Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell rejected again from Downing Street

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Perhaps bisexual MP Simon Hughes, deputy leader of the Lib Dems, might care to elaborate.

  2. What does Peter Tatchell do, exactly? I frequently see him quoted on gay-related (and some non-gay-related) issues, but never see any reference to an organization or campaign (except in the past tense). Does he, officially, represent anyone other than Peter Tatchell?

  3. Stuart Neyton 14 Jun 2010, 2:50pm

    @Clay – yes, he represents outrage and i believe he also speaks for the Green Party on human rights issues. But that’s besides the point, Tatchell has pretty much dedicated his life to this cause.

  4. Why would they invite him? He’s everything they are not: honest, fair-minded, direct, risk-taking and committed to his principles.

  5. I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Peter Tatchel has done in the past, nor in the manner in which he draws attention to the Gay Cause, however, Tatchel is 100% for Gay Rights.
    Hard work, dedication and courage are part of this man’s make up and he has done so much over the past half century for the rights of people he doesn’t know, nor will ever meet. His courage is legendary and I salute him. Cameron should do the same. Perhaps David couldn’t find his telephone number, but, Prime Minister, there’s still time………………

  6. Peter Tatchell, has consistently lobbied for gay equality and justice; exposing and fighting homophobia and negative prejudice wherever he has found it, often at great personal expense. It beggars belief that our new self styled, inclusive, coalition government would be so petty, mealymouthed and spiteful as to exclude an individual held in inceasingly high regard.

  7. They obviously can’t think of an answer to the question they think he may ask them – Why can’t civil marriage be open to gay people?

    I think it’s very strange that Peter has never been invited. Personally, I’d rather he went than many of the heads of groups supposedly representing my rights.

  8. vulpus_rex 14 Jun 2010, 3:00pm

    PT has made a life out of campaigning on behalf of LGBT rights. He might in addition be a shameless self promoter, with extremely dodgy views on the age of consent, but anyone who performs a citizen’s arrest on Robert Mugabe can be forgiven much in my opinion.

    I think the event will be just that little bit less special if he is not there.

  9. I expect those useless homophobes at Stonewall will not bother to condemn Tatchell’s exclusion.

    I’ll bet that Ben Summerskill will be invited and will accept.

    He is an ‘acceptable’ gay person as he will not ask any embarrassing questions like:

    “Why are gay couples denied access to the legal contract of civil marriage purely because they are gay?”

    or

    “What guarantees are you offerng to the LGBT population that ALL state funding will cease to any faith school who tries to teach homophobia to children in their schools’.

    By only inviting people who will not embarrass the government this event is purely a PR exercise for the government.

    We all know that Stonewall is a grossly homophobic organisation thanks to their opposition to same sex marriage equality.

    However they grow ever more pathetic and useless if they cannot even demand that the government listen to alternative LGBT viewpoints than their own.

    We should remember that Stonewall only represents about 1% of the LGB population.

  10. “We all know that Stonewall is a grossly homophobic organisation thanks to their opposition to same sex marriage equality.”

    No we don’t, please don’t speak for me unless I vote for you.

  11. “What does Peter Tatchell do, exactly? I frequently see him quoted on gay-related (and some non-gay-related) issues, but never see any reference to an organization or campaign (except in the past tense). Does he, officially, represent anyone other than Peter Tatchell? ”
    LOL! Fully agree there
    I don’t like the man but hes done some good work on the odd occasion

  12. I think it’s disgraceful he hasn’t been invited.

  13. He’s a real hero.
    I have nothing but the greatest of respect for Peter Tatchell.

  14. @ comment 11 by “Tigra 07″ – “I don’t like the man but hes done some good work on the odd occasion”

    The most ignorant statement I have read on this website this year.

  15. ChutneyBear 14 Jun 2010, 4:00pm

    Actually Darren not really Tatchell is a pain in the hole….

  16. I would also say that Mr Tatchell represents all of those who pay into his “human rights fighting fund”. While I prod my MP regularly by letter and email, I cannot afford to take the time off work to carry out direct campaigning for LGBT equality. I therefore pay what little I can afford and thank Peter for speaking up for me.

  17. Peter highlights many issues for the LGBT community and at least as the balls to go out onto the street and fight for what he believes in. I don’t agree with all that peters come out with. Disgraceful he as been black balled from this events just all the Mary’s from Stonewall I guess

  18. BrazilBoysBlog 14 Jun 2010, 4:12pm

    The exclusion of Peter is a scandal!

    Mr Cameron, there is still time to do the right thing and be as ´inclusive and non-political´ as you claim.

  19. Who is going to pass these comments to the PM and see if he changes his mind?
    Wouldn’t that be a coup and it would give DC huge credibility!
    Peter may then be able to mix with the gay acceptables and represent a sizeable majority of Gay people.
    Well, how do we do it?

  20. I have been to the reception before and have not been invited back, I must have made an impression. I think that although Peter has done a great deal of good work for us all at the end of the day he is nit an elected representative of us and is not accountable to anyone. We must remember that not everything Peter promotes is what we would want, take for example age of consent at 14. That one has for years been described as promoting paedophalia and you can understand why people would want to keep such notions at arms length.

  21. MartinM – Stonewall “only represents about 1% of the LGB population” … and your evidence for this is….? I do mean evidence, not prejudice!

    Stonewall do an amazing job; so, ok, they may not dance exactly to the tune everyone would prefer, or in an ideal world, would want. I know they fudged on gay marriage…. but to dismiss them is plain ignorant.

    And Tatchell is a brave, undoubtedly committed man, with strong principles, often exercised to his personal detriment. It is the guys at the pointy end of any campaign who lead the way for the less brave of us. Of course he should have been invited.

  22. de Villiers 14 Jun 2010, 5:09pm

    > We all know that Stonewall is a grossly homophobic organisation

    The making of a comment that is demonstrably false and/or absurd serves to undermine the credibility of any other statements.

  23. I think the guests deemed ‘worthy’ of an invitation should refuse to go. Although I expect most of them are self-serving hypocrites

  24. Maybe hes slept with too many of the tory cabinet……

  25. I think Peter Tatchell ought to be invited

  26. Peter is welcome at my house for a cuppa tea instead :)

  27. Mumbo Jumbo 14 Jun 2010, 6:30pm

    Following some of the comments above, let’s be clear about PT’s position on the age of consent.

    It is that there should be a general age of consent of 16 (as now) but, in addition, a 14 year old would be able to consent to sex with another 14 year old or anyone up to two years older and a 15 year old would be able to consent to sex with anyone from 14 to 17.

    It should be obvious that this more subtle system, similar to that operated in some other european countries and supported by a number of sexual health experts, has nothing to do with facilitating paedophillia (which is the accusation made by the likes of Stephen Green) but simply avoids pointless criminalisation of the reality of teenagers lives whilst making it clearly legal for responsible adults to provide advice and services to youngpeeople in order that they can avoid the negative consequenses of sex – this provision of advice and services being something that is currently operating in a legal grey area.

  28. Stuart – have you seen more than 6 people from OutRage! together in the last decade? Are they really an organsiation?

  29. Darren get over yourself, i dont have to like everyone
    For example, i dont like you

  30. BrazilBoysBlog 14 Jun 2010, 7:13pm

    @ Pat Buzz. “I think that although Peter has done a great deal of good work for us all at the end of the day he is nit an elected representative of us and is not accountable to anyone.”

    Ahh, so that´s it? …all of the people attending will be ´elected representatives´ and will all be ´accountable´ to us? I think not.

    “I have been to the reception before and have not been invited back, I must have made an impression.”

    In what ´elected´ or ´accountable´ capacity may I ask?

    “We must remember that not everything Peter promotes is what we would want, take for example age of consent at 14. That one has for years been described as promoting paedophalia and you can understand why people would want to keep such notions at arms length. ”

    Total miss-information spread by the media to try and blacken the name of Peter Tatchell. I believe the post @27 deals quite correctly with Peters views on the age of consent laws…. and I wholeheartedly agree with them!

    His views would not legalise or promote pedophilia. They would simply de-criminalise consensual sexual behaviour between TEENS THEMSELVES. It would allow healthcare professionals to give advice and services to those teens who will be sexually active anyway.

    If Peters ideas were implemented, TEENS would no longer be criminalised for doing what they are doing anyway. Pedophiles who take advantage of, and abuse those under 16 would STILL be committing an offence and would STILL go to prison. What is wrong with that?

  31. Jess Conrad 14 Jun 2010, 10:48pm

    Peter is always being rejected by someone or other….He always bounces Back!

  32. In response to Brazilboysblog lets not make it personal. It is a fact that Peter is not an elected representative. I hold an office and am on my third term of office (four year terms). I can only be nominated by persons who identify as LGBT and like wise only those listed and identified as LGBT can vote in an election for my position. The elections are conducted by the independent electoral reform society and any failure to deliver or to deviate from the wants of the members I represent would result in someone else being elected to my post.
    My point in my original posting relating to Peter not being an elected official remain as fact, you could argue that he is a well known advocate of gay rights and equal rights but it does not detract that he is not accountable.
    My point about Peter’s promotion of an age of consent of 14 is I believe valid. Love them or hate them the latter of which I do the tabloids will only publish the bits they want. When it comes to a political position such as age of consent then although there are merits in what Peter promotes the finer detail will never get out to the masses and instead snippits about age of consent being 14 with attention grabbing headlines of Tatchell promotes peadophalia will be reality. For any political leader they will always stay at arms length on anyone linked to such a contentious issue.
    I am not having a dig at Peter but putting forward the reasons I believe have stopped him going to No 10.

  33. BBB – a quick trot around your web-site, with all of its lubricious slavering over the ‘cute brazilian straightboys’ dancing attendance at your ‘guesthouse’, renders me sceptical of your sermonising on paedophilia. Some of those boys look very young indeed, and I daresay they are intended to. I’m not surprised, however, that you are an ex-pat.

  34. They don’t want him there because nothing is open for debate, it’s just a photo opportunity, nothing more. No equality law will ever be improved by this government. All these wide eyed hopefuls looking on & hoping for change, really have no idea what a Tory is, was & always will be.

  35. BrazilBoysBlog 15 Jun 2010, 1:26am

    @ Chameleon 33. Whilst I thank you for your ´quick trot´ around my website, I would like to point out that every website I feature and every visitor to my home is over the age of consent. To suggest otherwise without proof is mischievous at best, and potentially libelous at worst, in the same vein as those who try to (selectively) blacken the name of Peter Tatchell.

    “I’m not surprised, however, that you are an ex-pat.” Meaning what exactly?

    According to Wikipedia: “An expatriate (in abbreviated form, expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person’s upbringing or legal residence.”

    So yes, I´m an ex-pat.

  36. BrazilBoysBlog 15 Jun 2010, 1:36am

    @32 Pat Buzz. “I am not having a dig at Peter but putting forward the reasons I believe have stopped him going to No 10.”

    Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate your points, but it still does not make it right for them to discriminate against Peter because of his (perceived) position on an issue rather than his actual one?

    And my point remains equally valid. Peter Tatchell has worked tirelessly (and even at a personal health-cost to himself) for years. He is perhaps one of the best known gay rights activists. His exclusion is a scandal.

    I also asked the question as to whether EVERYONE who will be attending will be ´elected´ officials? Will EVERYONE attending be ´answerable´ to us? I doubt it.

  37. Good to see Downing Street don’t want the riff-raff!!

  38. BrazilBoysBlog 15 Jun 2010, 2:23am

    @37. Thanks. My point exactly. Nice to know they consider a huge amount of gay people, their human and equal rights as…. “riff-raff”… Well said!

  39. Patrick James 15 Jun 2010, 3:17am

    Mumbo Jumbo describes Tatchell’s age of consent policy:

    It is that there should be a general age of consent of 16 (as now) but, in addition, a 14 year old would be able to consent to sex with another 14 year old or anyone up to two years older and a 15 year old would be able to consent to sex with anyone from 14 to 17.

    I agree with Tatchell on the age of consent issue. The problem at present is that sexual activity between under 16 year olds is illegal and yet it is very common indeed.

    A banded system is much more sensible than the single age of consent imho.

  40. BrazilBoysBlog 15 Jun 2010, 5:27am

    @39 Patrick James. Good grief, another voice of common sense.. Careful though that nutters do not label you as “sermonising on paedophilia” or try to insinuate things…

    Unfortunately, that is what happens when adults try to discuss serious subjects.

    For everyone else, no-one is advocating that anyone over the age of 17 should have the legal right to have sex with someone under the age of consent… That means Peter Tatchell, myself, Patrick or any other reasonably minded individual. I think we do not see the point in criminalising TEENS for having sex with each other. Simple.

  41. Peter Tatchell is, and always has been, an irrelevant marginalised nobody and a total waste of space. He has no place at such functions.

  42. Tim Hopkins 15 Jun 2010, 7:49am

    Peter’s view on the age of consent is the same as many of Scotland’s children’s organisations, giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament last year on the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. And the same as the view of the Scottish Law Commission, the official body which recommended the contents of the bill.

    No reason to exclude him from any event!

    PS: the Scottish Govt and Parliament took a different view, so that we now have a law in Scotland that has decriminalised (unlike England and Wales) some forms of sex between young people over 14 (eg mutual masturbation), but still criminalises penetrative sex.

  43. Tim Hopkins 15 Jun 2010, 7:53am

    My previous comment is just an approx view of the new law in Scotland by the way, which comes into effect in October – the rule on what is and is not legal is a bit too complex to go through here. So if you’re under 16, check the details!

  44. @ comment 29 Tigra 07 “Darren get over yourself, i dont have to like everyone
    For example, i dont like you”

    All that does is enforce my opinion that you really are ignornant fool. :)

  45. There are thousands of people in this country who have done infinitely more for the wider good of the LGBT community than Peter Tatchell could ever dream of. Why should he be picked out for special recognition just because he is a loud-mouthed self-publicist who has achieved very little?

    People who believe that changes to age of consent legislation had anything at all to do with PT are guilty of either crass ignorance, or shameless revisionism.

    Similarly those who claim that he has devoted his life to campaigning on LGBT issues. It is nonsense, he has devoted his life to campaigning on HIS agenda .. and suckering others into believing that HIS agenda is the LGBT agenda.

  46. There are thousands of people in this country who have done infinitely more for the wider good of the LGBT community than Peter Tatchell could ever dream of.

    Names?

  47. @dave

    Names?

    Take your pick from any of the tens of thousands of people who do, or have, selflessly and quietly worked with LGBT community organisations (or even as individuals) to help others.

    Peter Tatchell has done nothing for others .. yes, that is right, NOTHING!.

  48. Whilst I would love to be able to knock Cameron for not inviting Tatchell, the harsh reality remains that Tatchell is to the gay and lesbian community what Barbara Windsor is to acting: loud, unskilled, embarrassing and best ignored. Why would any right-minded person want to invite him to anything civilised?

  49. Of course he shoudn’t be invited, when there are plenty of friendly celebrities and their Stonewall cronies to suck up to them.

    And what if Simon Hughes had to meet up with Peter. Even after all this time, I would be deeply ashamed of the way that he behaved in getting elected in Bermondsey and Southwark.

  50. It will be interesting to see if the fat onanist, Iain Dale , gets an invite. If he does, then it is clearly a gathering of the totally irrelevant – in which case Tatchell should be there.

  51. No 21: Andy: “MartinM – Stonewall “only represents about 1% of the LGB population” … and your evidence for this is….? I do mean evidence, not prejudice!”

    Have a look at the Pink News interview from 2009 with Ben Summerskill.

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-13034.html/

    He states that Stonewall has 30,000 supporters and the LGBT population of Britain is over 2,000,000.

    That is slightly more than 1%

    That is from Ben Summerskill’s own homophobic mouth.

  52. No 22: DeVilliers: you say:

    “> We all know that Stonewall is a grossly homophobic organisation

    The making of a comment that is demonstrably false and/or absurd serves to undermine the credibility of any other statements.”

    It is not false.

    Stonewall are a homophobic organisation.

    An organisation which believes that same sex coules should be denied access to the legal contract of civil marriage solely because we are gay is a blatantly homophobic organisation.

    Stonewall needs to disband. They are a disgrace and an embarrassment to those of us who believe in equality.

  53. MartinM

    He states that Stonewall has 30,000 supporters and the LGBT population of Britain is over 2,000,000.

    If ability to represent is measured in terms of how many financial supporters an organisation has, then the support for Peter Tatchell and Outrage is massively less than Stonewall’s 1% and so minuscule as to render them statistically insignificant.

    As for your banal assertions that Stonewall are homophobic, I really don’t know why anyone even bothers challenging you, because the claim is just so totally bizarre that it becomes self-defeating and says infinitely more about your warped perceptions than it does about Stonewall.

  54. What is the LGBTory Group’s attitude to Peter Tatchell’s exclusion.

    Silly question.

    They’ll be forbidden to express an opinion.

    They are even worse than the ridiculous Gay Uncle Toms of Stonewall.

  55. No 53: Adster: you say: “As for your banal assertions that Stonewall are homophobic, I really don’t know why anyone even bothers challenging you, because the claim is just so totally bizarre that it becomes self-defeating”

    It is worth repeating time and time and time again.

    Stonewall is opposed to the right of same sex couples to enter the legal contract of civil marriage simply because we are gay.

    There are many issues that affect the LGBT population.

    Stonewall is not obliged to campaign for all of them.

    However their active opposition to same sex marriage equality is wretched, contemptible, embarrasing and homophobic.

    They cannot even bring their self-hating arses to support equality in principle.

    As am organisation they do not deserve our money, support or respect.

    Then again, their whole raison d’etre does not seem to be to represent anyone but their own selfish, homophobic interests.

  56. Galadriel1010 15 Jun 2010, 11:33am

    John Barrowman’s going, apparently. He tweeted it last night, so not everyone going is elected or accountable.

  57. MartinM

    The more you repeat your banalities, the more stupid and immaterial you make yourself appear.

    Just because you think something doesn’t make it a fact, so just repeating the same old banalities (not to mention the demonstrable falsehoods), over and over again every time someone challenges you, just makes you look even more stupid and immaterial.

  58. Martin M – have you got a bit of a crush on Ben Sommerskill? You keep going on about him.

  59. “Just because you think something doesn’t make it a fact”

    Stonewall believes that same sex couples be denied access to the legal contract of civil marriage because we are gay.

    Please tell me which part of the sentence above is factually untrue?

    Insulting me does not change Stonewall’s status as a homophobic organisation.

  60. MartinM

    Please tell me which part of the sentence above is factually untrue?

    The bit where you falsely claim that:

    Stonewall believes that same sex couples be denied access to the legal contract of civil marriage because we are gay.

    Stonewall, in common with what seems to me to be the vast majority of the LGBT community, doesn’t believe that the word ‘marriage’ should be turned into a false totem that should take precedence over far more pressing issues. It does not oppose ‘gay marriage’ and even if it did, that still wouldn’t make them intensely averse to homosexuals (i.e. homophobic).

    This twisted notion you have that anyone who doesn’t agree with YOUR agenda is either self hating or homophobic is just too flakey for words.

  61. MartinM

    Insulting me does not change Stonewall’s status as a homophobic organisation

    Having someone state facts about you may not be pleasant for you, but that doesn’t make an insult (unless you are a particularly sensitive drama queen who is given to melodramatic exaggeration).

  62. How can Peter Tatchel be “Rejected again from Downing Street” when he hasn’t been invited to be there? One can’t reject someone if they’re not there to be rejected.
    Wouldn’t the header be better if it read
    “Peter Tatchel once again ignored by Downing Street”
    or
    “Peter Tatchel’s non-stop work for the Gay community ignored by our new Gay friendly Prime Minister”?

  63. MartinM – I did look at the link. He referred to “30,000 active supporters”. You say that this means that Stonewall represents less than 1% of the LGBT population in the UK.

    There is no correlation between the two statements.

    An active supporter is one thing; someone by whom the organisation is represented does not need to be an active supporter.

    Get it?

    You obviously have an issue with Stonewall – which since I am not a regular here, I didnt know. You don’t advance your cause by fiddling with statistics, nor by the way with invective. I doubt anyone really thinks Stonewall is homophobic – except, it seems, you! It makes you appear rather ridiculous, actually – but that’s just my opinion. Nothing personal.

  64. No 60: Adster: you say:

    “Stonewall, in common with what seems to me to be the vast majority of the LGBT community, doesn’t believe that the word ‘marriage’ should be turned into a false totem that should take precedence over far more pressing issues.”

    Evidence for this claim please?

    You asked me for evidence for my statement that Stonewall represents 1% of the LGB (but not T) population. I supplied it.

    Please provide the evidence for your claims.

    Stonewall does not actively seek input on their agenda from the LGB (but not T) population they pretend to represent. So how can they possibly know what’s important to the LGB population.

    ” It does not oppose ‘gay marriage’ ”

    Please point me to their statement where they say they support even the PRINCIPLE of marriage equality (even if they don’t want to campaign for it. )

    The truth is that Stonewall does not believe that marriage equality is worth struggling for, and they have taken the decision to actively oppose it.

    And they have the utter nerve to portray themselves as LGB equality organisation, in their dealings with government.

    The reality is that Stonewall believes that the sexual apartheid of civil partnershio should be sufficient.

    I disagree.

    Their oppostion to equality is even more grotesque and wretched than that of the catholic church.

    After all the catholic church is quite blatant and honest about their bigotry and homophobia.

    Stonewall on the other hand are a bunch of middle-aged, middle-class, London based professional gays, who rely entirely on the government of the day for their existence.

    They are massively out of touch withthe LGB population they pretend to represent.

    Even if they do not want to actively campaign for marriage equality, they should at least have the bottle to realise that it is important to many of us.

    They really should disband.

    They are a relic of the 20th century.

    I mean it’s a sad state of affairs when Britain has fallen behind Portugal in terms of equality.

    Stonewall are a bumch of cowardly, self-hating homophobes, amd they are a disgrace and an embarrassment to those of us who believe in equality.

    Ben Summerskill should offer his ticket to this reception to Peter Tatchell.

  65. Andy

    MartinM – I did look at the link. He referred to “30,000 active supporters”. You say that this means that Stonewall represents less than 1% of the LGBT population in the UK.

    There is no correlation between the two statements.

    Indeed. Extending Martin’s logic, the Liberal Democrats only have the support of the 0.12% of the population who are actually members of the party .. and he clearly considers the 23.0% of the population who voted for them to be wholly irrelevant ;)

  66. MartinM

    Evidence for this claim please?

    Tell you what, I will provide the link to the relevant section of their website when you show me something to support your preposterous assertion that Stonewall actively oppose gay marriage (and by that I mean something more substantial than a Stonewall statement to the effect that Civil Partnership provides sufficient equity).

    You asked me for evidence for my statement that Stonewall represents 1% of the LGB (but not T) population. I supplied it.

    No I didn’t – in fact I haven’t even made most of the points you are so ineptly arguing against in that reply to me. Dementia must be setting in if you can’t remember who said what. Maybe that is also the explanation for why you seem to think that Stonewall actively oppose gay marriage.

    Please point me to their statement where they say they support even the PRINCIPLE of marriage equality (even if they don’t want to campaign for it. )

    Just because you don’t support the principle of something doesn’t mean that you actively oppose it.

    Their oppostion[sic] to equality is even more grotesque and wretched than that of the catholic church.

    The only grotesque thing I see here is the manner in which you torture facts.

  67. OK MartinM, I got you! You have started to babble nonsense. And illogic. There is just no point in any attempt to have a rational exchange. The post you made at 14.26 was such a haphazard rant that there is just no point. It is like trying to get sense from a baby. It is not going to happen.

  68. As I said earlier Adster and Andy – insulting me does not alter the FACT that Stonewall is opposed to legal equality for gay people.

    And this little comment made me chuckle:

    “I will provide the link to the relevant section of their website”

    But then you don’t.

    So you are claiming that Stonewall has evidence that gay couples do not want marriage equality, but you won’t supply the link.

    strange behaviour on your part (unless of course you are lying and in reality Stonewall does no research at all into what is important to the larger LGBT population)

    Any person or group who believes that my sexual orientation is a valid reason for me being denied access to a legal contract (which is what civil marriage is) is a homophobe.

    Stonewall may not be as viciously and hatefully homophobic as the catholic church but the reality is they believe that same sex couples be satisfied with the sexual apartheid of civil partership.

    That makes Stonewall a homophobic organisation.

  69. What I don’t understand is WHY Stonewall is opposed to equality for same sex couples.

    If they were to announce that they supported the right of same sex couples to enter the legal contract of civil marriage if they wanted to, then it would only improve their reputation in the eyes of the LGBT population.

    The reality I suspect is that Stonewall has become far too comfortable with their position as the ‘Go To’ LGBT organisation.

    They appear to be scared of annoying their political paymasters (whether that is Labour or the Tories/LibDems) so will bend over backwards not to make any demands on the government.

    If they are so scared of annoying their political paymasters then as an ‘equality’ group then they are clearly not fit for purpose and should disband.

  70. On the recommendation of a comment posted by Chameleon I had a look at the “BrazilBoysBlog” blog, jeez its depressing. Are these straight guys paid for their services? The whole thing looks grimmer than a funeral in Skegness. Sex tourism is alive and well.

  71. Oi Tatchell, two words:- Go Retire!!

  72. Maybe Peter will be honoured in another way – like being given a peerage. I like him, he has done a lot to draw world attention to the plyt of the LGBT Community – we all have a our callings and that is certainly his. He helps the world focus on the injustices facing the LGBT Community.

  73. Peter Tatchell is a true hero. Let’s never lose sight of the fact that without his efforts and activities, many of us would still be trembling in the closet and living deceitful, hidden lives. Let NO ONE begin any sentence or include in any sentence “I don’t necessarily like him” or “I don’t necessarily agree with his tactics”. I am sickened every time I read such riders. As much as Peter would not want this, there will be a statue of him in Central London within my lifetime – a tribute to one of the most determined fighters for civil rights the UK has ever known. Given the abuse and attacks he has had to endure, I do wish that some of our wealthier gay and lesbian sisters and brothers (and/or all of us collectively) would honor him by helping to make his present situation and conditions more appropriate given how he has fought FOR US!!!

  74. BrazilBoysBlog 15 Jun 2010, 10:00pm

    @ ´Allan´ (or Chameleon by another name) :-)

    Wow, some people get depressed easily don´t they?

    “The whole thing looks grimmer than a funeral in Skegness.”
    Skeggy? Sorry dear, we have MUCH better weather and scenery! :-)

    Yeah, and doing very well thanks! …Oh and, thanks for the mention! ;-)

  75. BrazilBoysBlog 15 Jun 2010, 10:02pm

    @73 Martin. But, back to the actual subject of this comment section, I agree with your comment re: Peter Tatchell 100%. Well said!

  76. BrazilBoyzBlog – Rather disingenuous of you to come over all ‘how dare you’. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that ‘every web-site I feature … is over the age of consent’, but nevertheless I’ll take that in the context that the age of consent in Brazil is 14. I imagine that the average age of paying visitors to your home is somewhat higher. I also note that you have removed some of the more obviously juvenile participants from your homepage.

    Seriously, BBB, the obvious intent of your website is to lure prosperous british tourists to your home on the promise of some kind of sexual association with very young brazilian men. I think anyone looking at your web-site would know what it’s offering, whatever weasel words you find to justify it. And that is, of course, exactly what you intend – I’ll at least give you credit for knowing your market. Nevertheless, if you feel the desire to defend your marketing strategy in a court of law, then go right ahead.

    The fact of the matter is that you make public pronouncements on the age of consent in a public forum, so I think it’s only reasonable to point out that you earn an income from promoting sexual tourism. (Just in case your being slow-witted, that’s known as the defence of public interest.) And you do it in a country that has well known problems with child pornography, pornography and exploitation, where the authorities struggle to respond adequately to the problems, and parents are often complicit in the abuse.

    I don’t think you would be able to operate and advertise your enterprise in the UK in the way that you do without receiving the attention of CEOP. And that’s why I’m not surprised you’re an expat. But thanks for the dictionary definition; I found it really informative, obviously.

    Unfortunately I’m in no position to challenge your sexual mores and profiteering from the UK. But I do object to your use of the discussion boards of Pink News to flaunt your commercial activities.

  77. BrazilBoysBlog 16 Jun 2010, 1:45am

    @76 Chameleon.

    Interesting that you say “I’m not sure what you mean when you say that ‘every web-site I feature”.. Well dear, the ´purpose of my website is affiliate site promotion, in other words, promotion of adult websites, all of whom fully comply with the U.S 2257 age and record-keeping requirements. (all participants being over 18). I also run a gay guest house. No ´other services´ are included or offered.

    (By the way, the age of consent when it comes to any kind of pornography in Brazil is 18…inline with the rest of the world.) Seriously, Please give me a link to any child-pornography on my website?

    “I also note that you have removed some of the more obviously juvenile participants from your homepage.” Total rubbish. I have removed nothing. You are obviously not aware of the nature of a blog, but it´s ´homepage´ is constantly updating, ie all content is pushed further down and preference is given to the latest posts.

    You are again personally attacking me for my views on Peter Tatchell being left off the guestlist for this Downing Street reception. More, you are doing this by making some serious, and completely un-proven allegations.

    “I don’t think you would be able to operate and advertise your enterprise in the UK in the way that you do without receiving the attention of CEOP.” And they would be interested in what? That I run a gay guest house? That all of the visitors to the house are over 18? I think there wouldn´t be much of interest there for them.

    You are ´assuming´ a lot, and that is the problem. You mention “The fact of the matter is that you make public pronouncements on the age of consent in a public forum, so I think it’s only reasonable to point out that you earn an income from promoting sexual tourism. (Just in case your being slow-witted, that’s known as the defence of public interest.)” Again, sorry but it isn´t a defence of what you are suggesting. I rent out bed and breakfast vacancies, nothing more, and my views on the reasons for Peter Tatchells exclusion from Downing Street are not, and have never been any kind of defense or argument for peadophilia. Again, please point out where I have advocated any such thing in this comment section?

    “Unfortunately I’m in no position to challenge your sexual mores and profiteering from the UK.” By which I presume my operating a perfectly legal business?

    “But I do object to your use of the discussion boards of Pink News to flaunt your commercial activities. Really? Oh dear. Well, couple of points on that. The comments section of this (and many other) websites allow you to link to your own websites, we can all do it, you also if you had one. I have commented on this website on many many topics for a very long time. Always with the same username (I do not change ID´s to suit the mood like some) and I will continue to do so thanks. I comment on the issues, without going in for petty, meaningless, totally untruthful personal attacks, again, I will continue to do so. Finally, the vast majority of my business (b&b guests, and affiliate site sales)are from the good old U.S of A!

    I will not comment further on this as I do not need to justify myself to you or anyone else, and, this comment thread is supposed to be about the exclusion of a leading gay rights activist from a Downing Street reception, not an arena for personal attacks?

  78. Civil marriage? NO.

    FULL marriage equality in ALL forms open to straight couples.

    We have already had to deal with the stepping stone of civil partnerships, please don’t anyone put us through another lame stepping stone to equality by giving gay people access to civil marriage only. We want EQUALITY. Why deny the Quakers and co legal recognition for the marriages they cary out?

    We do not want religious civil partnerships & civil marriage when straight couples have religious and civil marriage.

    All this talk of access to same-sex civil marriage is so depressing. Why can’t people just see that the goal should be full equality- you can’t be partially equal- you are either equal or unequal.

  79. MartinM comment 69 – I think you’re right in what you suggest, but I also think that Stonewall have let their personal preferences come into their policy. They personally don’t want gay marriage so they either don’t want it for any gay people because of the ‘taint’ in their minds – or they simply are unable to understand that most gay people DO want it. When I look at some of the ‘aping heterosexuals’ comments on here, I’m frequently reminded of Stonewall.

    We are NOT equal and never will be while the law thinks it’s fine that we’re discriminated against because of who we are. No wonder so much homophobia exists when the message given is an Animal Farm one of ‘some are more equal than others’.

  80. We are equal some of you just Choose to make yourselves victims of it!

  81. “We are equal some of you just Choose to make yourselves victims of it!”

    So if you had to use special toilets and a special door to enter public buildings simply because you were gay, any complaint from you would be just you making a victim of yourself, would it? There’s no reason why we need to have a different arrangement for gay couples who wish to formalise their commitment – no reason except prejudice.

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