Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Peter Tatchell: What George Osborne promised me on gay rights and what he left out

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “Under Mr Cameron’s proposals, the unjust convictions will not be quashed. But as a concession to protests from the gay community, he said that a Conservative government would ensure that the convictions would no longer need to be disclosed on criminal record checks when gay men apply for certain jobs and volunteer work.”

    They CANNOT be quashed. That is British law. If you have been charged under a law that was in force at the time, it cannot be revoked. I think Cameron’s offer of preventing the records being used is the best he, or any other party could offer within the limitations of statute.

  2. Thanks Peter for doing this on all our behalfs.

    The statement regarding a free vote on gay equality issues tells us all we need to know about what we can expect under a Conservative government – the past voting record is there for all to see.

  3. Jean-Paul Bentham 11 Apr 2010, 8:41pm

    In the meantime, Iceland is legalizing gay marriage:

    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=5562&MediaType=1&Category=24

  4. When Lynne Featherstone MP (Lib-Dem)tried to discuss Gender Identity during the equality bill debate she had the words filthy perverts shouted from the Tory seats. This did not happen 5 years ago it happened in the last 12 months!

    How can a party that acts like that even begin to address LGBT bullying in our schools.

  5. JDA_Glasgow 11 Apr 2010, 8:45pm

    Can someone not send Tatchell back to his home country – Australia – PLEASE!!!!!?

    He fled here in order to avoid conscription in his native land and, since then, has ‘shouted his mouth off’ on any subject he thinks might appeal to the ‘liberal’ intelligensia. As far as I am concerned – as an out gay man – Tatchell’s behaviour and comments INCREASE homophobia, rahter than the opposite!

  6. Peter Tatchell lost my support when he declined to help us tackle issues surrounding Manchester Pride and its charity fundraising some years ago. In fact now he seems to be a big supporter of it. This is despite the fact that only around 12% of the income went to good causes in 2007 and costly tickets exclude sections of our community.

    We were left to struggle on by ourselves and in the end did provoke some changes.

    But it seems Tatchell doesn’t want to support causes that may be just but could be unpopular among certain rich and powerful vested interests. I guess the speaking invitations and thus ticket fees might dry up if he spoke out?

  7. Poor old Peter, he’s not so much gone to the dogs as gone to the Tories. “Gay marriage” is such a reactionary demand; there was a time he posed as a progressive.

  8. I agree Simon and it seems to me that many of these ‘steps forward’ bring with them a couple of steps back in other respects that no one envisaged. The destruction of our safe spaces in the name of not discriminating against straight people is one of the most obvious. There are very few men-only spaces left and centuries old gay culture has been destroyed due to being perceived as politically incorrect.

    We need to be careful about marriage and ask ourselves what kind of people are most enthusiastic about it. I reckon they’re the same ones who are most vociferous about subjects such as how we don’t need cruising areas anymore. Not only are they desperate to conform themselves but also adamant that no one else should do anything that ‘lets the side down’. Gay puritans!

    So then what we’re left with is a minority within a minority who don’t fit into this lifestyle and have an even more rotten time than before.

    This is sneaking up on us. Politicians and charities who would have defended all parts of our community, now pick and choose, deciding who are the ‘good’ gays (pink pound consumers, bar and sauna goers, civil partnered and adopting kids) and who are the ‘bad’ gays who don’t get any support (none mainstream politics, non-profit, cruising, not ‘settled down’ with kids and a mortgage).

  9. I’m gay, and a Conservative supporter. I have a “I support same sex marriage” t shirt which I’m proud to wear.
    I’m a Conservative supporter because I see the Labour Party the party of State control and the Conservative Party the party of freedom, despite it being weak on gay equality issues in the past.
    The state is your servant, never your master.
    It should defend people from every threat – but it should not use that as a premise to infringe unnecessarily on the freedom of the individual.
    As far as humanly possibly, it should crush bureaucracy and hand power to the people.
    And the state should support wealth creation, aspiration and enterprise with low taxes, not replace it with grandiose 5-year plans.
    Compassion is not just about what the State does on behalf of us all, it is about what we do as individuals, in our families, in our communities, together.

  10. The difficulty with equality is that it apes heterosexuals ;and being the same as heterosexuals undermines the otherness of gay culture, which i think helps make us unique. so f..k gay marriage! long live civil battleships!

  11. Tom, what are you chirping on about? The very fact that the conservatives won’t outright commit to gay issues shows how much regard they have for gay people. We gay people aren’t very free if we’re not equally free to get married, now are we!

    Your arguments amounts to, I like the conservatives because I dislike labour. I can sympathise with your point of view, but honestly, are the conservatives better than labour?

  12. Paul you have a curious idea of freedom if you think it is the institution of marriage. Men and women have been abandoning it like never before in recent years. Meanwhile we’re going in the opposite direction.

    By desperately trying to conform to the heterosexual world and fit in we are giving up our the unique freedom we had to be ourselves, not gaining new freedoms.

    Twenty-five years ago we had our own unique music, fashions, bars, clubs, spaces, TV shows, shops, serious magazines, bookstores. No longer. This is not progress.

  13. All I can say is that Pink Paper is clearly showing it’s political alliances now. Look at the last week – 90 per cent of stories are Tory related, regardless of if they appear positive or negative. Transparent, and after years of subscribing to Pink Paper, I will now be getting my gay/queer news elsewhere. I am not an idiot Pink Paper, and I am sadly disappinted in you.

  14. Tom- there’s a party called the ‘Liberal Democrats’. Heard of them?

    I’m sick of people acting like there’s only two parties, I hear it all the time: “I’m voting Conservative because Labour screwed up, blah blah blah”.

  15. I shall certainly be voting LibDem. I’m a huge fan of Vince Cable.

  16. @13, you’re posting on the PinkNews comments page not the PinkPaper! Given the Conservatives have launched a number of gay focused policies over the weekend, our coverage has somewhat been overtaken with their stories. We have though also published 2 news articles about the plane crash that killed both the homophobic Polish President and a gay rights advocating MP.

    We normally only publish 2 articles per weekend, so the rest are a pure bonus!

  17. SK, yes I’ve heard of the Liberal Democrats, which came about from a marriage of convenience between the old Liberals and the Social Democratic Party. The Liberals are a left of centre party, who try to be all things to all people. From my experience as a Conservative councillor they almost always vote with Labour. They are pro-Euro, and pro Regional Government. As for Vince Cable he’s admitted today that he’s not against a VAT rise, although the LD’s posters lambasted the Tories suggesting they would raise VAT. He has changed his mind too often in the past. LD’s are not going to form the next Government.

    Labour promises us that the national debt will have doubled to 1.1 trillion pounds in 2011. This year the interest on the national debt will be 43 Billion pounds, up from 27 billion last year, so we need a strong Government with the popular mandate to tackle and improve the economy, not a hung Parliament.

    I know from my own experience that the Conservative Party is a gay/lesbian friendly party.

  18. With specific regard to the first posters comments. Speaking as a lawyer now retired and living outside of the UK, convictions can be quashed it’s called a general pardon and that is both constitutionally and legally quite easy to do. Secondly, the issue about gay marriage is one of equality is it not? It is down to the individual to chose to get married or not, but if so why should it be a form different for gay people to men and women partners? What other members of the EU have done with regards to this issue the UK should do no less that Spain or Holland etc. Thirdly, the Conservatives in Government are no friends of gay people never have been and never will be. The homophobia in the Conservative party is ingrained and will always be put into service to further the political agenda of the so called faith groups of which Mr.Camaron is a out and proud supporter. Anyone like to argue seriously that Christians and Muslims are in the main well disposed to gay rights? The warning signs are in Mr. Osborne’s comments such as “Gay rights is a free vote issue. It is a matter of conscience. We don’t think MPs should be forced to follow a party-line whip,” It most certainly is not a matter of conscience it is a matter of civil justice and equality and the Tories are damned out of the mouth of Mr.Osborne by such comments as those.

  19. Peter Tatchell 12 Apr 2010, 3:02am

    Speaking personally, I would not want to get married. To me, it has a rather sexist and homophobic history. But I defend absolutely the right of others to get married, if they wish.

    The issue is equality. I resent the homophobic discrimination that says same-sex couples can’t get married. We’re banned. That’s homophobic and it should be opposed, even if we are critical of marriage, as I am.

    The ban on same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships is sexual apartheid: one law for straights and another law for queers. If we would not defend a ban on black people getting married, why should we excuse the ban on gay couples?

    If the black community was banned from marriage and offered civil partnerships instead, most of us would condemn it as racism and apartheid. So why are some people defending civil partnerships for same-sex couples?

    Separate laws based on race or sexuality are not equality. They are forms of apartheid.

  20. Quite right Peter! You’re just a shining light for human rights (including queer rights). Thank you for all your years of being ‘out there’ and consistent.

  21. re comment #19: Yes Peter, a simple matter of equality is involved

  22. If marriage and civil partnerships are equal in the eyes of the law and the state, we must ask why transsexuals are forced to divorce their partners and then have a civil partnership. If both are seen as equal, the state should simply change the certificate not force such draconian measures on couples!

    The only logical conclusion you can make in such cases is marriage and civil partnerships are not equal in standing!

  23. Tim Hopkins 12 Apr 2010, 6:55am

    Abi you’re right, and of course, automatically changing someone’s marriage certificate into a civil partnership certificate, when they get gender recognition, would not be the answer. A lot of married trans people want to stay married – they don’t want the state interfering in their marriage, compulsorily changing it to a CP!

    Marriage equality is the only answer: open marriage and CP to couples regardless of gender, and remove the rules that say that trans people have to end their marriage or CP before getting gender recognition.

  24. George Broadhead, PTT 12 Apr 2010, 9:37am

    Peter Tachell writes: “It is a big let-down that David Cameron is proposing only two gay rights policies. His zero tolerance of homophobic bullying is too vague. It is contradicted by the Tory leadership’s decision last week to block government plans to ensure that pupils aged 15 and over receive sex and relationship education to counter homophobia.”

    It is also contradicted by Cameron’s support (as indicated in an interview with The Catholic Herald) for faith schools (about a third of the total) being allowed to teach homosexuality in line with the biblical stance on it – i.e. that its practices are ‘sinful’.

  25. hi peter do you remember stating that if a few people die because of the stop murder music in jamaica it’s a price worth paying? you get a death threat and the campaign stops. you don’t seem to have any purpose other than making a fuss you caused me a few years of serious greif but I guess you don’t give a fcuk you’ve moved on to marriage and I had to clean up your mess. you’re a dreadful oppourtunist. and comparing cp to aparthide e is just foolish. and you wonder why black people want nothing to do with you

  26. @dean

    You accuse Peter of being an opportunist but looks thats what your being !

    Or is this abuse and the same post cut and pasted time and again coming from Tory HQ and the spin machine?

  27. actually abi I think your posts are usually good. my post is my experience of becoming a target for those who were against the campaign. tatchell spoke on my behalf without my permission. when the heat reached him he stopped the murder music campaign immediately. after endured four year of hassle and abuse. the way he handled the campaign show he knows nothing about jamaian culture and I feel for the hundreds and gay men and lesbian women who have suffered because this misguided hamfisted attempt to change a culture overnight

  28. Can someone not send Tatchell back to his home country – Australia – PLEASE!!!!!?

    He fled here in order to avoid conscription in his native land and, since then, has ‘shouted his mouth off’ on any subject he thinks might appeal to the ‘liberal’ intelligensia. As far as I am concerned – as an out gay man – Tatchell’s behaviour and comments INCREASE homophobia, rahter than the opposite!

    but any laws that peter and others like him have help to abolish or change to make your life as a gay man easier, I am sure you have taken full advantage of!

  29. tatchell also said if a few jamaicans die it’s a price worth paying. abi imagine if it was you life he was putting on the line without consultation. it’s not nice I can tell you.

  30. This is excellent and shows Cameron up for who and what his party stands for – beware: http://johannhari.com//2010/04/09/if-youre-looking-for-class-war-you-can-find-it-in-david-camerons-policies

  31. Do not be fooled by the Cameron and Osbourne: this meeting came about out of embarrassment and panic that the Tories were leaking LGBT voters. There is no strategy, no Tory party conference has ever supported gay rights and the Tories continue to cuddle up to quasi-fascists in Europe in full knowledge of their repulsive views (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/11/conservatives-report-extremist-polish-allies).

    Any commitment to LGBT rights requires policies and action to back it up and to change people’s lives. More action on homophobic bullying – in the week after they prevented sex education classes for all 15 year olds – is an empty promise. It is crumbs from the table.

    This article is excellent and shows Cameron up for who and what his party stands for – beware: http://johannhari.com//2010/04/09/if-youre-looking-for-class-war-you-can-find-it-in-david-camerons-policies

  32. GS: “Twenty-five years ago we had our own unique music, fashions, bars, clubs, spaces, TV shows, shops, serious magazines, bookstores. No longer. This is not progress.”

    Oh but it is! You want equality? Well welcome to the real world of the rather ordinary, mundane life of the heterosexual. You can’t have your cake *and* eat it. All most gay people want is exactly what the straights have, which is to be treated just like everyone else. The reality of it is though, it’s all just a little dull. It’s like black people, gays, and many other minorities want to be accepted as the same, yet seem to be hell-bent on carving out their own niches to stand out from that crowd they are so desperate to fit in to. I don’t see newspapers or bars for ginger people, because there is no need for one. Maybe one day even this rag will close down because there will not be enough reason to keep it open.

  33. George Osborne said “David Cameron and I are very happy to consider the case for gay marriage.”

    Jack Straw (Labour) last month: “The Government have always maintained that marriage itself is only between a man and a woman.”

    Evan Harris (Lib Dem) speaking on 6th April 2010: “The most effective way of dealing with what I recognise is a legitimate wish of people to have a religious aspect to their civil partnership would be to provide for same-sex marriage and amend the Marriage Acts. My party has been very clear: we think society has moved on sufficiently for the Government and the House to take a lead on that.”

  34. “They CANNOT be quashed. That is British law. If you have been charged under a law that was in force at the time, it cannot be revoked”

    Again you show you lack of knowledge in these areas. In UK law (as is the case in most EU countries) have some means to overturn, or “quash”, a wrongful conviction, for a miscarriage of justice, correcting “errors of impunity”, or addressing travesty of justice and deliberate miscarriage of justice. Once a conviction is quashed, its removed from that personal criminal record.

    Would you like some examples of this, where convictions have been quashed, or do you think you can find them on line yourself?

    I assume the reason you are so misinformed and incorrect in your statements is that you prefer that these conviction stand? No doubt it appeals your your belief that all gay men are promiscuous weak-minded fools, with you being the only exception naturally, and worthy of these convictions.

  35. Of the 15 stories appearing on the front page of Pink News, 12 are about the Tory Party.

    Yet Pink News claims not to be biased.

    How stupid do the editors and reporters regard us?

  36. SimonM, I agree. But nearly all media has a biased agenda in one form or another, just some more then others…. maybe Pinknews is trying to be the gay Fox News of its day?

  37. Just looked at the Labour Manifesto (pdf), and it doesn’t have anything new for LGBT. On the other hand, things may be even worse with the Tories who will probably get rid of the Human Rights Act.

  38. Peter Tatchell 12 Apr 2010, 1:30pm

    In reply to Dean:

    You are speaking nonsense. I never said it would be OK if any Jamaicans die. The Stop Murder Music campaign continues. It has not stopped, as you are trying to suggest. I am still involved, despite receiving death threats, assaults in the street and attacks on my home.

    The Stop Murder Music (SMM) campaign is much bigger than me. It includes dozens of groups worldwide. It has the support of Jamaican LGBT activists and, in Britain, the support of the Black Gay Men’s Advisory Group (Dennis Carney of BGMAG is a leading SMM campaigner) and many other black activists, gay and straight. You can criticise me, but please don’t make up lies.

    You can go to my website to follow the history of the SMM campaign. The info is in the index under Pop Music:

    http://www.petertatchell.net/popmusic/popmusicindex.htm

  39. Sister Mary clarence 12 Apr 2010, 1:37pm

    “n the meantime, Iceland is legalizing gay marriage:”

    I’d be happier if they focused on paying us back the money they owe us personally.

  40. dave, I think it depend where you look. I’ve just clicked on the link you provided and run a few basic word searches and come up with:
    p.3.5 “More will be invested in anti-bullying interventions including tackling homophobic bullying”
    p.3.6 “compulsory, high quality Sex and Relationship Education” (I’m taking this to include a fair treatment and coverage of LGBT issues, as previously advocated)
    p.5.4 “Labour is proud to be the party that legislated first to criminalise incitement to racial hatred, religious hatred, and homophobic hatred – and we will reverse the Tory attempt to undermine this latest legislation, invoking the Parliament Act if necessary to force it through”
    p.2.4 “New legislation and the Equality and Human Rights Commission will ensure that people are not held back at work because of their gender, age, disability, race and religious or sexual orientation. The new Equality Act will be enforced, promoting fairness across our society.”

    Not had time for a thorough read yet but I think that’s more than nothing!

  41. Peter, No. 19, you’re absolutely right. The opponents of marriage equality of course do NOT see the larger picture on the marriage issue. Eight countries now allow us to enter into civil marriages. I don’t see eight countries providing civil partnerships of the British variety, not even Ireland’s will have the same rights. Same-sex marriage equality is the trend and civil partnerships will NEVER be the norm across the EU with six countries already on board. There are many disparities between civil partnerships and the hodge podge of same-sex unions within the EU, none of which outnumber the six that allow us to marry as a single entity. The only solution of course is to open civil marriage across the board to resolve those huge differences, while reserving civil partnerships for those who would rather not be married. The two can co-exist comfortably. Personally, I don’t think straight couples would want a civil partnership if it were available to them, although I think it should be. The implications as to why they wouldn’t are quite apparent in the broader picture.

  42. Tim Hopkins 12 Apr 2010, 1:47pm

    Nothing new, perhaps, but it’s worth mentioning that there are one or two LGB (although not T) related things in the Labour manifesto (I searched for all the relevant part-words I could think of!). It will be interesting to see how the other manifestos compare.

    Under “Fairness and work”, page 2:4 :

    “New legislation and the Equality and Human Rights Commission will ensure that people are not held back at work because of their gender, age, disability, race and religious or sexual orientation. The new Equality Act will be enforced, promoting fairness across our society. The public duty to promote equality of opportunity is being extended.”

    In the Education section, on page 3:5 there is this:

    “More will be invested in anti-bullying interventions including tackling homophobic bullying.”

    In the Crime and immigration section, page 5:4 :

    “Labour is proud to be the party that legislated first to criminalise incitement to racial hatred, religious hatred, and homophobic hatred – and we will reverse the Tory attempt to undermine this latest legislation, invoking the Parliament Act if necessary to force it through.”

  43. Tim Hopkins 12 Apr 2010, 1:51pm

    Bob (#19), just on your last point: In the Netherlands, where registered partnership (their version of civil partnership) is available to mixed-sex couples, about 10% of mixed-sex couples choose it, rather than marriage, even though the legal effects are virtually identical.

    So opening CP to couples regardless of gender is more I think than just the principle of equality – some mixed-sex couples specifically want it.

  44. Tim Hopkins 12 Apr 2010, 1:53pm

    Oops that should have said #41 not #19!

  45. Will: “Again you show you lack of knowledge in these areas. In UK law (as is the case in most EU countries) have some means to overturn, or “quash”, a wrongful conviction, for a miscarriage of justice, correcting “errors of impunity”, or addressing travesty of justice and deliberate miscarriage of justice. Once a conviction is quashed, its removed from that personal criminal record.”

    No, YOU seem to interpret law the suits you. There is one thing where somebody who has been charged with a crime is later found not to have committed it, or the case is flaky due to poor evidence, or new evidence appearing. however, it is an ENTIRELY different matter when the people were charged and duly found guilty of the crimes that were in force at the time of the arrest.

    This would be equivalent to everyone that had been charged for smoking Cannabis when it was a class ‘A’ drug having their sentences reduced or quashed when it was downgraded to a class ‘C’.

    Laws change over time, and one can only be charged according to the current statute; Should that statute change, the original charge still stands, as that is what was in force at that point in time. It is a cornerstone of not just British law, but all legal systems throughout the world. The principle could equally work backwards where a law has been upgraded, so you could be retrospectively charged with a law that wasn’t even in place when you committed the act. Nobody is going to allow it.

    All non-serious crimes are wiped from the record after seven years anyway, and the only situations where anyone would still have a record going back to pre-1967 that would be checked would be such things as CRB checks. I know these currently do go that far back, because I deal with security companies that do those checks. If legislation were to be brought in to ignore those offences, it would achieve everything those people need in order to work in sensitive jobs.

  46. Peter what you said was “Tatchell says the Stop Murder Music campaign has succeeded in provoking debate in Jamaica, but concedes that, in the short term at least, the debate may have made life more difficult for the country’s gay population. “There was a very similar effect produced by the black civil rights movement in the deep South. It provoked a backlash, the number of church burnings and lynchings went up. It was a tragic but necessary process to go through in order to vanquish white racism.” The difference is that the the civil rights movement was self determined, you thought you knew better and let them suffer the consequences.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2004/dec/10/gayrights.popandrock

    I think I get it now

  47. United Kingdom
    The power to grant pardons and reprieves in the United Kingdom is known as the royal prerogative of mercy. It was traditionally in the absolute power of the monarch to pardon and release an individual who had been convicted of a crime from that conviction and its intended penalty. Pardons were granted to many in the 18th century on condition that the convicted felons accept transportation overseas, such as to Australia. The first General Pardon in England was issued in celebration of the coronation of Edward III in 1327. In 2006 all British soldiers executed for cowardice during World War I were pardoned, resolving a long-running controversy about the justice of their executions. (See Armed Forces Act 2006, [1].)

    There are significant procedural differences in the present use of the royal pardon, however. Today the monarch only grants pardons on the advice of a government minister: the Justice Secretary within England and Wales, the First Minister of Scotland, or the Northern Ireland Secretary. The Defence Secretary is responsible for military cases. It is government policy to only grant pardons to those who are “morally” innocent of the offence, as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by misapplication of the law. Pardons are generally no longer issued prior to conviction, but only after conviction. A pardon is no longer considered to remove the conviction itself, but only removes the penalty which was imposed.

    The issue at question was not if it should be done, but rather if it could be done. It can. The will to deal with the fundamental issues on this matter can only be expressed in the Parliament if effective action to redress is to be taken. Convictions are in the main considered ‘spent’ over a period of time, but that does nothing to clear the names of the men who shouldn’t have been convicted in the first place does it?

  48. “No, YOU seem to interpret law the suits you. There is one thing where somebody who has been charged with a crime is later found not to have committed it, or the case is flaky due to poor evidence, or new evidence appearing. however, it is an ENTIRELY different matter when the people were charged and duly found guilty of the crimes that were in force at the time of the arrest.”

    Wrong again.

    “the original charge still stands, as that is what was in force at that point in time.”

    Sorry, wrong. Look up “ex-post facto law”

    The law can be changed by statute retrospectively to remove prior convictions. You only have to look at Nazi Germany, many laws enacted by the Nazi’s were overturned and all convictions quashed. And constitutional law in most countries, i.e. a case to the supreme court, can quash any laws, and in certain cases, their convictions if the law itself was deem unconstitutional.

    And the mechanism for this, in the UK and most other western countries, is an ex-post facto law (from the Latin for “from after the action”) or retroactive law:- a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences or status of actions committed that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

    You should really try read up on the legal situation and precedent before spouting your “I’m right becuase I say I am” nonsense which is usually your blinkered black and white absolutes. Read it up for yourself, I’m sick of pointing out when you’re wrong, it becoming repetitive.

    If you don’t know what you’re talking about, at least be man enough to admit it, or better yet, refrain from making an idiot out of yourself in public by educating yourself first.

  49. paul canning 12 Apr 2010, 3:31pm

    Dean – you are wrong on Jamaica and the Stop Murder Music campaign. It is fully supported by the organised LGBT community is Jamaica.

    I am concerned that no-one with any clout seems to be raising the issue of LGBT asylum seekers. They are the most vulnerable and ignored part of the community. They are not in Stonewall’s election topics list and now Peter isn’t raising them with the Tories.

    I managed to get a very interesting and actually encouraging response from Cameron on this issue and have submitted my question to Brown (which I could probably write now given his previous bland comments to Johan Haari – for background see here http://bit.ly/d28GAk). Please, if anyone else is concerned about this issue do raise it where you can.

  50. Will: Please don’t f_cking patronise me. I actually learnt Latin at school. You hardly have a grasp of plain English.

    Nazi laws etc are an exceptionally unusual situation, and America’s convoluted state / federal laws are no better, they make up half this stuff as they go along.

    Please be so good as to point out any ex post facto cases in recent British criminal law. I think you will find they are rare, if not entirely non-existent.

    And is it not possible for you to have an intelligent debate without your usual queen-bitch sneering attitude and constant abuse? I am quite will ing to admit when I’m wrong, which is more than you are.

  51. @ DavidW ” … I think that’s more than nothing!”

    It is indeed. Thanks for putting me right on that.

  52. I wish Pink News could pretend to be balanced in their election coverage.

    They are losing all credibility by their blatant pro-Tory slant.

    I wonder do the Observer know how pro-Tory Pink News is.

    Does anyone know of an alternative British LGBT newssite as I don’t want to only read pro-Tory propaganda on Pink News.

    Especially considering how appalling the Tories track record on homophobia actually is.

  53. Paul – A few rich upper middles class people in gated communities do not speak for all Jamaicans it’s those guys and women in the ghetto who have to deal with the violence.There the ones being sung about but again they have no voice It’s typcal middle class arrognace.

  54. Why is everyone is such a froth over this rag’s Tory bias? They have been pro-Labour for as long as I’ve been on here, and only recently started pushing Cameron. Maybe that’s they are more newsworthy. What exactly have Labour done recently? Journalists hold no allegiance to anyone, they are just sluts for a good story.

  55. paul canning 12 Apr 2010, 5:42pm

    I’m sorry Dean but your point is facetious and insulting. How do you know that Jamaican organisations like JFLAG do not contain people from the ‘ghetto’? And how do you know that these people you say you are concerned about do not want to see the campaign to stop musicians inciting murder?

    The campaign is not owned by Peter, it is international and many, many Jamaicans are involved with it. If you think it’s a bad idea tell them. I’d be interested to hear their response .. and your proposal. Do you have one or are you just trying to attack Peter?

  56. What an interesting read these comments provide!

    1. Only a fool would waste his vote on the Tories. The mainstream media have paid no attention to the possibility of “gay marriage” under the Tories because it is transparently clear that there are no such plans. All that happened yesterday is that they fobbed the gay activists off with it, AND ice-cream. How patronising.

    2. Poor Dean has clearly got a chip on his shoulder and his facts all wrong over the Jamaican situation and has given poor Peter a hard time, but, Peter, take no notice, there are all sorts of people running round with crazy ideas.

    3. RobN accuses Will over and over of bad behaviour and yet it’s RobN himself who makes the most arrogant, outrageous, and unjustified claims. Good for you, Will, for pulling him up short.

    4. And whoever runs PinkNews is clearly all-go for the Tories. How sad. How deluded. He or she must be young, cosseted, and quite out of touch with reality despite continually running the reports of appalling homophobia throughout the UK!

  57. sally is absolutely right.

  58. sally your right I was on the receiving end of a backlash with no support I guess it still hurts

  59. Ste (13) “I am not an idiot Pink Paper, and I am sadly disappointed in you.”

    I beg to differ. This is Pink News. You are indeed an idiot.

  60. “Please be so good as to point out any ex post facto cases in recent British criminal law. I think you will find they are rare, if not entirely non-existent.”

    So why would I engage you further on this? I’ve clearly shown you where your wrong. You’ve been shown you can’t listen or learn. You learning Latin means sweet f.a. when it comes to law, especially when you’re proven to be an intellectual retard on this matter…. maybe you should try reading a book in English, you seem pretty effin’ stupid to me when it comes to most subjects – other than racism of course.

    “And is it not possible for you to have an intelligent debate without your usual queen-bitch sneering attitude and constant abuse? I am quite will ing to admit when I’m wrong, which is more than you are.”

    Bitch sneering? Me? Yeah, right, its me okay…. don’t you just love hypocrites. Do you even read your own posts, or are you so angry angry after bashing out your tripe on the keyboard with your face you cant?

    You’ve been proven wrong. Yet you’re only response is an angry little bitch tantrum….. Speaks volumes, really.

    Moron.

  61. Sally, well said. And RobN, why do you behave like a spoilt child when someone takes the time to show you where you erred? You were wrong. And that’s okay, ya’ll human. You were corrected. Now grow the fukin hell up and quit the fukin screamin like a scaled brat.

  62. LOL@ david#61 – and too true mate the Rob fellow is a nut!

    I have to say, so far, the more PinkNews tries to ram the Tory party down my gob, the more I suspect their motives. Surely if the Tory party were good to their word on gay rights, there wouldn’t be so many contradictions coming out, like this article? Its LibDem for me, I just don’t trust the Cameron fellow, other than him trying to court a few votes with the help of good old PinkNews “journalism”.

  63. Dave’s Big Society…

    In recent days it appears that Dave and his crack team have not really worked out who is in their ‘big society’. While the shadow home secretary revealed his support of homophobic bigotry, George Osborne says the Tories will not extend marriage rights to the LGBT community while proclaiming that ‘we are all in this together’. Clearly someone needs to revise the script- or better still, their ideas.

    Now for your amusement a short film about the genius of David-“Call me Dave”- Cameron’s right-hand man, George -“Don’t call me Gideon”- Osborne

  64. It get’s so confusing when trying to sort facts from reports on PinkNews and so-called “news” outlets.

    I read a report about this meeting linked from UKGayNews that said that the Conservative representative in the meeting said that the Conservatives WOULD NOT “quash” convictions for consensual gay sex convictions but would allow a policy where such incidents would not be REQUIRED to be reported.

    Then PinkNews reports that the convictions will be erased (can PinkNews provide a reliable source to back up this claim?) and the Times, the morning, reported that the Conservatives in the meeting promised to “QUASH” these convictions, which is the exact OPPOSITE of what the Tatchell and his delegation said they said.

    Where can we get the facts without the partisan spin?

  65. Emmarainbow 13 Apr 2010, 12:11am

    I’m not sure what people are suggesting about ‘pushing tories’ – they’ve been in the news a lot in the last few days with gay rights/lack of, they’ve just a protest aimed at them and they’re trying to contest that.
    A lot of these reports have been pretty damning – it’s easy to see through a lot of Cameron’s vague statements of support, and articles like this are rather obviously anti-tory.

    PinkNews has also asked Cameron to answer questions on LGBTQ issues first. In the run up to an election, I’d say that was pretty unfortunate for him – he can’t know what will be most important a week before, whereas it’ll be Brown next, followed by Clegg – Clegg will have the most knowledge to counteract the other two parties (and the strongest policies anyway… *cough*). I’d say that makes them more Libdem, especially since those articles will refer to each other. However, could just be alphabeticals…

  66. Emmarainbow 13 Apr 2010, 1:20am

    Also Abi1975 – that’s shocking Re comment #4. Do you have any sources for that? I’d like to look into it…

  67. Mihangel apYrs 13 Apr 2010, 7:49am

    Emmarainbow, you’re quite right. There’s been a lot of inquisition of the tories recently about their stance on LGBT issues, but not a lot of holding labour to account: that is probably why PN has been so swathed in blue.

    Perhaps once Brown answers questions (generated here) there will be scope for engagement with them.

    It would be useful to get statements from the other parties about LGBT rights while we’re at it

  68. Will: By my very statement I concede that there is indeed an option to change statute, and in the respect, I stand corrected. However, your talking of “quashing” convictions has nothing to do with this. That is a case-based situation, rather than a global legal one.
    I will ask again, please be so good as to name a single instance of ex post facto situation in recent British law.

    As for your continuing stream of insulting crap, it only demonstrates that you cannot have a civil argument without having to use argumentum ad hominem remarks to try to justify yourself.
    (It’s Latin dear, you might have to look it up).

  69. There some positve news about the EU wide recognition of the British CP, it seems that many countries which already have a CP/union/marriage will recognise the British CP as its equivalent – this is a good website – http://www.uklgig.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2213&p=8596#p8596
    Need to work on those countries which have nothing !!

  70. Peter what you said was “Tatchell says the Stop Murder Music campaign has succeeded in provoking debate in Jamaica, but concedes that, in the short term at least, the debate may have made life more difficult for the country’s gay population. “There was a very similar effect produced by the black civil rights movement in the deep South. It provoked a backlash, the number of church burnings and lynchings went up. It was a tragic but necessary process to go through in order to vanquish white racism.” The difference is that the the civil rights movement was self determined, you thought you knew better and let them suffer the consequences.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2004/dec/10/gayrights.popandrock

    I think I get it now

    No comment then?

  71. Dean, would have preferred it for nobody to have brought any attention at all to the appalling state of affairs in Jamaica. I suggest you stop blaming Peter for having highlighted the situation, and place the blame where you should place it: on the shoulders of the homophobes in Jamaica!

  72. “(It’s Latin dear, you might have to look it up)”

    I don’t need to look it up, having two science degrees, both masters level, I am well versed in Latin “dear”, but thanks for the heads up, I appreciate you trying elevate yourself to my level.

    Lets leave the law research to you, shall we? The 400 year English heritage should give you an excellent starting point in British Legal President.

  73. sally suck my balls

  74. Dean, it has to be agreed that you are behaving with vulgarity.

    Stop it.

    And I second what Sally has said. Blame the homophobes and the scriptures that power them and not fighters like Peter who actually do positive and brave things to further LGBT rights.

  75. ooohhh get her.

  76. Will: “I don’t need to look it up, having two science degrees, both masters level, I am well versed in Latin “dear”, but thanks for the heads up, I appreciate you trying elevate yourself to my level. Lets leave the law research to you, shall we? The 400 year English heritage should give you an excellent starting point in British Legal President. ”

    I think that you need to rise to mine. You might understand some Latin, but if you grasped even a modicum of English, you would know the word is “precedent”, not “President”.

    1350–1400; (adj.) ME < L praecēdent- (s. of praecēdēns) prp. of praecēdere to go before, precede (see -ent); (n.) late ME, deriv. of the adj.
    Note, that’s of Middle English origin.

  77. rob-n can’t you tell when someone has just made a typo? are you that desperate, honey?

  78. To Mr Peter Tatchell.

    Two questions to you: is governmental restriction to marry 13 years of age male person to 13 years fo age female person is a sexual aparteid and based on age discriminaiton in your opinion? If so, why you never speaking on behalf heterosexual young people of 13 years fo age who easily can love each other and establish own family with reproduction of healthy children for benefit of humanity?

  79. Peter Tatchell needs to get a propper job and keep his nose out of stuff. Maybe he should get a job in Moscow, he wouldnt last long there sticking his nose in to things.

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