Reader comments · Gay asylum decision was ‘absurd’, says Ann Widdecombe · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay asylum decision was ‘absurd’, says Ann Widdecombe

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Merseymike 14 Jul 2010, 2:41pm

    Doesn’t anyone realise that the judge was being ironic given the ‘discretion’ was the issue being discussed. In other words, pointing out the silliness of how one is meant to be ‘discreet’

  2. mmmm can’t say Widders comments are really surprising or indeed anything new, coming from her.

    She like many refuse to accept change and therefore will continue to make things as difficult as possible… All in the name of religion of course. Plus of course, I’ve always though she was a classic closet case of the most dangerous kind.

  3. and again Ann shows her homophobia and why she shouldn’t be in power! both did face the risk or death/imprisonment under their countries pathetic homophobic laws

  4. now there’s a very damaged self loather with way too much of a platform.

  5. phew! Ann has passed her sales-by date. Can someone tell her to just be quiet and enjoy her retirement. This is not 20th century.

  6. Patrick James 14 Jul 2010, 2:57pm

    It is unsurprising from Anne Widdecombe however I think the nastiest part of it is where the article reports:

    She continued that the government should resist the “stupidity” of allowing such asylum claims and hinted at possible “civil unrest”.

    It reminds me of the infamous Enoch Powell “Rivers of Blood” speech.

    While the speech didn’t contain the phrase “rivers of blood” as we all know, it was warning of civil unrest. But this “warning” was not a warning at all but rather a legitimisation of civil unrest, Powell was, I think, saying that it is just for people to riot because of immigration.

  7. These people from the past should keep their outdated homophobia to themselves if they are not willing to learn better.

  8. Classic tory xenophobia in lock-step with the BNP including some who post on here. Now lets see if Cameron berates her, don’t hold your breath on that one.

  9. She’s just another bigoted conservative party homophobe. What do you expect.

    It’s very evil of her to try and begin ‘civil unrest’ amongst homophobes by proposing thats what could happen because of this asylum claim.

  10. @ Robert

    Why should Cameron ‘berate’ her? She is no longer an MP. He has nothing to do with her or vice versa.

  11. Maybe we should end her to iran then, and see how ‘overt’ she can be with her christianity. The point ms Widdecombe is not about being a flamer, its about being a normal person. These people cannot just be normal, they have to hide and will basically have to live like monks( islamic monks..). Not all gay men show outward signs (we arent all camp), but even so iran is far from being safe for such men.

  12. We should do to her what the Iranian and Cameroon authorities would do to these gay men, then she might understand why they have been given asylum.

  13. And to think there are tory MPs who are asking homos to be lenient in the protests of the pope when he visits the UK, when catholics all over the world are showing homos no respect whatsoever.

  14. If there is an acceptable and proven risk to gay people in other countries, then their pleas should be considered. However, if it is simply a case they are not getting their full “gay rights”, well sorry, tough. This country has fought long and hard for what it has, and social change is not going to happen overnight. Just because we consider ourselves a civilised country does not mean everyone else whos country is not as advanced has a carte blanche right to wander in and ponce off us. It is a rite of passage that the people have to demand what they want, and slowly, hopefully they will gain it, little by little.

    Anne Widdecombe is a bit of a scary biddy, but she does talk sense. There has to be some degree of control, and each case must be based on the level of risk, not just whether your rights have been infringed.

    Patrick James: Enoch Powell was one of the greatest politicians of the 20th century, and it was only because so many read into that speech things that just weren’t there, that he essentially fell on his sword. This was the catastrophic end to a man who could have had an outstanding political career. What he said was not racist, but a harbinger of things to come, and he was spot on all the way. His predictions are now a reality.

    Just because you say “There’s going to be a fight”, does not mean you are trying to incite one. It is just some people can read the writing on the wall. I myself predict that as the recession continues to bite, and money and jobs become scarcer, and benefits reduced, rightly or wrongly, immigrants are going to be viewed as the cause, and the undercurrent of disapproval will rise to a point where it breaks into riots. I hope it will never get to that stage, but unless net immigration levels are zeroed soon, it won’t be ‘if’, but ‘when’.

  15. What a stupid ignorant woman! I really detest that woman. Can someone please gag her?

  16. Sister Mary clarence 14 Jul 2010, 3:32pm

    “She is no longer an MP”

    Its views precisely like this one that meant she had to go.

  17. When is this malicious catholic bigot off to the Vatican, her asylum there is way overdue.

  18. Hardly surprising … this daft old biddy converted to Roman Catholicism and, like many such converts, feels the need to be ‘more Catholic’ than the Pope.
    Now she just peddles outrageous views and her unsolicited opinions on everything and anything … it’s no less than a sad attempt at self-promotion.
    People have long thought she was a silly old trout, and she does insist on speaking out and proving us right!!!

  19. Locus Solus 14 Jul 2010, 4:02pm

    Hardly supprising from a fat old virgin.
    “Anne Widdecombe says she is a virgin for religious reasons,
    The reason being that God made her incredably ugly.”

  20. If I ever meet that fat ugly bigoted bitch she’ll need asylum

  21. Spanner – the more posts you write, the more you reveal yourself to just be a right wing pig with views that are naive, intollerant and stupid. What gay man with a brain would think that anne widdecome “does talk sense”? Certainly not one with any sense.

    I enjoy reading your comments though, because they remind me never to fall into the same bigoted ways as you. And as you’re all about predicting the dark future for all immigrants in the UK like Enoch Powell did, here’s a little prediction for you. (wait, let me just get my tarot cards and my crystal ball)
    I can see a number of truly British white men who have never ‘ponced’ any money from social services and who all believe British crown and country are more important than freedom and love. They are approaching you. Now they are smashing your head in with a British made baseball bat whilst shouting ‘god save the queen, die you faggot’, it is at this moment you will realise the error of your ways when confronted in a negative way by the British White Supremacists you are so obsessed with defending. You should watch some triga porn and get over it. SkinBruv is good.

  22. Has she not died yet?

    I wonder if she would feel the same about those that come over here with tons of family, don’t try and fit in to our way of life and just bloody breed everywhere

  23. Mihangel apYrs 14 Jul 2010, 5:00pm

    Spanner (and mad old Widders):

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
    “Right to fmily life”

    QED: justification for asylum

  24. Jay: “I can see a number of truly British white men who all believe British crown and country are more important than freedom and love”

    Since were the two mutually exclusive?
    Just because I support my country and Monarchy, and a bunch of dimwitted thugs happen to think the same way does not mean we are the same. Cabbages are green, but not everything that is green is a cabbage. We are both gay, but unlike you, I am not a pretentious, self-righteous liberal twat with his head stuck up his arse.

  25. I bet her position would change if it was a Catholic Iranian!

    No asylum for anyone on grounds of religion as its a lifestyle choice.

  26. flood gates are open 14 Jul 2010, 5:37pm

    Anne Widdicome will you be my friend please?? i believe you are right in everything you say and am behind you.
    Send them back to country of origin, claiming they are homosexual is no reason to be granted asylum
    Floodgates are now oipen for ALL claimaints to sate thay are homosexula, watch this space this goverment have no bloody backbone anymore.

  27. It is no wonder Ann Widddecomb fell from grace with comments like hers. Why is she being quoted anyway?

  28. @ Spanner

    “Anne Widdecombe is a bit of a scary biddy, but she does talk sense.”

    Sorry but that is a load of poop and you know it. Lets face it she is typical of most religious people in that she actually Doesn’t speak her own words but usual speak in reference to what her bible tells her.

    It’s what make most things she says utter crap and yet more proof that religious people with a brain are pointless as only a few seldom use it to think for themselves.

    Nothing this woman has done has been credit worthy and she took the message to retire a few years longer than her use by date.

    In conclusion, I’m glad she has gone but unlike children ex MP should not only be not be heard, they should Never be seen either.

  29. Oh dear Spanner, another issue you are very confused about. First you think we live in a civilised country because of the equality and freedom that different minorities have fought for, then you want zero immigration and criticise the liberal people who have fought for those various forms of equality that have made our country civilised. Make your mind up.

  30. Quote: “Talking loudly about boys”

    Oh, yes, I forgot – lesbians don’t exist in the tiny minds of people like her. If she stopped listening to the religious nutters (don’t mean all religious people – just the fundies), she’d realise that there’s more to life than an obsession with what gay men do or don’t do in bed.

    As for the asylum issue – every case should be proved, of course, but there’s no reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to seek asylum if the circumstances dictate. If she doesn’t like that, maybe she could try to educate the backward, bigoted countries that they’re fleeing from so that they improve rights for gay people.

    I’m not holding my breath.

  31. de Villiers 14 Jul 2010, 6:59pm

    It is worth recalling what happened to the claimants starting at paragraph 44 of the judgment:

    “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.”

  32. James Armstrong 14 Jul 2010, 7:03pm

    I believe that Anne Widdecombe is right to claim the the asylum system should only be available for the most serious cases of human rights abuse, but she is wrong to claim that the LGBT cases in question do not fall under that kind of protection.

    The fact of the matter is that openly homosexual men are executed, subjected to forced labour or imprisoned in many countries around the world and by sending them back we would be putting their liberty or their lives at risk.

    This is precisely what the asylum system is for. The judicial decision should be welcomed.

  33. Vic Codling 14 Jul 2010, 7:04pm

    What a very silly and old woman with her usual Christian bigoted viewpoint. I can see why she is a ‘Ms’ not a Mrs… who would want to waking up next to her! I’d rather take my chances in Cameroon ;-)
    Well done Judge Rodgers.

  34. de Villiers 14 Jul 2010, 7:04pm

    I should add that what is absurd is to refer to one or two lines of a judgment running to 132 paragraphs where all the judges were in agreement and not even to mention the central guidance for immigration judges as set out in paragraph 82.

    Existing case law had stated confirmed the proposition that if a person had a well-founded fear that he would suffer persecution on being returned to his home country were he to live openly as a gay man, he was to be regarded as a refugee for the purposes of the Convention, even though, because of the fear of persecution, he would in fact live discreetly and so avoid suffering actual harm, Appellant S395/2002 applied and J v Secretary of State overruled.

    The appropriate steps for immigration tribunals to take was stated as follows. When an applicant applied for asylum on the ground of a well-founded fear of persecution because he was gay, the tribunal had first to ask itself whether it was satisfied that he was gay, or that he would be treated as gay by potential persecutors in his home country.

    If so, the tribunal had then ask to itself whether it was satisfied that gay people who lived openly would be liable to persecution in the applicant’s home country.

    If so, the tribunal should consider what the individual applicant would do if he were returned to that country. If he would in fact live openly and thereby be exposed to a real risk of persecution, then he had a well-founded fear of persecution, even if he could avoid the risk by living “discreetly”. If, on the other hand, the tribunal concluded that the applicant would in fact live discreetly and so avoid persecution, it had to go on to ask itself why he would do so.

    If it concluded that the applicant would choose to live discreetly simply because that was how he wished to live, or because of social pressures, such as not wanting to distress his parents or embarrass his friends, his application should be rejected. Social pressures of that kind did not amount to persecution and the Convention did not offer protection against them.

    If, on the other hand, the tribunal concluded that a material reason for the applicant living discreetly would be a fear of the persecution which would follow if he were to live openly as a gay man, then, other things being equal, his application should be accepted. Such a person had a well-founded fear of persecution. To reject his application on the ground that he could avoid the persecution by living discreetly would be to defeat the very right which the Convention existed to protect, namely his right to live freely and openly as a gay man without fear of persecution.

  35. Let’s send this c’unt to iran and see her live a “discreet” life as a slave to so islamic man, she won’t beable to shout her mouth off then.

  36. Jay: I knew an illiterate cretin like you would miss the point, and you did.
    I set Zero *NET* immigration. That is something all parties have considered. It basically means that for every immigrant that leaves, another is allowed in. Immigration is not the problem, it is the virtually uncontrolled nature of it that is.

    There was talk of a ‘points’ system, but that seems to have vapourised. We need talented people that have jobs and can contribute to this country, not ones that bleed off us.

    Squidgy: Whatever you think of Anne Widdicombes politicals and religious persuasion, the fact she has stood up and question the open-door policy on this subject is good. The problem with politicians is it’s all or nothing with them. They go from refusing everyone, to allowing everyone. They might as well sign a blank cheque. There HAS to be limitations in force.

  37. de Villiers 14 Jul 2010, 8:08pm

    This is not an immigration case – it is one of asylum. There is no open-door policy on asylum.

  38. Joe Johnston 14 Jul 2010, 8:22pm

    Well said Anne Widdecombe – how many more foreign freeloaders do we want? Asylum seekers? Don’t make me laugh.

  39. Jesus-H-Christ!Why doesn’t that stupid old bat just piss off back to her cottage on Dartmoor and stay out of everyones way?!The venom which spits from her mouth on a regular basis is plain boring now! Actually,I can’t be arsed to say anymore about the dumb bitch!

  40. paul canning 14 Jul 2010, 8:43pm

    Why is Judge Rodgers contribution pejoratively described by the journalist as ‘bizarre’. If you read the whole context and not one line it certainly isn’t.


  41. Mumbo Jumbo 14 Jul 2010, 8:56pm

    Dear Miss Widdecombe,

    Thinking a cracker and a glug of plonk turn into the flesh and blood of a man who, according to some exceptionally dubious “historical” writings which you take as fact, was his own father and died nearly two thousand years ago before coming back to life and then ascending into the sky – now that is what I call absurd you repressed spiteful sexless self-loathing closet-case necrotising cannibal loon.

    Yours sincerely,


  42. “Anne Widdecombe is a bit of a scary biddy, but she does talk sense.” Well it might do but only to someone who had been giving his car exhaust a blow job with the engine running for half an hour maybe.

  43. Why isn’t this sick bitch dead yet? Such an ugly C U Next Tuesday. She should be put down like any old dog.

  44. Abi wrote

    “I bet her position would change if it was a Catholic Iranian!
    No asylum for anyone on grounds of religion as its a lifestyle choice.”

    Abi . . . exactly my sentitment too – But does any one really care when Miss Widdecombe throws a tantrum

  45. Personally I think she was right in her comments. This was a poor decision and simply opens the floodgates on similar claims. What is interesting is that both of these claimants entered the UK after travelling through other European countries. This had nothing to do with sexuality – but everything to do with trying to get to the UK.

    It was a poor judicial decision.

  46. Deejay and Spanner are as bad as Ann
    It’s not a poor decision as the people could be killed etc in their own country FFS
    Spanner – resorting to insults only makes you look bad

  47. Chester @ 21:46 – the European Union makes it clear that if you wish to claim asylum for any number of reasons (sexuality being one) that you make such a claim upon entry into the EU.
    These two claimants chose to travel through Europe, get to the UK, THEN make the claim for asylum. They therefore were not trying to escape prejudice, but merely using the threat of prejudice as an excuse to justify their stay in the UK. If they were so desperate – why did they not make the asylum claim at their point of entry?

    That is why the judicial decision is wrong. Or am I not allowed to saying anything that could be construed as being against homosexuality?

    AW may not be the most tactful person in the world – but she has a point on this issue. It opens the door to far too many claims that cannot be tested objectively.

  48. Well, at least Ann doesn’t need to be “overt” about her lifestyle; frustrated old cow written all over her.

  49. Rev Laurie Roberts 14 Jul 2010, 10:15pm

    Silly bitch doesnt hide her ‘lifestyle’ !

  50. Peter Baird 14 Jul 2010, 10:35pm

    Those cruel spiteful eyes and thin Papal purse-lips, invoke the horrors of the Crusades.
    She has our dispensation to wear the HIJAB.

    Your Humble Servant,
    Wannita Castinetts.

  51. Pumpkin Pie 14 Jul 2010, 10:41pm

    I think some people need a little education on how asylum works. Why don’t people claim asylum in the first safe country they get to? Well, you know those reactionist boors who are always whinging about floodgates being opened and Britain drowning under the pressure (despite still being one of the cushiest and safest countries on the planet)? Well, if asylum seekers had to stay in the first safe country they got to, these wild, ridiculous claims would literally be true for the safe countries which border danger zones.

    As anyone who isn’t an ethnocentric tit may be aware, countries do not conveniently alternate between safe and dangerous like some sort of geographical chess board. It tends to be the case that safe and dangerous countries are clumped together in zones, almost as if it were the case that cultural mindsets extend beyond artificial borders (crazy, huh?). As such, safe countries which happen to border danger zones would be swamped with far more asylum seekers than they can handle (literally, not just in the words of exaggerators).

    Conveniently, the clever folks who come up with international etiquette have logical capacities which exceed those of pre-adolescent children. As such, they decided that, once asylum seekers reach a safe country, they will then be able to pick another country to move to, in order to spread the burden.

    But, if all asylum seekers elect to go to the same country, isn’t that a case of us going out of the frying pan and into the fire with our burden-sharing shenanigans? Well, no. Because, as far as I’m aware, that doesn’t happen. Wailing, ethnocentric conspiracy theorists like to claim that their country gets all the damn dirty asylum seekers, oblivious to the fact that many other countries, both in and out of Europe, take on similar levels of asylum seekers to us. We’re not special. We just have a lot of loud-mouthed discontents who like to think we are.

    tl;dr: QQ moar, xenophobes.

  52. John(Derbyshire) 14 Jul 2010, 11:04pm

    Spanner- Enoch Powell was also a homo-like us- so being a homo does NOT mean you have to be left wing or liberal- Powell was way ahead of his time-his mistake was to confuse racism with immigration. Two totally different things.

  53. This woman is SCUM!

    If Roman Catholicism was banned in a country and Roman Catholics were being persecuted for their LIFESTYLE CHOICES [religion is much more of a lifestyle choice than sexual orientation], I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that she would whole heartedly support a decision to offer them asylum in this country. But, when it comes to gay people, she doesn’t mind if they are persecute and have to live in fear.

    It’s pigs like Ann Widdecombe that remind me that I’m being unfair when I pick on Muslims. Yes, most Muslims are nasty but these bigoted Catholic (not all Catholics are bigoted) pigs aren’t so better.

  54. Mumbo Jumbo 14 Jul 2010, 11:37pm

    Comment #49 by Rev Laurie Roberts

    “Silly bitch doesnt hide her ‘lifestyle’!”

    Or her hairstyle!

  55. John(Derbyshire): “Powell was way ahead of his time-his mistake was to confuse racism with immigration.”

    I think that is a very erudite and observant point, but I think the climate back then of “nig-nogs” and the like was not treated in the same way as it is today, so I could see how one could easily confuse the two. The problem is that even today people assume if you are anti-immigrant, you are automatically labelled a racist.

    I must admit, I had never heard of Powell being gay. Where did you get that info from? I met the man briefly once and he was totally charming; most certainly not of the Nick Griffin type.

  56. What a stupid old c*nt

  57. Stupid old c*nt

  58. Why so many people are interested in an i-nterracial relations-hip. black woman want to date white man and black guys

    want to have relationship with white women. There are many sites focusing on this kind of relationships such as *** (B

    lack wh ite Romance)* .*{C00M} ***

  59. Ann Widdicombe is a pathetic homophobe using her unpleasant Catholic religion as an excuse for her hate.

  60. Enoch Powell was another racist

  61. (As some others have pointed out here)

    Ann Widdicombe is certainly not discreet when it comes to crowing to the press that she is a virgin (so she claims) and she never stops reminding us all that she is a brainwashed Catholic faith-head.

    How bitter and twisted can one sad, old, lone trout be?

    Ann who has never known physical love is a text-book illustration of exactly how bitter missing out on healthy physical sexual relationships can make a person.

    She seems to have passed her exams at university so she must have good retention of facts but is clearly unable to join them together usefully or to grasp a concept or a matter of human rights.

  62. paul canning 15 Jul 2010, 12:08pm


    HT, the Cameroonian, was en route to Canada – where they welcome LGBT refugees but strangely don’t appear to be “flooded” – on false papers when caught at Heathrow airport. Only then when forced to be in this previously unwelcoming country did he claim asylum.

    HT was the one discovered by neighbours innocently kissing his partner in the garden. Amongst other things the ensuing mob tried to cut his penis off, whilst the police looked on and did nothing.

    What fate do you think would await him if returned? Cameroon police normally blackmail, beat up and, yes, jail, anyone found out. As was raised in his case it’s like saying Anne Frank was being ‘discrete’ shut up in her attic.

    Presumably, with good conscience, you would see him returned to this fate?

  63. “I met the man briefly once and he was totally charming”

    Why am I not surprised. No accounting for taste…. or intelligence.

  64. Chester: “Enoch Powell was another racist”
    Well I would expect a totally fatuous, ignorant statement like that from you. Have you ever read the “Rivers of Blood” speech?
    I very much doubt it, because if you had you would have realised that the man had genuine concerns and quite obviously was not a racist. That’s the trouble with the likes of you, you just go along with all the hearsay, bullsh!t and spin that flies around.

    Will: Ditto

  65. Anne Widdecombe’s views are irrelevant to anyone other than the small and very nasty clique of papist bigots.She will become increasingly embittered and spiteful because of her painful vaginal atrophy and consequent dysuria.

  66. Where on Earth in the Bible did it tell her to torture the public by doing Strictly Come Dancing? As someone who has Never watched the show I can say for sure there is no way I’d start!!

    What were the BBC thinking?

  67. Spanner – he made up stuff and all-sorts plus was racist
    Will makes sense unlike you with your venom and bile

  68. Chester: “he made up stuff and all-sorts plus was racist”
    Can you please verify these comments? I very much doubt it.
    I may have venom, but at least I don’t spout gossip, hearsay and lies. Either put up or shut up.

  69. This nasty woman is right about one thing: Judge Rodger’s stupid joke was totally out of place.

  70. agree with Jonas (69)! She is a homophobe no doubt about that. as for the judges comments…well very silly and unprofessional!

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.