Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Clegg dismisses claimed David Davis “Brokeback Coalition” description

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “I wish I knew how to quit you!”
    Sorry, had to say it!

  2. Isn’t that what a healthy partnership is? Two separate partners each with their own autonomy. In general, where one person knows where s/he self-ends and the other self begins. But able to co-operate and share in/for each other’s mutual benefit……

    Put like that……

  3. One thinks a certain David Davis is a tad on the bitter side.

    This is just schoolyard bully tactics… pathetic!

  4. clegg also said he didn’t know if it was a positive or negative comment. he defending Tories and sold his soul. This is how it begins and where are the usual apologist?

  5. Sister Mary Clarance 26 Jul 2010, 2:04am

    Yes Dean and I bet there are many gay asylum seekers thanking their God that they won’t now face repatriation, torture and death as a result of that selling of soul(s).

  6. Hmm I know it is usually a legal thing – any idea why we can’t comment on the ‘vatican one giant gangbang’ story?

  7. Mihangel apYrs 26 Jul 2010, 6:57am

    SMC

    it was the supreme court NOT the politicians or Border Agency that did that. Cameron exalted because the nasty didn’t happen on his watch and he was able to agree to do the legal thing.

    Had positions been reversed, neither party would have done differently from the other.

  8. smc was the brokeback coalition a homopobic comment? simple yes
    or no will do.

  9. Mihangel, the Lib Dems adopted policy years ago to explicitly support the right of LGBT people fleeing torture, murder and imprisonment to claim asylum in the UK. This was a direct result of Labour’s illegal and inhumane failure.

    I am glad to see the Supreme Court following Lib Dem party policy on this one!

  10. um dave I think the lib dems proved they cannot be trusted.

  11. Mihangel apYrs 26 Jul 2010, 10:49am

    Dave

    had the ConLibDem coalition announced something before the Supreme court judgement, or indeed conceded the case, then their position would have been clear. However, whatever the LDs said in opposition their ACTIONS were other.

  12. Sister Mary Clarance 26 Jul 2010, 11:18am

    Dean – ‘No’. The comment didn’t have any real meaning and I think its open to interpretation what was actually meant by the person making the statement. I don’t think it engendered negative attitudes towards gay people, or expressed negative sentiment towards them.

    Mihangel apYrs, I don’t think its quite as simple as you seem to be making the issue. I am not sure why this ended up in the Supreme Court, but I would presume that the two guys being deported appealed to that court. That being the case, had the appeal not gone ahead any decision (to deport) by a lower court would have stood.

    The government had the option to appeal to the European Court, but has chosen instead to end the matter by accepting the decision of the Supreme Court.

    The Tory/Lib Dem coalition had previously stated that they would end the disgusting practice of deporting asylum seekers to countries where they faced serious hard – Labour never promised this in 13 years. I will admit however that it was abundantly clear the position was untenable as it was (and I think I made some comment about this quite some time ago), so to a certain extend the coalition statement was preempting the inevitable, but Labour had no intention it would appear of letting this issue go without a fight.

  13. Stop changing the subject Mary, you always do that when your beloved tory party is shown to still have ingrained homophobia in it. Of course david davis’ comment is homophobic, to say otherwise is sticking your head in the sand, plain stupid.

    David Davis voted for section 28, he voted against equal age of consent for gay and straight people, he voted against civil unions, he voted against laws allowing adoption by gay people, he was absent in votes for gay people to have the same rights to services as everyone else. And I’m sure he would have voted against the immigration ruling had he been given the chance, but he wasn’t so why the hell you are going on about that issue on this thread, only a tory would know.

    And the homo tories think he’s not homophobic. HA. That’s pathetic.

  14. I have rather more confidence in the reporting of an FT journalist than I do in the self-serving protests of government ministers or the simperings of Pink News.
    I rather think it time you relaunched as the ‘Gaily Mail’ though I don’t suppose that will stop blathering on about Tory stories and reports from Israel with not the remotest interest or application to a gay readership. Thank God for the Pink Paper…

  15. SMc Dean – ‘No’. The comment didn’t have any real meaning and I think its open to interpretation what was actually meant by the person making the statement. I don’t think it engendered negative attitudes towards gay people, or expressed negative sentiment towards them. When you say “them” I’ll assume your not gay I’m gay I’d say us

  16. Sister Mary Clarance 26 Jul 2010, 12:56pm

    No Dean, the ‘them’ I was referring to was Cameron and Clegg – I am not either so its ‘them’

    Looking for problems by any chance?

    @Jay, you tw@t I was answering a point that had been made to me and of course you think the comment was homophobic, you’re a bitter little Labour troll. We have got to endure another four years of your whining and b1tching I suppose. Why don’t you get a ‘LOSER’ tattoo stamped on the back of your head to go with the ‘VICTIM’ one on the front

  17. Jay, I agree. One or two who post here over the past couple of years were spewing their xenophobia towards gay asylum seekers using the old red herring that they weren’t gay at all but were seeking only to get to the UK and sponge off the state. What hypocrites. You know, if Cameron were espousing xenophobia, they’d still support him. Monkey see, monkey do!

  18. SMC…One question….Why are you so judgemental of everyone on this site…note your comment at #16 above. A clear comment without the bile and vitriol would suffice and would make this site a little more readable.

  19. Sister Mary Clarance 26 Jul 2010, 1:38pm

    Robert, you seem to have missed the point though that when it came down to it, these people has to go to the Supreme Court not because of the Tories or the Lib Dems but because of Labour … same issue with the Gurkhas … bit of a pattern if you ask me.

    Its all very well to speculate on what some other party ‘may’ have done, but try focusing on what Labour actually did.

    “British workers for British jobs” – Mick Griffin …. oops sorry, no – Gordon Brown.

    Xenophobia not from the Tory ranks, and then bless her, dear old Margaret Hodge with her British homes for British non-workers.

    Monkey see, monkey do – agree with you one hundred per cent – staggering what some people on here will try to airbrush over.

    Anyway, off topic again and Jay will be wetting himself with rage no doubt. Perhaps though someone could explain how the comment is ‘homophobic’ (assuming it was actually said as reported), within the definition of homophobic (which doesn’t actually include ‘because he’s Tory’?

  20. Mary calm down, there’s only one bitter troll on this thread – go and look in the mirror.

    And btw, I don’t vote labour. But I’m clear headed enough to know that the last labour government did a lot for homos equality during their last time in power and I am grateful for that – you know the list, so there’s no point in typing it out again. Whereas the last tory government did a lot against homos equality, and have during the last labour government continually voted against homo equality. Those are the facts Mary, its a shame you can’t accept them.

    The question of this story is if David Davis is homophobic, not wether the tory party would have voted for immigration rights. David Davis is homophobic, his description of the coalition is homophobic, which is why he’s saying he didn’t say it – his voting record proves he is homophobic, why can’t you accept that?

    Also, you mention a ‘Victim’ tattoo stamped on the front of my head. Have you ever seen the film Victim? If not, you should, you might learn something about homophobia, and not be so glib in trying to justify it.

    You also mention ‘whining’ and ‘b1tching’ when talking about homophobic tory MP’s. In my books, when a homo tries to stop someone from being homophobic, even if they are a tory MP, it’s called protesting. You may want to make other homos feel like they are whining when they are trying to stop homophobia, but challenging homophobia is not whining or b1tching, it’s protesting.

  21. Sister Mary Clarance 27 Jul 2010, 12:59am

    Dean, how has he been left out, he is a member of the ruling government. The only people left out are the Labour party and their see-no-evil allies on here.

    Brokeback Mountain was a nice film about two nice gay guys, portraying them in a positive light, and depicting them in a wholesome and loving relationship from my recollection.

    Even if the comment were made as quoted, I still wouldn’t read it as an insult or in any way shape of form homophobic

  22. Mihangel apYrs 27 Jul 2010, 7:21am

    SMC
    re: the Border Agency conceding a case before the Supreme Court. My understanding is that the case would go by default to the appellant.

    What the ConLibDems would have done if they’d been in power when the case launched is unknowable, but they didn’t abandon it once they had their hands on the goodies! Their decision not to go to the European court is probably realism: we’ve lost too often on these cases!

  23. Sister Mary Clarance 27 Jul 2010, 4:35pm

    Mihangel , the case may well do, but the decision of the lower court would stand unless the appeal was heard and was successful.

  24. Sister Mary Clarance 27 Jul 2010, 9:06pm

    Ah, think I see the problem here Dean ….

    You said:

    “and brokeback mountain just spread the myth that gay men are liars and sneaky cheats. a true love story for some!”

    The Internet Movie database as part of its movie synopsis said:

    “Set against the sweeping vistas of Alberta’s Rocky Mountains, this film tells the story of two young men – a ranch-hand and a rodeo cowboy – who meet in the summer of 1963 and unexpectedly forge a lifelong connection, one whose complications, joys and tragedies provide a testament to the endurance and power of love.”

    So I can see based on you interpretation of the film message (he myth that gay men are liars and sneaky cheats) you might well see it as a negative comment. I tend to go more with the testament to the endurance and power of love view, so I’m not getting this homophobic slur business at all I’m afraid.

    As for Dave Davies, yes he hasn’t got a ministerial position, but he is still very much part of the coalition. I suspect his colleagues have realised that he is a self serving little sh1t and therefore not the sort of person they want representing the government in any area of business.

    He has engaged mouth before brain on a number of occasions (long before) and Dave Davies life work thus far seems to be Dave Davies

  25. smc. brokeback also perpetuates the myth that all gay men fcuk each other up the ass. I’m a bit worried about you as you believe the Tories are always right a bit like derek laud.

  26. Sister Mary Clarance 29 Jul 2010, 2:47pm

    Okay yeah, sure Dean, and I’m in league with the film critic world who without exception seen to this as a positive film about love and gay relationships

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all