr Grayling is entitled to his own opinion. The problem is, he does not seem to know what it is or where it would lead. And his party are equally confused.

    And as for complaining that it was a private conversation – surely it is precisely the job of the media to expose hypocrisy?

  20. Actually dean I know for a fact it is gay & lesbian that don’t scream merry hell every time someone says something that could be bent round to someone twist thoughts to prove a point, that are the most respected. It’s the screaming mini’s who are the one that society tolerates. It is also those very screamers that will cause a backlash. I have many people straight and otherwise express their respect for me and others who stand up to are rights but don’t feel the need to be nasty and vile about it.

    All my life I have never been tolarated but very much respected and admired. That comes with an opinion which comes with abuse from other gay people. Usually the selfish me, me, me types. It’s a fact of life.

  21. theotherone 4 Apr 2010, 2:12pm

    let’s face it the man’s a fvck1ng idiot but everyone knows the rumblings as to who will be Home Secretary once the Tories are elected and it aint this idiot.

  22. Mumbo Jumbo –

    but he said he knew it wasn’t party policy but his opinion. So I guess he did know.

  23. #10 The clearly homophobic moron was NOT speaking in private. He was speaking at an event run by the also homophobic Centre for Policy Studies as Shadow Home Sec. and as such shouldn’t have been voiceing a private opinion. Homophobia is clearly a central plank of Tory policy and we should sit up, remove the blinkers and take heed.

  24. If you openly vote and support the legislqation to give equal rights to all citizens for good and services, then why did Grayling say what he said in, what he thought, was private!? Would he allow a black or Jewish couple to be discriminated against in similar circumstances? Another exposure of the Jeckle and Hyde Tory party that makes me shudder! How can we possible trust this man as a possible future Home Secretary!!!!? Smell the coffee folks and wake up! I want our fight for equal rights to go forward! Not to stand still or even head backwards!

  25. squidgy I can see why you’re defending grayling he may not use pejoratives like screming minis but your intent is the same. it’s just not very nice

  26. For those that Don’t read I Have already Stated that I do NOT agree with Mr. Grayling’s comments. However I don’t agree that he is not entitled to an opinion because he is just like any one of you.

  27. Niall - London 4 Apr 2010, 2:23pm

    Quoting Squidgy

    “Philip:-

    In that article is is Not vague it says and I quote (from the article):-

    Gays in civil partnerships are expected to enjoy the same privileges as straight married couples under the Tory plans.

    So your point is?” End quote

    The point is the ambiguity – a deft tool of the Conservatives to backfill with whatever they like or not as the case may be.

    We must look at facts here … the simple fact is that the Tory party will never be proactive on behalf of the rights legislation. Their voting record proves that.

  28. What a vile party the Torys are. Nasty to the core!

  29. Well, I ain’t gonna apologise for the fact that this election will be my first vote for the Tories Just to get this dreadful Labour lot out. There is no other reason than that. Our rights will NOT disappear, they may not increase either but there are more pressing things to sort out. For example the mess Labour is leaving this country in.

    Unlike the paranoid Patrick who apparently seems to think the Tories will abolish the elections, there will be another in 4-5 years time. I will then probably vote Lib Dem again(providing Nick Clegg has gone). They can’t damage us in that small a time frame. It is not in their interests.

    At least I’m honest.

  30. To Squidgy:

    RE: “Gays in civil partnerships are expected to enjoy the same privileges as straight married couples under the Tory plans.”

    Why expected? Who says ‘expected’? The Times, a pundit, a man in the street? Why don’t the Tories say one way or the other? How difficult can it be? If you were to read Matthew Parris on the subject: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article7069159.ece
    flying a kite for the Tories on this two weeks ago, we would definitely be towards the end of the queue.

    There may not be any firm plans from the Tories (are there any at all on anything?), but the mindset seems to be emerging. We’ll have to wait and see.

  31. I guess the question is wouldn’ we expect to get the same? It seems like nip-picking to me. Complaining for the sake of it seems to be a favourite past time on here. Of course we expect to get the same.

    Trouble is to many are too used to being told what to do by Labour and not to make up your own minds. Your too full of negatives so how can you Expect (that word again) to cope with change?

  32. Niall - London 4 Apr 2010, 2:42pm

    Readers may be interested to read Mr Cameron’s track record…

    A timeline of David Cameron’s gay rights hokey-cokey

    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.

    From the Times.

    http://timesnews.typepad.com/news/2010/03/cameron-gay-interview.html

  33. Tories are absolutely vile. The only way Tories can win elections is by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

  34. Rev Laurie Roberts 4 Apr 2010, 2:51pm

    Blacks, gipsies, atheists and women next ?!

  35. you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a conservative.

  36. squidgy if we are entitled to an opinion why do you mock us for stating ours? Grayling maybe making the laws soon so forgive my concern about his ability to act in our best interests

  37. I told you all gay tory voters. You are nothing but stupid. There’s much more to come …

  38. You don’t have to go too far to hear the million+ voices agreeing with this stupidity. Just search other forums, message boards, and comments on newspapers pages… Homophobia is well alive, and just waiting to backtrack on our hard earned last 10 years of equality laws.

  39. I bet Chris Grayling would NEVER say the same about blacks jews or muslims being turned away -you spineless git.

    its now 15:03 has the leader of this the Tory party made a statement- nope.

  40. Thanks for your reporting, Pink News, but this article is rather unfortunately phrased. There is no ‘right of bed and breakfast owners to turn away gay couples’. Chris Grayling might like to introduce such a right, but it does not currently exist. On the contrary, gay couples have the right not to be turned away. Since many B&B owners think that the 2007 Regulations do not apply to them, it is important to get this clear.

    The logic of Mr Grayling’s position would suggest that your headline should read ‘Top Tory would give bed and breakfast owners the right to turn away gay couples’. However, as others have pointed out, the mystifying aspect of this story is that Mr Grayling later stated that he would not wish to see the law changed. Since only one of his statements can be correct, the ‘clarification’ is either a Cameron-inspired back-track, or a cynical attempt to misrepresent the current state of the law.

  41. @Squidgy: I assume you are of the slightly younger variety of gays, those enjoying now the fruits of liberal freedom that us older lot fought for over the last 30 years, if it hadn’t been for us “screaming minis” you wouldn’t probably be happy not to see gay rights moved forward anymore. Very short-sighted and also bereft of the painful experience a lot of us had to go through… it was Labour and not the Tories who put gay equal rights on the agenda in the last 15 years!

  42. dean – your a hypocrite, Labour must love you.

    Tomtom – yadda, yadda – old enough to remember…just, thanks. It may have been early Labour, not late Labour as we have an not-so Equalities Minister and hang-on Amendment 70 which also was Labour. Lets hope it’s the soon to be ditched Labour.

    I may be gay but that doesn’t mean I want to ‘follow the sheep’ in my thoughts. I never have and never will. We may have rights, of a degree, but doesn’t prosperity go with that? Don’t we have the right to a good home, a job, better finances etc? Only see that getting worse if Labour continue for another five years.

    This Isn’t, I repeat ISN’T going to be the last Ever election. If Labour continue things will get worse. The far-right groups will grow stronger and then were will our rights be?

  43. squidgy- fine and you’re a self loathing dick. Get help

  44. Simon Murphy 4 Apr 2010, 3:49pm

    Grayling is a homophobe.

    To suggest that people who run a commercial business be entitled to discriminate is horrifying.

    If he is not removed from his position as Shadow Home Secretary then it means that the Tories back him.

    If he’s not fired by Tuesday I think it quite clear that the Tories remain the homophobic scum they always have been (even though they now use meaningless spin to hide their bigotry.

  45. LOL – hilarious!

  46. I find anyone who thinks a personal opinion Shouldn’t be allowed horrifying. It shows Labour for their true communist colours and yet more proof they need to be ousted.

  47. Sister Mary clarence 4 Apr 2010, 3:59pm

    Tom Tom:

    “it was Labour and not the Tories who put gay equal rights on the agenda in the last 15 years! ”

    It was the EU actually.

    However, as a Tory, in my view its a very serious error of judgement and I think he should step down from his shadow ministerial role, and someone need to explain to his that is someone opens up their home as a b&b, the home becomes a business and the rules of business apply.

  48. Squidgy,
    Tomtom – yadda, yadda … good home, a job, better finances … blah dee blah… AS IF it was Labours fault the financial crisis we’re in. This is a worldwide problem. The Tories are not going to provide you with a good home, a job, or even better finances. But you can be assured, with the Tories in power, you’re not only continue to miss a home, a job and good finance, but you’ll also have your equal rights side/backtracked just for being GAY.

  49. Sorry Bobbet thats crap and you know it! Labour are responsible for our crisis, they choose to feed it giving us the worse/longest recession since the early 20th century. It’s because of Labour allowing the banks greed to flourish, selling all the gold etc that caused this problem. I know Labourites are very short sighted and blinkered but they seem to also have selective memories too.

  50. Niall - London 4 Apr 2010, 4:10pm

    Keep a focus on fact, not fiction nor emotion. Those who have had to stand up for rights and by that I mean, take action, not merely opine, I urge come forward and help blow away the ambiguity in the Tories stances. Slanging matches avail nothing. Squidey, your verbose incontinent posts are quaint, but from now on can you present facts.

  51. You’ll be sorry to yourself. Remember this. The same misjudgement you’re applying to the Labours record on finances, you’re applying to their record on equal rights. I’m with Tomtom on this. You must be really young to not know any better.

  52. Niall – I repeat “I know Labourites are very short sighted and blinkered but they seem to also have Selective memories too.”

    Very selective apparently.

  53. Sister Mary clarence 4 Apr 2010, 4:21pm

    “AS IF it was Labours fault the financial crisis we’re in”

    YES!!!!!

    Where was the regulation of the financial sector?

    An end to boom and bust? Gordon Brown was the only person that thought the good times were going to last forever. A bit of realism linked to some contingency planning would have prepared us better for a downturn. Perhaps then we wouldn’t have been the last to crawl out of recession dragging unimaginable debt behind us.

    Anyway Bobbet, a bit off topic, but you devalue any valid points you make by trying to absolve Labour of blame for the mess we are in

  54. Well all I know is I’ll be cheering in a few weeks time when (with any luck) Labour get booted out of Downing Street.

    Sorry is the last thing I shall be feeling, If at all.

    Believe me if there was any other party guaranteed to get Labour out I’d vote for them, happily. The fact that it’s really only the Tories that stand a chance, well then thats were my vote goes. I’ve spent 20 years voting Lib Dem so this tory time will be the first. That’s how much I want a change.

  55. Dean:”squidgy- fine and you’re a self loathing dick. Get help”

    Ah yes. Where have I heard that rhetoric before? If you go against ‘gay community policy’, you must REALLY hate yourself.

    Wankers.

  56. Niall - London 4 Apr 2010, 4:25pm

    I’m voting Lib Dem… :-)

  57. “Regulation of the financial sector”? In a globalised economy, you can’t rely on a national regulatory system as a “magic rule”. Only when regulations are applied worldwide, we can have more control. In any case we’re still at the mercy of the wide markets. Countries with more regulatory rules ARE ALSO in a mess. Not because of a lack of regulations, but because this is a crisis of confidence with worldwide consequences. It’s definitely NOT Labour’s fault.

  58. I’m sure Queen of Spin Mandleson will use all vile methods, including this story to spin something. Although I get the feeling Lady Mandy is behind this anyway, it reeks of a cheap perfume called “Stabbed In The Back”.

    It follows the other equally cheap scents,
    “Double Standards”,
    “Never Tried & Certainly Never Tested”,
    “Why Pay When The Taxpayer Can”,
    “The Silly Voters At Least When I Screw I Get A Hefty Pay-off”
    Ed Ball’s favourite “So What!” and finally the
    “Stuff The Public My Pensions Alright Thanks.”

    All reek of rotten has-beens. All passed their sell-by-date.

  59. Reeks of jealousy

  60. Bobbet:-

    Well thats all right then, so long as they have a pathetic excuse like that I guess they’ve got nothing to worry about. Typical of Labourites to always make up cowardly excuses.

    Must be handy to be in government and somehow dissolve yourself of Any responibility. That blameless attitude seems to be very contagious. handy that LOL

  61. Dave North 4 Apr 2010, 4:57pm

    Actually, to those old enough to know.

    It was Humphry Berkeley of the Conservative party, son of Liberal Democrat MP Reginald Berkeley that created the bill to decriminalize homosexuality in 1965.

    His support came about as in 1954 the Conservative government set up a Departmental Committee to look into aspects of British sex laws.

    The resulting report, the Wolfenden Report, was published on 3 September 1957 which called for decriminalization.

    After his defeat at local elections as a result of proposing this 1964 bill, Labour MP Leo Abse took up the issue and used his mastery of Parliamentary tactics to ensure that the Bill progressed.

    So all of this ignorant Tories bad, Labour good, crap is moot.

    It was a consequence of free thinking individuals of all political persuations that did the job.

    Today’s issues are the ignorant religions still not happy about it and lobbying against it.

  62. squidyg – queens, mimi’s are you too thick to know that’s wrong. what am I saying! I think you and the other one should really try the stormfront forum you’ll fit right in.

  63. I’m as desperate as any of you for a better economic/financial situation, but I know it’s not voting Labour out that is going to solve the problem. All economic structures work in cycles, from the micro to the macro level, and at the moment we’re at the low part of the cycle, worldwide, and will recover slowly. There’s no magic formula. This is a realistic analysis.

  64. You’d think a senior MP would know that if you turn your home into a B&B it becomes business premises for so long as it is in use as a B&B and is therefore subject to commercial premises law, viz., no discrimination against gays. I suppose you wouldn’t would you, because being a tory, his commonsense and legal expertise would be overridden by his bigotry and prejudice.

  65. Do any of the pro tory posters on here remamber the 17.85 interest on mortgages last time the tories were in power which put nillions out of their homes when they couldnt pay the huge bills every month. and the 6 million on the dole…….And by the way re tha worldwide economic crises…. i suppose te Labour party are also to blame for the economic mess in Spain,Greece,Italy,Portugal, Italy, Ireland,The USA,Iceland, and all they other economies suffering because of the Worldwide mess. The mess the Tories made of the economy last time we were unlucky enough to have them in power was entirely of Their making, as the rest of the world ,with the exception of one or two Asian economies, boomed.
    Get real squidgy and stop making a fool of yourself for the homophobic tory Party. No amount of LOLs and “hilarious” and other abuse is going to cahnge the fact. More and more people are beginning to see the light…….The Law and Justice Tory Party would be a disaster for this country and especially a disaster for all minority groups especially gay people
    DONT VOTE FOR CALLLMEDAVES HOMOPHOBIC TORY PARTY THIS TIME OR EVER . THEY NEVER CHANGE…THEY JUST ARE GETTING BETTER AT HIDING THEIR REAL INTENTIONS.
    What it all boils down to is ….what are your priorities….second class citizen or the hope of a few crumbs from a clearly homophobic government the tories would make.

  66. Squidgy’s one of those sad, self-loathing gays. The Tory party’s full of them.

  67. Go on Cameron, you say you’re gay friendly.
    Fire this bigot.

  68. #65 c:..remembers the 17.8%

  69. Some Tory MPs are also liars. And I can prove it. There’s a certain current Tory MP who has made slanderous allegations against a transsexual woman; accusations which a certain national newspaper needed to print a disclaimer for after they’d published them. Wanna know who that is, folks?

  70. The homophobic abuse being heaped on Lord Mandelson by this vile excuse for a hunan being, squidgy , speaks volumes and indicates that he is a tory plant and not a genuine gay person at all…maybe not even a human person………………

  71. david skinner 4 Apr 2010, 5:25pm

    Before we get completely bent out of shape, let us forget the mere shadow homo secretary and allow the present Lord High Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, to speak :

    “I’m not in favour of gay couples seeking to adopt children because I question whether that is the right start in life. We should not see children as trophies. Children, in my judgement, and I think it’s the judgement of almost everyone including single parents, are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship. There’s no question about that. What we know from the evidence is that, generally speaking, that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married than where they are not.”

    Or to be more concise:

    “I’m not in favour of gay couples.” “Children are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship.” “The evidence is that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married.”

    Admittedly our Jack said this 4 November 1998,on the Today Programme.

    Clearly Ian Mckellen and Angela Eagle, not to mention the Prince of Darkness himself, must have gone into overdrive to bring our Jack up to speed and into the 21st century. But it has never been explained what methods or arguments they used to bring about a complete volte face, that is unless he too was injected with a lethal dose of pink, cognitive dissonance.

  72. Skinner: I think most of us have been more than tolerant of your biased, skewed and deviant opinion. It is quite obvious you will never convince anyone of your theistic standpoint, so either contribute to the debate, or shut the f_ck up.

  73. Oh Oh The vile skinner has resurfaced,so i guess that is the end of this thread folks………..on to the next then…

  74. Patrick: “The homophobic abuse being heaped on Lord Mandelson by this vile excuse for a human being, squidgy , speaks volumes and indicates that he is a Tory plant and not a genuine gay person at all…maybe not even a human person”

    Oh sorry. Are the terms “gay” and “complete and utterly corrupt scumbag politician” not mutually exclusive?

    Mandelson is a blood-sucking leech of the worst order. He has already been sacked twice and STILL managed to crawl his way back as a f_cking LORD! For all those Labourites that witter on about the purging of the life peers in order to replace them with “democratically elected common people” I present such odious parasites such as this. At least the peers didn’t have an self-promoting, disgusting wretch as this man worming his way into their confidence.

    This is Not democracy, this is nepotistic bullsh!t. As a gay man, I am utterly ashamed he can possibly bear any similarity to myself, and had I had the choice, I’d have had him put in a small cell with a large BNP supporter.

  75. Derek North 4 Apr 2010, 5:41pm

    ““I’m not in favour of gay couples.” “Children are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship.” “The evidence is that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married.”

    Skinner comment

    Dear Mr Skinner.

    Marriage is a concept.

    A device.

    It does not exist outwith organised religion and civil tax purposes.

    Can you pick up “Marriage”, stuff it in a washing machine and hang it out to dry.

    No, you cannot.

    It is a concept.

    An organisational man made framework perpetuated by organised religion to justify continuation of their existence and perpetuates their deemed right to control.

    Please bring forth your disingenuous argument.

    I need a good laugh.

  76. Patrick:-

    All your comments you may as well copy and paste. Nothing changes in your comments. Frankly there a bit old and very boring.

    If you’d read anything (again unlikely) you’d know that I ain’t no Tory but a traditional Lib Dem. Your wording of abuse against me is somewhat flawed being that it’s you Labourites that can’t handle anybody with an opinion that hasn’t been drummed in by the ‘hail Almighty Labour leader Lady Mandleson and sidekick Gordy B.

    The fact remains that Whilst I Don’t agree with Mr Graylings comments they were made After his speech and privately. They were his opinion and as he said not party policy but he Own opinion. He IS allowed that, whatever we say. We live in a democracy, he is entitled to His own opinion, regardless of if he follows the party line or not.

  77. So would atheists have the right to turn away Christians? Or white B&B BNP owners be allowed to turn down a black family? Or if male B&B owners have the right to turn down female customers? Or if……..because all of the twisted arguments you Tory apologists are making for Grayling can be applied to these “rights” to.
    Here’s the rub with the concept of EQUALITY. It applies to everyone and when you make the free choice to run a business then it comes with a responsibility to provide that service to everyone under the law. End of. No ifs or buts because we are all equal under the law.
    And here is the other rub with the Tories. Not all of them, but a significant number (and some in positions of power) hate you because you are gay. So vote accordingly….

  78. david skinner 4 Apr 2010, 5:41pm

    “shut the f_ck up.” So much for debate, freedom of conscience, thought and freedom and speech. What what was it said? Cognitive dissonance.

  79. @david skinner

    Surely no-one of any political persuasion would have any time for Jack Straw. Of course Straw volunteered to appear on behalf of the Labour Party on BBC One’s Question Time, and has the unique distinction of being the only person to be justifiably ridiculed on TV by Nick Griffin.

    As for Straw’s position as Secretary of State for Justice, he has never replied to my correspondence regarding the injustice involved in the Michael Causer case. He is beneath contempt.

  80. “Children are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship.” “The evidence is that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married.”

    The answers simple enough then isn’t it, let us marry properly. Nothing more stable than that is there?!

  81. If they had advertised as Christian Family B&B and asked for the names / genders of the guests booking I wouldn’t actually be too bothered. But a B&B taking £75 in advance then refusing the booking when two guys turn up is wrong.

    My partner and I use B&B’s often the idea of being turned away having paid and established a contract is simply wrong.

  82. Derek North 4 Apr 2010, 5:59pm

    “Children are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship.” “The evidence is that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married.”

    2 Natural parents met in a club.

    Had a sh@g at the bus stop.

    8 months later they met again on Jeremy Kyle.

    “Your the DADDY of my baby says slut.”

    “No I’m not says work shy waster”.

    DNA says the sprog is yours says Telly.

    Off to the church they go, to get “Married”.

    It’s the deemed thing to do……..

    “Society says its so.”

    Little did they know the sprog would be buggered by
    the man who “Married them”

    So. In answer to all these religious apologists faffing on about “Marriage” in the religious context.

    Stuff it, and your evil organisations so far up your own sphincters that you are unable to sh!t for a decade.

    STOP HOLDING HUMANITY BACK.

  83. Obviously wrong but no one should make the mistake of thinking that all LGBT people vote on the basis of LGBT rights. Far from it. They didn’t in the 1980’s and certainly won’t now.

  84. If it had been advertised as a Christian Family B&B most gay and lesbians would have avoided anyway. However there are plenty of gay couples that are indeed religious. I do disagree with your comment on names and gender.

    It is a contract yes and your right that shouldn’t be broken esp by bigotry. These B&B owner if nothing else were just plan naive if they thought they could get away with this behaviour. As stated they have opened their home as a commercial business and if they can’t keep that obligation they shouldn’t be running such a business.

    A hotel or a B&B it’s still a business.

    The bigger problem we have is when you hear straight people go on about gay people are stopping Their rights. What they fail to see is that the reason we shout isn’t because we’re trying to stop their rights but proof that we as gay people still don’t have ours.

    What’s next, refused a room for being overweight? wearing glasses? having ginger hair? If that had been aimed at straight people they’d be marry hell to pay, so why different for gay & lesbians?

    I stick to my comment about this story and again he is wrong but it was just an opinion he made After his speech. The fact it was taped and is being used against just shows how nasty and vile the build up to a General Election is going to be. I guess we can expect much, much more of the same.

  85. david skinner 4 Apr 2010, 6:13pm

    Derek North, I could not have put it better. Because,the West, lead by Britain, has turned its back on Jesus Christ, God has taken his restraining hand off our nation and given us up to our own base instincts and the curse of same sex sex and more diverse, rainbow coloured philias, like zoophilia and paedophilia to follow. As long as everyone is consenting and committed to their behaviour it will all be legal.
    God is not HOLDING HUMANITY BACK as you put it, but simply letting it go headlong over the cliff. Plunge whilst you may, sir.

  86. For the love of…. now Skinner is here again? How obsessed with gays can one man be?

    We just had to endure his nonsense on another thread about a 6,000 year old earth and puerile examples of how he’s upset because his last boss, a gay man, upset him by shutting him up. The we had to endure a racist tirade about his hate of all other religions and how they will cause the “end of the world”, yadda, yadda, lunatic rant rant.

    Skinner is a person who society has let fall through the cracks, and the education system abandoned him. He’s in need of clinical help.

    “Plunge whilst you may, sir.”

    Plunge? Yes, I can see how a one-foot-in-the-grave schizophrenic like you Skinner, might think the whole world is plunging into your delusional fantasies, but the reality is you and your rabid kind have no power and influence any-more. You’re time ended with the Inquisitions. And life will go on just dandy when you’re gone.

  87. It’s not God holding humans back it’s man using religion and its text holding humanity back from any kind of progression.

    Devil Sinner – (damn typo) your comments have nothing to do with what this article is about. Think we all get it your a bigot and hate homosexuals. However you do seem to spend a lot of time here and obsessing about same-sex ‘relations’. Your arguements are flawed and baseless. Therefore your not worthy of debate. Maybe you should sort out some of your personal ‘issues’ first and when you decide to come out of the closet someone may still be here.

    I Thank you.

  88. “…upset because his last boss, a gay man, upset him by shutting him up.”

    could you blame the poor fella? Glad someone succeeded. Maybe someone should think about finding a way to contact him, find out how…

  89. “Maybe you should sort out some of your personal ‘issues’ first and when you decide to come out of the closet someone may still be here.”

    Don’t get him started….!!!! On another thread he lost the plot when it was insinuated he was a basket case closet…. and then for about 20 comments afterwards we had to endure, rather graphically, what he “correctly” does with his wife. Protest. Too. Much.

    But are right, of course, there is some deep seated sexual issues with him…. ones he’s only too kind to share with us. And his constant talk about paedophilia, would ring alarm bells of any parent or social worker.

    Still, we can enjoy the fact he is a singular impotent basket case, with a failed petition and lunatic rants on a gay site. Soon we’ll see Skinner at a junction near Kings Cross as he shouts at traffic.

  90. david skinner 4 Apr 2010, 6:39pm

    Derek North,

    Cogito ergo sum

    I think therefore I am

    I think therefore I exist

    Therefore everything is merely a concept, a thought.

    Evolution is merely a concept and so is homosexuality, the brain child of Karl-Maria Kertbeny ( 1824 – 1882)

    Hitler’s master race was also a concept.

    All these are man- made concepts along with the Gay Liberation Movement. This too is merely a framework to justify the continuation of the existence of homosexuality and its deemed right to dominate society – temporarily.

  91. You mean when he’s popped on a mini and picking up some ‘trade’? He’s gonna need a Big bag. Oh, it’s gonna be heavy though what with all that change.

  92. Actually I do have to make an apology regarding my last comment….

    I really do apologise at ever suggesting that Devil Sinner (damn keyboard) would ever…. be on a parr with some of those working girls. It was Very insenitive of me to suggest those very working girls would lower themselves to accomidate such a person. I’m Very sorry girls.

  93. Good evening Will. ;)
    Why does everyone that doesn’t fit with your opinion of the shape of the world require extensive medication assisted therapy? (Not that I don’t think in the case of Mr Skinner, it’s probably not a bad idea.)

    I am by no means a Christian, and I think their opinions are to be pitied, rather than berated. If they find solace from their beliefs, who am I to try to steer them from those edicts? However, this is a two-way stretch, and if I decide I don’t subscribe to their view, they should leave me to burn in hell, or whatever their ancient medicine-man philosophy dictates.
    I certainly do not need idiots trying to force their views on me, be they weak-minded people that cannot live their lives without the concept of an all-powerful deity dictating their every move, or a socialist mouthpiece that feels that anyone that does not serve and conform to the common humanistic cause is a traitor to the very society they are apparently a part of, either globally as a member of a species, or macrosocially as part of the the “gay community”.

    Either way, trying to invoke acceptance of a concept by threat or bribe is not going to work. Carrots and sticks only work so far. The rest is really down to that persons core beliefs, and no matter how much ranting, shouting and gnashing of teeth is going to change that. People should accept each other for what they are, and stop trying to change them. You have less chance of doing so than pushing the Himalayas to the Caribbean.

  94. fcuk off skinner you cnut

  95. Derek North 4 Apr 2010, 6:48pm

    Good point “Will”.

    Skinner stole my point and abused it for his own purposes.

    I will do the same.

    Mr. Skinner.

    How do you have sex.?

    We would all like to know.

    Given that other people having sex is SOOOOOO important to you.

    How do you empty your balls.

    It’s a perfectly natural occurrence.

    Do you get off on gay web sites, or is their some kind of @rsed up childhood priest influence here.

    Tell us all.

    You are clearly not a member of God’s religion given your vile
    hatred of all things.

    Your God given balls never stop producing spermatozoa,
    as they naturally do.

    You should be impregnating every woman that walks past you.

    Why don’t you.

    Your religion calls for it.

    PS: Do not ever deem to think for one iota that I have any hegemony with your vile thoughts.

  96. Will: “Soon we’ll see Skinner at a junction near Kings Cross as he shouts at traffic.”

    That really did make me laugh out loud.
    “YERFOCKINBASTARDSTHELORRAYA!
    PRAISEBETHELORDANYERALLGONNABURNINHELLYERFOCKINBONCHAFAGGOTS!!”

    *hic!*

    [collapses into the gutter only to be removed by local police]
    [fade to black]

  97. Oh Derek ppppppplease. Find the man and get a room if your interested. Please don’t make the rest of us listen.

    He’s probably busy whipping himself with birch branches at the moment anyway.

  98. Derek North 4 Apr 2010, 6:55pm

    “All these are man- made concepts along with the Gay Liberation Movement. This too is merely a framework to justify the continuation of the existence of homosexuality and its deemed right to dominate society – temporarily. ”

    How can 10% of society dominate 90%.

    The right to equality is all I ask.

    I pay £56,000 in tax as a sad old gay man.

    I perform surgery on the likes of you and your family.

    I do NOT discriminate on anyone. EVER.

    Should I be given that right.

    Should I.

  99. Derek North 4 Apr 2010, 6:56pm

    Hi Squidgy.

    I have and live with him for the past 18 years.

  100. Derek North 4 Apr 2010, 6:58pm

    ROBN-N

    Go visit your local paedophile.

  101. Bless you….

  102. Derek North 4 Apr 2010, 7:01pm

    Is that with a condom or a Dildo?

  103. So those of you who agree with Chris Grayling, how far do you think the ‘right to discriminate’ should go, hypothetically? Would it apply to any sort of business which is run from a residential premises? Would you be fine with ‘no blacks/irish/gays’ signs in windows? The question has been asked further up the page. Still waiting with baited breath to hear the answer.

  104. Derek North 4 Apr 2010, 7:08pm

    Good old RatziNazi Vatican machine went into overdrive today, and stated that the Paedophile issue was nothing other than “petty gossip”.

    Excuse me, but the rape and abuse of Children is not “Petty”.

    No doubt, Skinner and Rob-N will attempt to justify it and blame it on the gays.

    No. These people should be in Jail.

  105. Derek North 4 Apr 2010, 7:13pm

    Hi AKyth

    They are unable to answer.

    They are simply grasping and looking for some reason why they can justify such a situation.

    They wont, as they simply are lead by others and don’t think for themselves.

  106. Jean-Paul Bentham 4 Apr 2010, 7:17pm

    Loving this thread.

    Green tea?

  107. Derek North 4 Apr 2010, 7:25pm

    NAH Jean Paul.

    I’m off to shag my boyfriend.

    But not in a B&B.

    In my own wee rented cottage in Wales.

    I’m Scottish hence the Wee.

    Fortunately my landladies are Lesbian and do not give a blind F
    about my Sexual state.

    Perhaps if these Religious idiots just Buggered off we would all do better.

  108. Jean-Paul Bentham 4 Apr 2010, 7:36pm

    Is yeaster a concept too???? m-m-m-m. First conceived about 2400 BC by Babylonians. Need proof? Google it!

    Holy Cakes for Aestarte, Batman!! Where are your rabbit ears?????!!

  109. This discussion should be live on radio. Luv it. xx

  110. David Skinner does the usual BS of linking people to evils in an attempt to demonise them, there is no rational reason why a business should turn people away, plus once you make one exception why not others?

  111. Do you know how utterly silly you sound squidgy, trying to defend the indefenceable.
    So now your story changes to say that the recording was made in private AFTER the event. So the recorder made it into Graylings private inner circle then … i think not…. where did you suddenly glean this little titbit from then….Probably Callmedabes homophobic central office. catch youself on….everyone is laughing at you and will laugh evermore loudly the more desperate and sillier you get.

  112. Tory Chris Grayling has a right to express his opinion, but at the same time i have right not to agree with it, and in this istance there is something i can about it, vote anybody other then a party that man is representing. simples

  113. Christopher Grayling said “Any suggestion that I am against gay rights is wholly wrong” while at the very same time holding that people running B&B businesses should be able to TURN GAYS AND LESBIANS AWAY.

    The right TO TURN THEM AWAY!

    Treat them like the disgusting filthy vile dogs they are?

    As blacks were treated.

    As Jews were treated before they were pushed into cattle-trucks and sent off to Auschwitz to be gassed.

    The right TO TURN THEM AWAY!

    Charitable, innit?

    Typical Tory attitude.

    Combine this from Top Tory Grayling with last week’s Gay Times video of Call-Me-Dave and there could be no greater warning to the dumb and stupid of the UK that the Tories are still what they have always been: the tally-ho, fox-hunting, church-loving, monarch-worshipping, gay-hating establishment of England Merrie England.

    DO NOT VOTE TORY.

    – unless you really do want to go back to the world of Maggie Thatcher.

    – but maybe you like strong mother-figures who detest gays and lesbians?

  114. @2 Patrick I fully agree and I shall be voting Labour!

  115. You only have to look at Grayling’s face to see “posh public-school Tory twat”. They’re a breed that lot and despite all the multiculturalism they’re still together and aching to get back in charge of THEIR country! Trouble is the electorate is totally fickle. Most people are stupid. The likelihood is that the Tories WILL get in. I really am scared. I went out for a walk this afternoon. Everyone in our street knows my parter and I are lesbians. I met a couple of people who I’ve always suspected of being anti beneath the surface and I could just tell they were sparkling inside because of this Grayling prat! Right now Tories are all thinking “Yes! Go Grayling! About time!” Anyone who doesn’t believe it just search Google for forums discussing this Grayling news. They are full of “Yes! At last!” just like that on that Yahoo Buzz forum the other week after the two blokes got turned away from the B&B.

  116. Chris Grayling’s defence of the right of B&B owners to turn away gay couples is an echo of the bad old days when some landlords used to stipulate: “No blacks, Irish, gays or dogs.”

    The equality laws exist to protect everyone against discrimination.

    But Grayling apparently believes that some people – homophobic people – should be above the law. Why this exception? After all, he does not agree with B&Bs refusing accommodation to black or Jewish couples. If race discrimination is wrong, why is Grayling saying that homophobic discrimination is right?

    According to the law, no person providing services to the public, such as B&B accommodation, is allowed to discriminate. Quite right too. If a Christian or Muslim were turned away by a B&B, I would be first in line to oppose such discrimination. Why should discrimination against gay people be treated any differently?

    Permitting some forms of discrimination opens the door to more and more demands for further exemptions from the equality laws, as we’ve seen with religious registrars refusing to perform civil partnerships and religious solicitors refusing to handle gay asylum cases – all in the name of their “conscientious belief”.

    Grayling is not a religious fundamentalist. He is in the shadow cabinet and wants to be home secretary. Yet he opposes the comprehensive protection provided by the equality laws. He is against the law as it stands.

    His high-level support for anti-gay discrimination by B&B owners raises serious doubts about the Conservative party’s commitment to lesbian and gay equality.

    David Cameron needs to clarify urgently whether he agrees with Grayling that B&B owners should have a right to refuse accommodation to gay couples.

    Cameron’s silence is worrying. Many voters – gay and straight – will be disturbed by his failure to swiftly disown Grayling’s support for homophobic discrimination. What does this say about the sincerity and seriousness of his commitment to gay equality?

    Some people fear that if the Conservatives win the general election they might amend equality legislation to allow some forms of homophobic discrimination and permit further opt-outs by religious organisations and individuals.

    These fears are not unfounded. The Tories don’t have any official lesbian and gay rights policies. In fact, they support the ban on same-sex civil marriage and the ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood. The Conservative party annual conference has never voted for gay rights, and gay rights policies do not feature in any Tory policy document. The Conservatives are offering the gay community no new measures to remedy the remaining vestiges of homophobia and transphobia.

    The new gay-friendly Conservative image is seriously damaged by Cameron’s own voting record in parliament. He voted against gay couples being allowed to adopt children in 2002 and against the repeal of section 28 in 2003. In 2008 he voted against giving lesbian couples access to IVF fertility treatment. In recent years the vast majority of Tory MPs have voted against gay equality, including a third of the present Conservative shadow cabinet. This does not bode well for what a future Conservative government will do on gay rights.

    Cameron’s pro-gay image has also taken a battering from his decision to team up with Poland’s homophobic Law and Justice party (PiS) in the European parliament. The PiS has banned gay pride parades and derided same-sex relationships. It has strong links with the misogynistic and antisemitic Catholic radio station, Radio Maryja. Jewish, women and LGBT – lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender – voters are rightly appalled to see the Tories co-operating with such a nasty, bigoted party.

    Even worse, the Conservatives are in a European alliance with Latvia’s notorious rightwing nationalistic and homophobic Fatherland and Freedom party. It borders on neo-fascist, with its annual commemoration of Latvians who served in the Nazi Waffen-SS during the second world war. These dodgy political alliances call into question the sincerity of Cameron’s professed conversion to progressive, pro-gay Conservatism.

    By their backsliding on gay equality, the Conservatives are missing out on lots of potential pink votes. If they promoted positive lesbian- and gay-rights policies, the Tories could outmanoeuvre Labour and win over more gay voters. Our support could influence the outcome in a tight election contest, especially in marginal constituencies. Gay people – and our straight friends and allies – have got ballots too, and at the next general election many of us will use them to support parties that support gay rights, not parties that want exemptions from the equality laws.

  117. One of the things that people liked about Jesus was that he enjoyed sharing a meal. He sat down and talked and ate and drank with all those who didn’t make the cut at other tables. When they were with him, they felt they belonged. No one was superior to another. They were equals. They were brothers and sisters.

    He asked them to love each other. He seemed to feel they were up to it.

    The best Brits – those who dedicated themselves to creating and defending freedom and justice – Alfred the Great, Anselm, Stephen Langton, John Lambert, John and Elizabeth Lilburne, William Penn, Granville Sharp, Olaudah Equiano, William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Edith Cavell – knew Jesus Christ as Lord and friend.

    Chris Grayling and those sh_ts who run the Swiss B&B in Cookham don’t belong to the noble line of Best Brits.

  118. One has to wonder whether the Conservative Party has really changed or not. This latest revealing comment by shadow home secretary Chris Grayling seems to me to be trying to having it both ways on gay rights. He tells a sympathetic audience what they want to hear – that he is ‘on their side’ and supports the right of those who maintain bed&breakfast establishments to refuse accommodation to people based on their sexuality and [that he] wanted to be “sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups”. Then he goes on to say he does not want to see a change in the law.

    But the law, Mr Grayling, currently says [the relevant law is - the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007]: no one should be refused goods or services on the grounds of their sexuality.

    Is this ‘dog whistle’ campaigning a warning that a future Conservative Government might seek to change the law to water down legislation to weaken the equality afforded by the law to gay people?

    What I find particularly alarming is the comment made by a Conservative party spokesman that Mr Grayling had made it : “absolutely clear that in this day and age, a gay couple should not be turned away from a hotel just because they are a gay couple.”. What Mr Grayling has done, and the Conservative Party spokesman has not refuted this, is to try and draw a distinction between different kinds of business offering accommodation for payment – between hotels and guest houses and/or bed&breakfast. Many establishments calling themselves hotels fulfil the dual role of being the home (and property of) the hotel-keeper. Where would such establishments fit into the world as envisaged by Mr Grayling?

    I really do think the Conservative Party needs to repudiate Mr Grayling’s comments clearly and unequivocally, or the suspicion will be left that the Conservative Party has not, in actual fact, changed very much at all and would not hesitate to reverse and/or weaken equality legislation if it thought it could get away with!

    Mr Grayling’s subsequent attempts to ‘clarify’ his statement only serve to ‘muddy the waters’ further. The current law is quite clear and Mr Grayling says he does not wish to change it. So what exactly does wishing to be ‘sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups’ mean, Mr Grayling. What practical effect do you seek to see brought about and how can this be achieved within the current legislation, which you say you do not wish to see changed?

    Why doesn’t he just come out (ho! ho!) and admit that he was caught out by an undercover recording revealing his prejudices and is now trying to row-back furiously from them, whilst passing a message to religious bigots that he really does support them?

  119. very interesting comments on here. fortunately i have been on yahoo buzz spreading my venom…. and wit on virulent homphobes who are obsessed with what they think we do in bed ( and breakfast!). They dont reply normally… just sulk..and are easy targets. like shooting fish in a barrel. have fun guys…im off to yahoo again.

  120. Its now 21:11 and Cameron as failed to make any statement this is unacceptable from a leader of a party who states his believes in equally – the longer you leave it Mr cameron the more I tend to believe you support homophobia.

  121. dave, can you post us the URL to that Yahoo Buzz page pse? would love to see what they’re saying! good for you for giving the homophobes some wit and venom!

  122. Shush, they’re all listed here. All I had to do was stick Grayling in the Buzz search box. A right lot of homophobes, I warn you! It’s alive with David Skinners.

    http://uk.buzz.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AlWMQwZl5WCj9NMbvnLKDntDhNdF?p=grayling

  123. david skinner 4 Apr 2010, 9:26pm

    The earth revolves around the sun and turns from west to east in relationship to this. Our lives are governed by this fact. We are free to ignore it but we must suffer the consequences. This is no mere concept. It is an objective reality.

    The written page in the west reads from left to right and whether we subjectively experience being left handed or right handed, slow writers or fast writers, we observe this convention as an objective fact of life. If we were Muslims we would read and write from right to left, or if Chinese, from top to bottom. We are free to ignore these objective realities as Leonardo da Vinci did with his mirror writing, but it will not lead to social cohesion or ease of communication. This is no mere concept. It is an objective reality.

    In Britain we drive on the left and we observe the highway code and whether we subjectively experience driving fast or slow, carefully or carelessly, it is an objective reality that we accept as a fact. We can ignore the objective reality of the road system, or change it to suit ourselves; we are free to go against the flow, but there will be consequences. This is no mere concept. It is reality

    Marriage also is made up of two components: the subjective one, ie., the emotional, physical, mental and spiritual (or lack thereof) experience of the participants; and secondly, the objective one, of the way interdependent relationships like husband, wife; mother and father; parents and children; brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, grandparents etc, create a structure, a community, a society and a nation.

    Marriage, the atom, the building block of the family, the community and the nation, as an objective reality has always been universally regarded as between a woman and man; and though within this there have been variations such the number of wives or husbands one may have, generally it is, and always has been, recognised as between one man and one woman – and for life. Whenever the subjective experience of having sex between multiple partners, same sex partners, close relatives, between humans and animals or between humans and objects, has challenged this objective system, there have always been consequences. This is no mere concept. It is an objective reality. One can appropriate marriage, try to change it, but there will always be consequences.

    If we think we are living in such new times, that mankind has never before pushed the bounds of what it means to be human or to live in sexual relationships other than those laid down in the Bible, we are living in cloud cuckoo land. There is nothing new under the sun; it has all been tried before.

    Edmund Burke said, “Those who don’t know history, are destined to repeat it.”

    Jesus mentioned weddings, wedding banquets, brides and bride grooms, starting off at the wedding at Cana. At no point is there is any mention of any other kind of sexual relationship apart from that between one man and one woman. As for Jesus being totally indulgent and accepting of everyone, people need to read their Bibles. The picture of Christ being some sort of kindly, but totally ineffectual liberal democrat , like Nick Clegg is laughable.

    Luke 12: 49 – 53″I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

  124. Thanks for that link Tom. I’ve just posted something there. The entry just before mine reads:

    “Gays: stands for sick individuals should be called what they are queers, poofs, shirt lifters etc Gays the word was made up by yanks to try to make them seem normal, when we all know they are sick and should be taken to the tower and hung drawn and quartered.”

    I think the reference to taking us all “to the tower” indicates the mindset and political grouping of the person who posted the above message.

  125. david skinner 4 Apr 2010, 9:34pm

    Chris Grayling, like the rest of the MPs hasn’t got the courage to speak with one mind. Another word for double mindedness is cognitive dissonance. What Britain needs is a man of inegrity, moral courage and martial vigour; someone like Oliver Cromwell, who will clear out the pack of scoundrels in the House of Commons and establish parliament under God’s laws. It will either be that or Shariah. Those are the only two choices we have.

  126. Skinner, you failed as an art-teacher in Dorset. You have been a failure as a human-being. Spend your last days in some worthwhile effort. This is not it.

    Now go and get some tracing paper and put it over Michaelangelo’s David and start to learn to love art.

    When you’ve got over your homophobia, then before bedding down in your coffin go and blow your savings on a trip to Florence to admire the real thing.

  127. skinner I thought I told you to fcuk off

  128. Here’s another Tory speaking from his heart on Yahoo Buzz:

    “Grayling is correct in every sense, I would not allow 2 homosexuals in my home,I would have to throw out the bed afterwards, the looney left have been dictating matters for far too long, ITS TIME FOR CHANGE and common sense.”

    http://uk.buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:yahoo_uk_irel306:8f3312e9ed39e5676dd7e3699c704ca6/Gay-couple-want-Grayling-sacked

  129. david skinner 4 Apr 2010, 10:02pm

    The current godless legislation that would force private businesses, such as bed and breakfasts, printers and photographers to act against their consciences by forcing them to offer goods and services to those who violate the moral values and undermine the integrity of those said businesses, will one day be repealed – or our nation will suffer the consequences.
    The current Sexual Orientation Regulations, with regard to the delivery of goods and services unjustly discriminate against those who attempt to maintain their Christian identity, whilst allowing other organisations such as pink tourist offices, pink football teams, pink parades and pink hotels to promote freely their behaviour, morality and values, that undermine those of Christians.

    If , according to the free speech amendment inserted into the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act that now forms section 29JA in the Public Order Act 1986, it is legal for Christians to criticise sexual conduct or ask person to refrain from such conduct or practices it is then not unreasonable or illogical for them to deny such behaviour on their premises. The sexual conduct or practices of whatever sexual orientation should not be given free reign to trample the universal moral Judeo Christian values upon which our nation was founded – or a bed and breakfast business. I believe that religion and civil liberty must include the right to think and live according to one’s conscience privately and in the public sphere, both individually and collectively, without harassment or the fear of civil or criminal penalty.

    Let the GayTranselvanians go to their pink hotels by all means. This is called tolerance, but to enforce GayTranselvanian laws on the British public will indeed, as Christ said, “divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

    Bring it on.

    Dean, you mean you actually think!! Are you sure of that?

  130. fcuk off cnut

  131. Jean-Paul Bentham 4 Apr 2010, 10:09pm

    I picture Mrs. Wilkensen somewhat like Hyacinthe on “Keeping Up Appearances”. Need I say more.

  132. WELL DONE MR GRAYLING!! ONE OF THE FEW SENSIBLE VOICES IN THIS INCREASINGLY PERVERTED PARTY!

  133. Jean-Paul Bentham 4 Apr 2010, 10:20pm

    Oh there you are, Hookaaaaaaa.

    Green tea?

  134. david skinner 4 Apr 2010, 10:20pm

    You may picture Mrs Suzanne Wilkinson how you wish, in the same way that no doubt you like to think that the sun is the moon and the moon is the sun; but these are only the first signs of delusion. Dean sadly is already showing the advanced stages of delirium.

  135. Jean-Paul Bentham 4 Apr 2010, 10:24pm

    ‘Chris Bryant, the openly gay Europe minister told The Observer: “Anybody who thinks that the Tory party has changed should think what it would be like to have Chris Grayling as home secretary. It is impossible to draw a distinction between bed and breakfasts and hotels. It is very clear that very senior Tories have not realised that the world has moved on.”

    Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman told the BBC: “Chris Grayling’s plan would allow discrimination to thrive”.’

    And you know what that means…!

  136. skinner – your mum

  137. Hodge Podge 4 Apr 2010, 10:51pm

    Oh god. I can’t deal with this. Should a private business be free from equality laws? I don’t know, but the same rule should go for both homophobes and racists.

  138. “Why does everyone that doesn’t fit with your opinion of the shape of the world require extensive medication assisted therapy?”

    I can accept an opinion, RobN. What is clearly a dysfunctional mental condition, as in Skinner’s case, is not an “opinion”. What he says is not a belief, either, its pure fascist hate, with a bit of the bible thrown in to cover his stupidity. He’s not a “believer”, he’s a mental basket case with disturbingly graphics images in his head of sex, and a fixation that matches the symptoms of schizophrenia perfectly. That aside, Skinner is a complete and utter idiot. That’s not my belief, he’s proven that…. he has but the slightest grasp on reality, and an education that would make a Victorian street urchin look like a Ph.D Student.

    Look at this line from him “The earth revolves around the sun and turns from west to east in relationship to this”

    How does he know the earth goes around the sun? And yet he thinks evolution is a “conspiracy” and the earth is 6,000 years old. Give me a break. Selective science in the hands of a fool, is nothing I take seriously.

    So, no Rob, I make no apology for what I say to Skinner. He’s a fruit case.

    “Either way, trying to invoke acceptance of a concept by threat or bribe is not going to work. Carrots and sticks only work so far.”

    I do not care what Skinner thinks, or you for that matter. I am nether bribing or convincing either of you, both are beyond reason in my opinion.

    Oh, and Skinner: “Cogito ergo sum” – LOL! Cut and paste that too, did you? Don’t flatter yourself, you don’t think. Figure the rest out for yourself.

  139. Jean-Paul Bentham 4 Apr 2010, 10:56pm

    “I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home.”

    -Chris Grayling

    “I also voted in favour of the legislation that prohibited bed and breakfast owners from discriminating against gay people.”

    -Chris Grayling

    “WELL DONE MR GRAYLING!! ONE OF THE FEW SENSIBLE VOICES IN THIS INCREASINGLY PERVERTED PARTY!

    Comment by Hookaaaa — April 4, 2010 @ 22:17″

    Does anyone know a good piano-tuner??

  140. to this foreskin guy… wont you burn in “hell” for ignoring all the other “gods” man has constructed over the eons….just a thought, something you wont know anything about as you dont seem to have any independent thoughts of yerown as all your posts are taken from the internet and such notable places of “accurate” information as wikipedia and the vilest and evilist book ever compiled by human beings the “holy” bible.

  141. Jean-Paul Bentham 4 Apr 2010, 10:59pm

    “I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home.”

    -Chris Grayling

    “I also voted in favour of the legislation that prohibited bed and breakfast owners from discriminating against gay people.”

    -Chris Grayling

    Does anyone know a good piano-tuner??

  142. Jean-Paul Bentham 4 Apr 2010, 11:21pm

    “Was Chris Grayling speaking for himself or for the Conservative party? The public is entitled to know.

    If he was speaking against Conservative party policy, his position in the Shadow cabinet is no longer tenable.”

    -Peter Tatchell

    #

    “WELL DONE MR GRAYLING!! ONE OF THE FEW SENSIBLE VOICES IN THIS INCREASINGLY PERVERTED PARTY!”

    – Hookaaaa

    Green tea?

  143. david skinner is ranting again! you are applying blinders to huge chunks of the bible and history ! plus who cares about a photo?

  144. LOL! Skinner, you’re such a blind blinkered fool. Gaydar is by no means exclusive. Adult friend finder dot com is the equivalent for straight people, and hundreds more like it.

    The only reason you put this stuff up here is because YOU yourself are obsessed with sex. Clearly impotence, or repressed sexuality. Or just plain old ignorance.

    But lets look at Christian’s like you who graphically and OBSESSIVELY describe then condemn sex, but are really hypocrites, again like you:

    www christianchildabuse blogspot com

    Or look up List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals on Wikipedia. Quite revealing.

    Here’s a site for you, Skinner, one I’m sure of deep personal interest: www schizophrenia com

    Now, please, don’t paste crap you don’t understand, its too easy to show you up for the moron you are.

    At the very least, provide me with a challenge… your dimwitted responses are just so repetitive and, well, stupid.

  145. A program currently showing on BBC1 asks are Christians being persecuted?…..if they are its entirely of their own making. if they didnt have the delusion that they can impose their twisted morality on the rest of us then they have to be ready to accept the consequences. I say let them craw thump to their hearts content in their own homes and places of worship, but dont bring it out in public and try pushing it down my throat. And if they want to work and operate in a secular society dont bring your prejudice into it under the guise of “its my faith” Its my faith that al worshipers should be herded on to an isolated island somewhere and let get on with their paedophilia and bigotry among themselves.But i dont try pushing that belief down others throats.

  146. Simon Murphy 5 Apr 2010, 12:06am

    The shadow Homw Secretary thinks that bubinesses should be allowed to discriminate against gay people.

    The shadow Homw Secretary is a Tory.

    If the Tories do not expel him, then it means that they support him. Vote Tory at your peril. The Tories hate gay people.

  147. This is all beginning to give me a real headache. In a world populated by 6.3 billion humans its sad to see that there is so much hatred among us and most or all of it in the name of religion.
    Ever since our stoneage ancestors started wondering about and being fearful of death we have had this poblem. and even then they disagreed with and killed each other in the name of one “god” or another.
    Move on to the Egyptian era and it became and was seen as a way of control and has been ever since, usually by despots wishing to impose their will on others, usually the poor and ignorant.
    Look what it has done to children world wide in the Christian Catholic Church.
    Look at what it is doing to the world in general under the guise of the Muslim faith.
    Look at what it is doing to specific countries like India under the Guise of the Hindu and Sikh Faiths.
    See what it has done to Europe under the guise of Protestant and Catholic Faiths and what it is still doing to countries like Ireland and Scotland where the venom even spills over into sports.
    Millions lost their lives in Europe in a war carried out in an attempt by one or two countries to get rid of one particular Faith, Judaeism.
    Religion even condemmed thousands to death in the middle ages because science dared to present a differing view of the world than the mythical view expounded by religion…. I could go on for several more pages but i think by now you may have gotten my point. In what way is religion a force for good in our lives???. I am at a loss to find one and would very much doubt anyone else can.
    To the skinners out there …i dont want reams of cut and paste text from so called “holy” books or wikipedia pages or sites like American Thinker …two words that hardly belong together these days……….. pretending that they know how i should live my life or how religion will “save” us all .

  148. Merseymike 5 Apr 2010, 12:34am

    Poor David Skinner. He really should climb out of that closet and stop spending so many frenzied hours on the computer. Everyone laughs at him, wherever he posts.

    As for Grayling, I think it reasonable to suppose that he will never be Home Secretary.

    The point is not making people change their mind, but ensuring they cannot actively discriminate. Not about therapy, but professional behaviour

  149. BrazilBoysBlog 5 Apr 2010, 2:13am

    @150 “As for Grayling, I think it reasonable to suppose that he will never be Home Secretary.”

    I think that is the VERY point at issue… There is a VERY real possibility that he WILL be!

    ..And his party leader STILL has not distanced himself, or the party from the remarks..

    Speaks volumes?

    Despite the latest polls by Pink News reporting that support for the Tories is slipping away, I suspect that the raging homophobes are chomping at the bit…(just look at some of the opinion forums to confirm this)… and that the Tories WILL be the next government..

    I think it is inevitable..

    This makes me sad for my home country and thankful I now live in Brazil!

  150. For `gay’ read `Moslem’ or `Jewish’ and then ask how long this idiot would survive in politics?

  151. Patrick:-

    maybe if you laid off the Guinness for a bit the blurred eyed will go and you’d actually be able to read whole threads and news items.

  152. david skinner 5 Apr 2010, 8:34am

    Patrick, you might think that you are free from the ideology and presuppositions of this age, that you engage independently in the real world without reference to any philosophical persuasion, but we are all creatures of our time; we cannot help but absorb and adopt the attitudes and pre- suppositions that happen to be in fashion- without even being aware of it. Twenty- first century, technological and post- modern society is manipulated and brainwashed on a massive scale, thanks to the power of the mass-media, by philosophies which over a period of several hundred years but particularly during the last decades have trickled and permeated down through art, literature, film and finally into every recess of life- even to the man digging a ditch. . Behind them all is this same message: stimulate yourselves now with whatever strong experience will give you a sense of being alive, because this is all there is to a pointless and inconsequential existence.

    You blame all the evils of the world on religion, or more accurately on the worship of gods – many different gods. But man is a worshipping creature; he is an insufficient integration point within himself, he is forced to bow the knee to something or someone. All those countries like Russia, China, North Korea, where “religion” was expunged, replaced them with the worship of the cult figure and statues of the great political leaders.

    The twenty first century shows no let up in the worship of cult figures such as that of President Obama. Twentieth century man’s inhumanity, depersonalisation and loss of identity, two world wars, the materialistic experiments of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse- tung, the genocide and exterminations of millions of people, the continuing threat of nuclear holocaust, the disintegration of family and community life, the man-made genetic and biological disorders, the wholesale destruction of millions of unborn babies, the huge rise in sexually transmitted diseases, the threat to our climate and natural environment, a society dependent on drugs, an increasingly nihilistic, mindlessly violent, callous and lawless younger generation, the huge increase in mental and emotional disorders, …cannot be blamed on religion because in your view it has ceased to be force.…….All of the above pathologies flow out of a mechanistic view where everything is reduced to impersonal statistics, where reality outside of what we can touch, weigh and measure is considered to be merely a figment of the imagination. We are all trapped inside a box in which only instinct, impulse and appetite rule -refereed only by a constantly fluctuating consensus of public opinion, that is manipulated by those in power.

    Within 21st century man we see inconsistencies: unable to see himself as a zero he elevates himself to an idealised level. Nature ( with a capital N) , the great mysterious and irrational Force, rolling on through the millennia carries us on the crest of its wave. In almost mystical terms he will talk about evolutionary and human progress- to that of becoming a god. Man becomes that than which no greater can be thought. He will achieve absolute freedom. His kingdom will come and his will…. will be done. The advantage of such a belief is that it gives us all the thrills and comfort of a religion and a feel good factor about human nature and yet if we are in reality mere nothings- of no significance- then any shabby behaviour of ours also becomes inconsequential, simply because atoms cannot be held accountable; if we have no real free will and are determined and programmed by our genes we cannot ultimately be held responsible for our actions. We will elevate or minimise ourselves according to how it suits us.

    Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Robespierre were also brave realists who in resigning themselves to a world where God, love or mystery no longer exist, were encouraged to treat people as a means towards an end. These stark and tough – minded people, in giving up all hope of majesty or sovereignty, were inevitably led, against their better judgment, to impose their own tyranny on millions of others. How courageous and incredibly humble these leaders were in not believing in the dignity and uniqueness of humanity and the way this led to their treating millions of others as less than human. Just fancy what incredible and heroic courage it took to relinquish all hope of salvation and justice and thereby deny it to their subjects by engaging in mass murder and genocide. Bravery indeed.
    But just imagine, just supposing they were to wake up on the either side of death and suddenly find themselves in the blazing presence of the source of all love, personhood, truth, meaning, beauty, holiness and justice, in the presence of someone who would demand an account of their earthly lives. Would they say “Phew What a relief. If only I had known and look how virtuous I have been by living a fiercely independent life that denied your existence . No, instead there will be howls of rage, terror and a gnashing of teeth.

    We only have see that rage and rebellion in the comments posted on this site. Just listen to them.

  153. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Apr 2010, 9:03am

    @149:

    “Ever since our stoneage ancestors started wondering about and being fearful of death we have had this problem. and even then they disagreed with and killed each other in the name of one “god” or another.”

    M-m-m….the Cave is just a step away from the Temple you mean…m-m-m…

  154. D Lambert 5 Apr 2010, 9:40am

    same old scum party,

    It couldn’t be much clearer

  155. No squidy… it just your silly dross i have a problem with and i end up laughing so much it affects my concentration. And FYI, I am a teetotaler.

  156. Readers may be interested to read Mr Cameron’s ACTUAL track record…

    A timeline of David Cameron’s gay rights hokey-cokey

    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.

    From the Times.

    http://timesnews.typepad.com/news/2010/03/cameron-gay-interview.html

  157. Copy and pasting…. again. How Very boring. Nothing new.

  158. Charles Coe 5 Apr 2010, 12:45pm

    As a gay man I would not want to stay in a B & B that was NOT gay friendly. I don’t know about the UK but in North America many B & B’s advertise themselves as gay friendly, or even gay owned, and that is where I stay because I feel comfortable.
    Isn’t that what getting away is all about? Who cares what the law says?

  159. Hi chris. I think you’re missing the point. a senior politician said it’s ok to discriminate and break the law only if it’s against gay people. That’s pretty bad.

  160. sorry Charles not chris

  161. Charles – fair enough I wouldn’t stay in the B+B at the centre of this story either. But I care what the law says because if businesses are allowed to refuse goods and services willy nilly in line with the flavour of their bigotry, where’s it going to stop? it dangerous and its fcking scary that a politician would make a statement like to that effect.

  162. Patrick James 5 Apr 2010, 4:42pm

    I put this posting in the “Chris Grayling seems to be remaining as the shadow home secretary…” comments area but it seems that none of the bizarre band of Conservative supporting LGBT people are participating there. Strange…

    Here it is:

    Chris Grayling seems to be remaining as the shadow home secretary despite the views he expressed that he felt B&B’s should be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people.

    As a gay man with a strong interest in LGBT rights I find this to be reprehensible, but I am intrigued by the reaction of Conservative blogger Iain Dale who is a gay man as well, I believe.

    The Guardian blog has reported Iain Dale has said in his blog: “Do I believe that his [Grayling] views, as expressed, will be damaging. Yes I do.”

    So this is the first time that I have seen a high profile LGBT Conservative “acting up” in this way.

    It has been horrendous to watch various LGBT Conservatives act as apologists for the Conservative party’s activities in the European parliament.

    Now one of them, Iain Dale, is wanting action against Grayling.

    I think Iain Dale might be disappointed.

    I have long believed that David Cameron has been conning those LGBT Conservatives. He tells them he is liberal and on their side, but he never seems to actually deliver.

    The right of the Conservative party is far more important to David Cameron than Iain Dale & Co. and the Conservative right will want to keep Grayling.

    The LGBT Conservatives have been utterly dutiful to David Cameron while his party sh*ts on the rights of LGBT people in Eastern Europe. Will David pay them back by ditching Grayling?

    Let’s see…

  163. Patrick James 5 Apr 2010, 5:11pm

    I see that Rob_N is participating in this discussion.

    In another thread Rob_N stated:

    It is pretty common knowledge that Labour’s blatant loss of bottle in allowing faith schools to opt-out of equal rights for sexual minorities is a direct and obvious parallel to the Tory’s Section 28 of 30 years ago

    I’m just repeating it because it is so obviously ridiculous. He knows nothing about Amendment 70 or Clause 28. The fact that he believes this is “common knowledge” as well is just so wrong and weird.

    Does Rob_N read anything about anything?

    Anyway back to this thread where bizarre fantasies from the Conservative party supporters are abounding as ever!

    Rob_N, (actually a UKIP supporter I believe) has sympathy for Chris Grayling who he calls “the minister”.

    That Rob_N doesn’t know who he is rather a strong issue.

    First, he’s not a minister, he is the Shadow Home Secretary.

    There’s an election coming and the issue being discussed here is that the Shadow Home Secretary of the opposition has stated at a think tank meeting that he believes B&B’s should be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people.

    This is the man the Conservative party are putting forward to run home affairs after the general election.

    Wakey wakey Rob_N.

  164. Patrick James 5 Apr 2010, 5:12pm

    Tom Tom wrote:

    it was Labour and not the Tories who put gay equal rights on the agenda in the last 15 years!

    Sister Mary Clarence wrote in response:

    It was the EU actually.

    What?

    The bizarre gang of Conservative party supporting posters seem to believe in the weirdest things and just state them as if they were a “fact” regardless of how stupid it looks.

    It was indeed Labour, for the most part, and not the Tories who put equal rights on the agenda in the last 15 years, and indeed the 15 years before that.

    The EU did not put gay rights on the agenda in the UK.

    The European Court of Human Rights played a very important role during the last Conservative administration in forcing them to comply with ECHR ruling on equal rights for LGBT people.

    But saying that the EU put gay equal rights on the agenda as Sister Mary clarence has done. That is just so wrong and weird.

  165. Patrick James 5 Apr 2010, 5:15pm

    Squidgy writes:

    Copy and pasting…. again. How Very boring. Nothing new.

    Why don’t you read it Squidgy?

  166. 1. The Tories are in an alliance in Europe with the far-right, homophobic Law and Justice Party.

    2. Under a Tory government the Home Secretary would support the right of commercial businesses to discriminate against gay people.

    3. Under a Tory government Iain Duncan Smith would be in charge of families. He wants to reduce the rights of non-biological gay parents.

    4. The Tories in Europe are vile homophobes. And David Cameron has admitted he does not control them.

    5. The Tories record on voting for gay issues is utterly abysmal.

    6. The Tories want to massively increase spending on ‘faith schools’.

    7. The Tories support the religious exemption from equality laws (have a look at number 6 again)

    8. The Tories are opposed to legal equality for gay relationships.

    The Tories are a homophobic party despite their spin pretending they are not the reactionary bigots they have always been.

    (respects to original poster.)

    Readers may be interested to read Mr Cameron’s ACTUAL track record…

    A timeline of David Cameron’s gay rights hokey-cokey

    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.

    From the Times.

    http://timesnews.typepad.com/news/2010/03/cameron-gay-interview.html

  167. Squiffy…. if its all so boring why the fcuk are you still here. go somewhere you’ll find something you’ll understand like the kiddie channelor a sandpit somewhere…………….

  168. stop ranting skinner

  169. david skinner 6 Apr 2010, 10:00am

    Amazing, I have not said a word for the last 16 comments, for over 24 hours in fact, and yet still, without making any further comment – apart from this observation – I still get the last word. How can that be?

  170. Probably because this threads two days old, life has moved on to new news stories and unlike you we like to move with it and not stay stuck in the Dark Ages coz we’re too afraid to come out of the closet!

    Do yourself a favour – stand up and finally be the out proud gay man you know you wannabe!

  171. “Amazing, I have not said a word for the last 16 comments, for over 24 hours in fact, and yet still, without making any further comment – apart from this observation – I still get the last word. How can that be?”

    He thinks because he’s being ignored that he’s won! LOL!!!!! What a fool. Shaky-shaky Skinner, you’re meds are ready….

  172. Luce E. Phur 6 Apr 2010, 1:48pm

    Who you gonna vote for, David Skinner? And remember I have me eye on your ass.

  173. And back on to the story, as I’m Irish, the Tory/Labour thing is only of interest to me (and I’m not one to support right wing conservative parties anywhere either) but I think that the line he said “But the law is now clear on this issue, I am happy with it and would not wish to see it changed”, is of some importance. At least he’s making some small effort to indicate that his preference is for the SOR laws to stand, and perhaps keep his own personal views out of politics.

    In Ireland, we’ve had equivalent legislation for a few years now, the Equal Status Act, and no politician, despite their “personal beliefs” has had any appetite to change them – as the law is there to protect all its citizens, not the narrow views of a few. I would like to think (or hope) Mr. Grayling is trying to get that same point across.

  174. david skinner 6 Apr 2010, 4:41pm

    The SORE laws as you correctly call them are no laws at all; they are the personal, subjective tastes and appetites being imposed on a public that is too fast asleep and too stressed out – at the moment – to realised what has happened. But they will wake up some day, perhaps like a patient on the operating table, only to realise that all their limbs have been amputated. Graylings personal opinions, as you call them are in fact based and founded on objective truths: the earth revolves around the sun; we in the west write from left to right; global traffic observes international laws; the penis fits into the vagina and marriage is the fusion of a man and woman to make one flesh so as to produce the generations as recorded in history. This last objective truth is one that is universally recognised and will be so until the end of the time.

    The SORES were imaginatively written by Angela Mason, who has imposed her own anarchist, Marxist, personal opinions on the public. This state of affairs will not last forever, simply because we cannot deviate from natural laws without destroying ourselves. Diversity has the same root as deviancy. It means to turn aside from the path.

    Is it easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for Will to argue and reason rationally, without resorting to childish temper tantrums and insults? Judging from all that he has written, I believe this to be case.

    But allow Peter to have the last word. And notice with regard to Sodom, that he makes no mention of their lack of hospitality – only their filthy and lawless lives.

    “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
    For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.
    Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
    They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, revelling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man’s voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.
    These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” 2 Peter 2.

  175. “The SORE laws as you correctly call them are no laws at all”

    Er, sorry, lets move past the med-induced delusions, shall we? They are laws. Laws you and your religious extremist friends have to obey – like it or not.

    So, basically hey’re only “SORE” (really stupid pun there by the way, you should stick to paint brushes) to people like you…. oh, boo hoo, daft old Skinner can’t pass “judgement” on others any more – what shall the religious lunatics do now?

    And I for one am utterly delighted you find these laws so offensive… it means they doing they’re job and they’re just.

    And all the petty insults to me or anyone else who laughs at your puerile cut and pastes from that daft book of nonsense, and failed petitions, won’t change that one little bit!

    …..and that warms me in side to no end…..

  176. again and again you misrepresent facts and the bible david skinner
    why don’t you admit sodom fell thanks to those damned heteros?

  177. skinner didn’t I tell you to fcuk off

  178. Patrick James: “First, he’s not a minister, he is the Shadow Home Secretary.”

    Well what is that if it’s not a f_cking minister? Even the Prime Minister is an MP with a constituency. Ignorant twat.

  179. People always get caught out.

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