Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Exclusive: Why did BBC call on Christian who supports execution of gays to comment on Sir Elton’s baby?

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What exactly does the BBC want by giving airtime to a bigot? Perhaps a few political points with the incumbent homophobic coalition of parties?

  2. Well done pinknews for headlining this story and for the comment.

    Two years ago when we visited the UK, after several years away, we had the impression that the bbc had transmuted into the propoganda arm of the labour govt. Last summer we were surprised and appalled when visiting again by the blanket, unquestioning and reverential coverage of the visit by the self proclaimed “pope”

    The BBC is so powerful its influence travels all round the world. It is very worrying to see how it has changed from nice, fair-minded old aunty to ……

  3. I have complained to the BBC about this interview/ article. It was offensive and unbalanced. Search on the BBC website and make a complaint!

  4. Peter Paul Fuchs 29 Dec 2010, 5:04am

    Unfortunately, for the same reason probably that the Washington Post allowed a nutcase named Matthew Franck to opine in their pages about his views which have been defined as hateful. It is the “fair and balanced” pseudo-conundrum, which has no meaning once a view is so beyond the decent pale that society can do anything with it meaningfully. All these media outlets should know better. At the very least they should not be featuring dead-ends, but views that spur more dialogue. If they want an “opposing” side they can get one that is not hate-filled.

  5. Green has such a fixation on things gay that psychologically he must be overcompensating for something inside himself that he
    cannot come to terms with or face up to.

    My other thoughts are that Green looks and acts sort of like a dead person. When you look at his face it’s the dead face of a reanimated corpse or zombie and perhaps with a rudimentary insect-like intelligence devoid of any empathy for others… just going about fulfilling it’s pre-programmed directive.
    The living dead…quite chilling!

  6. This is the text of the complaint I have made to the BBC regarding Green and BBC News. I suggest that as many as are willing copy and paste this and submit it to the BBC Complaints as possible. Do feel free to add or change as wished.

    Stephen Green is a right-wing Christian Fundamentialist who believes in, and has stated that he is in agreement with the murderous policy of David Bhati in Uganda to criminalise all gay people; with the death sentence for repeat “offenders”.

    Green from his platform of the ‘Christian Voice’ gave this public statement. “The contrast between our politicians and those of Uganda could not be more stark. A Parliamentarian in Uganda is trying to protect his nation’s children. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom is trying to corrupt ours. Which country is the more civilised, I wonder, in the eyes of Almighty God?”

    It is well documented that the policy being promoted by Bhati in Uganda originated out of the Christian Fundamentalists in the USA to which Green is affiliated in ‘Christian Voice’.

    That such a person could be selected to make any comment on the personal lives of Sir Elton John and his partner David Furnish is astonishing. It has demonstrated bias on the part of the BBC and is completely unacceptable.

    Has the BBC forgotten that this is the exact same individual who had faced bankruptcy after losing an attempted private prosecution for blasphemy against the director general of the BBC after the character of Jesus described himself as “a little bit gay” in ‘Jerry Springer: The Opera’?

    Of all the possible commentators the BBC could have asked to speak about the news of the birth of Sir Elton John and partners child, Green is the most unsuitable person the BBC could have selected. It strongly suggests an anti-gay bias on the part of BBC News.

  7. Thank you Johnny, I have now also sent a message of complaint… not the greatest letter but immediate action seemed the best policy.

    Here is what I wrote:

    “The platform given to Stephen Green of Christian Voice to comment on BBC News at six about the son born through surrogacy to Elton John & David Furnish shows poor judgement and possible anti-gay bias on the part of the BBC.
    Stephen Green is a Christian extremist who has supported the execution of gays.
    Green quite recently tried to bring a private prosecution for blasphemy against the director general of the BBC (though it backfired).
    This looks like an attempt to create controversy rather than balanced reporting and it’s disappointing of the BBC.

  8. Stephen Green is quite simply the nearest thing we have in the UK to Fred Phelps. Why anyone would ask him to provide fair and balanced counter-comment on any gay issue is beyond me.
    “Now we go live to Joseph Goebbels to give an alternative view on the Jewish passover” would be on the same level of insensitivity. In his case the Godwin is justified.

  9. Paul Clevett 29 Dec 2010, 6:52am

    He’s not a representation of the Christians I know who love and support LGBTQ people.

    ..and I’m sure not a representative of the BBC.

  10. Ferny Vermonti 29 Dec 2010, 7:04am

    I live in South Africa where we have a very liberal constitution with LBT persons BUT a very backward society.
    My son married his partner in both a legal & religious ceremony in 2008. I know in my heart that they are still loved by God, just like every other decent human being on this planet is.
    It was shocking to me that the BBC, one of the main broadcasters of a 1st world country such as the UK, should air an interview such as this, it is totally offensive & insensitive!
    In my opinion they should air an apology, not just to GLBT persons but to all decent, caring persons who believe as I do that we ALL have a right to be who we are & that being who we are does NOT in any way impact on any other person.

  11. PinkNews. I love you more every day.

    That is all.

  12. Jock S. Trap 29 Dec 2010, 7:31am

    What a disgrace but then this is the BBC, still stuck in the Dark Ages whilst we are forced to pay for a licence for channels I know I don’t watch. It seems the BBC problem is not just about morals but ethics too.

    They clearly cannot support minorities nor stay impartial. The BBCs clear choice is to go for the ever-so controversial with the full knowledge of this vile excuse for a human beings views. How Very boring but why should I have to pay for a broadcast company I not only watch but that clearly cannot support me and others?

    The BBC seems to give this man a platform too many times when he Should be treated the same as any other extremist… banned!

  13. Jock S. Trap 29 Dec 2010, 7:36am

    Oops that should have read “why should I have to pay for a broadcast company I not only don’t watch….”

  14. often it is said that children are being used as a way to further the “gay agenda” but isn’t it ironic that often “protecting children” is a sound bite that is used to justify bigotry and hate. However i beleive that it has noithing to do with protecting children but israther an easy excuse to use.

  15. I did wonder myself. This fundamentalist nutter should be avoided at all costs, and not just for his savage homophobia. I shall complain myself.

  16. George Broadhead 29 Dec 2010, 9:05am

    The BBC is totally biased in favour of religion, in particular Christianity. Its religious affairs departments spend millions of pounds annually promoting it – just think of the vast obsequious coverage given to the Pope’s visit. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that it feels the need, whenever it reports something it deems morally contentious, to invite a Christian to comment. Unfortunately Stephen Green seems to have taken the place of the late Mary Whitehouse

  17. https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

    Dont forget to send any thoughts to the BBC Complaints dept too. Remember, numbers count.. More complaints = less likely to occur in the future

  18. Nicolas Chinardet 29 Dec 2010, 9:34am

    My complaint to the BBC (link to complain):

    I was saddened and very disappointed that you should have decided to turn to Stephen Green, the self-styled director of Christian Voice, to comment on the birth of Elton’s surrogate son, in a misguided quest for balance.

    Mr Green is a a fundamentalist preacher who represent no one but himself and a handful of similarly narrow-minded people. He has always refused to divulge the figure of the membership of his organisation. This number, as could be seen during the protest organised at the time of the Jerry Springer controversy are clearly very low.

    At a time when the BBC itself recognise that it should do more in its programming to help tackle homophobia, it is astounding that your reporter should have chosen to turn to this vile man, and even more astounding that this should not have been challenged by an editor.

    I am sure you could have found someone with a little more legitimacy to provide a negative counterpoint the story. Not that I am entirely convinced it it needed for that particular story. I was heartened, to hear on the press review on the Today programme this morning (29th) that none of the comments about the story in the press mentioned the fact that the adoptive parents were a gay couple. Why your reporter chose to focus on that particular angle is rather worrying and should, I think, be examined carefully.

  19. Thank you for featuring this, Pink News, and thank you to everyone who posted the text of their complaint here. Off to do my own after this.

    I cannot see any reson whatsoever to feature Green. All I can think is that someone at the BBC is fixated on the Church v. Gays idea and so sought someone out to comment. Maybe the usual suspects were all busy or realised that no decent member of the public would welcome theirmean-spirited views, so it was left to the BBC to scrape the barrel and come up with the sad, pathetic little man, Stephen Green, who clearly needs to spend time sorting out his own personal issues rather than embarrass himself on national TV.

  20. he looks like a poofter I guess his hatred comes from internal disgust the prat

  21. I have also complained to the BBC as I found the content offensive. Please make a complaint your voice counts

  22. I have just made my complaint to the BBC! Appaling!

  23. I wonder – might the broadcasting of such a rampant homophobe encourage people to realise that it is no longer cool to be bigoted?

  24. Pink Politico 29 Dec 2010, 10:56am

    It is outrageous for anyone with such bigoted and poisonous views (including the state sanctioned murder of gay people) to be given any kind of platform to air their hateful views, but it is all the more unacceptable when it involves the taxpayer funded national broadcasting service. They are essentially legitimising the worst kind of anti-gay prejudice there is.

    The message has to be rammed home to the BBC and every other media organisation that there are not two equally valid opinions when it comes to gay issues. We are not some abstract debating point, but real living people who are entitled to be treated with dignity, equality and respect.

    The BBC seems to have adopted a hierarchical approach where bigotry is concerned, with some forms of prejudice considered more acceptable than others.
    This double standard has to go. They wouldn’t dream of inviting the most high profile white supremacist in the country to comment on a story debating the rights and wrongs of racism yet they feel it perfectly acceptable to invite someone who holds such notoriously anti-gay opinions on to their flagship news programme to pass comment on the birth of a child to a same-sex couple.

    And let’s be clear. This was no oversight by an inexperienced journalist trying to meet a deadline or anything even remotely like that. The decision to offer a platform to this religious extremist was very deliberate and must be seen in the context of other homophobic incidents at the BBC such as running a poll asking if it is appropriate to execute gay people. And let’s not forget that they only offered a partial apology on that occasion claiming that the question was entirely appropriate and only the wording was problematic.

    And finally, the BBC should be in the business of reporting the news and not trying to manufacture controversy by bringing on one of the most repugnant bigots in the UK. One of the few justifications in continuing to publicly fund the BBC is the need to maintain a commitment to public service broadcasting, especially when confronted with the tacky, sensationalist nonsense that is rampant in so many other parts of the British media.

    But if the BBC continues to behave in such an irresponsible fashion then serious questions will have to be asked once again about whether the licence fee system should continue.

    And yes, they need to be inundated with complaints over this!

  25. Can’t say I was in any way surprised at this story, as the BBC has had a homophobic attitude and heterosexist bias for years and always wheels out a bigot to comment on news which is even remotely LGBT-related. Of course they don’t wheel out racists to comment when an issue touching on racial diversity makes the news.

    Also of concern is that whenever school bullying is discussed on BBC children’s TV they steer clear of mentioning homophobia/homophobic bullying.

    Incidentally Lizo Mzimba used to work for CBBC Newsround.

  26. Vo Dong Cung 29 Dec 2010, 11:02am

    It’s very simple, BBC is Roma Catholic and Sir Elton John did the same way that Holy Spirit did to Mary 2,000 year ago.

  27. David Waldock 29 Dec 2010, 11:04am

    It’s only a matter of time before Mr Green is found in an airport toilet, balls-deep in a rent boy, snorting coke off the lads back after hiring him to carry his bags on a trip.

  28. Once again, the BBC gives a megaphone to fanatics. I would imagine this is just as insulting to Christians to have this unelected crackpot speak on their behalf.

    Just like they do with the Muslim Council of Britain, which represents no-one but themselves.

    It’s time we heard Ekklesia speak out about this too.

  29. I’m fine with him being on the programme. He’s so extreme that most viewers will find him absolutely distasteful and therefore more likely to be outraged on our behalf. The most Conservative/Daily Mail reading of viewers would maintain their views regardless of whether he was there or not.

    Give him enough rope and watch!

  30. I thought the coverage was positive and Green showed himself for the scum he is..but why him? why is he even allowed on tv…even on 4thought? the Mzimba bloke did a series on christianity not so long ago and this rings alarm bells…failed attempt though!

  31. “The BBC seems to have adopted a hierarchical approach where bigotry is concerned, with some forms of prejudice considered more acceptable than others”

    Absolutely right – and not just the BBC either. It seems to be a problem in many places and in society in general. Giving people like Green a platform gives legitimacy to homophobia and contributes to its continuation.

    Now I’m fully expecting the BBC to dig up some racist to comment on the birth of a child to a celebrity interracial couple. Not.

  32. “the Mzimba bloke did a series on christianity not so long ago ..”

    I’m almost certain you’re mistaken on this. Perhaps you were thinking of George Hargreaves?

    I’m sure that Mark Thompson’s Roman Catholic beliefs are, to a extent, responsible for the BBC’s homophobic ethos. In fact the BBC’s guidelines were altered in 2005 to, amongst other things, remove the requirement to treat LGB people fairly.

  33. Sir Elton and his partner are not the first gay couple to have used surrogacy, so why was this broadcast necessary to the point they beckoned the opinion of that pastor? Is he the elected-official voice of the UK on moral issues? Evidence has shown that kids raise by gay couples do not fare any worse than those raised by heterosexuals, in fact, they perform better in some areas. So when that homophobic pastor claimed that a child needs a mother and a father, why didn’t the BBC ask him to provide evidence that such is the case? Quite obviously, the BBC is tardy in this respect. That pastor is a clear example of a failed heterosexual-parents’ upbringing.

  34. PinkPolitico 29 Dec 2010, 12:01pm

    My complaint:

    Providing on air platform to anti-gay extremist

    I am contacting you to express my disgust at the decision of the BBC to provide a platform to Stephen Green on your flagship 6 0’Clock news programme in a report concerning the birth of a son to Elton John and his partner.

    Mr Green is a notorious anti-gay extremist who believes, amongst other things, that the state sanctioned murder of people on the basis of their sexual orientation is appropriate. By inviting him to comment on this story, the BBC is effectively legitimising such views and seeking to present them as mainstream and acceptable.

    The birth of a child to any couple is an intensely joyous occasion and the BBC trying to manufacture controversy and make an issue out of the fact that the parents involved are a same-sex couple is deeply disturbing. This would be the case regardless of who you sought to comment on what is essentially a non-issue, but the fact that you brought on someone so extreme and unrepresentative as Stephen Green only makes the actions of your reporter and news department all the more shocking.

    The BBC seems to have adopted a hierarchical approach where bigotry is concerned, with some forms of prejudice apparently more acceptable than others. By way of comparison, you wouldn’t dream of inviting the most high profile white supremacist in the country to comment on a story debating the rights and wrongs of racism so why the different approach when homophobic bigotry is involved?

    Families headed up by same-sex parents are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect and we are not some abstract concept to be debated over. It is deeply offensive therefore to give such a high profile platform to a man who actively seeks to undermine the humanity of gay people and our lives

  35. Adele Winston 29 Dec 2010, 12:09pm

    Why call on anyone who would be other than celebratory about the baby?

  36. Thanks to Pink News for highlighting this. I am beginning to see a pattern with the BBC with regards analysis of Gay issues.
    Selecting an extremist voice to discuss an issue, most people would agree is not analysis. So why does the BBC select extremist voices for LGBT issues, and moderate voices for racial issues; despite its 2005 guidelines to treat LGBT people fairly – as Dave points out. Selecting an extremist voice is not fair treatment.

    If Iris’s idea of “Gays Versus Church” is the BBC’s idea of LGBT analysis, and it certainly appears to be. Selecting an extremist voice to represent Christians, is not representative of Christians either – as AdrianT points highlights.

    Something’s in life are sadly simple. Extremism fosters stereotypes, fosters misunderstanding and fear; fosters a dangerous position for LGBT people. . . are we really surprised when we hear of bullying, abuse, discrimination and murder of LGBT

    When the BBC gives Mr Green a voice . . . what is the BBC really giving a voice to?

  37. I’m sorry, but I disagree with most on here. You are all quite happy to silence people of their free speech when they agree with your views, but should anyone oppose you then you want them banned. That’s pure totalitarianism!

    This is a democracy and you have to take the rough with the smooth. Free speech is the most valuable tool we have. Remember, that free speech is what gives us the right to protest and what allowed us to make the great strides to equality that we have.

    Like with Nick Griffin going on Question Time, the full-range of opinions needs to be heard. The more extreme ones are dismissed by the rational majority and we all start to compromise. The fringe nutjobs? Well, they can’t complain their voices were stifled and they were treated unfairly. So they slowly disappear.

    I do not believe for one second that the BBC is homophobic or has an ant-gay bias. This is as bad as the Daily Mail constantly complaining that it’s too left-wing and borderline Marxist. It’s trying to take in a broad spectrum of views. And that can only be a good thing for democracy.

  38. I’m not gay but was linked to this story by Stephen Fry on twitter, and agree with everyone’s disgust at this ‘man’ being given the time of day to air his hatred towards gays.
    Why are we obliged to pay a licence fee for a channel that doesn’t represent the views of the vast majority of level headed individuals? It should be like sky etc, where we only pay for the channels we choose to watch. They might be a tad more sensitive in their approach if they knew they’d lose money and viewers through their reckless broadcasting.

  39. “Why call on anyone who would be other than celebratory about the baby?”

    Well if they had spoken to someone who questioned the wisdom of a recovering drug addict, pensioner becoming a father, then it would have been perfectly fine, as their concerns would be based purely on the specific circumstances of this case.

    However the bigotted organisation that it is, the BBC chose to make an issue out of the entirely irrelevant fact of the couple’s sexuality.

    That’s my problem with the BBC

  40. paul canning 29 Dec 2010, 12:39pm

    I highly recommend this blog http://newsround-bias.blogspot.com which has been systematically documenting anti-gay bias in BBC children’s TV for years.

  41. People should also complain to Ofcom.

    i simply don’t trust an institutionally homophobic organisation lile the BBC to take these complaints seriously.

    Contact Ofcom at:

    http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/tv-and-radio/a-specific-programme/

  42. “I’m sorry, but I disagree with most on here. You are all quite happy to silence people of their free speech when they agree with your views, but should anyone oppose you then you want them banned. That’s pure totalitarianism!”

    You’re missing the point – the BBC doesn’t treat other diversity issues in the same way.

    The BBC is anti-gay and fails to help tackle homophobic bullying on its children’s services.

  43. freedom of spech is not the same as inciting hatred stupid cnut

  44. Robert (UK) 29 Dec 2010, 12:47pm

    This Lady (Green) doth protesteth just a teensie bit too much…..time he stepped out of his closet methinks!

  45. Mmmmmmmm wrote
    I’m sorry, but I disagree with most on here. You are all quite happy to silence people of their free speech when they agree with your views, but should anyone oppose you then you want them banned. That’s pure totalitarianism!

    Johnk’s response
    I do not believe this is about silencing people, but instead a concern for allowing a range of views; but not just one extremist view. It appears that you are supporting the right for one extremist voice to have precedence in the name of analysis, surely this is the pure totalitarianism which your abhor!

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Mmmmmmmm wrote
    This is a democracy and you have to take the rough with the smooth. Free speech is the most valuable tool we have. Remember, that free speech is what gives us the right to protest and what allowed us to make the great strides to equality that we have.

    Johnk’s response
    I agree that Democracy is about allowing free speech, but is democracy not also about pluralism fairness and accountability. In what way is allowing one lone extremist voice to comment on an issue, democratic; fair or responsible.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Mmmmmmmm wrote
    Like with Nick Griffin going on Question Time, the full-range of opinions needs to be heard. The more extreme ones are dismissed by the rational majority and we all start to compromise. The fringe nutjobs? Well, they can’t complain their voices were stifled and they were treated unfairly. So they slowly disappear.

    Johnk’s response
    I also agree that a full range of opinions needs to be aired, and discussed. Would you agree that allowing one voice to comment on LGBT issues is not allowing a full-range of opinions to be discussed, and is also a dangerous position because as you say opinions in isolation cannot be subjected to rational argument. It seems rather odd that you appear to be arguing that Mr. Green should air his views in a vacuum? Perhaps I have misunderstood something?

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Mmmmmmmm wrote
    I do not believe for one second that the BBC is homophobic or has an ant-gay bias. This is as bad as the Daily Mail constantly complaining that it’s too left-wing and borderline Marxist. It’s trying to take in a broad spectrum of views. And that can only be a good thing for democracy

    Johnk’s response
    You say that the BBC does not have an anti-gay bias. Do you think by not presenting a broad spectrum of views with regards the Elton John-David Furnish Baby story, the BBC are in fact displaying a religious bias in favor of an extremist fundamentalist Christian view point.

  46. I’ve also sent off a reply:

    I think it’s absolutely abhorrent that when broadcasting the announcement that Elton John’s surrogate baby was born yesterday, which should have been a joyous and heart-warming news bullet-in, the BBC chose to interview a blatantly homophobic Christian fanatic who in the past has supported the murder of gay men and women and has made continuous insulting remarks that fly in the face of civil liberties and basic human rights. Giving such a man airtime to vent his bigoted hatred is bad enough, but that the BBC thought it would be a suitable counter balance for the birth of a healthy baby boy is fairly disturbing. I hope, a more informed approach towards choosing interviewees is taken in the future and an apology can be made as soon as possible. Yours sincerely,
    Brian Ó Cuinn.

  47. Unfortunately “fair and balanced” has turned into a sort of “loony A – loony B” forum where the implication is that both sides are nuts and only the viewer in the middle is sane.

  48. Mind you, it’s a shame the baby wasn’t born Dec 25 – that would have sent the fundies into apoplexy!

  49. michael, liverpool 29 Dec 2010, 1:26pm

    Complaint sent today. Here’s what I wrote:-

    “Dear sir/madam,
    I’m writing to complain about your decision to feature the opinions of Stephen Green of Christian Voice during the birth of Elton John’s and David Furnish’s son story.

    This decision was in extremely poor taste, given that Mr Green has previously supported the execution of gay man in Uganda and has been no friend whatsoever of gay rights at home. I would go as far as to compare this decision to the screening of a white supremacist on a feature about inter-racial marriage, or the screening of a Nazi on Jews having children and would pose the question, would the BBC condone this?

    There should be no place for bigotry of this type on a publically funded TV channel, particularly when lesbians and gay men are forced to pay for this constant targeted ridicule under the banner of “balanced reporting”. I was also surprised to see that no commentators in support of Elton John and his partner were invited to contribute to the story, giving even more weight to the anti-social and homophobic views of Stephen Green. Why was he not challenged?

    I sincerely hope the BBC will apologise for subjecting this couple to criticism and ridicule on what should be a joyous occasion for them. Isn’t it tragic that their baby boy will grow up in a world where his family are vulnerable to this type of medieval bigotry, and where people who openly support the death penalty for homosexuals are given free reign to comment on his birth? How insensitive can the BBC be?

    Words escape me to describe how angry and incenced I am that this happened in the first place, and I very much look forward to seeing a full apology issued by an organisation which has publically promised to improve its reportage of lesbians and gay men.

    I only hope the BBC realises how hurtful, disrespectful, and downright offensive this decision has been. Regards”

  50. Flood the BBC with objections. Why do the BBC constantly use this organisation for comments. Do they have mole inside the BBC

  51. Ellipse Kirk 29 Dec 2010, 1:40pm

    BBC. a new division of Fox News? This needs discipline of whomever within the BBC chose this commenter.

  52. I’m sure Rowan Williams and his ilk will applaud bigot Green’s statement and so too would the arch bigot in the Vatican. I daresay there are many at the BBC who have no problem with it either. Its always been a breeding ground for right wing nutters most of whom are found in the Tory party and the BNP. Shame on the BBC, absolutely disgraceful to promote bigotry by giving this idiot a voice. In America of course, this would be protected free speech even if it incites someone to go out and kill someone, especially if they happen to be gay. We’re the last bastion for discrimination, denigration and dehumanisation anywhere in the world. If Green had been espousing the killing of any ethnic group, there would be uproar and condemnation from the government. Lets hear it from Cameron!

  53. It seems to me there is a back door re-Integration of Religion going on. With the full support of the LibDems. With The Big Sociality, The BBC and now today with this supporting Charity proposals.

  54. As a practising and believing Christian, I am hugely offended at the BBC suggesting that this fool is in any way representative of my views, or those of the majority of other Christians I know well. I will be passing my comments on to them…however, I suspect that they have no interest in the idea of practising Christians who actually like the idea of trying to be like Christ – you know, compassionate, loving, non judgemental, gentle…
    Oh, and congratulations to the happy parents – how heartening to hear of a baby so wanted, who will be so loved!

  55. Oh get over it. This man maybe despicable but not everyone agrees with the adoption. Ignore those people and live your life. Don’t try to censor the media when they give air time to those you disagree with.

  56. I have also complained to the BBC and wrote a blog in relation to the news article (linking back to here).

    The more people that know about this the better

  57. Merseymike 29 Dec 2010, 3:56pm

    Its this nonsense about ‘balance’ which appears to lead to the usual rent-a-gob suspects being called upon

    However – I tend to think that certain people do our cause a favour and Green is one of them

  58. “Johnk’s response
    You say that the BBC does not have an anti-gay bias. Do you think by not presenting a broad spectrum of views with regards the Elton John-David Furnish Baby story, the BBC are in fact displaying a religious bias in favor of an extremist fundamentalist Christian view point.”

    Perhaps you ought to look at it this way instead of basing your view that the BBC is anti-gay on ONE interview in ONE piece of programming. And it was hardly a religious bias when there was only ONE religious view on there, not TEN versus one pro-gay view. It’s a news snippet there is barely time for one viewpoint, let alone representatives from the whole political spectrum. If it was an hour-long documentary or debate, then I would expect there to be more views represented, but not here, it just isn’t practical. He was probably one of the few organisations they could contact. Or maybe they were actually supporting us by putting the most horrible anti-gay view out there as a way of making people sympathetic to our cause. Who knows, but is it actually important? They haven’t just passed a law based solely on his views, have they? If you must react, react proportionally to the damage that has been done. In this case, not much.

    We’re a minority, so is he, we can only expect to get a similar amount of airtime on a heavily scheduled station. What you want, presumably, is that no-one who disagrees with you is put on there at all. Which makes you rather undemocratic and brings me back to the totalitarianism I mentioned before. Free speech and incitement to hatred? I hate religion and I should have as much right to stand up there as he and give my personal view on it, no matter whether it incites hatred or not. Incitement of violence, now that’s something else. I would be glad if people hated religion, the world would be a better place if people used rational thought, common sense and understood human emotions and biology better than they do now. Unfortunately, he hates gays and would feel the same about a world without us gays. That’s life, deal with it – if you support free speech that is. Remember, logic is on our side, we can counter anything he can throw at us. Plus, most people in wider society would condemn him, like they do the BNP and EDL. He’s a non-entity that is not worth worrying about.

    Now, do you think that the BBC has an overall anti-gay bias when it has gay characters in its soaps, comedies, documentaries and just about every other area of its programming? As much as you hate it, society isn’t just about gay people, we have to be proportionally represented in the media. There aren’t many gays out there, let’s face it, we can’t expect to have a disproportionate amount of time in the media just because we want it. No or only negative representation of gay people would be unfair, but we don’t have that. It is overwhelmingly, almost unrealistically positive.

    There is far too much self-pitying going on here. And this is what gives people like that extremist nutjob more ammunition against us. By all means, go ahead and complain to the BBC, that’s your right and you should exercise it to raise awareness of his bigotry. But you shouldn’t be able to dictate who it can let on the show just because you have a gripe with it. That prat has no influence on my life at all and is just not worth getting worked up about. He’ll be loving the attention you have all given him.

    Hysterical overreactions and claims of anti-gay bias when it’s clearly not there will just turn the persuadable majority against us. So, please, just calm down everyone.

  59. David Baker 29 Dec 2010, 4:05pm

    If you are on Twitter, make sure you message the reporter @lizo_mzimba to ask why he included Stephen Green in his report

  60. 21stCenturySpirituality 29 Dec 2010, 4:14pm

    @John..who said anything censorship? People are perfectly within their rights to complain about this. This man does not represent the majority of Christians in this country, he is just an attention seeking moron who is no more qualified to speak on and be representative of theological, spiritual, religious and philosophical ethical matters than an ape in a zoo. In fact your more likely to get some sense from the ape than from this theological and intelectual bankrupt. So why is HE of all people being consulted on this and given air time for his unsavory views? I dont pay a licence fee to have his ungodly views imposed on me.

  61. “But you shouldn’t be able to dictate who it can let on the show just because you have a gripe with it.”

    I have no problem with Green getting airtime to make himself look silly, but I DO have a problem with his views not being put in the context of his previous comments about gay people. That gives a false impression. I’m sure most people know Griffin but they don’t know Green so they may think he’s an unbiased commentator or that he represents more people than he does.

    Also, as many have said, if the BBC doesn’t think it appropriate to have extremists commenting on celebrity news involving black people or whatever, then why do it for gay people? Do you really think they’d announce the birth of a child to some black celebrity then have a random racist on to complain about it? I’d like to see the full, unedited interview with Green.

  62. I’m not sure what the BBC are up to. But it’s obvious that they are giving a vocal platform to some serious nut cases. I often read the news headlines on teletext and am surprised that even here there is an infiltration of religious stories. According to the polls Britain has become a non-religious country and it’s about time the BBC took note.

    Slightly unrelated but…

    According to Christian Voice’s web site they are having issues with the Co-op bank.

    Apparently the Co-operative doesn’t want CV to bank with them because they see the organisation as being opposed to their own ethical beliefs.

    So, I guess one way to get back at Christian Voice would be to open an account with the Co-op.

    As they say at the Co-op, “Good for everyone”.

  63. Mmmmmmmm:
    “…the full-range of opinions needs to be heard. The fringe nutjobs? Well, they can’t complain their voices were stifled and they were treated unfairly. So they slowly disappear.”

    So pray who defines who has a valid point, and who, in your opinion, is a ‘nutjob’?

    Many a large organisation has grown from the opinions of a handful of people, ranging from the BNP, to the Labour Party itself.

    Any kind of censorship is wrong, and should be allowed to rise or fall on it’s own merits. People are not stupid, and the likes of Stephen Green are dismissed by almost everyone, yet they should be allowed to speak, if nothing else than to hang themselves in public and demonstrate that extremists don’t have to be Arabs with bombs.

  64. Mmmmmmmm wrote
    Perhaps you ought to look at it this way instead of basing your view that the BBC is anti-gay on ONE interview in ONE piece of programming. And it was hardly a religious bias when there was only ONE religious view on there, not TEN versus one pro-gay view. It’s a news snippet there is barely time for one viewpoint, let alone representatives from the whole political spectrum. If it was an hour-long documentary or debate, then I would expect there to be more views represented, but not here, it just isn’t practical.

    Johnk’s response
    Thanks for pointing out the context of this further. What you are highlighting is that an extremist fundamentalist Christian was given a snippet of air time to comment on a celebrity story. Do you think the BBC in future will give Nick Griffin a snippet of air time to comment on babies born to celebrity non-white parents? . . .

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Mmmmmmmm wrote
    He was probably one of the few organisations they could contact. Or maybe they were actually supporting us by putting the most horrible anti-gay view out there as a way of making people sympathetic to our cause. Who knows, but is it actually important? They haven’t just passed a law based solely on his views, have they? If you must react, react proportionally to the damage that has been done. In this case, not much.

    Johnk’s response
    So the Christian voice is the only organsition the BBC could find to offer an alternative view?

    I agree that by choosing the Christian voice as spokes person, this could go in our favor, especially since the public is generally critical of Fundamentalist Christianity.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Mmmmmmmm wrote
    We’re a minority, so is he, we can only expect to get a similar amount of airtime on a heavily scheduled station. What you want, presumably, is that no-one who disagrees with you is put on there at all. Which makes you rather undemocratic and brings me back to the totalitarianism I mentioned before. Free speech and incitement to hatred?

    Johnk’s response
    In what way is calling for discussion and analysis undemocratic. In what way is presenting an issue as a snippet democratic, when only one view point got a chance to be aired.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Mmmmmmmm wrote
    I hate religion and I should have as much right to stand up there as he and give my personal view on it, no matter whether it incites hatred or not. Incitement of violence, now that’s something else. I would be glad if people hated religion, the world would be a better place if people used rational thought, common sense and understood human emotions and biology better than they do now. Unfortunately, he hates gays and would feel the same about a world without us gays. That’s life, deal with it – if you support free speech that is. Remember, logic is on our side, we can counter anything he can throw at us. Plus, most people in wider society would condemn him, like they do the BNP and EDL. He’s a non-entity that is not worth worrying about.

    Johnk’s response
    Presenting one snippet of a view point from an extremist is not in the spirit of free-speech. It is a kin to hit and run.
    . . . . . . . . . .
    Mmmmmmmm wrote
    Now, do you think that the BBC has an overall anti-gay bias when it has gay characters in its soaps, comedies, documentaries and just about every other area of its programming? As much as you hate it, society isn’t just about gay people, we have to be proportionally represented in the media. There aren’t many gays out there, let’s face it, we can’t expect to have a disproportionate amount of time in the media just because we want it. No or only negative representation of gay people would be unfair, but we don’t have that. It is overwhelmingly, almost unrealistically positive.

    Johnk’s response
    We are not asking for more air time for Gay issues. We are asking for gay issues to be discussed, not skewed by one viewpoint when we are given air time.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Mmmmmmmm wrote
    There is far too much self-pitying going on here. And this is what gives people like that extremist nutjob more ammunition against us. By all means, go ahead and complain to the BBC, that’s your right and you should exercise it to raise awareness of his bigotry. But you shouldn’t be able to dictate who it can let on the show just because you have a gripe with it. That prat has no influence on my life at all and is just not worth getting worked up about. He’ll be loving the attention you have all given him.
    Johnk’s response
    In what way is asking for balanced discussion wallowing in self pity?

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Mmmmmmmm wrote
    Hysterical overreactions and claims of anti-gay bias when it’s clearly not there will just turn the persuadable majority against us. So, please, just calm down everyone.

    Johnk’s response
    Is it hysterical to be concerned about giving air time to a man who thinks gays should be killed?

  65. Thank you, Pink News, for more excellent reporting. I’m in the States, but the BBC’s influence endangers the lives of LGBT people across the globe. I sent in the following complaint:

    Why does the BBC support genocide?

    Regarding Stephen Green’s horrific appearance and commentary on the wonderful news of the blessed birth of a child to Elton John and David Furnish, please name one other instance in which the BBC has called upon a person who supports the death of a group of people to offer his expert opinion on the birth of a child to members of that same group.

    Are you people out of your minds? Please stop believing that the lives of LGBT people worldwide offer some sort of bloodsport for you. Please stop giving any credence whatsoever to the idea that LGBT people should be murdered, that their lives are open for debate, that their newborn children — in the name of all that’s decent — may be criticized and insulted and their very births lamented.

    Just stop it. It’s exactly that simple. Just stop it immediately.

  66. Well put oh please Id just tell them to fcuk off

  67. Subject of complaint:
    BBC seeks opinion of loon who has supported death penalty for gays and lesbians.

    Full complaint:
    Stephen Green has previously publicly praised the Ugandan government for its “civilized” behaviour in planning to introduce legislation including provision to execute gays and lesbians. The BBC sought Mr. Green’s opinion on the raising of a child by Elton John and David Furnish. The BBC was therefore not only seeking to stir up controversy but it was doing so by inviting the opinion of an individual who has supported the execution of gays and lesbians. If the BBC’s policy is to present both points of view it can do so without resorting to extremists who hold views which are incompatible with the law in this land. An “opposing view” could have been sought, for example, from the Archbishop of Canterbury, or some other religious clergyman whose views do not contravene the laws of the land.

  68. Well said John K. MMmmm’r argument is so flawed it’s embarrassing.

    This isn’t complex and we’re not trying to explain to you relativity-we are just saying we want a BALANCED discussion.

    Why not also bring in some gay parents like the Times reporter who adopted a kid made by heterosexuals and who was left languishing in the frigging foster system???? Where was Christian Voice eh?

  69. This new Pink News “Comment” system is clunky and inefficient.

    A. Comments should all be numbered.

    B. The box for writing comments, on the right, should float and be always visible, regardless of which part of the thread you are reading.

    C. A guide to permissible HTML should be provided.

    The only good thing about the new system is that the verification procedure is a great deal simpler (just having to add two numbers together).

    PinkNews, please implement above changes.

  70. I’ve also complained. I don’t actually mind there being a ‘debate’ about Sir Elton John’s child – these things are still newish and will provoke a range of reactions which the BBC is entitled to explore. I do mind it being Stephen Green as though he was generally representative of average Christian opinion. It’s like inviting Nick Griffin onto the telly to discuss race, not as a deeply considered one off, but as a regular default option. It does nothing for public conversation, just polarises everything into the usual stupid standoff.

    Whoever thought of asking Ekklesia instead: excellent idea – I suggested it to the beeb. In fact, I’d be genuinely interested to hear where the straightish, liberal wing of Christianity is currently at with issues like these. Am I likely to find out? No.

  71. PS Whichever PinkNews reporter posted this story at 3.46am between Christmas and New Year – you are a total star.

  72. Anyway, this argument isn’t targetted at Stephen Green, we all know the man is a bigoted twat.

    The argument is the BBC’s handling of what should have been a minor little piece about a celebrity with some good news. Instead, they turn it into a confrontational political news item, and us, the British gay public, are paying to give this crackpot airtime to spout his farcical ramblings.

  73. Michael J K Findlay 29 Dec 2010, 8:03pm

    I have made a complaint about this broadcast and I am hoping to get a response from them.

    It is disgusting they gave this man airtime anyway!

  74. Hi Pink News,
    Thanks for the info on the BBC report, it is shocking.
    In response to mmmmmmmm, the law has already been made to alow gay couples to have kids, so there is report should only have been about the fact that they had had a kid, not if it was right or wrong for them to have a kid. If the report had been about allowing gay couples to have kids then i would understand why they would interview Stephen Green, but the story was about the fact that Elton John had had a kid, so there was absolutely no reason to bring in the views of a bigot into the report.
    Thanks for letting me know Pink News, i have made my complaint.

  75. I hope Elton John and Partner complain in the strongest terms and remember this next time the BBC asks them to appear on anything.

  76. Regardless of the whole ‘free speech’ thing – I don’t see why they have to have people comment on the story at all. Gay people have babies all the time – why should this one be the subject of debate? We’ve already passed the law saying it’s alright; get over it. I understand the reporting because this happens whenever celebrities have kids, but why the need to pass comment on it? It’s not even an issue.

  77. I cannot comment on the interview having not seen it first hand. However you have to wonder what the BBC were thinking, you don’t have to dig deep on their website to see they clearly do not represent the views of the majority of Christians. A large proportion of the site is just hatred towards gays, and the rest of it hatred towards anyone else they choose not to like.

    There are better representatives of Christianity that could have been chosen to give a truly valid response. The BBC hasn’t only let themselves down, they have let the majority of Christians down by letting him represent them.

  78. An interesting quote from Mr Green

    “…. it seems an act of pure selfishness to deprive a baby of a mother.”

    If a mother dies in childbirth or soon after is that an act of pure selfishness by Mr Greens god (I don’t think he is many other peoples god) then as s/he it allowed her to die?

  79. Martin Wray 29 Dec 2010, 9:13pm

    John gaunt also was highly offensive on Sky News December 29th early morning paper review. He remarked that the TV and press were giving Sir Elton and David an easy time and should have been speaking out more against them.

  80. Seems all comments from Green have been removed from the BBC website.

    Seems they are listening……

    Now we just need to work out how we can watch non BBC channels without having to pay for a BBC TV licence……

  81. westcoastkid 29 Dec 2010, 10:09pm

    … stay tuned next for the news a six. First up an Arkansas KKK member is interviewed regarding his thoughts on blacks marrying whites (“Hang ‘em high!”) and later on, at the half hour, Osama ben Laden will take to the bully pulpit and offer his viewpoint on why he believes all Christians must be “eliminated.”

  82. Dude looks like a walking, talking corpse.

  83. Whilst I agree that asking Green to comment was an unforgivable act of idiocy by BBC News, it’s pretty disgraceful that an ageing pop star becoming a father through surrogacy was considered newsworthy in the first place.

  84. Heres the complaint I made to the BBC directly (as others have said please feel free to use if you want)

    I am surprised and angered that Stephen Green (Christian Voice) was treated on News at 6 as a credible source of opinion on the subject of Sir Elton Johns adoption of a child.

    Stephen Green’s views on homosexuality include believing that gay people should be given the death penalty. This was not mentioned before the interview took place and whilst I myself know of Greens views there were likely many millions of people watching that did not. In not providing this background information the BBC has not put the opinions of Green into context against his extreme views on homosexuality.

    I have never made a complaint against the BBC or any other media form before and these actions by the BBC have met me with huge surprise and disappointment.

    With News International likely to be taking control of Sky in the not too distant future, the UK needs the BBC more than ever for legitimate broadcast journalism.

  85. It isn’t about whether people with different views should be able to debate a subject – I’m fully in favour of that. But someone who has apparently supported the death penalty purely on the grounds that a person is homosexual should not be on TV, in my opinion.

    Would the BBC give airtime to someone who supported the murder of Black, Muslim, Jewish, or women in another country? I don’t think so.

    I want to know why we are treated differently.

  86. He says it’s selfish for a baby to grow up without a mother but yet he see’s nothing wrong with innocent people facing death because of their sexuality. He reminds me of Hitler.

  87. He says it’s selfish for a baby to grow up without a mother but yet he see’s nothing wrong with innocent people facing death because of their sexuality.

    Good point. But don’t forget that last year the BBC obviously thought a case could be made for killing gay people. Otherwise they wouldn’t have asked the public to debate whether homosexuals should face execution.

    The BBC never did give an unequivocal apology for posing the question.

  88. Here’s a beautiful case in point. Busy Mr Green spent the time just *before* Christmas complaining that a modern Nativity drama on the Beeb was ‘offensive to Christians’ – a line which he managed to flog to the Daily Express.

    Cue an enormous number of Christians saying they liked the nativity drama very much:

    http://www.theway.co.uk/feature.php?id=8303

    Poor them, stuck with Stephen Green. We ought to send out a friendly envoy to get them to complain to the BBC…. then all enjoy a Christmas ceasefire football match together ;-)

  89. I fear the BBC is stretching the boundaries to see how far it can get away with it given the current legislation, by allowing comment, via religion, no matter how extreme. That, however, also means that the BBC must now allow the extremist views of anti-Semites, racists, terrorists, rapists, murderers, child molesting priest, et al, to a say, without impartiality
    Which begs the question who, or what kind of impartiality does the BBC base itself on? Apart from the BBC itself.
    Or perhaps God.
    So far it seems to have swung itself into the arms of extremism with a sense of self righteous imperialism. If so then be scared, people, for the BBC has become the new God.
    Obviously David Cameron’s simpering platitudes of support for bullied gay teenagers are weak compared to Stephen Green’s wish to destroy human beings at birth at any cost in the name of God BBC.
    I for one won’t listen, or watch, anything reported from or by Mzimba.
    The man is biased and unconscionable. And even if he were to come forward and say that he had to report because it was his job to do so, no matter what the cost to human lives,
    For I for one still remember similar creatures giving the same excuse decades ago when injecting gay men and women with petrol because.’ It was my job.’
    How easy we forget.
    But perhaps Mzimba is happy.
    In that case boycott is the only answer.
    Don’t let Mzimba near you.
    Or the New Religion, the BBC.
    The world is watching.
    The unbiased opinion the BBC prides itself on has been destroyed, along with Mzimba’s.
    We are alone in this
    But we are also human.
    And even if our backs are against the wall, united we stand.
    And no matter how different we are in aspect. We still have each other.
    That has never in question.
    We are alive for a reason.
    We are what we are for a reason.
    And for one I am privileged that God allowed me to be a homosexual. Otherwise I would never have been able to feel the intensity of love that I feel.
    They live on hate.
    It gives religion a sense of purpose,
    Without hate they wouldn’t exist.
    Arise.
    Starve the broadcasters of the oxygen they need to keep alive.

    .

  90. maybe they just wanted to highlight what a tw*t Green is.

    There’s a real anti-BBC slant to Pink. Everyone jumps on every little thing they do. Why not change the record.

  91. I see it as a sly move on BBC’s part. Everything that comes out of that man’s mouth is ridiculous (if not sick). The more he pisses himself publicly, the less credible the homophobic side is.
    However, they should have warned us about the execution bit.

  92. Sounds like BBC is having a “Short Term Memory Loss.”

    It should have checked any backup of data in regards to interviews and comments. Very short sighted as well.

    There is so much gutter journalism around now. They would do anything for a story.

  93. 21stCenturySpirituality 30 Dec 2010, 5:30am

    The self appointed representative of Christianity ‘Stephen Green’ is only interested in representing his own parochial, erroneous interpretation of Christian spirituality and theology. His insidious views are about as far removed from the inclusive and liberating message of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus as it is possible to get.

  94. Jesus taught nobody because Jesus is a myth, a fiction, a confabulation, and it’s time to grow up and leave all that nonsense behind. All religions are nonsense, worthless and should be put in the bin of history where they all belong. Humans need to wake up to reality and act with their reasoning minds. Green is deluded like all of his kind. The BBC is in the hands of the religionists so kiss reason goodbye.

  95. I have no problem whatsoever about Green’s views being paraded on television, what I have the issue with is the fact that he wasn’t – and never is – identified clearly for what he is. This goes against the BBC’s responsibility to be balanced and accurate in its reporting.

    mmmmm – I kind of agree with what you are saying, but I am a former journalist (at the BBC no less) and I can assure you that the newsdesk I worked on would not have had this ignorant man’s views portrayed in the way it was on the Six. It’s a real shame that the BBC has debased its journalistic standards in this way.

    Back in my day, we may have quoted Green, but proper context of his views would have been given – as I believe we would have been obliged to do under our (then, don’t know what they’re like nowadays) editorial guidelines.

    We should caution against calling for people to be banned from the airwaves – it has a detrimental effect and makes us look illiberal, but I think this report was not what one expects from the BBC. To use the hoary old cliche, had this been a report about black people or Asians, and Green was a frothing at the mouth racist (instead of a frothing at the mouth homophobic), there is no way he would have been included in the report. The different standards are shocking.

  96. Corey Mondello 30 Dec 2010, 12:49pm

    BBC informs many in the USA of what our news media will not, so I do not believe they should be thrown under the bus, unlike FOX, the BBC still has some reality fact-based reporting. I believe in free speech, I believe the Pope and the Muslim folk can run around all day and say gays should be hung and woman should be bare foot and pregnant….this is “hate speech”. However dangerous this may be they are not screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theater and they are not telling people to go out and to break the law. This will allow me to say that I believe all conservative Christians should be round up and beheaded because they are the reason the USA is hated all over the world, they are the ones that do not help the needy, in fact, they are the ones that want to have a two-class system in the USA; rich and poor, the white conservative Christian being the rich obviously. These people have infiltrated US Congress, trying to make the USA a “Christian nation” making all other religions unrepresented in the USA and Christian-based teaching in all schools and our laws based on the bible. They have infiltrated school boards all over the USA, having the power to rewrite US History, in their favor, even banning Thomas Jefferson because of his famous opinion on ‘separation of church and state’. These people have also infiltrated our Military, treating non-Christians like second class citizens, treating them differently if they do not attend conservative Christian rock concerts and other overtly Christian born-again. So, I say ALL conservative Christians should be killed, hung, lynched, burnt at the stake, beheaded….and all other horrendous ways they have treated others throughout history. Speaking of history, NO WHERE will you find positive growth in mankind that has been instilled by conservative Christianity. This ideology was against giving all children education, making work environments safe, bathroom breaks at work, a woman’s right to wear pant, and to vote, a black persons right to not be lynched when they are caught raising their eyes to look at a white person face to face. They are also the same people that first settled in the USA and believed killing Mormons and Quakers was ordered by their God, and after stopping that, Thomas Jefferson had to stop the Puritans from taxing the Quakers to pay for their churches and other such thing. Conservative Christian ideology is evil and all those who follow this ideology should be stopped, at all costs. Therefore, I will NOT be signing anything that states someone else cannot say something I would like to have the freedom to say.

  97. Here is the Protest The Pope Coverage you did not see on the BBC:

  98. exBBC . . . thanks for your candid response

  99. susie landlow 30 Dec 2010, 3:47pm

    Mr. Green is not a bigot he is a Christian and believes in the bible and its word. Noone says you have to agree with his religious beliefs. If you think Mr. Green’s comments are going to turn people against gays or Elton then you are totally mistaken. People have more sense than that. So what do you think, they should have chosen someone who was gay and agreed with the surrogacy to comment? Is that not just the exact opposite?

    What I am against is that Elton said he tried to adopt a while back but the countries laws were against him. So why not adopt elsehwere? why not from this country where we dont say gays cannot adopt? Why produce another baby when there are children out there wanting to be adopted. So now he is getting on in years and no longer wants to compose what shall he do? Oh yes, lets play at daddy and daddy.

    As for the BBC .. lots of interviews are unbalanced about all sorts of things. If people are so stupid that they will change their values based on one biased opinion, then their own views were not that strong anyway.

  100. Susie landlow . . . Mr Green is a Fundamentalist Christian Bigot!!!

  101. Susie Landlow – some people criticise Elton John for being too old to be a 1st time parent; or the fact that he is a recovering drug addict. If the BBC had spoken to someone who had such concerns but who actually opposed the idea that gay people deserve to die; then there would be no issue.

    Stephen Green believes that gay people deserve execution.

    That is a fact that the BBC were duty bound to reveal before this interview was broadcast.

    It is completely negligent and irresponsible of them to have omitted this from their report.

  102. If Green had been as offensive about islam as he has been about homosexuality he would probably have been killed by now.

    @ susie. yeah thanks for supporting Evil Green and the Bigoted Broadcasting Corporation, now shut up.

  103. Text of my complaint … “The broadcast of the extreme views of Stephen Green on the Six O’Clock News (BBC1, 2010-12-28) is utterly unacceptable. This happened during a report on the birth of the first son of Sir Elton Joohn and his partner David Furnish. Although reporting a range of opinions is a valid and acceptable journalistic technique, those opinions should be held by a reasonable number of the populace. It is not acceptable to report the extreme views held by very small numbers of people: this is not balanced or representative. If in addition, you fail to give any context about the other opinions – for example that Stephen Green has called for the death penalty for gay people – you hinder people from making their own judgement about the issues. Furthermore, if the interviews you broadcast touch on very serious topics, are conducted by entertainment correspondents rather than political journalists, you trivialise the whole matter. I believe that any one of the three points I’ve mentioned alone would raise a question about the impartiality of the BBC News editorial team. However, the combination of all three convinces me – I truely regret to say – that in the area of equality, the BBC is not impartial.”

    … written too quickly. Not quite as articulate as some of the comments here unfortunately.

  104. I think that enough has been written about this case, which has obviously inflamed and upset a great number of people, both gay and straight.
    What I would like to add is that this man’s form of “Christianity” bears no resemblence to the forms of Christianity practised throughout most parts of the civilized world.
    Isn’t it a greaat shame that no other title can be found for this appalling,gay bashing bigot?

  105. 21stCenturySpirituality 30 Dec 2010, 6:27pm

    @Johnny… ‘All religions are nonsense, worthless and should be put in the bin of history where they all belong.’

    You talk about using reason but the statement you have made above is not a statement based on reason. There are philosophical and ethical concepts and ideas in religion and spirituality which are valuable and important. To make a blanket statement that all religion is nonsense and worthless is ridiculous and unreasonable and demonstrates a degree of ignorance and intolerance.

  106. It’s so nice to see that Pink News favours free speech – free speech, that is, for themselves, and dictatorial gagging for everybody who does not agree with their own peculiar form of bigotry.

  107. @kradinsky — the article’s concerned about the reporting of unrepresentative views and the trivialization of important issues.

    Why do you say Pink News is in favour of “dictatorial gagging for everybody who does not agree with their own peculiar form of bigotry” ? Can you give an example of this ? When you say “peculiar” do you mean odd or uncommon ? Can you point out an example of the bigotry you talk about ?

  108. I have been investigating the National Union of Journalists

    http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=57

    I appears that the BBC’s journalist standards (with regards the Mr Green itnerview) possibly contravenes the unions code of conduct concerning public interest.

    It is possible to contact them using the following e-mail address
    info@nuj.org.uk

  109. Since we now have the BBC on the defensive . . . thanks to every ones hard work sending e-mails to OFFCOM and the BBC

    The ultimate Irony I think would be . . . A big protest outsiude BBC house, with Sky covering it

    If you cannot beat them . . . why don’t we just wind them up like spinning tops. The BBC would hate to be trumped by Sky

  110. 21stCenturySpirituality 30 Dec 2010, 11:08pm

    @ Kradinsky…excuse me but we’re talking about a man who wants the wholesale slaughter of every gay man and woman for no good reason and your accusing Pink News of bigotry because they are supporting people to complain about this man. Are you a Christian?

  111. dave wainwright 30 Dec 2010, 11:16pm

    One can only assume that the news that the Queens grandson has become a father will illicit an interview with Ian Huntley or Ian Brady , in order to balance the article and all in the best possible taste of course :)

  112. 21stCenturySpirituality 30 Dec 2010, 11:16pm

    Who wants to bet that Kradinsky is another hit and run.

  113. 21stCS

    Kradinsky is definitely another Hit and Run . . . Rather like the BBC

    . . . do you not think

  114. dave wainwright 30 Dec 2010, 11:45pm

    So is that correct we are moving Gay Pride 2011 to Wood Lane ? Heaven help us stopping the traffic getting to Westfield shopping centre for an hour is bound to get Gay Pride more coverage than it has had in the last 20 years, but not nearly so much coverage as the Pope got for his abysmal turn out , to be sure :)

  115. susie landlow wrote:
    “Mr. Green is not a bigot he is a Christian and believes in the bible and its word.”

    Wrong, Stephen Green is an anti-gay bigot with a pick’n’choose approach to Bible scripture, he re-interprets his selected and out of context scripture to create justification for his homophobia.
    Stephen Green is a religious extremist.

  116. This article attacks the BBC, perhaps rightly. However the proprietar of PinkNews is an employee of BBC rival Channel 4. Can readers have an undertaking that he has in no ways been involved in coverage of this story?

  117. Susie suck my nuts you whore

  118. the poverty sisters 1 Jan 2011, 7:46pm

    CRUSAID PAYS HIV POLICE PANEL MEMBER AND STAFF

    COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT AFTER E-MAILING THEM ADVISING THEM TO “GET ANOTHER JOB WITH A BETTER EMPLOYER” !!!!

    After Registered Charity Crusaid declaring on the Registered Charity UK Coalition of People Living with HIV/Aids Charity funded website Positive Nation’s Positive Voices “we’ve been upfront and honest” a few months after signing A Compromise Agreement which prevents the Charity from being upfront and honest with you all let me share some of it with you all
    Dated 23rd July 2004 signed by Robin Brady CEO of Crusaid

    “The Charity on its own behalf and on behalf of all Associaciated Companies shall without any admission or liability whatsoever, as compensation for loss of employment,pay to the Employee the sum of £_________ inclusive of his statutory redundancy payment…”

    4. Settlement and Waiver

    The Employee believes he may have statutory claims and therefore could bring proceedings, against the Charity or any Associated Company,or its or their Trustees,employees or officerrs or former trustees employees or officers for:-

    Unfair Dismisall (Constructive)

    Disability Discrimination

    Detriments under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

    Unauthorised Deductions of Wages/Breach of Contract

    Less favourable treatmet due to Part-Time status

    Stop the Cover-ups and abuse of Gay People in London

  119. pink news allows postings like this

    Who cares if a pair of ‘niggas’ (their words, not mine) bitch it out on the nets. They havent got a pair of brain celss between them to rub together.

    No wonder so many young blacks are in so much trouble when they aspire to be these sort of role models.
    Spanner Flag 31 December 2010, 12:37am

  120. 21stCenturySpirituality 2 Jan 2011, 12:35pm

    Did you report it?

  121. 21stCenturySpirituality 2 Jan 2011, 12:37pm

    Did you write it?

  122. 21stCenturySpirituality 2 Jan 2011, 12:48pm

    Susie Landlow, Stephen Green is about as Christian as Osama Bin Laden. He wouldn’t even recognise Jesus if he ran down the street painted purple. And who are you to fingerwag about someone elses decision to become a parent, who you dont even know?

  123. Come and join the new group “Media Watch” on mypinknews

    http://my.pinknews.co.uk/

    Group dedicated to action on media bias and homophobia

  124. James 1st 2 Jan 2011, 4:02pm

    No I didnt write it I am disgusted that casual racism is allowed by that troll spanner. Racism seems to be acceptable here its hypocritical

  125. @James 1st . . . thanks for bringing our attention to this.

    I would like to say that racism is not acceptable on this site, and that I am just as shocked as you to find this sort of comment on here.

  126. 21stCenturySpirituality 2 Jan 2011, 7:28pm

    Racism is not tolerated here so I suggest you report it. Have you reported it? When and what thread did this remark appear on and who made it?

  127. 21st you’re very defensive its not a good look the comment is still in the chris brown twitter story. and its not the first time racist comments have been put up and left

  128. 21stCenturySpirituality 3 Jan 2011, 1:18am

    ‘Your very defensive its not a good look’ ….Where did that come from? All I am suggesting to you is that if their are comments that are racist that you report them. I imagine that it is virtually impossible to police this site all the time so unless someone reports racist or other offensive comments then it is unlikely that action will be taken. So I am simply suggesting you direct your complaint to someone whose responsibility it is to remove such comments and prevent those who make them from accessing the site.

  129. I find it astounding that the BBC can’t see that this is NOT ‘balanced’ reporting but is the equivalent of asking a member of the BNP for their comment on Madonna adopting an African baby.

  130. James 1st:
    No I didnt write it I am disgusted that casual racism is allowed by that troll spanner. Racism seems to be acceptable here its hypocritical

    Firstly, why post this in a completely unconnected thread?

    Secondly, what exactly is racist about my comment? Or are the subjects of the article allowed to use the word ‘nigga’, when I am not?

    These idiots spout this ideology all over the place, and young black kids think it’s OK to follow them, which is why there are young blacks being shot and stabbed all over the capital. (or would that be racist to point that out?)

    Your psuedo-socialist concerns are pathetic. This crap is going on NOW, and young people are being killed because of it, and you are wittering on about a bit of bad language. Get a fvcking LIFE!

  131. James 1st 3 Jan 2011, 8:38pm

    Fine I’ll contact your advertisers

  132. James 1st:
    If it’s good enough for Mark Twain, it’s good enough for me:
    http://tinyurl.com/32gpb6x

  133. Andy Armitage 7 Jan 2011, 3:14pm

    Typical of a lot of modern “churnalism”: go for the easy option, whether it’s using a press release unchallenged and unscrutinised or wheeling on S Green Esquire as the duty Christian (knowing he’ll kick up some controversy, of course). So much on radio and television goes unchallenged by so-called journos who ought to know better, and give them a hard time.

  134. Jean Nortje 7 Jan 2011, 5:45pm

    While they’re at it, let’s bring back stonings!! Wish theists will grow up and realize there is no easter bunny!

  135. Because BBC apart from being dhimmies to their bones, look for sensations before anything else.

  136. Look. I’m a Christian, and a pretty dedicated one, but SERIOUSLY? We are taught to witness to people like that, not threaten to kill them. Homosexuality is a sin, but so is murder. ‘Nough said :/

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