Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Cameron mentions gay people in his list of the great ignored

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. There were some questions about the Bed and Breakfast issue in a discussion of the Equality Bill in the Commons earlier this evening.

  2. Wow, if I didn’t believe it before I can’t deny it now. PinkNews really has become the mouthpiece of the Conservative Party. It’s amazing how subtly slanted the reports about Cameron and the Tories are on this site.

  3. dave wainwright 7 Apr 2010, 2:02am

    thank heavens for insignificant mercies am so delighted to be an afterthought, from the party which tried to anhialate us from society with clause 28 . It won’t just be fox hunting that restarts if they get into power , thats just how they hone their killer instincts prior to going after minorities. Ms Cameroon is just the poster boy for the powers that will be, who you never see .

  4. BrazilBoysBlog 7 Apr 2010, 2:43am

    @3 Yeah, I agree.. So we finally get a mention? Big deal Dave!

    How about telling us what you propose to do to further equality for gays and lesbians?

  5. Jean-Paul Bentham 7 Apr 2010, 3:55am

    Surely the greatest of the ‘great ignored’ are our brothers, the gay asylum seekers.

    Immigration is and will continue to be a sizzling hot issue in the weeks to come, and the B&B incident is a microcosm of Tory policy on hospitality.

    We need to get our ideas straight about why gay asylum seekers come to the UK. Contrary to what some of us may believe, the UK is not exactly a “country of choice”:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/14/chance-choice-britain-refugees-council-report

  6. Jean-Paul Bentham: “Contrary to what some of us may believe, the UK is not exactly a “country of choice””

    Only the Guardian could come up with crap like that. Are you yanking my chain? There are HUNDREDS of refugees stacked up in the Port of Calais trying to find anything on wheels to sneak on to and get here. We are AWASH with immigrants, mostly illegal. Most are not genuine asylum seekers, but simply economic migrants.
    The single biggest concern of the common people of the UK in this election is immigration, and what the government is going to do about it. Foreign immigrants are now arriving at the rate of about 1/2 million a year – or nearly one a minute. If that isn’t cause for concern, I don’t know what is.

  7. Jean-Paul Bentham 7 Apr 2010, 5:50am

    As I said, it’s going to be a sizling hot issue. Glad to have you aboard, Rob.

  8. theotherone 7 Apr 2010, 7:20am

    Tories and Fox Hunting? Don’t make me laugh – the head of The Countryside Alliance is a member of LABOUR.

    As for ‘going for minorities’ – that will be Labour who, when people where concerned over Immigration from Europe, played the Race card? That will be Labour who leave people to starve after being out of work for three months? Labour who have lie detectors for Benefits claimants? Labour who have tried several times to bring in bills to allow people with Mental Health Issues to be interned indefinitely? Labour who are back tracking on Queer Rights and are now taking them away from us?

    Don’t make me laugh.

    As I have said time and time again: I fear a Tory government but I fear a Labour one more.

  9. Jean-Paul Bentham 7 Apr 2010, 8:07am

    The LibDems have their work cut out for them, then.

  10. I think I preferred it when Callmedave ignored us.

  11. :9, theotherone,
    “Labour who are back tracking on Queer Rights and are now taking them away from us?”

    Excuse me? You are obviously privy to information I need and want – hand it over right now. What rights have been taken away from us? I haven’t heard of any such thing. This is a sweeping statement and I don’t believe you. Tell me why I’m wrong and you’re right. Pretty please.

  12. So who isn’t in his list of the great ignored? Pretty much covers everyone. Reference to the Great Ignored seems a little close to upper class references to the Great Unwashed ( I.e. everyone else).

  13. Multi millionaire Lord Snooty Cameron has nothing in common with anyone except other Tory toffs. The guy is a joke!
    Better the devil you know I say. Gay people are far better off under even a crummy Labour party, than they were under Thatchers in your face homophobia of clause 28, or that boring adulterer Major!

  14. :14, “Gay people are far better off under even a crummy Labour party”

    JCarter, you are so right. On other threads I said I was worried about the true nature of the Conservatives. They are back-tracking now on the Equality Bill. They agreed to it – but won’t implement parts of it. Important parts of it which will affect all sorts of people on this forum. If you are black or asian – watch out because any social disadvantages there might be, that the Labour party would put right, won’t be put right by the Tories.

    @HarrietHarman: Equality Bill through Commons last night. Tories said they wouldn’t implement socio-economic clauses. Tories unchanged

    http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/Soc…2008012010.pdf

    Labour are well meaning and sometimes incompetent. Tories are full of hate and incompetent.

  15. For those of you wanting to leave a message on Dave’s YouTube page:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/webcameronuk

    The “great ignored” should be heard. Make it loud.

  16. “and it is likely that Mr Cameron simply omitted the references to gay people by accident. ”

    I’d like to ask Pink News how they have drawn this conclusion?

    Considering that the Shadow Home Secretary believes that commercial business owners be allowed to discriminate against gay people; and considering that this is official Tory policy (Grayling has not been reprimanded for this bigotry) then I don’t think the omission is in any way accidental.

    Remember the following FACTS:

    1. The Tories are in alliance in Europe with the extreme-right, homophobic Law and Justice Party
    2. The Tories are opposed to marriage equality for same-sex couples
    3. The Tories are in favour of the religious opt-out from equality laws.
    4. The Tories want to MASSIVELY increase government spending on ‘faith schools’ (see number 3 above again)
    5. Iain Duncan Smith would be the Minister in charge of families if the Tories get elected. He is a catholic extremist who is already campaigning the reduce the parental rights of non-biological gay parents.
    6. The Tories in Europe are a bunch of homophobic bigots. David Cameron admits he has no control over them.
    7. David Cameron used to work in PR ie he earned his living from telling lies.
    8. The Tory Party’s voting record on LGBT equality issues is utterly abysmal.

    In light of these facts, I want to know how Pink News reaches the conclusion that the homophobis Tory Party omitted reference to gay people ‘by accident’.

    If Pink News is editorially pro-Tory, then you should admit it.

    But don’t embarrass yourselves with servile comments such as the one above.

    It makes you look as pathetic and irrelevant as the LGBTory Group.

  17. I’m sorry, but RobN is tragically mistaken.
    “Only the Guardian could come up with crap like that. Are you yanking my chain? There are HUNDREDS of refugees stacked up in the Port of Calais trying to find anything on wheels to sneak on to and get here. We are AWASH with immigrants, mostly illegal. Most are not genuine asylum seekers, but simply economic migrants.
    The single biggest concern of the common people of the UK in this election is immigration, and what the government is going to do about it. Foreign immigrants are now arriving at the rate of about 1/2 million a year – or nearly one a minute. If that isn’t cause for concern, I don’t know what is.”

    That chance causes most asylum seekers to come here and not choice is well documented. I suggest you read some of the scholarly literature.

    Yes, there are many asylum seekers trying to get here, but they are trying to seek asylum, and seeking asylum is a right. Our efforts to prevent them sit uneasily with this right, as a plethora of international agencies have pointed out. It is this very fact which has been highlighted so well by the following articles, one in part written by Guy Goodwin Gill, a leading International law expert and professor at Oxford:

    http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2006/issue2/onions2.html#_Toc133750498
    http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/Resources/Refugee%20Council/downloads/researchreports/Remote%20Controls.pdf

    Indeed, the former concludes:
    “As the numbers of refugees continue to rise and the opportunities for legal travel diminish, the traffickers profit at the expense of the vulnerable. Asylum seekers have no choice but to resort to increasingly dangerous and devious methods of travel. A culture of disbelief pervades home office decision-making as people with traumatic experiences and mental illness are detained pending decisions and removals. The constant change in immigration and asylum law and policy, evidenced by a new piece of legislation every 18 months, demonstrates the climate of confusion and misinformation. It has been shown that the current obsession with deterrence is flawed on many levels
    On a humanitarian level, it undermines the right of every person to seek asylum. On a practical level, it leaves people with no option but to resort to clandestine, illicit and dangerous means of travel.”

    Yes, many asylum seekers may be attracted to this country. But that does not invalidate their claim for Asylum. They may have special reasons to do with the languages they speak, and family members being in the UK, which cause them to try to seek asylum in the UK.
    ” Most are not genuine asylum seekers, but simply economic migrants”. This is often asserted but never proved. I have seen no proof of this in the scholarly literature and I have studied this for some time. The evidence suggests that flows of asylum seekers rise and ebb with the rise and ebb in various crises around the world, such as those regarding Bosnia, and more recently, those regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. This would, prima facie (but not conclusively), suggest that there may be some link. There is an obvious link, increasing numbers of asylum seekers are caused by disasters, and helped along by modern methods of transport.
    In any case, why would an asylum seeker want to come here for economic reasons, when refugees generally have a much worse standard of living than natives, and asylum seekers (single over 25) must survive on about £35.13 a week? This is not to mention the real chance of becoming destitute if your claim is found invalid, the legal process governing which has been found to be unreliable in around 25% of cases.
    We may be ‘awash’ with immigrants, but I don’t see why that is a problem. Why should it be a problem that we have had lots of immigration over the past few years? The best research I have looked at indicates that it does not have the deleterious economic impacts that it has been accused of having(including this fantastic report by Christian Dustmann, in the institute of fiscal studies:(http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123315273/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0). Indeed, many reports, by IPPR and others, suggest there are major benefits of the immigration that we have had. As for the effect of immigration on schools and hospitals, the negative effects were caused by government mismanagement and underfunding of hospitals and schools, not by there being too high a rate of immigration. I could concede that there may have been problems integrating migrants, but I would not then draw the conclusion that this is a problem with immigration itself. That conclusion needs extra premises.

    As for the attitude of the public, I have to say that it is, with greatest respect, the public are not well informed on this matter, nor are the politicians.

  18. jean Paul Canada could have had French food us engineering and uk culture. instead they have French engineering English food and us culture. youre a bunch of seal clubbers and theives.
    http://www.canadaimmigrants.com/forum.asp.

  19. 18: Luke, should we welcome asylum seekers – those people seeking genuine refuge from persecution in their own country? Certainly, Stonewall and the LibDems think so. As for immigration, that is now being sorted out with a points-based system – isn’t it? Are you sure you wouldn’t be happier on the BNP/UKIP forums? I’d stop worrying about immigration for the time being, … and now I’m going to loose any sympathy I might have once had here … we do need to consider population control (OUCH!, stop hitting me!). We need to consider how to ‘properly’ feed everyone – because everyone has a right to food and support. Whilst we blogg here thousands of people are dying from starvation and lack of water. It seems to me that are agro businesses, and current level of technology won’t be able to support much greater populations and more people will suffer. It’s something I feel very strongly about, and think about a lot. I’m not for population control (that is totalitarian) but I am pragmatic and don’t want to see harm inflicted on others. As for immigration, it’s nice to see people from some many parts of the world here – very cosmo. xx

  20. vulpus_rex 7 Apr 2010, 10:40am

    The pro Liebour lovers are starting to resemble malfunctioning members of the Borg collective.

    Endlessly repeating “you will be assimilated” type smears and dishonest scaremongering about Tories is uncannily reminiscent of an episode of Voyager I watched on Saturday.

    Desperate, unthinking zombies with nothing but mindless liebour propaganda to post.

    Only 29 days left until the death of Liebour!

  21. :21, vulpus_rex
    7 of 9, teriary adjunt of unimatrix 0 was manfunctioning due to a data overload in her cortical implant, because she tried to absorb too much info from a borg data collection node. Is that the one? Yep, know just how she feels.

  22. repeats of voyager on a Saturday. what a full life you lead!

  23. “We feel very clearly that gay voters are among those who have been ignored by Labour.”

    this made me laugh so much , a little bit of wee wee came out.

  24. I repeat: saying ‘gay’ is not a policy: it is tokenism without policies to back this up. Vote Tory if you like but know what it means: we have only ever got Section 28, hatred or mealy mouthed words and no action from the Conservative Party. Cameron says there will be no laws to protect LGBT people under a Tory Government yet he and many of his shadow cabinet and party have fought against all equalities legislation, especially on LGBT rights. Shameful: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-no-new-gay-rights-under-the-tories-1889014.html

    It cannot be denied that the Labour Party in government has consistently progressed LGBT rights. Here is a list for the rapid cynics and Tories on here:
    • achieved an equal age of consent;
    • ended the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces;
    • ended discrimination against same sex partners for immigration purposes;
    • given LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children;
    • scrapped the homophobic Section 28 (Clause 2a in Scotland);
    • become a signatory of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which gave the EU powers to end discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation;
    • banned discrimination in the workplace and in vocational training with the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations;
    • created the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) which gives LGBT people statutory body protection;
    • included homophobia in the definition of hate crimes;
    • increased sentencing for homophobic hate crimes;
    • removed outdated offences such as gross indecency and buggery;
    • produced and implemented the Gender Recognition Act, allowing Trans people to have their true gender recognised in law;
    • created the Civil Partnerships, allowing LGB people to have their loving relationships recognised by law and have the same benefits as married couples;
    • outlawed discrimination in good and services (with no exceptions);
    • launched a campaign in the UN for the Decriminalisation of Homosexuality focusing on the nine countries where it is still punishable by death;
    • awarded statutory rights for fertility treatment for Lesbians on the NHS.

    Yes, there is always room for improved rights – e.g. allowing gay people access to marriage and straight people to be able to have civil partnerships etc – but who seriously believes that this change could come from within the Tory Party, snuggled up to quasi-fascists in Europe and only talking about gays in this election campaign because of the social changes brought about by LGBT people and the positive response to this from the Labour Government. Only Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and small socialist parties have a decent recent record on supporting equality for LGBT people.

  25. John(Derbyshire) 7 Apr 2010, 11:00am

    QUESTION: WHOSE GOING TO BE HOME SECRETARY IN THE FIRST TORY GOVERNMENT?

    ANSWER: CHRIS GRAYLING OF COURSE-STUPID!!

    They both are of the same opinion as we are concerned- say one thing in public-but what they REALLY think in private!!

  26. “As for immigration, that is now being sorted out with a points-based system – isn’t it?”
    Yes, it is, but in an unjust way. It is far too restrictive.

    I never said that we don’t need to consider population control. But the fact is, the main problem with population control at the moment is that the population is concentrated in certain areas, not that the population is too large. In any case, a lot of the migrants coming here nowadays are temporary migrants, so concern about their particular impact on population growth is misplaced. Those who harp on about the negative affect of immigration on population change rarely give any figures, either about what an ‘optimal’ population would be, and about how immigrants are contributing, negatively or positively, to the achievement of a level of optimal population.
    I can’t see why we have any right for our country to be sparsely populated.

  27. Jean-Paul Bentham 7 Apr 2010, 11:09am

    @19:

    Whatever you say, mon ami.

    But we did compose the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Speaking of Gay Rights, which are Human Rights:

    http://www.rferl.org/content/On_Film_The_Trials_Of_An_Iranian_Lesbian_Activist/2004024.html

    We really have no idea what’s it’s like to fight for our lives, do we?

  28. @23:
    Nice. What do you do on a Saturday Dave, curl up next to a blow-up dole of Dave Cameron. Or perhaps one of Chris Grayling. What gives you the right to judge others. Oh, ofcourse, you’re a Tory Boy – you think you can make up the morals for everyone else. Did you go to Eton, were you head boy? Or just giving head?

  29. vulpus_rex 7 Apr 2010, 11:10am

    “repeats of voyager on a Saturday. what a full life you lead!”

    To be fair it was on in the back ground whilst I was doing something far duller – assembling some draws from Ikea.

  30. “Accidental” omission of gays from his big speech in front of the nation yesterday? NONSENSE!

    “Gays” then included in a little rally up in Leeds! Oh, clever one, Call-Me! Nice shrewd little Tory move, that! Sleight-of-hand. Manipulation.

    And PinkNews, being a Tory-supporting news-site, has of course accepted that the omission was accidental.

    What the people of this nation need to decide is whether they wants an Alan Sugar figure to run this nation or some jumped-up egotistical little public-school apprentice going by the name of Call-Me-Dave!

    The Master or the apprentice.

    That’s the choice.

    Jean-Paul, take no notice of the racists on here who claim, as above, that this country is “awash” with immigrants.

    “Awash” = full of or abounding in; overflowing or rife with.

    No doubt, though, in the coming month there will be many such outbursts of hysteria on these threads.

  31. A bit late to mention us, after the fact, how convenient in an election year. Expect more deportation of genuine gay asylum seekers, especially those from islamic states. Anyone in their right mind fleeing to the UK wouldn’t risk it knowing that in almost all cases, they would be deported back to an unknown fate, usually torture, execution or both. Both Labour and Tory parties are complicit and that’s not going to change with the not so FULL equality supportive candidate Cameron in power.

  32. And PinkNews is stuffing Cameron in our faces YET AGAIN!

    PinkNews is a Tory rag!

    Where’s the coverage of what the other two major parties said and did yesterday!!!!!!!

  33. Euan - London 7 Apr 2010, 11:36am

    I confirm my belief that the executive team of this website are impartial and favour the Tories.
    Play your cards out-right Pink News… Just cos he said it isnt the same as action re Cameron/Grayling/ et cabal.
    Your reportage is almost as infantile as a Tory intern’s attempt an making a case to the troublesome gays.
    I have become in the past month an erstwhile Labour supporter, a Tory scrutiniser, and a Lib Dem election volunteer. Why? Well in the past few years this website has given Cameron and his supporters a nice sound space into the LGBT community. Many of us actually are intelligent, successful and most of all insightful. Thus, you have empowered more to see more than you’d actually care for.

    Tories hate fags.Or at best ‘tolerate us’. The next battle for us is full equality and make our prosperity go further.
    http://mygayvote.co.uk/

  34. This what I also thought. People make mistakes. Yes it was unfortunate but thats life.

    If, (again I bet this get ignored) the Tories put their money where their mouth is and give tax breaks for Civil Partnerships then that’ll go some way on my decision.

    If they don’t however then I will Not definitely be voting Tory.

    Take that as you will.

  35. “We’re fighting this election for the Great Ignored – young, old, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight.”

    That’s kinda everyone, isn’t it? So, everyone is being ignored?

    Another one of those empty rhetoric statements that actually means nothing when you look at it.

  36. Sally:-

    Oh thats all we need another paranoid, scaremongerer.

    You vote for you Labour if thats what you want. Thats you choice. Just as it is mine to hear all the facts from the Parties, then decide for myself. Let the rest of us more intelligent people, make our own minds up without having to be targeted by you and your like’s abuse.

    It is my choice to let the parties all do their work before I vote. Labour for another 5 years would be a complete disaster. Thats my opinion and one in which I am entitled.

    Like I said I will wait to see about tax breaks and civil partnerships before I finally decide. If they don’t i won’t vote Tory. If they do, it becomes more likely. Labour though can definitely NOT get my vote.

    It would actually be nice if for a change we had a Labour party and their supporters who actually answered questions instead of the typical avoidance and then slanging match against anyone who doesn’t want to agree with them.

    labour is a vile nasty party that is so out of touch they don’t deserve another term. I hope the country plays its part and removes them to the scrap heap where they belong.

  37. Cameron intentionally left “gays” out of his speach; it was not a mistake or a slip. I surmise it was a parapraxis showing his deeply held beliefs or an actual threat to the gay community, letting us know he could easily ignore and leave us out his policies if he wanted to. He has a history of shady dealing to get what he wants, but he is also smart enough to keeping himself out of trouble. Do not trust this man. God forbid you would vote for hime or his party.

  38. Gays ignored by labour? Well their record isn’t perfect but we have a lot more rights and laws passed in our favour than under previous governments.

    And shall we compare it to the Tories? Well, they DIDN’T ignore us, that’s for certain. They fought us and attacked us every single step of the way.

    I’d rather they ignore us than try to destroy every right we have

  39. Actions speak louder than words, Mr Cameron, and the actions of the Tories past and present, speak volumes. I feel safer under a Labour or Lib Dem government, but thanks anyway for the after mention. I shall think about you after I have voted Labour.

  40. Pink News – you ignored my question in Post 17.

    I’ll repeat it, just in case you missed it:

    ” “and it is likely that Mr Cameron simply omitted the references to gay people by accident. ”
    I’d like to ask Pink News how they have drawn this conclusion?”

    Come on Pink News – tell the truth.

    Are you editorially pro-Tory, as your coverage of the election is appallingly 1-sided.

    And for Pink News to make the unsubstantiated claim that CallMeDave omitted gay people ‘by accident’ only days after the Shadow Home Secretary revealed his neo-fascist true colours, is quite the stretch.

    Pink News may well lose a lot of credibility among its readership if it admits that it supports the homophobic Tory Party, but at least then Pink News will be able to cater more exclusively to its core audience – Sister Mary Clarence, RobN, Squidgy and Vulpus Rex,

    Pink News can become the Gay Daily Mail

  41. If Gordon Brown is so enthusiastic about Gay Rights how come that he has NEVER voted for any piece of gay rights legislation during all the years of the New Labour Governments?He has not ,of course voted against nor abstained all the votes – that would have alientated much of the gay and gay-friendly membership of the Labour Party whose help he would have needed to oust Tony Blair – who was the true champion of gay rights.Gordon Brown for every Gay Rights vote has been “absent from the House”.

    Gay Rights will not progress any further once Brown is back in No.10 – he will not have any further need for the Gay Vote and we will be forgotten about.Cameron has a better track record on Gay Rights than Brown has….so who do you vote for?….Simples.

  42. I’m an Anglophile American Democrat who has become fed up with the way PinkNews (a site I have followed and enjoyed for a long time) has become a mouthpiece for all things Tory.

    Can please direct me to a gay British website/blog that doesn’t carry water for the Tories? I would be a LibDem if I were English because Labour, like our own Democratic Party, is only lukewarm in support of FULL equality for our community. At least you all have options with other viable parties. Our two party system SUCKS! Anyway, I’m very serious about finding a different website to follow. It may be tacky to ask such a question here but I don’t know of better way to get advice on British gay websites.

  43. vulpus_rex 7 Apr 2010, 3:03pm

    Now now Simon don’t be churlish – you know I read the Telegraph.

    The Mail is an occasional treat when I visit my Gran – a lifelong Labour voter as it happens.

  44. An example of the slant that bothers me here is in this story. The author accepts, without question or even curiosity, that the original omission was “accidental”. He doesn’t, as a good JOURNALIST would, say “allegedly accidental” or “which Mr. Cameron’s spokesperson says was accidental”. Nope, none of that wishy washy stuff for PinkNews when it comes to His Majesty Callmedave. If they say it was an accident, no matter how curious the circumstance, it as an accident. Don’t even leave room for questioning.

    Sounds like Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud Republican apologists in America.

  45. When will call me ‘Dave’ get around to answering the questions he asked us for?

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

    Or is it a case of a lack of substance from ‘Dave’ and Tories? He never had any intention of answering us, he just wanted to be seen doings something LGBT related!

  46. Simon:-

    They probably ignored it because it’s a pathetic statement not worthy of a response. I’m sure when Labour and the Lib Dem’s make news regarding LGBT comments they’ll report it but at the moment they haven’t. If anything they showing the Tories up in a bad light. Something I thought the likes of you would welcome. Other than that may I suggest a socialist site or failing that Channel 4 News. They pretty much Labour bias, just up your street.

  47. paul canning 7 Apr 2010, 3:38pm

    Quote about Labour’s LGBT support by James: “launched a campaign in the UN for the Decriminalisation of Homosexuality focusing on the nine countries where it is still punishable by death”

    I realise this is on your list of achievements but as I have previously pointed out it is false. The French, pushed by Louis-George Tin of Idaho, led the efforts at the UN.

  48. Mumbo Jumbo 7 Apr 2010, 8:34pm

    Zeke,

    There’s no need to apologise. I’m the last one to critisise a bit of tackyness.

    I’m afraid there’s nothing nearly as excellent as your own Box Turtle Bulletin but you might try the following:

    http://news.pinkpaper.com/

    http://www.gayandlesbianhumanist.org/

    http://ptt-blog.blogspot.com/

    http://www.attitude.co.uk/index.aspx

    http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/

    I hope this is helpful.

  49. Jean-Paul Bentham 7 Apr 2010, 9:09pm

    Zeke:

    I occasionally broaden my horizons at:

    http://ukgaynews.org.uk/latest.htm

  50. this cameron is a comedian. and some of you fall for his jokes. he says the gay voter has been ignored by labour – what, does he mean when they repealed the repressive section 28 put in place by his party. or when they equalised the age of consent put in place by his party. or……the list just goes on. its pathetic that a gay man or woman can even consider voting tory considering what they have done to us in the past. truly masochistic.

  51. Jean-Paul Bentham 7 Apr 2010, 9:28pm

    @ 31:

    Thanks Sally.

    I can understand that witnessing a culture clash in one’s own backyard (garden) can be a disturbing experience, but I do differentiate between immigration and asylum, even if the media generally does not.

    However, English scholarship is nothing if not reassuring, e.g. Luke @ 18, 27.

    Bottom line, I find it difficult to wrap my mind around the concept of “illegal asylum”, and as someone mentioned in another thread, it appears that both the Tories and Labour are complicit in this lack of social justice. Hence, the need of input from the Greens and/or the Lib/Dems.

  52. If you want less Tory news on LGBT matters, see http://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/ :)

    As for immigration – regardless of the overall asylum figures, there are people who have genuine cases, recognised by the asylum services, for fleeing their country of origin, facing imprisonment or murder there, who come to the UK and are turned away by the Labour Government, in violation of the UK’s international treaty obligations.

    Only the Liberal Democrats have official party policy that people who are claiming asylum over their sexuality or gender identity, fleeing death, torture or imprisonment, should be granted asylum in the UK. We’re not talking about a vast, unsupportable flood here. We’re talking about real individuals with real stories and real threats to their existence.

  53. Jean-Paul Bentham 7 Apr 2010, 11:33pm

    @53:

    Spot on.

  54. Zeke….#s 2, 43, 45, you manage to pick two words from Pink News tory articles that you think could have been different. I dont know where you have been reading the pro tory stories you say Pink News have been publishing about the homophobic tory party ,but i seem to have missed them completely….how odd. Also how odd that you failed to post a single comment other than these anywhere on this or any other threads as to your opinion of the Homophobic tories.
    In reality the stories i have been reading about Callmedaves homophobic party have been 99% about the gaffes he and his minions have made about gay legislation and support for gay people, when they say one thing in public and another in “private” .
    Perhaps you could point me to some of the more positive stories about the tories you’ve read on this site. I would love to read them so as to be better informed. There have been no articles about the other parties with the exception of BNP, because they werent necessary. Maybe you think Pink News also supports the BNP? I think not.
    All of the articles over the last 3 months about the homophobic tories have had in excess of 100 comments for each story.Yours is the first comment along these lines. How come? Did you not notice how your pureile comments were totally ignored by all the other posters , pro and anti tory????……….
    We here in Europe dont need to have every nuance in a story pointed out to us as you do stateside…we understand irony and are well able to read between the lines .
    Before you jump all over me , i lived for ten years in Boston Mass, and was very aware of the differences in reporting between there and here.As i said we here dont need to have every last comma and period spelled out as you do over there.
    What i really think is going on in your head is this……you think that a crude attempt at childhood psychology will have the effect of making Pink News stop reporting anti tory stories in case we should all suddenly get it into our heads that Pink News supports the tories.
    Funny how nobody this side of the pond sees what you seem to see…. again point me to what you see as just one pro tory story.
    Looking for a better gay news website??? Never heard of google then i take it.??? Methinks another crude attempt at psychology….it doesnt work over here……..

  55. V-Rex…#30 “draws”…. dont you mean assembling drawers.

  56. #34 “impartial and favour tories” Euan do you know what impartial means you cant have it both ways and in the one sentence already.
    FYI….impartial a. not partial, unprejudiced, fair..favour a. look kindly upon, approve treat kindly treat with partiality, be unjust on behalf of,etc ….from the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

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