Reader comments · Labour MP accused of shouting ‘homophobic abuse’ at footballer · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Labour MP accused of shouting ‘homophobic abuse’ at footballer

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I’m sure if this was a Tory MP, someone would claim it didn’t matter. So let me say up front that while I hear Mr Pound’s denial, and I can see from that he has a long and consistent record of voting for pro-gay laws, that I would be utterly disgusted if this report was true. I’m not a big attender of footie matches, and the constant verbal abuse aimed at players and officials is one reason, so I’m not in fact happy that he should have shouted at the referee, but if there’s more to it than that, I’ll expect a full apology and to be honest I’d like his MP’s privileges suspended until he sorts himself out.

  2. ChutneyBear 13 May 2010, 12:56pm

    Meanwhile lets burn him at the stake and level accusations of witchcraft against him. Im taking the stance that its a football match, the intention was not malicious. Yes being a gay I like football (shock horror) and sometimes hear it at matches but its part of the banter then again maybe Im too easy going, perhaps this bear here should become more uptight and start a civil riot over someone being called a fairy. Again we use this terminology ourselves (calling ourselves queer is more insulting than it being used at a football match IMO)so we cant blame someone else for using it in this context. Cue the Peter Tatchell loving twinks bashing me now for me views…..BTW I have a lot others who agree with me, we let things roll off our shoulders here.

  3. Mihangel apYrs 13 May 2010, 1:02pm

    if he’d called a black player a “dirty n****r”, he’d have been hung over an open fire by his balls while being told to grovel or lose the whip. Would you agree with that happening?

  4. Stuart Neyton 13 May 2010, 1:09pm

    “if he’d called a black player a “dirty n****r”, he’d have been hung over an open fire by his balls”

    Sol Campbell isn’t gay though, so that isn’t a direct comparison.

    I agree with ChutneyBear, I highly doubt homosexuality was even going through his head when he was shouting it. He’s hardly Iris Robinson.

  5. Jock S. Trap 13 May 2010, 1:29pm

    So it begins. Totally unacceptable. Tory, Labour or otherwise, they are there to set an example. Wasn’t Chris Graylings comments unacceptable? Wasn’t we demanding he was sacked? Wasn’t Labour demanding he was sacked? How is this any different? Labour would do well in a bid to support the LibCons anti homophobic bullying campaign by immediately sacking Stephen Pound.

  6. Stuart Neyton –
    It really doesn’t matter what was actually going through his head. This vile language reinforces and emboldens those who ARE consciously homophobic and creates a poisonous and threatening atmosphere for gays and lesbians, be they players or fans. It is part and parcel of the general footballing culture which intimidates gay players into staying fearfully closeted.
    And I must say that our elected representatives really are an inspiration. Sigh.

  7. It is not important where this has taken place or what angry hateful thing was said. This grunting male (“grunting male” as this is not the behaviour of a man) is meant to be a positive role model to society, and should keep his seamy, undisciplined mouth in check. He should be disciplined or fired now.

    We should expect the best of thoughts from our elected members of government.

  8. ChutneyBear 13 May 2010, 1:52pm

    Again I reiterate it if we stop straight MP’s from using we should drop our use of the word queer. As for comparisons for him calling if he was to call someone the “N” word, thats irrelevant. What Im saying is that Im gay and I can let the matter drop. If we are all to get on we should allow some ribbing and banter, any fairly normal sane average Joe Soap would realise its a laugh and not take offence at it….screaming queens take issue with it (oh look Im homophobic)..*Sigh*

  9. There’s a black American comedian/actor called Bill Cosby who has forcefully made the point that black people using the “N” word about each other is destructive, because it’s a term used to diminish and degrade black people, because it’s a word associated with generations of racial abuse, and because perpetuating the use of the word allows racists to justify their continued use in what is always an abusive manner.

    In the same way, using derogatory words about gay people is bad, even when the word is in the mouth of another gay person and being used by them either as abuse of their peer group or to appear shocking.

    So ChutneyBear, I’m not shocked that you like football, a lot of us do. But I think you need to understand that it’s not “uptight” to object to people – especially powerful people like MPs – using derogatory language. What I do find nasty is you using the term “the Peter Tatchell loving twinks” as a way of putting down and abusing your gay peer group, because that’s just the point Bill Cosby was making about the use of language.

    However, I would in fairness repeat that Mr Pound has a good record as an MP on gay issues, and he denies the allegation. So far, case not proven, but ptetnially very unpleasant.

  10. theotherone 13 May 2010, 2:08pm

    Oh it’s OK, it was a Labour man who shouted vile Homophobic Abuse so that’s OK?

    Double standerds anyone?

  11. theotherone 13 May 2010, 2:16pm

    ‘Sol Campbell isn’t gay though’

    and that makes any fvck1ng difference? You can be a victim of Phobic Abuse without being Queer and the person hurling the abuse isn’t in the clear because you ‘re Hetro.

  12. #9 David – the problem with your point is, the black community (mmainly the hip hop community) use the term nigga as a way of reminding themselves of the slavery and prejudice, and getting the point across that they have been treated like sh1t by white men. They don’t use it as a way of describing their community. You don’t hear a black person using the term ‘nigga rights’, the ‘nigga’ community but we call ourselves the terms that those who have oppressed us labelled us with – gay, queer, even homosexual is a medical condition – used to label us as a way of treating us. The term gay is used as a derogatory word by most teenagers – if it’s ‘gay’ it’s bad, same with queer. But we use the term ‘gay rights’, ‘queer rights’, ‘gay community’, ‘queer community’.
    Gay rights are so far behind black rights it’s not even funny. We as a community haven’t even begun to think about what has happened to us over the last thousand years.

    But back to this man, he says he didn’t say ‘fairy’. No one recorded him saying it, it’s hearsay. Nothing like the grayling episode, where an MP was recorded saying that he believes that business should be able to disciminate against gay men. It’s a bit pathetic to make a comparison.

  13. de Villiers 13 May 2010, 3:11pm

    I would be surprised if Stephen Pound did use the word fairy. In any event, I wonder if the difference between racism and homophobia is a legacy of both colonialism and religion.

    A person being black does not represent a challenge to conventional, Western religion or its history. To be black and to assert its equality with being white is not to deny the truth of a culture’s historic values. Most Western countries have had a deep link with religion which has provided legitimacy for the state and its monarchs. Even secular countries such as France (my own) continues to have a religious undercurrent.

    America has had notable difficulties with race but this appears to be based not on fundamental religious and moral certainties but on wealth, power and class. Blacks went to America and many other European countries, in chains. Perhaps this created a notion of white superiority and supremacy by virtue of geography.

    Perhaps it is easier to recognise that a supposed geographic superiority linked to colour rather than morality and religion is less defensible than homophobia which is linked to an historic and promoted set of deep religious and moral values.

    Perhaps, also, a person’s colour may be considered to be less threatening and more acceptable on account of its openness. It is nearly impossible to hide and impossible to adopt. A person could not in any reality start of genetically as white and then choose or be turned to become black at the age of fourteen. There is no perceived element of choice.

    With sexuality, however, there is the element of being hidden, being ready to unmask one-self and have one’s corruptible way with another in secret and in the dark – there being a danger of taking advantage of and corrupting those who are not secretly already corrupted. There is also the perceived (by others) element of choice or of ‘turning’ others which reinforces the danger of gay people changing people from straight to gay.

    Finally, there may be a biological element. For myself, I find the mechanics of heterosexual sex make me feel queasy and I avoid thinking about the details of it. I can only assume that heterosexual people feel queasy about homosexual sex, vice versa. Perhaps it could be linked to protecting oneself against failing to reproduce. From this may extend behaviour ranging from nervousness to hostility.

    Such instinctive reaction would appear to be absent with regards to colour or race. A person being black or white creates no instinctive recoil.

    To that end, perhaps achieving gay equality in people’s thoughts (as opposed to under the law) requires more effort on the part of the person than race equality. Of course, as gay equality becomes more socially acceptable and the call of religion weakens, the deep cultural, religious and moral values that speak against us themselves carry less weight in the minds of the population.

  14. de Villiers 13 May 2010, 3:15pm

    Please forgive the errors in my English, which is not my first language.

  15. If true, he is in the wrong party. He should deflect to the homophobic Tory party. There this sort of language is not only accepted, but encouraged.

  16. Some gay people will sell their brothers and sisters all the way. Have you ever heard the name Judas Iscariot?

  17. “I’m sure if this was a Tory MP, someone would claim it didn’t matter.”
    Shut up, you imbecile

    I notice some of you will still slagg off Tories even though they have already put forward plans to clean up expenses, immigration, the economy and the overpaid house of Lords
    Thats more than Labour managed in 12 years!
    So people like DavidW who want to slagg them off for FIXING the wrongs of this country need to grow up and f++k off to another country
    Maybe you would like how Africa is run DavidW

    I’m not a Tory supporter, a Labour supporter or the yellow one either
    But i can see good work no matter which party it comes from

  18. ChutneyBear, let me see if I have this straight. If a person calls a white person a lazy ni**er, it isn’t racist? If a person calls a non-Jewish person a greedy Jew/k*ke, it isn’t anti-Semitic? If someone calls an Indian and dirty Paki, it isn’t racist?

    The comparisons offered above did have problems, but I think these comparisons are accurate and comparable.

    The reason you hear black people and Indian people and lazy people and stupid people and other people being slurred with homophobic slurs is because, unlike n*gger, and k*ke, and Paki and other slurs, fag, faggot, queer, fairy, shirt lifter, poof and other gay slurs are 1) still accepted in society 2) still defended, even by gay people 3) People who aren’t being called a gay slur don’t find gay slurs as offensive as racial slurs because they don’t have the empathy for gay people that they have developed for people of other races, and probably most importantly of all 4) for the person on the RECEIVING end of a slur, NOTHING is considered more offensive than being “accused” of being gay, especially when the accusation comes in the form of the most vile and dehumanizing term for a gay person.

    None of these facts are negated just because some gay idiots willingly participate in the degradation of their own community by using demeaning, degrading and dehumanizing gay slurs themselves.

  19. If this observer had a video capable cell phone with him, and who these days doesn’t, he should have recorded the MP using the abusive language.

  20. I suggest anyone slagging off the Tories still judge them on what they’re doing now and not what thatcher or another Tory did long ago
    They have a Gay friendly Cabinet, are committed to our equality and are fixing the problems a Labour government caused (just like last time)
    If you don’t like them fine, but don’t slag them off for doing the right thing because Labour is the one who ruined the economy, flooded the country with cheap labour, gave us up to Europe, and pays people not to work and claim benefits
    And conliberals are just the ones putting the country right

  21. Tigra07, They should have learnt to never underestimate our voices. To fix the wrongs and inequalities of this country, they should GET RID of the house of lords. Completely and unashamedly. These people are just in for them fvcking selves. My kind has already started to suffer their malign influence. And we’ll resist all the way. And slagging off the tories is just a mild feedback for the way they’ve been treating us.

  22. ChutneyBear 13 May 2010, 3:43pm

    At Zeke….I for one happen to find some of these terms humorous and dont take offence in the slightest. There are numerous people here who will take offence at the slightest joke made about homosexuality. An ability to laugh at oneself will enable the person in question to get through life unhindered. He called Sol Campbell a “fairy”…woopdy doo….thats hardly what I would call an insult. How come I can have a bit of banter with my mates and take it in jest and laugh at it? Men have gone to war over less. What some people are doing are making mountains out of molehills… and let live.

    Some brothers and sisters will sell their brothers, if it means an easier life I would happily flog them…in fact I have quite often in the past stood up for people where they made some joke or innuendo only to be berated by others for it seeing it as some gay slur.

    Know what, I love myself (no s*it sherlock says you lot) and I love the banter, the craic (google it , its an Irish term) and the ability to laugh at myself. Some of you straight loathing seperatists need a reality check….

  23. Bobbet, while they probably won’t get rid of the house of Lords they are cutting the numbers from over 800 to 300, meaning a big saving to taxpayers
    I don’t think we should get rid of all of them but i don’t agree they should be paid anything since most are already rich

  24. Tigra07. What’s your rationale for not getting rid of the Lords?

  25. Patrick James 13 May 2010, 4:12pm

    As a Labour guy myself I will say that any homophobic abuse is absolutely out of order.

    I don’t think it is right to call the footballer a fairy and so the MP should be pulled up on this if he did call the footballer a fairy.

    I think this story is more about ideas of masculinity than it is about sexuality.

    I don’t know anything about the footballer but the story says that he has been a victim of homophobic abuse.

    Often men that are perhaps a bit effeminate suffer abuse simply for being effeminate.

    I would love it if men were “allowed” to be effeminate if they wish. It would be a great liberation. I’m not suggesting there should be some legislation in some way, but rather I’d like to see a relaxation in society about how people present themselves.

  26. Are you in for a lordship? In my view, lordship (or queenship, kingship, baronship, countship et all) , should not give an individual any political influence over the lives of our citizens, simply because they’re a big part of the problem. They represent the priviledged few and the unelected. They represent the nobility, a cast and class system.

  27. “Tigra07. What’s your rationale for not getting rid of the Lords?”
    National significance and history, like keeping the queen even though she doesnt do much

    I agree the Lords should be simply for advice and shouldnt be paid, but i dont think we should scrap them completely

  28. ChutneyBear 13 May 2010, 4:30pm

    “I would love it if men were “allowed” to be effeminate if they wish. ”

    They can do what they want as long as it doesnt affect me ….

  29. Advice on what exactly? Why on earth should we have a political entity reserved for people who have a lordship title?

  30. Patrick James 13 May 2010, 4:34pm

    Tigra 07 writes:

    I suggest anyone slagging off the Tories still judge them on what they’re doing now and not what thatcher or another Tory did long ago

    I’m not very sure what this has to do with the article in PinkNews. However it is reasonable to request that the Conservative party is judged on present day activity and not past activity.

    They have a Gay friendly Cabinet

    With Theresa May?

    are committed to our equality

    Theresa May as equality minister.

    and are fixing the problems a Labour government caused

    Problems caused by a global financial crises and handled superbly by the outgoing Labour government.

    (just like last time)

    You don’t remember the “last time” I don’t think.

    If you don’t like them fine, but don’t slag them off for doing the right thing because Labour is the one who ruined the economy

    The 97 – 2010 Labour government brought tremendous economic stability and growth. Sustained low levels of unemployment and I suspect will be seen as a marvellous time for the UK a few years from now.

    flooded the country with cheap labour

    I see a picture developing…

    gave us up to Europe

    Yes the tanks are patrolling our streets now.

    and pays people not to work and claim benefits

    Ah yes of course unemployment benefit that should be abolished.

    And conliberals are just the ones putting the country right

    Yes, death to the unemployed and a giant electric fence all around the coast of the UK, that’s what we need.

  31. A House of Lords is as needed as a House of Fairies. Anyone who thinks a “noble” titleship should give someone any political power is part of the problem.

  32. ‘Gay rights are so far behind black rights it’s not even funny’

    Here we go again…
    Ho wdar ethose Blacks have more rights…?
    That;s how it sounds.

  33. Oops, let’s try again- Line 3 shoudl have said How dare those blacks have more…

  34. Well the election is over, he’s got his seat for a few more years, he’s no longer in the party of power , I guess he doesn’t care anymore what gay people think,it seems labour politicians no longer have to be politically correct! This seems to be a worrying trend , weren’t we told a few days ago that labour were in talks with the homophobic DUP party.

  35. #32 –
    “Gay rights are so far behind black rights it’s not even funny’
    Here we go again…
    Ho wdar ethose Blacks have more rights…?
    That;s how it sounds. ”

    What the hell are you going on about? why do you always attack me when I talk about black rights as a comparison to gay rights? That is maybe how it sounds to you, but thats not how it sounds to me.
    My point is that a majority of people would in no way vote for a gay man to be the leader of the UK or the USA. As they have a mixed race man in the USA. We have a lot to learn from the black community in our struggle for equality, that’s all. So stop trying to make me out to be racist. I AM NOT.

  36. silly billy 13 May 2010, 7:54pm

    I suggest anyone slagging off the Labour party do it based on what they’re doing now, not what they did when they were last in power.
    Daft, innit?

  37. It’s only a matter of time for the real bigotry start to spill from this government. And the homophobic attitudes shown during the electoral campaign will seem like a walk in the park compared to what is about to come.

  38. theotherone 13 May 2010, 8:15pm

    ‘What’s your rationale for not getting rid of the Lords?’

    May I sugest one? they provide a check on the Commons.

  39. Perhaps the Labour party supporters here should narrow their focus to the actual events reported here. The guy made derogatory comments about the player using a gay slur.

    It has nothing to do with the Conservative party whatsoever.

    It you are going to comment here, try commenting on the story.

    We always here how pro-gay the Labour party is and this guy seems to have let the facade drop when he was out enjoying himself at a match.

  40. theotherone 13 May 2010, 8:30pm

    perhaps jose he toed the nicegayfriendlysunshine line when in Parliament but once outside showed how he really felt.

    Nevermind they’ll deflect discusion by screaming about the Tories so we don’t look to closely at Labour’s record.

  41. theotherone, check on what exactly? The commons are already a diverse bunch representing all the needed political powers. Why on earth should we have a separate political entity reserved for people who have a lordship title?

  42. Bobbet: “In my view, lordship should not give an individual any political influence over the lives of our citizens, simply because they’re a big part of the problem. They represent the privileged few and the unelected. They represent the nobility, a cast and class system.”

    theotherone “‘What’s your rationale for not getting rid of the Lords?’ May I suggest one? they provide a check on the Commons.”

    Precisely. Bobbet, you are a fcukwit. The Lords acts as a safety net to prevent idiots like Tony Blair trying to ram through bills because when Nu Liebour first came to power they had such a massive majority of seats they could do pretty well anything they pleased. The Lords are now virtually all life peers and elected people anyway, since Blair decided to change the entire parliamentary system, (which should have been illegal), but interestingly, its only since the hereditary peers have been kicked out that we now get cash for questions, bribes, expenses fiddles and all the rest. The hereditary peers do it for the honour of the position, not for money, power or political direction. The fact they *didn’t* ask for the job means they are far less biased than half the ones in there now that have crawled their way up the greasy pipe.

    They don’t represent the “privileged few”, they represent everyone, which is more than can be said for all these scumbags that wheedle their way into peoples affections only to rip them right royally blind. I would much rather have the son of the son of whoever than some slimy fcuking pondlife like Mandelson.

  43. “What’s your rationale for not getting rid of the Lords?”
    Basically i think the MPs are out of touch and years behind reality and they need people from the real world with proper jobs (well kinda) to tell them what needs to be done

    I agree they shouldnt have influence on laws ut at the end of the day theyre there for advice anmd they will influence laws
    A more modern approach could always be to abolish the house of laws and do opinion polls of what needs changing in city centres i suppose
    That seems unbiased and fair and also cheaper =]

  44. The Lords represent no one but themselves. Lord this, Lord that. Count of Narnia. Baroness of Neverland. Titles, entitlement. If they want to work in politics and for the citizens of this country, they should do as everyone else, and work their way through the Commons, where all the political debate should happen.

  45. The title of Lord used to be noble Bobbet, nowadays anyone with money can buy that title, like for instance, Alan Sugar
    He just wanted his Lordship for his CV

    I changed my mind, it should be abolished, the MPs wont listen to anyone elses opinion so why bother paying people for opinions?

    Also learned this mornng theres a site where you can check your MPs attendance in parliament and mines 70 odd percent!
    If my attendance at work was 70% id get the sack yet this guy was voted back in
    Wheres the logic?

  46. theotherone 13 May 2010, 9:40pm

    Jesus Bobbet you’re like TOTALY obsessed with class, m-a–nnn

  47. Your grasp is excellent de villiers – you made sense, more sense then many whose first language is english! homophobic abuse is precisely that and you downplay it chutneybear and you don’t see or get how it affects many people, it may be just words to you but for many it’s painful everytime there’s a homophobic term used

  48. BobbetStillTheSame 13 May 2010, 9:47pm

    theotherone, I’m not obsessed with class. I’m obsessed with equality. Everything which is in the way of equality is a hindrance.

  49. BobbetStillTheSame 13 May 2010, 9:55pm

    The Commons/Lords system must be abolished. It does not represent equality, it represents a caste/class system.

    There should only be one entity called Parliament. There all the political parties can debate, and everyone, entitled or othewise, can have equal access. A separate House of Lords is not only unfair, but redundant.

  50. theotherone 13 May 2010, 11:28pm

    Jesus Bobbet(stillthesame) your still SOoooo obsessed with Class.

  51. theotherone 14 May 2010, 12:27am

    just to check with you Patrick James:

    You claim Labour managed low levels of Unemployment/ How then do we have historic levels of people who are ‘economically inactive?’ who do we still have 2.5 million unemployed? Is that a low level? Given that Labour engineered the system so that most of those made unemployed by the Depression don’t appear on the figures are they still low?

    20% of this Country isn’t working Patrick. Is that a low figure? Is that successful government?

  52. Sister Mary Clarence 14 May 2010, 2:33am

    theotherone, I think what Patrick must mean is that its lower than it would have been if Labour had got another term maybe.

    Its all relative.

    Compared to the national debt (not don’t get me started on the national debt), the unemployment figures are good news with cream on.

    Patrick is in denial. Patrick wanted Labour to win. Patrick is somewhat deluded about the virtues to the bunch of crooks who have just lost the government

  53. technically – labour did manage low levels of unemployment but that’s due to people bieng on New deal or whatever plus getting kicked off benefit, it’s easy to claim low levels when so many are not on that benefit

  54. theotherone 14 May 2010, 9:28am

    indeed chester – ‘no one’s unemployed, they’re all starving to death instead.’

  55. that redefining of ideas and concepts ticks me off, it’s like when so many claim they aren’t homophobic even though they express homophobia! so many also ignore that words have more effect then they’ll acknowledge

  56. It’s what drunk, rabble-rousing football fans do at matches, and no amount of bleating and shrilling on this thread will change that. Get over it!

  57. Sister Mary Clarence 14 May 2010, 1:14pm

    I think the point being though, does a member of parliament want to involve himself in that sort of situation, Patchy?

    The ‘they’re only human’ argument seems to come up quite a lot when members of a certain party go astray.

  58. No, that argument is only valid when private citizens are in private. For instance you have every right to your homophobia, but you may not impact on other people by shouting abuse in public. Frankly abusive behaviour is unnacceptable at football matches; this is precisely why there should be a “kick it out” campaign.

  59. I’d just like to underline the comment I made above in response to the abusive and frankly slanderous remarks posted about me by Tigra07. Tigra of course knows nothing at all about me, or my lifestyle, but expressed his personal bile and hatred by posting that my “brain is dead from all your drugs”, which is clearly nothing more or less than an attempt to picture me as as a habitual, brain damaged drug user. The fact is, I don’t do drugs, I don’t even smoke.

    In any other medium, Tigra would not be able to hide behind anonymity and make such disgusting and dishonest remarks, the publishers wouldn’t permit it, and it sets a new low for the level of discussion on this site. It also reinforces my opinion that Tigra is the worst sort of coward and bully, who wouldn’t have the nerve to make that sort of baseless and insulting accusation face-to-face., but it’s certainly in character with Tigra’s earlier disgusting remarks.

  60. BobbetStillTheSame: I reiterate. You are still a fcukwit.

    Virtually every democratic parliamentary system in the world has two houses. The US has the Senate and the House of Representatives, for example. No party should have a mandate to do what they like, EVER. There are times when this could happen, as I mentioned earlier, with Labour and their landslide, they could have run riot with legislation. The Lords is there to prevent that and act as a brake on the Commons running around like headless chickens.

    Even an idiot like you must have heard the phrase about “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. I think it applies very well here. Now go away like the good socialist you are and read “Animal Farm”.

  61. Seems decidedly odd to me that people get really upset about homophobic comments and come to complain about it, then end up throwing equally disgusting abuse at each other.

    Is this really the state of our country?

  62. What disgusting slur is this?

  63. theotherone 14 May 2010, 8:06pm

    nice one: we’ve managed to get so sidelined in this discussion that we’ve forgotten that it was about a Labour Politician using homophobic abuse.

  64. I never really got sidelined theotherone
    I didnt think it was fair to compare every homophobic incident a Tory Mp since Cameron’s being pretty gay friendly but someone else disagrees and insists on calling conservative sympathisers Nazis

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.