Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Supreme Court rules gay asylum seekers have right to stay in UK

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. excellent news

  2. Dr Boycock 7 Jul 2010, 11:55am

    So, finally some common sense! As a Labour supporter, this was one area where I felt the previous government acted in an inexcusable and shameful way. Time and time again, the gay community has had to rally round and support gays and lesbians facing deportation, certain persecution and totally inhumane treatment. Only after organised media campaigns and pressure did the previous labour government allow people to stay. That had to be done so so many times.

    Their contention that these people could return home and ´be discreet´ was both laughable and offensive at the same time. The Supreme Court is right to say that it´s not a case of being discreet, it´s concealment. It is about having to live a lie, which no-one should have to do in this day and age.

    My god, we are far from perfect here in the UK, but at least gays and lesbians should be able to expect equal treatment and protection under, and from the law.

    It still brings me to tears when I remember the photos of the two gay teenagers hanged in Iran. Barbaric and against every law of natural justice. The UK, (and every Euro country as they standardise their rules) must condemn these countries and their practices.

    This is a great ruling. Now it is a clear line in the sand and will clear up something that the UK has been condemned about for a long time.

    I applaud the current government for welcoming the ruling and for immediately using it to frame a fairer immigration policy with regard to lesbian and gay people.

    I realise that some of my fellow Labour supporters will question the Home Secretary´s (Theresa Mays) support of this. That she does not truly believe what she is saying… So what? I expect a Home Secretary to put aside their (personal) beliefs and act professionally in line with their stated party policy! I don´t CARE what she believes.. It´s what she DOES that counts.

    The previous government acted shamefully in this regard and from today, that has been put right. So, well done to the new government for supporting it and finally bringing in a common sense and just system for dealing with lesbian and gay men!

  3. “You rebel scum”

  4. very nice – well done :-)

  5. Oh great, thats exactly what England needs. More immigrants.

  6. Actually yes Reb that is what the UK needs (besides they’re not immigrants they’re refugees so legally distinct) how can you be so bigoted and unfeeling as to condemn them for trying to avoid being tortured or killed.

    The UK isn’t over-crowded and we actually take far less than our fair share of immigrants and refugees compared to the rest of the EU.

    If people want or need to come here for a better life for any reason I have no problem with that.

  7. equalityChameleon 7 Jul 2010, 12:58pm

    Excellent news, though as Dr Boycock says, long, long overdue. This was a blot on Labour’s record in office, and if it’s taken the coalition government to address it, then so be it. The devil will be in the detail, of course, and what guidance and support UKBA case-owners will be given to apply the new principles. But well done to Theresa May for responding the way that it does.

    What the UK needs, Reb, is to stop shunting LGBT asylums seekers into the god-awful asylum system where they are left to rot for years on end at the tax-payer’s expense while they wait for their decisions. Then what the UK needs, Reb, is to use all of the diplomatic muscle it can muster to bring about change in those countries where there are gross violations of the human rights of LGBT people, so that they no longer have to flee from the culture, family and friends in order live without fear. And what you need, Reb, is to get yourself informed.

  8. HailHailKitty! 7 Jul 2010, 1:17pm

    No one is more pleased to see this than I am. However, the next barrier is the ignorance of immigration judges. Listen to Nicky Campbell’s phone in from yesterday. The judge kept referring to homosexuals and lesbians! They have no understanding of being LGBT here, never mind anywhere else. He also talked about how many people will now claim on the basis of sexuality, which now means they are expecting more bogus claims, meaning more rejections. How do you prove you’re gay? Like I say, this is good news, but it just seems like a technicality to me. In reality, sadly it won’t improve the situation for those claiming asylum.

  9. Good news – another labour inequality bites the dust! next one remove replace CPs with gay marriage, another “blot” on labour’s record… let hope it takes the coalition govt to address this as well!!

  10. Great news! LGBT asylum seekers should be treated fairly like anybody else. Yes, people might try to play the system, but they do that already. People arrive here and lie about their country of origin or ‘lose’ their passport, for example. As long as there are reasonable checks, then I don’t see that there’ll be a problem.

    In the (very) long-term I hope that more countries begin to understand that LGBT people are perfectly normal and should be allowed to live their lives in peace.

  11. Excellent news, well done Supreme Court. If my memory serves me well, Lady Hale is one of the judges. She is the only judge who supports same-sex marriage.

    Lets not forget that a number of people posting on this issue over the past couple of years have been very vocal in their opposition to gay asylum seekers, in fact immigration in general. Absolutely shameful. Were it not for immigration, America, for example, wouldn’t be the strongest, wealthiest country, the only super power thanks to its long tradition of immigration. Immigrants give back more than they receive. I’m not saying there haven’t been problems, indeed there have been, but for the most part, immigrants have proved to be a vital resource in the success of any modern, dynamic society.

    This is an excellent start by the Supreme Court and hopefully will put more nails in the coffin of xenophobia in our country.

  12. de Villiers 7 Jul 2010, 2:56pm

    Lord Rogers at paragraph 78:

    “In short, what is protected is the applicant’s right to live freely and openly as a gay man. That involves a wide spectrum of conduct, going well beyond conduct designed to attract sexual partners and maintain relationships with them. To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates. Mutatis mutandis – and in many cases the adaptations would obviously be great – the same must apply to other societies. In other words, gay men are to be as free as their straight equivalents in the society concerned to live their lives in the way that is natural to them as gay men, without the fear of persecution.”

    Judgment here: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0054_Judgment.pdf

  13. Sister Mary Clarance 7 Jul 2010, 3:23pm

    “Oh great, thats exactly what England needs. More immigrants”

    Reb Kean – I absolutely agree, that’s two more people allowed in who will get themselves a job and pay taxes and that will help pay for all those British people who want to sit on their backsides and suck up my taxes.

  14. de Villiers 7 Jul 2010, 3:29pm

    BTW, Hale was not on the panel. The judges were Hope, Rodger, Walker, Collins and Dyson.

  15. Interesting as two of the judges are Scottish and traditionally (or I think I mean historically) the Scots judges have been at the more conservative, less liberal end of the House of Lords judicial committee. Collins and Dyson I would have expected to be more liberal and I am not surprised at their views. Intersting that they gave very rapid judgement too. Good on them all.

  16. Anyone else notice what the scum of the country think?
    Check the comments on the Daily Mail site for this article
    Most of them are down right disgusting biggots who couldn’t give a monkeys for the right of someone to live a life from persecution, possible murder and biggotry on a constant basis

  17. Dr Robin Guthrie 7 Jul 2010, 4:06pm

    Comment by Tigra 07 — July 7, 2010 @ 15:57

    I commented on the DM that they were all revolting, selfish hateful bigots and stated that I would expect to see such hate spew from the DM pages.

    Assuming I’m published – most likely not, I await the barrage of red arrows with glee.

    Plus the DM using a headline like that:

    “Gay men must be free to enjoy Kylie concerts and cocktails: Judge’s extraordinary ruling in homosexual asylum case”

    is really quite sick, given the alternative for these people is to be killed or imprisoned.

  18. Just wait and see now how many othet immigrants jump on the LGBT wagon a stae they are gay or whatever, this goverment has just gave immigrants the front door to walk right into our country and stay….. Bloody disgrace thats what this country and its do-goodesr are

  19. vulpus_rex 7 Jul 2010, 4:34pm

    I have just had a look at the Daily Mail site and whilst I haven’t reviewed the comments in detail the top 5 rated merely express a certain exasperation that now lots of bogus asylum seekers will just claim to be gay in order to promtoe their case falsely – that is not an entirely unreasonable worry.

  20. …and now the floodgates will open. Every poof from here to the Straits of Borneo will be showing up, knocking on our door demanding entry. I also suspect an awful lot more that are not LGBT will try it on too, as there is not an easy way to confirm one’s sexuality.
    The rest of the world must really be having a bloody good laugh at how fcuking soft in the head this country is.

  21. Patrick James 7 Jul 2010, 5:03pm

    Dr. Boycock writes:

    So, finally some common sense! As a Labour supporter, this was one area where I felt the previous government acted in an inexcusable and shameful way.

    I entirely agree with Dr. Boycock. I’m a Labour guy but I felt that Labour was terrible on this issue.

    This Supreme Court ruling is the very best of news.

  22. @ spanner…your right mate, this country is too soft in the head and its no wonder the rest of the world now laugh at us as being soft.
    Time and time again goverments no matter who, have shown they have no backbone when it comes to making difficult decisions and it makes no wonder that organisations like the BNP and the EDL take up the cause and fight for what this country really is all about
    Many others will now be thinking the same when it comes to people from other countries trying to claim asylum, they will state they are LGBT and wont be asked to prove this, if they do, they will come prepared anyway so no matter what this country does now, the doors are left wide and truely open for immigrants/refugees, whatever you want to call them, but this country DOES NOT NEED THEM.
    Our country is alredy over run putting much pressure on services like NHS, Police, Job, etc etc all because this country want to be seen to be fair. This country has never been fair. It does not look out for its own citizens in the way of finding work for people with a decent living wage, what it does do though is employ people from other countries with a much less wage than the minimum wage, thats despicable and its no wonder this country is on the verge of disaster
    All the do-gooders of this country should be totally ashamed of themselves for being part of a small part of our society that want to destroy the whole of our society, if you want to do good for refugess/immigrants, go to their country and build a life for them, dont let them come here when were trying to repair ours.

  23. Patrick James 7 Jul 2010, 5:12pm

    Dr Robin Guthrie writes:

    Plus the DM using a headline like that:

    “Gay men must be free to enjoy Kylie concerts and cocktails: Judge’s extraordinary ruling in homosexual asylum case”

    Yes, I agree, that headline is really disgusting.

  24. Patrick James 7 Jul 2010, 5:26pm

    Dr Boycock writes:

    I realise that some of my fellow Labour supporters will question the Home Secretary´s (Theresa Mays) support of this. That she does not truly believe what she is saying… So what? I expect a Home Secretary to put aside their (personal) beliefs and act professionally in line with their stated party policy! I don´t CARE what she believes.. It´s what she DOES that counts.

    I am a fellow Labour supporter and like Dr Boycock I am delighted at this ruling. It was terrible and shameful that Labour had not processed this through parliament.

    However this is a Supreme Court ruling of course and not an action of government. I think that Theresa May probably does welcome it, not because of its content but rather that it prevents her from having to drive it through parliament herself against opposition.

    Theresa May hasn’t actually done anything. I do await her doing something with some interest.

    Politically the most interesting area is gay marriage. For me the LGBT asylum seekers was a much more important issue, but the gay marriage issue is more interesting because it is the one that will require action by Theresa May rather than words.

    Personally I do think there is a chance that the Coalition Government will act on gay marriage because the gift they are giving the massive religious right wing of the Conservative party is so big.

    That gift is the ‘free schools’ program. This will lead to a huge increase in the number of religious schools in the UK, all paid for by the state, all free to exclude students on the basis of religion, all able to exclude LGBT from relationship and sex education.

    These ‘free schools’ are imho a real assault on the pluralist nature of our society which has enabled progress on LGBT issues over the last decades.

  25. Patrick James 7 Jul 2010, 5:34pm

    Sister Mary Clarance writes:

    that’s two more people allowed in who will get themselves a job and pay taxes and that will help pay for all those British people who want to sit on their backsides and suck up my taxes.

    It looks like Sister Mary Clarance welcomes the supreme court action and I am delighted to be able to agree with him.

    On a different issue Sister Mary Clarance is worried about his taxes being “sucked up” by people who sit on their backsides. Well, the ConDem government is proceeding with an economic strategy that will lead to a very significant increase in unemployment so there will be many more sitting on their backsides sucking up Sister Mary Clarences taxes :)

  26. vulpus_rex 7 Jul 2010, 5:53pm

    A small correction to your post at 25 is required Patrick.

    The coalition government is proceeding with an economic strategy required to clear up the absolute mess left by the worst Chancellor of the exchequer in civilised history in any industrialised country.

    The unelected dictator Brown’s incompetence was of such staggering proportions that clearing up his disastrous mess will take years and years of difficult work.

    Any adverse consequence of the coalition goverment’s actions can be attributed directly to the economic lunacy of Brown and the utterly craven, cowardly liebour party who did nothing to stop the madness.

    I hope that’s nice and clear for you.

  27. Philip Davidson 7 Jul 2010, 6:07pm

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7107598.ece

    Let’s hope the government appeals.

    The last thing we need is even more immigrants. The only country that takes more immigrants than the U.K. is the United States.

    Over 1 million native British people have left the U.K. hopefully I will be joining them.

    When you live in another country you don’t worry about it because it isn’t your country so it will be good to get away from the U.K.

    God I am so sick of immigrants.

  28. This is a victory for common sense, for years we have been campaigning and hilighting the simple facts that a person can’t hide their sexualality, if they do this simply plays on their minds so much it takes them in to mental health problems–

    Can you hide if your a Jew or Black person, a muslim–do you have to to be who you are entitled to be–

    Yes you may get those who may use this most important ruling as a case to get asylum in the UK—BUT you simply canot taint everyone with the same brush and if you don,t know the facts you can’t have prove that their lying and are nota valid case

    Well done Judge for this ruling

  29. I would rather 100 people managed to get asylum by pretending that they would be persecuted than just one be sent back to a miserable life or death for this judgement not having been given. And I am shocked by the racist views of some posters here, quite shocked. You should be ashamed, but I know you are not.

  30. Dr Robin Guthrie 7 Jul 2010, 7:17pm

    My Daily Mail comment below.

    (“Kylie concerts and cocktails: Judge’s extraordinary ruling in homosexual asylum case”

    To be gay in Iran gets you hung or crushed under a wall,

    In Cameroon 5 years in prison.

    What a sick headline, only to be expected from this paper.)

    Whoohoo, I’m at 21 red ticks already…..

  31. Dave: You would rather 100 pretended to claim asylum, but I bet you wouldn’t want them all moving in next to you. You will spout this lefty accusation of being “racist”. That is CRAP. I am a nationalist, which means I support MY country, and frankly everyone else can go paddle their own canoe.
    I’m not anti-them, I’m pro-me.

    Why are we expected to be the world’s social services? The world is bad, life is cruel, sh!t happens etc etc. That’s just the way it goes. If we were to bring in every waif and stray in that asked, we would sink. We have way too many problems of our own and we continue to spend all our time supporting others. Charity begins at home. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

  32. We like every other country have a duty to take in legitimate asylum seekers under a UN resolution.

    We should also realise the damage our culture did to many African countries and the bigotry we exported via missionaries and colonialism. Many African cultures originally had a tradition of 3rd gender and homosexuality acceptance, just look at the Masai as an example. We brought Victorian morals to the African continent and exported hate into these cultures often compelling them to adhere to it.

    We do have a responsibility to clear up a mess we are partly responsible for.

  33. It really won’t do the LGBT struggle for equality any favours if this is abused. As it will be. Quite the opposite in fact.

  34. Dr Boycock 7 Jul 2010, 7:27pm

    “The last thing we need is even more immigrants. The only country that takes more immigrants than the U.K. is the United States.

    Over 1 million native British people have left the U.K. hopefully I will be joining them.

    When you live in another country you don’t worry about it because it isn’t your country so it will be good to get away from the U.K.

    God I am so sick of immigrants.”

    Bye dear. My god, what total bull. Nothing more than total xenophobia. I prefer the following comment:

    “I would rather 100 people managed to get asylum by pretending that they would be persecuted than just one be sent back to a miserable life or death for this judgement not having been given. And I am shocked by the racist views of some posters here, quite shocked. You should be ashamed, but I know you are not.”

    You see, its simple. The former comment was obviously made by someone who could not give a stuff about anyone other than himself. Someone with a true ´Little Britain´ mentality above ALL else. The latter comment obviously from someone who prefers to think about the welfare of others… I know which group I´d rather belong to.

    We are hardly a race of ´pure bloodlines´ are we? What exactly IS a ´British person´? I happen to think that your nationality largely depends on where you happen to be dropped. I rather see myself as a citizen of the world. Perhaps if more did, there would be less petty squabbles and wars? Perhaps we might ALL be more concerned with each others welfare?

    I am shocked though. I would EXPECT such cr-p when reading the comment sections of the Daily Snail, but on here?

    ´Little Britain´ was meant to take the piss out of so many stereotypes.. The worrying (and saddening) thing is that within the gay community, ´Little Britain´ is alive and well. :-(

  35. Patrick James 7 Jul 2010, 7:55pm

    vulpus_rex writes:

    The coalition government is proceeding with an economic strategy required to clear up the absolute mess left by the worst Chancellor of the exchequer in civilised history in any industrialised country.

    I won’t quote the rest because it is so silly really.

    The UK has just been through a terrible global financial crisis and the deficit was the least painful option.

    The Labour government with Alistair Darling and George Brown steered the UK through that crisis superbly.

    The best way now to reduce the deficit is slowly and with care because an attempt to reduce the deficit quickly will only lead to damaging growth and in fact the countries ability to generate the wealth required to see off the deficit.

    The Conservative party has embarked upon a set of cuts which are far to great. These cuts are ideological in nature, they are not driven by a direct concern over the deficit per se.

    Of course Vulpus Rex will not wish to understand this, but fortunately the vast majority of people in the UK do understand it, which explains why the Conservative party did not win the general election.

  36. “It really won’t do the LGBT struggle for equality any favours if this is abused. As it will be. Quite the opposite in fact.” Comment by Ray

    I think you have gotten lost try this site: http://www.bnp.org.uk/

  37. Patrick James 7 Jul 2010, 8:03pm

    Dr Boycock writes about the anti-immigration comments:

    My god, what total bull. Nothing more than total xenophobia.

    Yes I do agree with you Dr Boycock!

    For decades I have seen these sorts of comments expressed of the dire consequences of immigration but they never come true.

    I would personally far rather have immigrants to those people who so vehemently oppose them.

    For years I lived in South London and I loved the fact that it had a good number of people from all over the world living there.

  38. Patrick James 7 Jul 2010, 8:13pm

    Philip Davidson writes:

    God I am so sick of immigrants.

    and

    Over 1 million native British people have left the U.K. hopefully I will be joining them.

    Well Philip I think I would very much prefer the immigrants to the likes of people like you.

    So, if you feel the need to leave the UK because of immigration then I say let’s have more immigration!

  39. Mihangel apYrs 7 Jul 2010, 8:39pm

    so Philip Davidson, you intend to become an immigrant to some other person’s country?

    I assume you will expect to be treated with respect and equality?

    Or will you be happy to be considered an outsider and usurper

  40. Philip Davidson did scribe:-

    Over 1 million native British people have left the U.K. hopefully I will be joining them.

    God I am so sick of immigrants.

    Juxtaposition or what!
    You want to become an immigrant in another country, but hate immigrants…
    Mayhap, there’ll be a person in your new country posting hateful things about you as an “unwanted immigrant”.

  41. Iris:
    > Great news! LGBT asylum seekers should be treated fairly like anybody else.

    The ruling is about sexuality, and rules on two gay men. Unless the Borders Agency and Home Office are suddenly inclined to be liberal that might well not help trans applicants. the persecution of who is different, country by country, and the evidence of being eligible too.

    Stonewall recent did a report on asylum and, as ever, completely omitted trans – by which I mean they didn’t have the decency to point out that they weren’t covering trans and that shouldn’t be taken as meaning trans people didn’t have problems with the UK asylum system. My guess would be that the Home Secretary has only been informed by that, Stonewall report.

  42. Patrick James: “For years I lived in South London and I loved the fact that it had a good number of people from all over the world living there.”

    How the flying fcuk would you know!?? It’s not even your country either, you’re Irish!

    Where I live, if you see another white guy, you shout “snap”.
    The chances are though, he’s probably Polish.

  43. Spanner: as I understand it Mr James is from Northern Ireland, which despite the best efforts of certain traitors is an integral part of the United kingdom. it is as much his country as yours or mine and I echo his remarks about living in London – I am fortunate enough to do so and I am glad to have interesting people from all over the world around me rather than narrow minded little Englanders.

  44. Sister Mary Clarance 8 Jul 2010, 12:21am

    “The world is bad, life is cruel, sh!t happens etc etc.”

    You’re absolutely right Spanner, life is cruel, so cruel that, dare I say it, you might actually have to live in the same street as immigrants.

    Look on the bright side though, its probably their taxes paying for your benefits matey.

  45. Dr Boycock 8 Jul 2010, 1:16am

    @Spanner.

    (Patrick James) “For years I lived in South London and I loved the fact that it had a good number of people from all over the world living there.”

    How the flying fcuk would you know!??”

    What??? How the hell would he know that he lived in South London for years? How the hell would he know that he ´loved the fact that it had a good number of people from all over the world living there´? Pretty easy to work out those answers for yourself instead of making stupid non-points?

    “It’s not even your country either, you’re Irish!”

    There you go again with the ´ýour country, my country´ cr-p! As I said earlier, if you look back far enough into your family tree and ´bloodline´, I´m sure you will find immigrants also. The only thing that defines nationality these days is where you happen to have been dropped. Evidently, by reading the comments section of national newspapers (and even this website), your nationality cannot even be defined by a common, shared set of values!

    Clearly, some people appear to have none.

  46. “vulpus_rex” comments:
    Let’s hope the government appeals.

    What can I say… The UK got its Supreme Court only less than a year ago, and some people are obviously having problems getting used to the concept!

  47. Mihangel apYrs 8 Jul 2010, 6:58am

    @ vulpus_rex : “Let’s hope the government appeals”

    to whom? The European Court of Human Rights?

  48. musclelad23 8 Jul 2010, 7:25am

    I have decided. I am not commenting on any more pink news articles. A slurrry of right wing xenophobic hateful posters have now become regulars. Suspicion leads me to believe it is possibly two people pretending to be more. However I will leave the name calling to someone else.

    I used to feel comfortable here, but it seems pink news readers are somehow transforming into daily mail readers – the most miserable, irrational, hateful, uninformed and ultimately selfish people that exist.

    I bid you adieu.

  49. de Villiers 8 Jul 2010, 8:36am

    There is confusion between immigration and asylum. Immigration is the voluntary choosing to relocate in another country for a better way of life. Asylum results from the fleeing of a country, involuntarily, due to the fear of torture, beating or death.

    It is worth recalling the situation in this case – at paragraph 44 of the judgment per Lord Rodger:

    “44. In the case of HT it is agreed that, following an occasion when he was seen kissing his then (male) partner in the garden of his home, the appellant was attacked by a crowd of people when leaving church. They beat him with sticks and threw stones at him. They pulled off his clothes and tried to cut off his penis with a knife. He attempted to defend himself and was cut just above the penis and on his hand. He was threatened with being killed imminently on the ground that “you people cannot be changed”. Police officers arrived and demanded to know what was going on and why the crowd were assaulting him. They were told it was because he was gay. One of the policemen said to the appellant “How can you go with another man?” and punched him on the mouth. The policemen then kicked him until he passed out. As a result of the injuries which he received he was kept in hospital for two months. After that, he was taken home by a member of his church who told him that he feared for his life and safety if he remained in Cameroon. This man made travel arrangements for HT who flew to the United Kingdom via another European country.”

    The argument put by the former Secretary of State (Alan Johnson) was that if gay people hid their sexuality, they could be returned to their original country. Lord Collins rejected this argument, likening it to the situation of Anne Frank.

    “107. In this case the Secretary of State argued that had Anne Frank escaped to the United Kingdom, and had it been found (improbably, as the Secretary of State recognised) that on return to Holland she would successfully avoid detection by hiding in the attic, then she would not be at real risk of persecution by the Nzais, and the question would be whether permanent enforced confinement in the attic would itself amount to persecution. Simply to re-state the Secretary of State’s argument shows that it is not possible to characterise it as anything other than absurd and unreal.”

  50. To Paul Davidson

    I was wondering why you haven’t gone to lead your new life as an immigrant already? If it’s the cost of the ticket, I’m ready to help.

  51. I would have thought that after the events of 70 years ago we would have learnt a bit about persecution and asylum.

    For more developed countries than this one, allowing in people suffering persecution for their sexuality has been a no-brainer for many years.

  52. vulpus_rex 8 Jul 2010, 9:44am

    Patrick @35

    There was no recession in Canada, Australia, China and most of South East Asia.

    Your “it started in America/it was global” nonsense is just Brown’s cowardly excuse to absolve himself of blame for the terrible mess he made (and incidently why Barack Obama hates his guts and thinks he’s an idiot).

    What you are apparently too dumb to understand is that one shouldn’t spend money that you do not have.

    Brown was also too thick to understand this – he was so moronic that even during the boom years he carried on borrowing and borrowing – mad as a hatter and comlpetely drunk on spending borrowed cash.

    However to be fair, if you are from Notherthern Ireland where 70% of spending is governement money I suppose spending other people’s cash on cr*p must seem normal.

  53. vulpus_rex 8 Jul 2010, 9:46am

    “@ vulpus_rex : “Let’s hope the government appeals”
    to whom? The European Court of Human Rights? ”

    Where pray tell did I write this?

  54. The emigrants from this country exceed the immigrants. There are many brown field sites witting for development for new housing. Many immigrants will do jobs that ‘native’ Britains will not take but rather take welfare instead.

  55. Spanner, I have to say I find your comments quite inappropriate. Way off beam. But let me make a suggestion. Reveal here your name and address so that the comments can be reported to and considered by the police, since I am fairly sure they fall on the wrong side of the law. Let that be considered. If you are not prepared to do this, then maybe reflect on your cowardice. I am confident that many of us will be doing the same thing.

  56. Mihangel apYrs 8 Jul 2010, 2:05pm

    Sorry Foxie one, the quote was picked up from #46, who must have got it from Philip Davidson @ #27, rather than you (at #26)

    I really do apologise, and must check the sources better.

    It still begs the questin from #27 though.

  57. Sister Mary Clarance: “You’re absolutely right Spanner, life is cruel, so cruel that, dare I say it, you might actually have to live in the same street as immigrants. Look on the bright side though, it’s probably their taxes paying for your benefits matey.
    Trust me; I do live surrounded by immigrants. And what’s more, I run my own business that employs three other people, so I also pay out in employers taxes, pension schemes, health care and public liability insurance, so please don’t demonstrate your utter ignorance of me by spouting on about benefits while I see half my neighbourhood on cash-in-hand jobs that the majority of which they post home so we don’t even see the benefit of it being returned to the local economy. “Matey.”

    musclelad23: “I have decided. I am not commenting on any more pink news articles.”
    Oh good. Maybe we might get a bit of rational debate on here at last.

    Dave (without a surname): “Reveal here your name and address so that the comments can be reported to and considered by the police, since I am fairly sure they fall on the wrong side of the law.”
    Well firstly, please do not accuse people of being cowards simply because they are not a brain-dead muppet like yourself who is willing to display their private credentials over the internet.
    However, that said, pray tell me what you would have the police arrest me for? Stating the utterly fcuking obvious perhaps? I have not said anything that is derogatory towards immigrants. I simply just don’t want them here. That is not illegal; it’s just the view that gets right up your nannying left-wing nose. Well live with it, there are many more like me out there, and no, they are not all skinheads and BNP supporters. They are parents, teachers, doctors, teenagers, OAPs and the public in general. We are sick and tired of our country being invaded by stealth. Contrary to opinion by cretins like you, it is not illegal to hold an opinion, just because it goes against your warped political doctrine.

    I am sick to death of these people claiming that we all have Viking/Saxon/Celtic/Alien blood in our English veins. Yes, I totally agree, but that heritage has been built up over hundreds, if not thousands of years, and makes us what we are. The current level of immigration has not been a slow process of adaptation and integration, but a violent slamming of the rest of the world upon our tolerant culture over no more than 30 years, mostly in half that time.

    If everyone who didn’t have both parents born in the UK were to disappear today, Britain would be able to breathe again. If one were to eliminate everyone who hadn’t had all four of their Grandparents born here, I would be living in a ghost town.
    How many other countries could make that claim?

  58. Asylum Seeker

    “According to international refugee law, a refugee is someone who seeks refuge in a foreign country because of war and violence, or out of fear of persecution”

    Not all immigrants are refugee seekers…are you guys talking about immigration in general or refugee seekers!

  59. #

    “It really won’t do the LGBT struggle for equality any favours if this is abused. As it will be. Quite the opposite in fact.” Comment by Ray

    I think you have gotten lost try this site: http://www.bnp.org.uk/

    (Report comment)

    Comment by Abi — July 7, 2010 @ 20:01

    The BNP site? Is that one of those sites that tolerates a wide range of views then? Perhaps LGBT people are supposed to agree on everything? Surely that would encourage stereotyping,? Something that has bedevilled the community for generations.

  60. musclelad23 is more rational then you Skinner and he doesn’t swear either

    there’s many genuine people about plus where’s the tolerant culture you refer to?

  61. Chester: “where’s the tolerant culture you refer to?”
    You’re in it. If we weren’t tolerant, we would not be the accepting bunch to put up with this so-called “multicultural society” – Try seeing if the French or the Swiss would do the same.

    As for swearing, the people on here are enough to make a saint swear, particularly when they can’t even get my fcuking name right. ;)

  62. Sister Mary Clarance 9 Jul 2010, 2:17am

    “I am sick to death of these people claiming that we all have Viking/Saxon/Celtic/Alien blood in our English veins. Yes, I totally agree, but that heritage has been built up over hundreds, if not thousands of years, and makes us what we are”

    Yes, it does make you want you are decedents of immigrants mostly. Frankly on that basis I would have thought you’ve have been a bit more understanding, although in probability your ancestors didn’t come here fleeing violence and persecution, they probably came here causing it.

    Doing your level best to keep up the tradition I see Spanner!!!!

  63. swearing is the first resort of those with no argument etc, plus I was half asleep so I’m sorry about your name! But many don’t tolerate the multicultures do they? Many don’t even accept LBGT as equals so I can’t see how you can make the claim the UK is tolerant, look at the various attacks, abuses etc for example!

  64. de Villiers 9 Jul 2010, 2:01pm

    One does not need to support multiculturalism to agree that people should be granted asylum. In France, the principle is French First. One is French and any religion or other affiliation is a person matter for them. It is accorded no recognition by the state, be it an association with Catholicism or any other religion or ethnic identity.

    Any person wishing to live in France must agree that, first and foremost, they are required to support the Republic and to speak French. That does not mean that those seeking asylum should be refused if they have difficulties with the language. It does mean that they have to comply with the laws and values of the Republic regardless of their personal background.

  65. Sister Mary Clarance: If you are going to quote me, please don’t rip chunks out of context; The subsequent paragraph vilifies my position: “The current level of immigration has not been a slow process of adaptation and integration, but a violent slamming of the rest of the world upon our tolerant culture over no more than 30 years, mostly in half that time.”

    THAT is my concern. We all originate from an original root, anybody that follows evolution knows that, but it is not the integration of races and cultures that is my concern, but the speed at which it takes place, and the loss of national identity that ends up being the victim in all of this. There is a way of life built up over hundreds of years that is being destroyed within decades. Are you and others too blind to see this?

    Chester: “swearing is the first resort of those with no argument”
    Where or who stated that? Some of the worlds greatest orators have been foul-mouthed. If I need to swear to make a point, then so be it, but never denigrate me for my standard of English, or the passion of my argument.

    You state the UK is not tolerant? I read recently that the “culture police” in Iran are arresting people for bad haircuts. Having tints and colours, or long hair is deemed “unislamic” and one could be locked up for having a dodgy mullet.
    I really think you should look around you before accusing us of intolerance. We have immigrants coming into UK at an average of 500,000 a year. Is that the attitude of of an intolerant nation? Quite the opposite. I think we are soft in the head.

  66. To those criticising to the Daily Mail headline, it is commenting on the extraordinarily bizarre citation of a stereotype by one of the judges. I haven’t read its article and I doubt that that rag has suddenly become a defender of equality, but the judge is the one in the wrong on that particular matter.

  67. N.B. It was Lord Rodgers and de Villiers quotes him higher up.

  68. Sorry, make that Rodger without the -s.

    Here is a quotation from The Daily Mail:

    “It is hard to overstate just how ill-informed, infantile, silly – and, yes, prejudiced – his remarks are.

    “Does Supreme Court judge Lord Rodger really believe the typical gay man enjoys ‘Kylie concerts’ and ‘drinking exotically-coloured cocktails’, while heterosexuals ‘play rugby, drink beer and talk about girls with their mates’?”

    Who knew that I would be ever defending that newspaper?!

  69. Salopian: Sounds he’s got us summed up to a T.
    Now shuddup and stick “Never gonna give you up” on the jukebox while I pour us a Pina Collada, Biatch!

  70. Sister Mary Clarance 9 Jul 2010, 8:36pm

    “The current level of immigration has not been a slow process of adaptation and integration”

    Maybe I could be a little more understanding of your position if you weren’t confusing asylum and immigration.

    That said though, actually I don’t have a problem with immigration either. The culture of dependence on handouts in this country beggars belief and as long as long as we keep handing out benefits to anyone who can’t face work because its raining/cold/too sunny/a bit blowy/looking like it might be a bit blowy later …. possibly, then we are going to be reliant on immigrant workers who have grown up in societies where if you don’t work you don’t eat.

    And it always cracks me up to hear people banging on about people coming to this country and living off the state. Sweet Jes-us, that’s rich, this country wrote the book on screwing the welfare state.

    It has always been the case throughout history that the bone idle and workshy will always be intimidated by other people coming along and taking ‘their’ jobs … no matter that they’ve never even considered giving up their life of tax-payer funded leisure in decades.

  71. SMC: Can you please demonstrate evidence of all these work-shy whiteys sitting around on street corners?

    I suspect you believe in the stereotypes as much as others believe the ones about stealing jobs.

    The reality is that a Polish electrician will do the job for half the minimum wage and still think he’s made a “nice little earner”.
    One wonders if some immigrant started doing your job for half your wage and you were told to ‘seek alternative employment’ exactly how you would feel. Yes there are white layabouts, there are also black and Asian layabouts as well; but your accusations that the indigenous Brits are lazy and incapable is tantamount to a racist slur, and had anyone said such claims about immigrants would have been up on charges of incitement to racial hatred.
    You can’t have your cake and eat it, I’m afraid. Racism is a two-way street.

  72. Sister Mary Clarance 10 Jul 2010, 6:13am

    Spanner, first point, I never mentioned ‘whiteys’. The workshy, handout culture has infected all creeds and colours here – its almost like they’re teaching it in schools these days.

    Second point, of all the immigrant people’s that have been coming to the UK, I think you’ll find that the Polish tradesmen are well known for expecting a reasonable day’s pay for a day’s work. They come from a heavily unionised country and unlike other groups (possibly) they do not work for peanuts.

    Third point, on the racism issue, I referred to British people only, and you might want to check for yourself, but as far as I am aware British doesn’t necessarily mean white. Yes, the unthinkable has happened and their handing out British passports to us blacks and I think they let the Asians have them sometimes as well. So, because you apparently perceive that British people are by definition white, I’m suddenly racist?

  73. SMC: “Polish tradesmen are well known for expecting a reasonable day’s pay for a day’s work.”
    Yes, but the average Pole earns considerably less in Poland, so we pay them half the minimum UK wage and they still earn more than they would back home.

    I have seen similar comments from you and others that always implies that “British” means White teenage mothers and lager swilling chavs, and your comments above just gave that implication as well.

    As for the difference between immigrants and asylum seekers, I fully recognise them. The trouble is, everyone and his uncle uses the asylum thing to try and get a foot in the door, so there is little difference. As far as I’m concerned there should be a blanket ban on ALL immigration, including EU. Asylum seekers can be judged on their own merit, but should only be considered if their plight is actually life-threatening, not just so they can mince about listening to Kylie.

  74. Sister Mary Clarance 11 Jul 2010, 3:00pm

    “The trouble is, everyone and his uncle uses the asylum thing to try and get a foot in the door, so there is little difference”

    Little difference?

    Little point in continuing to debate it with you frankly

  75. de Villiers 12 Jul 2010, 8:19pm

    > As far as I’m concerned there should be a blanket ban on ALL immigration, including EU.

    Gulp. Perhaps I and all the other French citizens working in London ought to go back to Paris. Hopefully France will not implement the same policy or I’ll have to leave behind my (English) partner.

    C’est la vie.

  76. Dr Boycock 13 Jul 2010, 4:33am

    “> As far as I’m concerned there should be a blanket ban on ALL immigration, including EU.

    Gulp. Perhaps I and all the other French citizens working in London ought to go back to Paris. Hopefully France will not implement the same policy or I’ll have to leave behind my (English) partner.

    C’est la vie.”>

    Well said. The EU is a two-way street. There are plenty of ex-pat Brits enjoying life abroad now thanks, in part, to the EU open travel/living policies. Shame some of the ´Little Britain´ Merchants don´t like it, but the country would be a worse place if it were just made up of them.

    “It has always been the case throughout history that the bone idle and workshy will always be intimidated by other people coming along and taking ‘their’ jobs … no matter that they’ve never even considered giving up their life of tax-payer funded leisure in decades.”

    Again, well said! I read of a bus company in Leicester who, (because they were ´only´ offering jobs at the national minimum wage,) were having to advertise and recruit drivers from Poland! Obviously, British drivers do not want their jobs!

    I seem to remember one political party complaining at the time, when the minimum wage was introduced, that it would ´´kill jobs´… That employers would not be able to take on as many employees because of having to pay a minimum wage.. Well, clearly that is not the case. These jobs still need doing.. it just seems that even the British national minimum wage is ´beneath´ British some workers! Obviously they prefer our generous benefit system to a lowly paid job… Good thing then for the EU, otherwise we´d have a shortage of bus drivers in Leicester… (and in other employment sectors in other cities)

    Still, as for these ´bloody immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs!´.. Good on ´em!

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