The ironic thing is that the people who vandalised his posters would probably be the type of people who would vote Tory.
That Alan Duncan character is the same guy who condemned the treatment of thieving MP’s, considering it appalling the way those thieving little sh!ts were being treated by the press and public over their inability to stop stealing from their constituencies.
I hope he loses his seat.
Thieves should not be re-elected – and that goes for ALL the parties!
This happening under Labour and 13 years of Labour Education.
It was most probably those nasty little B@st@rds from UKIP or BNP Lite as the should be called!
On balance I think it far more likely that this type of behvaiour is likely to be from former Liebour supporters.
The only genuinely homophobic party is the BNP. This is a party of former Liebour voters so I guess they are the most likely perpetrators.
Anyway, only 21 days left of Liebour now.
Abi1975: Why would UKIP supporters do that? Most of the ones I know are either gay or gay friendly. Don’t slander people you know nothing about.
Wow Vulpus, you must be very proud of your sense of humour. Liebour, next you be calling him Tony Bliar. I’ve got one for you, how about the CONservative Party led by Boy George Osbourne and CamerChameleon.
I have no idea who would sink so low as to deface this guy’s posters because of his sexuality, there are several objectionable things about him and none of them are the fact that he is gay.
Seems like Rutland is a nice balanced open minded place. Aside from that what category would Alan Duncan fit in to? Silver fox? Sugar daddy?
Yes it’s unacceptable. Maybe you should look around you Mr. Duncan and see who it is that encouraged and encourages such hatred.
“The only genuinely homophobic party is the BNP.”
And the Tory Party of course.
The fact that Chris Grayling has not even been reprimanded, let alone sacked for his support for illegal discrimination against gay people, is a sign of the true, homophobic colours of the Tories.
Alan Duncan is a little rat. He was quite rightly suspended from the front bench for defending thieving MP’s.
However Chris Grayling engaged in far more worrying activities – by advocating BNP-style law-breaking against gay peope yet he faces no consequences from his party.
The Tories support homophobia you see.
Nobody knows who vandalised the posters.
It’s just an example of homophobia of course like many others.
“And the Tory Party of course.”
Yes, but I was talking about the actual, real world not some imaginary parallel existence where a specious chain of logic allows ludicrous speculation to masquerade as fact.
Parallel existence? Loopy Rover, do you actually read the Daily Wail?
@pfft: Silver fox. Definately.
Heres’s a video to raise the spirits:
Here’s a video to raise the spirits :)
Here’s another video to raise the spirits :)
Vulpus Rex writes:
imaginary parallel existence where a specious chain of logic allows ludicrous speculation to masquerade as fact.
That sounds like the world of Vulpus Rex to me.
Does anybody know exactly HOW the posters were defaced?
Anyway, here is a challenge to any gay, lesbian, bi, or trans person who is the slightest bit inclined to vote Tory on May 6.
Select just six ordinary typical Conservative voters who are not particularly well-known to you.
Visit each one, look them in the eye, and then ask the following question:
1. “Do you think that a Christian person, a Catholic person, a Jewish person, a Muslim person, or a person of any faith, should have the right on the grounds of their religious beliefs to refuse to provide goods or services to gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender people?”
When they have answered this question, double-check their attitude by asking this second question:
2. “Do you think that a Christian person, a Catholic person, a Jewish person, a Muslim person, or a person of any faith, WHO IS RUNNING A HOTEL, MOTEL, OR GUESTHOUSE, should have the right on the grounds of their religious beliefs to refuse to give a double-bed to two persons of the same sex?”
If they answer something like “Yes!” or “I think people should have the right to make up their own minds on this”, then ask them a third and final question:
3. “If YOU were running A HOTEL, MOTEL, OR GUEST-HOUSE and I turned up with a friend of mine OF THE SAME SEX AS ME and we asked you to give us a room with a double-bed, would YOU give us the the double-bed with dignity or respect or would you give some kind of excuse and tell us to find somewhere else?
Do not vote Tory if you have not performed the above test.
“…I was talking about the actual, real world not some imaginary parallel existence where a specious chain of logic allows ludicrous speculation to masquerade as fact.
Like your constantly counting down the “certain” demise of Labour, Vulpus Rex? Which, according to the polls (and common opinion on PinkNews forums), could definately be considered “ludicrous speculation masquerading as fact”.
Given all the well-researched evidence factually – and thoughtfully – presented on these forums and by the liberal media, gays with self-respect will vote Labour or Lib Dem come June 6th.
As others have so eloquently said before – a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for homophobia.
It’s a bit sad that people go to the extent of vandalizing to this extent. If it was banksy at least he would do something against the party and not the person
“Given all the well-researched evidence factually – and thoughtfully – presented on these forums and by the liberal media, gays with self-respect will vote Labour or Lib Dem come June 6th.”
Have you just made that up.
If you check your facts, Labour has lost the gay vote to the Tories
Sister Mary Clarence:
“Have you just made that up? If you check your facts, Labour has lost the gay vote to the Tories.”
Which part have I allegedly “made up”? That gays with self-respect would vote for a party that doesn’t see them as second-class? How remarkable.
Labour “losing” the gay vote is an outright lie. How on earth has this “fact” been quantified? Judging by the majority of comments on PinkNews alone – a website with obvious Tory sympathies – the Conservatives are positively vilified. Every broadsheet (including The Times) has reported the huge downturn in support by gay voters – compounded by recent gaffs by Chris Grayling, not to mention every half-arsed media appearence “stammering” Cameron makes on gay issues.
Why is this so hard for LGBTories to understand?
Why would we, in good conscience, vote for a party that completely ommits us from its manifesto? (Aside from a paltry tax inclusion). A party whose senior members continue to discriminate against us, and traditionally hold gays in the lowest possible regard. Time and again people on these forums have presented irrefutable facts that (catagorically) prove the Tories are indifferent to gay rights – and STILL the LGBTories (a contradiction if ever I heard one) absolutely REFUSE to acknowledge these failings. Just look at the party’s voting record. What exactly constitutes a “fact” in your eyes when the black-and-white truth is staring you in the face?
Cameron’s “great ignored” are the hateful Right Wing lobbyists and armchair cynics who populate the Internet forums, spewing reactionary poison and advocating our downfall at every turn. Voting Conservative will empower these lunatics and their warped sense of entitlement until he relents on his so-called “promises” and let’s the hyennas take over the watering hole.
LGBTories need to take a good, hard look at themselves and ask if a Brtain where gay rights are overlooked is really a place they want to live. There are no second chances. If you want a government that is progressive on gay issues, vote LibDem or Labour.
Clegg did really well last night why is pink news ignoring it?
“Like your constantly counting down the “certain” demise of Labour, Vulpus Rex?”
There are many good reasons to believe that the Tories will win this election, but that is not my point.
Hung parliament, Tory win, doesn’t matter. As long as Liebour cling to that gurning fool Brown they will lose badly in the election. He is a disaster.
Clegg performed brilliantly for the lib dems last night but he won’t take votes from the Tories, he’ll take them from Liebour.
Liebour are doomed – only 20 days left now!
Good points, Paolo. Good for you!
As for last night’s debate, yes, Clegg was good. But it was really more a touch of the Bill Clintons that he had rather than anything better.
Brown was the man of solidity and substance but, of course, the greater number of the British public are ageist and superficial and unfortunately a lot of them have swallowed the Tory propaganda and the constant vulgar Tory personalising of “another five years of Gordon Brown” rather rather than referring honourably to Labour.
Cameron showed that he simply cannot hide his shallowness, despite how much he screws his face up and does his best to fake earnestness. He’s a professional PR man and it shows. You are what you have done with your life. You can’t hide it unless you are one hell of a professional actor, and Call-Me-Dave ain’t that – he’s just an amateur actor.
“If you check your facts, Labour has lost the gay vote to the Tories”
Well according to Pink News poll, last year 39% of gay people would vote Tory and 27% would vote Labour.
Last week the new poll showed that Tory support among LGBT people had collapsed to 20% (Labour remain at 27%)
And that poll was taken before the impact of Chris Grayling’s BNP-style homophobic musings became known.
Back to Alan Duncan – well it’s upsetting for him to have his posters defaced with homophobic slurs.
It would have been better it they had merely been defaced with phrases like ‘Thief’
Duncan was a thief, claiming for all sorts on his expenses.
Thieves should not prosper.
There are gay people whose politics are on the centre-right. It is the advocacy of sound money, regulation to promote rather than supplant competition and efficient allocation of resources through the price mechanism. No doubt, supporters of all parties want to achieve the best living standards for the most people.
Gay people exist at all levels of society and position themselves across the political spectrum. There is no ‘gay vote’ just as there is no ‘women’s vote’ or no ‘black vote’ or no ‘Jewish vote’.
Whilst recognising that the Conservative Party, realistically the only proper party on the right, has less desirable elements to it, gay people are no less gay, and are not self-hating, to support it.
The vicious, internal attacking of gay person’s sexuality by other gay people on the basis of their politics is as nasty as homophobia. Homophobia lumps together all gay people as one on the basis of a shared sexuality and reduces the diversity of gay people to one feature. The attacking of gay persons by gay persons does the same – it reduces the diversity of gay people to one defining feature by suggesting that as “gay people” our politics should all be the same.
Being gay is not an ideal. It is a fact. To attack that, rather than the politics, is to assume the power to determine who can and cannot properly be gay. It is divisive and self-harming.
Well said, de Villiers
De Villiers has spoken quite wrongly in saying at #26 that “There is no ‘gay vote’ just as there is no ‘women’s vote’ or no ‘black vote’ or no ‘Jewish vote’.”
Every political party knows down right well there are such votes, and that they are very very real. It is for this reason, obviously, that since their recent gaffes, Call-Me-Dave and Christopher Grayling, have been back-peddling and soft-soaping “the gay vote” as much as they HAVE! Why? Because they’re desperate for every vote they can get, including the vote of us queers!
That is not to say, at the same time, that there are, for example, some black women who will not vote according to either black or feminist principles but according to some other issue or comhination of issues. There will be some LGBT people who will vote according to non-LGBT issues.
De Villiers, despite the grand name, then continues with a similarly crass and erroneous statement, saying “Whilst recognising that the Conservative Party, realistically the only proper party on the right, has less desirable elements to it, gay people are no less gay, and are not self-hating, to support it.”
De Villiers can chant the above in lordly tones for as long as he or she likes, but for any LGBT person to vote for such a bunch of establishment-loving, monarchy-loving, and bishop-licking toadies as are ebing led by the likes of William Hague, Iain Duncan-Smith, and Christopher Grayling, would indicate either empty-headed and brainless lack of analysis or complete self-hatred.
In the case of most gay Tory-lovers, their most unfortunate problem is a lack of analysis and consideration coupled with a deep-seated desire to be “one of them”, to be part of the stinking old British establishment with all its rotten glamour and swank!
There are votes from people who are gay, women, black or Jewish – and perhaps a combination of these four. For people within these groups, they may place more emphasis than others on particular policies. What there is not, and I am not sure that Eddy has articulated such an argument, is a ‘gay vote’ or any such group vote.
Gay votes, as Jewish voters, as women voters, as black voters, sit throughout the political spectrum. No-one would call a black person, or a Jewish person, or an Asian person self-hating on account of their support for a centre-right party notwithstanding the Conservative Party’s history in race relations through the fifties to the eighties.
What is hating is the view on the Left, ventilated frequently, that constantly equates error with evil. This view disagrees with the Right and those who support the centre-right, considering that such false ideas are not just false but evil, as are the people that hold them. It is an invitation for those who are gay and who are on the centre-right to leave town or be ostracised from the ‘community’.
The support of centre-right politics by gay people is evident. The desire for gay civil partnerships and/or marriage is a wish to enter a conservative institution. Similarly with gay adoption. Formal equality rather than special rights or positive discrimination is properly a centre-right concept of equality under the law.
That is not to say that parts of the English Right have in the past been found wanting. There is also much for which to thank the Left. However, much of the Right, and certainly its leadership, has finally made peace with the 1960s and the social liberalism of the past fifteen years. A vice-chairman of the Conservative Party is lesbian. There are 15 openly gay candidates seeking election for the Party. There is a formally recognised gay branch of the Party.
So perhaps it an be recognised that those who are gay and who support the centre-right are not self-hating or intellectually vacant but persons who agree with regulated markets as a means of distributing wealth, lower taxes to promote growth and savings and liberty to live one’s life without unfair intrusion.
Nothing but a lot of hot wind from you, de Villiers, refusing to acknowledge the reality that political parties acknowledge that there is such a thing as “the gay vote” (while the hell do you think Chris Bryant and Harriet Harman were down in Soho the other day and Call-Me-Dave was lying through his teeth at Gay Pride a year ago?) while at the same time there are some individuals who are gay who will choose not to vote primarily according to gay priorities.
Nothing but ad hominem attacks from you, Eddy. You have taken one line of a larger comment and ignored the remainder in the hope of scoring a point.
The ‘gay vote’ in a stylish bar in Soho relates to a particular band of metropolitan gay persons. Soho itself presents itself to particular bands of gay people. Harman et al were appealing not to all gay people but to the particular type of gay people that were at or would read about a Soho event.
Wealth, race, profession/employment, religion, education, gender, experience, relationship status, residential area all will impact on politics as will sexuality. It is one of many factors.
What you do have done is related your view of what is gay as a normative state of behaviour. Anything different from that is a derogation from that norm. But a norm for you there is. For there to be a ‘gay’ vote supposes that sexuality naturally prioritises a particular political wing.
What can be seen from the comments, the name calling, the swearing and the ad hominem attacks on this thread and the site generally is that an attack on gay people for supporting the political right is no more than an attack from the left but with the added nastiness of an attempt by the anointed to redefine homosexuality as an ideal and to exclude others from it.
The narrowness of your thinking de Villiers is proven by the fact that you refer to the gay vote as residing “in a stylish bar in Soho”. For some reason, best known to yourself, you cannot conceive of the possibility, and reality, that the gay note is not actually residient in a stylish bar in Soho. It may be partly resident there, but it is resident in many other places as well, including the British countryside.
Find two trees about 40 feet apart and have someone nail your ears to each one. Hopefully the stretch will create some space into which a whole world of possibility will enter that very simple, and clearly inexperienced, black-and-white brain of yours.
Yet further extreme nastiness. The positive suggestion of mutilation, assault, attack – all for disagreeing with you.
I said nothing about the gay-vote residing in Soho. I said the opposite:
> The ‘gay vote’ in a stylish bar in Soho relates to a particular band of metropolitan gay persons.
It relates to the particular gay voters in Soho and not any gay voters in another area of the country. The term ‘gay vote’ was in quotes to indicate my disagreement with it.
Your post is nasty, threatening, and I shall retain a copy of the link on rightbent.blogspot.com so that everyone can see how vicious and bullying your posts can be.