If, as I suspect, they couldn’t find anyone else willing to go on TV and condemn Elton and David, then that would seem to indicate there isn’t a real debate going on at all, and thus no real need to provide “balance”.
It’s so offensive, they wouldn’t think to provide “balance” for any other celebrity having a baby would they?
Christian Voice claims 500 members, but I am sure I read somewhere that that is just how many people he has on his email list (many of whom are probably there for a laugh or potential news story). I’ve never seen more than about 7 or 8 of them in real life i.e. on documentaries etc. Not exactly representative of anyone much.
“Our short news bulletin featured Elton John talking about wanting to have a child and an opposing viewpoint.”
Sure, I agree there are many people out there, (gays included) that dissaprove, including me on the grounds of age, rather than sexuality, but to interview a rabidly vitriolic crackpot like Stephen Green is beyond the pale. I’m sure there would be many Christian representatives that could have offered a balanced, objective opinion against the situation, without having to resort to dragging out this obnoxious f*ckwit.
I’m sure in the recent incidents of Mulsim demonstrations, the BBC would not have dared to interview a member of the EDL as an “opposing viewpoint”, as they would have probably started a riot on the grounds of ‘giving publicity to racists’, but somehow it’s still OK to tolerate homophobic people such as this that actually condone the death penalty for being a sexual minority.
I can’t believe this is a British institution in the 21st Century that still acts like they were in the 18th.
Sure, I agree there are many people out there, (gays included) that disapprove, including me on the grounds of age, rather than sexuality, but to interview a rabidly vitriolic crackpot like Stephen Green is beyond the pale. I’m sure there would be many Christian representatives that could have offered a balanced, objective opinion against the situation, without having to resort to dragging out this obnoxious fvckwit.
There is nothing wrong with finding someone of opposing views in order to add “balance” to a story. However, if you choose to summon the views of a right-wing bigoted loon as “balance” then you betray your perceptions of what’s hanging on the side of the scale.
In other words, BBC, if you perceive the news that a gay couple have acquired a child by way of a surrogate mother as mega-extraordinary and almost unbelievable (i.e. you have something much akin to the homophobe’s reaction), then you will want to hit that news with something from the most extreme opposing position. Thus, you look for a bigoted loon like Stephen Green and you present him as a sane and warranted commentator upon the issue.
Thus, the charge of homophobia on the part of whoever at the BBC contacted Stephen Green for comment stands strong and indisputable.
As I’ve said previously, we should all hold back from paying our licence fee until the BBC reflects our views and our community.
They wouldn’t have an ‘extreme racist’ on the news if talking about mixed marriages or relationships, so why this?
What a load of rubbish.
BBC – Bigoted Broadcasting Crap
I wrote a short blog about this earlier this afternoon.
It’s a function of what passes for “journalism” these days, I think — whenever there is a story concerning gay civil rights or other issues involving gays in the States, you can count on the “news” programs or talk-show hosts trotting out a representative from some anti-gay hate group such as Family Research Council or AFTAH, even though they’ve been proven to be liars again and again.
So BBC is pretty mainstream.
I wonder if the BBC would be kind enough to let us see the unedited version of the interview?
what need for balance? for and against racism ok too?
RJ: “As I’ve said previously, we should all hold back from paying our licence fee until the BBC reflects our views and our community.”
Nice try. I can’t wait to see you arguing with a Bailiff on your doorstep as they walk out with your TV.
It’s all very well to be bolshy and cock-sure, but in the grey light of day, you will sit down, shut up, and accept the status quo.
Would the BBC ask Islam4UK for opinion about the legitimacy of the Army being in Afghanistan, or ask the BNP on if the UK should be a multicultural society.
Its strange how the BBC never sought the opinions of atheists and humanists in its news coverage of the Popes visit or the Christmas messages of the pontiff and Archbishop of Canterbury. For balance the BBC interviewed Richard Dawkins every time religion is in the news.
The BBC don’t even know what balance is when it comes to LGBT issues.
If th BBC News won’t provide a balanced service, we should demand a specific LGBT news and magazine programme. We pay the licence fee as well.
balance? then why only show an opposing view?…..if they’d had any child psychologist pointing out the fact that gay families are ‘better’ for children, that might have been balanced!
The BBC is going into defence mode – no surprise there.
Considering their pretty dreadful record on homophobic incidents we should not be surprised.
People need to complain to the BBC Trust; Ofcom and the Commons Culture, Media and Sports committee.
They simply should not be giving a platform to a dangerous extremist in the name of ‘balance’.
Helen: Its strange how the BBC never sought the opinions of atheists and humanists in its news coverage of the Popes visit or the Christmas messages of the pontiff and Archbishop of Canterbury.
BBC coverage of the Pope’s visit to Britain was an outrage. Hardly surprising – the Pope is, in effect, Mark Thompson’s boss, and BBC staff know what they’re expected to do.
I’m sure the could have got hold of la widdecombe…not that she would have said anything different but at least she’s not fred phelps.
I don’t think BBC ia bigoted, but in this economic resession and trasaction of 30 million lawndring dola, who know how many million go to right wing media?
And why BBC do not balance with the child sex abuse priest scandal?
Someone aught to tell these idiots in the BBC that it is not a good idea to pour petrol on a burning fire, especially when they happen to be standing in the middle of it. Their response is absurd and dismissive. Well they will just have to learn the hard way when the protests grow and the questions become more searching. For example is the BBC reporter a member of a ‘charismatic’ church for example, or a Christian who has a dislike for gay people? What happens if it is proved there was bias in the report against gay people and Sir Elton and Mr Furnish particularly? What will the politicians have to say, especially the gay ones?
What a load of utter RUBBISH! The indefencible cannot be defended. Why doesn’t the BBC just admit that someone messed up, apologise and learn from their hideous mistake!!!!!
So why would the BBC elicit the views of a known religious fanatic knowing it would provoke a firestorm of complaints? I don’t buy it that it didn’t know who Stephen Green was, hardly an authority on modern 21st century living. This was deliberate in my view and reflects the deeply entrenched homophobia at the BBC. The employee should be sacked, very poor judgement call and besides, Green isn’t even rational.
Such an excuse by the BBC is dreadfully inexcusable! Who cares what some people think? People will always have opinions when it comes on to Religion, Race & Gender, and Sexuality issues. The real questIons are, is it a crime to be gay in the UK? Did Elton and his partner broke the law by producing a child through surrogacy? If the answers are no, there is no need for the BBC to engage the opinion of a homophobic religious-extremist! As a ‘respectable’ media house, the BBC should have pointed to studies done showing that children raised by gay and lesbians are no different from those raised by heterosexuals, and that in some aspects, are better developed. By pointing to that they would’ve shown some balance, but by only using that so-called Christian pastor’s opinion, speaks to BBC’s real motive of supporting anti-gay opinions.
The BBC has been doing this for years, decades. When they cover LGBT issues, especially if they have any kind of debate, they have some homophobic bigot voicing their hate in the name of “balance”; but this is pour hypocrisy. As stated so often before, this is never done when they cover issues of race or religion. Isn’t it time we challenged this hypocrisy?
I’ve complained to BBC about this but I’m not going to let this drop, because I knew they will use the excuse of “balance”.
Remember, Jonathan Ross left the BBC after all those complaints about his and Russell Brand’s crank phone call to Andrew Sachs. If the Daily Mail can organise its readers to do this what could we achieve with a far more serious issue then crank phone calls?
We shouldn’t let this drop.
For God’s sake grow up! Not everybody approves of buying babies. Get over it!
Interesting how the BBC regards the need for ‘balance’ ……
Tuesday, 28th The report of Sir Elton John’s baby ‘requires balance’!!!
Imagine my disappointment this evening, there I was watching the News, The Queen’s Grandson [Peter Philips] has become a father. WHAT?? NO BALANCE?? No comment from the Royal Correspondent?
Don’t you just love the BBC’s consistancy!!!!
AndyAS: The Queen’s Grandson [Peter Philips] has become a father.
Why no comment from a republican who wants to abolish the monarchy? Surely the BBC is aware that not everyone will be pleased about the birth of yet another royal. Come on BBC – open up the debate!
So for consistency from the BBC we must now expect leading Satanist’s to be interviewed as an adjunct to any Christian news reports like the Pope’s visit or any Anglican Synod meetings or whatever… just to achieve a balance…what fun!!!
The BBC has an obligation to be balanced. Interviewing an extreme right winger seems to bode well in my opinion, as the majority do not hold such extreme views and will be rolling their eyes at this person.
Here is the Protest The Pope Coverage you did not see on the BBC:
Just think guys and gals if you repent and follow this mans teaching you may be able to spend eternity with him and people like him. Now isn’t that a tempting prospect?
I have been investigating the National Association of Journalists
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
Some celebrity having a child isn’t even news, it’s celeb gossip. Why coverage at all is necessary I’m not entirely sure (different strokes I suppose), but the need for journalistic coverage with ‘balance’ is undoubtedly non-existent. I doubt there will be much ‘balanced’ coverage on the death of Bobby Farrell, though I’m sure the BBC should shoehorn David Duke into their coverage if this is their policy nowadays.
Time and time again my former confidence in- and pride of the BBC is obliterated. I don’t pay a TV license, and don’t intend to start, the internet will more than suffice. The legendary radar vans don’t exist in any meaningful capacity anyway.
I for one don’t see the need for comment on the story at all. Fair enough if there was an actual debate going on – the proposed introduction of a new law, for example – but this was simply the reporting of a happy occasion; the birth of a child. There is no issue here, there is no debate to be had. There is simply the fact that a famous person has a baby. There is no need to broadcast anyone’s disapproval.
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
Sky are FAR worse than the BBC.
I do not want to encourage Sky in ANY way.
The problem with the BBC is that we are funding them but are constantly at the receiving end of their homophobia.
I want them to actually deal with their institutional homophobia. I do not want the BBC to disappear. If Rupert Murdoch takes control of the British media then the UK media will be even more ridiculous than that of the US or Italy
What a patheric excuse of a reason on why they allowed the viewpoint of an extremist be vomited to all on national television.
As it has been pointed out, there is many example on where an extremist viewpoint would not be used to discuss something. Mainly when it’s racial, so why is sexual orientation so different.
Additionally, there was no balance at all. I personally found the whole news segment to me a negative piece against both Elton and David. It starts with their failed attempt of adoption and then the view point of someone against it. I’m lost where was the balance in there? This was exactly the points that I raised in my blog yesterday
So, would the BBC try to balance the comments of an Israelie proponent of establishing “settlements” (which I oppose) in the disputed lands by offering up the comments of a Holocaust denier? Give me a break. Someone who want’s to execute gays and lesbians is not the person to provide “balanced coverage” on the issue of gay/lesbian adoption or childbirth surrogacy! Get some perspective please!
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 :)
It was a story about a celebrity couple having a baby, and the asshole newsies are twisting it into “a debate about Surrogacy” solely because the couple is gay. Surrogacy has been around for decades, since being gay was treated as a secret criminal lifestyle, so the only controversy they would be debating would not be Surrogacy per se, but the legitimacy of gayness itself. How tedious.
BBC: fair and balanced news—errr, coverage. Just like Fox.
I’m surprised the Brits would be as dumb as the American cable channels.
Until 2007 BBC America was showing Benny Hill. Whatever you think about that show, I doubt it would be shown on the BBC’s UK channels because it is perceived as being too sexist.
This seems to illustrate a degree of cynicism on the part of the BBC. If, as an organisation, it believes that Benny Hill is sexist, then surely it shouldn’t be on a BBC channel anywhere?
I suggest the same cynicism came into play in the recent ‘should homosexuals be executed’ debate on Have Your Say. It was aimed primarily at an audience in Africa, where homophobia is rampant, so the BBC framed the debate in a way it never would here in the UK.
Most of us have basic core values and we don’t throw them to the wind just because we happen to find ourselves in the middle of a mob of racists, sexist or homophobes. So what exactly are the BBC’s core values and shouldn’t they be constant? Isn’t the BBC supposed to reflect modern Britain, especially overseas? It’s an organisation that people in other countries look up to and respect and that’s why the Have Your Say topic was incredibly damaging.
I am strongly in favour of debate and supported Nick Griffin being a guest on Question Time. But anyone who supports the execution of any group is not a fit person to appear on TV unless they are being vigorously questioned on those particular views.
With the Tories, the English equivalent of US Democrats in power, there are bound to be more bigots and more rightwingers featured but picking a pogromist, an accomplice of wannabe Ugandan mass murderers is a scandalous, almost criminal act.
Religion is the enemy.
Cult leaders like der papenfuehrer, the grand ayatollahs, mormon presidents, religious zionists, Ssempa and Obama BBF Rick Warren are the enemies of democracy, science and ethics. So are political misleaders who pander to cultists like Cameron and Obama on the question of same sex marriage.
Religion is a form of insanity composed of equal parts of greed, superstition and ignorance that comes howling straight out of the Dark Ages and prehistory.
The criminal intent of islamists, christers and judaists towards women, GLBT folks, trade unionists and youth is only limited by what they can do to us, not what they want to do to us.
Religion is humankinds greatest tragedy.
Paying the licence fee is a legal requirement, so I do not see the point of not doing so. Freedom of information is also a legal requirement. We should, individually, request information from the BBC regarding the interview, who else they contacted for comment, what the editorial motivation was for the piece in the first place, etc etc. This wont only cause the BBC inconvenience as they will have to process each request in line with the 30 day requirements, it will also mean that they have to provide the information, or state why they will not. If they do not provide the information, an appeal will further inconvenience them administratively.
I realise that this is not particularly dramatic, however, if enough people did this, it is likely to cause the BBC pause for thought. If this happened after each homophobic, unbalanced BBC report, it may also make them reconsider their editorial standards when reporting on LGBT issues.
BBC – Biased British Christians
. . . very well said – a breath of fresh air. I agree maybe not a dramatic tactic, but if we were continually persistent; a gradual but dramatic result could be possible by stealth.
Below is the copy of the FOI request I have sent to the BBC on this issue. The email address, if you want to send one of your own is firstname.lastname@example.org
This is a freedom of information request.
On 28th December 2010, the BBC News at Six programme broadcast an item regarding the birth, by surrogacy, to Elton John and David Furnish, of a son. Included in this item was an interview with the fundamentalist Christian Stephen Green, to presumably balance the ‘good news’ item. I would therefore request the following information regarding this news item specifically.
1. What attempts were made to seek input from other organisations to balance this news item. Specifically
a. What other organisations/ individuals were contacted to participate in this news item;
b. Did any of these organisations/ individuals respond to this request for participation;
c. If so, did any of these organisations/ individuals confirm they would participate in this news item;
d. If other organisations/ individuals were willing to participate, why was Stephen Green chosen instead of the other organisations.
2. What was the editorial rationale in seeking to ‘balance’ this news story with the views of an extremist Christian, rather than a mainstream christian opponent of gay parenting?
a. When decisions of this nature are decided upon, are the editorial meetings minuted;
b. If these meetings are minuted, is it possible to obtain a copy of these minutes;
c. If these meetings are not minuted, why not;
d. Who, ultimately, took the decision to report the story in this way.
e. Why were the views of a Christian sought, rather than the views of other major UK religions?
f. Why, if religious views were to be represented at all, were supportive religious or spiritual views also sought to ‘balance’ the views of Stephen Green?
3. What safeguards are in place to ensure that participants in BBC news stories are not given a platform to espouse extremist views inappropriately? Specific to the reporting of this issue:
a. Why did the BBC decide not to alert the viewers to the extreme views held by Stephen Green in regard to gay issues;
i. Was the BBC aware of the extremist views held by Mr Green in the first place;
ii. If the BBC was not aware, why was the BBC not aware.
b. Was the BBC aware that Stephen Green has supported the killing of gay people?
c. If the BBC was not aware of these issues, why had the BBC not investigated the background of Mr Green before inviting him to participate in the news item in question to ascertain the relevance of his input.
d. Is Mr Green considered an ‘expert’ in parenting issues by the BBC, or and ‘expert’ in the theological field to warrant his input as either a child or theological expert:
i. If so, how was his expertise established by the BBC;
ii. if not, why was his input sought on this issue?
4. When reporting issues of ‘gay parenting’ does the BBC have an editorial policy that differs to reporting issues of ‘heterosexual parenting?
a. If this is the case, what are the different editorial standards concerned;
b. If this is the case, why is it felt necessary to report on both issues differently;
c. If it is not the case that there are different editorial standards used when reporting gay / heterosexual parenting and surrogacy issues, can you confirm whether the BBC seeks the input of religious extremists whenever it is reporting on surrogacy issues of either a heterosexual or homosexual nature.
5. Why was it felt necessary to balance the story of the birth of a child to a celebrity couple in the first place? Is it editorial policy to ‘balance’ all similar stories, for example, when reporting the birth, by surrogacy, of the child to Sarah Jessica Parker, did the BBC ‘balance’ this by seeking opposing views to surrogacy. If not, has the editorial policy changed to the current editorial policy for a specific reason, or was the reporting of the Elton John story considered different on the basis of his sexuality.
My name and contact details are as follows:
This is a copy of the request i sent to the BBC this evening.
This is a freedom of information request.
“….genuine debate over the issue of surrogacy for gay couples”
Why do we need a specific debate on surrogacy for gay couples only, we can have a debate on surrogacy itself but gay couples are allowed to have kids and the first UK surrogate gay couple was back in 1999 – why this specific debate on gay couples now… the idea of rich western couples, rejected for adoption then seeking some woman (and quite often from a 3rd world Asian country)
to give birth to a child on order for money is slightly off-putting….I don’t know the rules of surrogacy in the UK or the states but the idea of a woman, who I possibly don’t know, who might die in the process of giving birth, then giving her a large sum of money and getting solicitors to draw up a water tigh contract so that she doesn’t have access to the child etc seems a bit dodgy ….
I guess we can’t stop some 60 yr old ex drug addict popstar getting some 40 yr old woman pregnant or asking a friend to bear a child for him but babies for money , I don’t know…… Perhaps it doesn’t work like that in the states or UK but it would be interesting to know what (both financially and emotionally) the bearer of this child has got out if?
and why should they pander to those who they claim are debating it when many are only homophobes? would they invite a ku klux klan member to debate racial stuff?
The BBC does show reverence to certain groups & goes to great lengths to insist they’re never offended. Muslims & Islam in general top the list. The BBC have become so race obsessed & terrified of cultural imperialism accusations they now avoid reporting anything negative about anyone ethnic or religious. LGBT people have suffered as a result of this. The BBC’s coverage of Uganda’s ‘kill the gays’ & other similar cases of African homophobia are always reported with way too much respect shown towards rabidly homophobic interviewees. I used to be a World Service listener but, after several complaints (for which i recieved no reply) regarding programming & failure to remove horrifically gay-bashing message board threads, i gave up on it.
A request for Freedom of information can be sent to the following email address:
DEAR HOMOSEXUAL BIGOTS,
Do you know that we have free speech in this country? Also, don’t you think that comparing sexual perversion to race or Jewishness is nonsense?
DEAR IGNORANT IDIOT
Do you know that with free speech comes responsibility? Also, don’t you think that sexual perversion is an incorrect term to use in this context.
See: Wikipedia, if you can read.
Stephen Green holds some very bizarre and contradictory beliefs.
Green believes a man should be able to rape his wife whenever he likes and not face criminal proceedings.
Green believes that abortion is killing people and equal to the holocaust …meanwhile he supports the creation of holocaust conditions for gays in Uganda where he thinks they should face the death penalty.
No public platform should be given to this poisonous lunatic. The BBC, as suggested by other posters here, wouldn’t dare broadcast interviews with anyone questioning the rights of other minorities in this regard. The lazy lack of effort on the BBC’s part to find other commentators suggests a simple desire for sensationalism. Shame on them.
Dear calling yourself “academic”!
You’re right it’s probably not appropriate to outright compare Jewishness to sexual orientation since religious affiliation is a CONSCIOUS CHOICE, whilst race and sexual orientation aren’t! The comparison between Jews is, however, legitimate in the sense that Jews were specifically targeted for execution by Hitler, as were gay men and lesbians. You may also want to research the current situtation for Uganda’s gay population and where Stephen Green stands on the issue.
Considering you’re a so called “academic”, you may also want to look up genetic influences on sexual orientation and similarity between the brains of gay men and straight women. It would be a tragedy to use your computer solely to troll gay websites with your uninformed ignorant tripe!
You use the word “Sexualperversion” to refer to homosexuality?
Are you a christian or a psychoanalytic psychotherapists?
The reason I ask this is because the only people who tend to use the word “sexual perversion” these days, tend to be religous people or some psychotherapists who still practice psychoanalysis.
I don’t know about your laws in the UK, but in Canada if someone is publicly supporting the execution of a minority group, then this is considered a hate crime and this person is prosecuted.
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?
louis writes: Can readers have an undertaking that he has in no ways been involved in coverage of this story?
Everyone knows he works for Channel 4 which is also a public service broadcaster and, by the way, has generally good record on equality. Are you suggesting that there’s a conflict of interests or what?
“Green believes a man should be able to rape his wife whenever he likes and not face criminal proceedings. ”
Yes, he does – so ideal for use by the BBC when reporting a rape case then? I’m fully expecting to see Green commenting on such a case to provide ‘balance’ – just like I’m expecting a KKK member to comment on the happy news of the birth of a child to a celebrity couple who happen to be of different races. Not.
The BBC’s excuse is offensive. If they dare to reply to my complaint with a similar load of cr*p I’ll be complaining to my MP. As many have said, there was no need for ‘balance’ in this celeb story at all, yet they took it upon themselves to have a go at gay people by using Green to imply there’s some kind of debate about human rights and equality.
@ louis – what are you going on about? Your envy of ben cohen is transparent and pathetic.
I thought it was a news programme. Since when did any news item need balance. Theres been an earthquake in Haiti, thousands dead, for balance here’s a religious nutter saying they deserve it.
Elton John wasn’t giving a speech wasn’t running for office, asking for votes. He had a baby…………….
Since when does the BBC decide to announce someone has had a baby and decide they need political balance. This is the most ludicrous thing I have heard.
If it had been a current affairs programme discussing the issues of surrogacy straight or gay, that might be a different matter. The interviewer was the entertainment correspondent.
Sorry Beeb you will have to come up with better than that.
I would threaten to boycott the BBC and refuse to pay the TV license, but I got rid of my TV long ago due to the crap being broadcast.
Quite frankly if anyone still pays the BBC for the privilege of having a TV then a little more homophobia is hardly likely to make any difference.
What a disgusting person Stephen Green is. How very christian and how very far from Christ.
Okay, what I don’t get is why the hell would the opposing opinion be someone who advocates execution for gay and lesbians?!
I don’t understand how they can be closed minded and negative but fine, they’re entitled to their opinion. I don’t like it but that’s the power of free speech!
However no one should have the right to decide who should live or die based on their orientation and certainly shouldn’t say someone should be put to death just because they have a child!
Like the person from Canada, I’m from Australia and find it odd that someone from the UK can publicly say he supports the execution of gays…that’s a bit more than freedom of speech especially if this guy is regarded by some as somekind of leader .. what protection exactly do you guys get from hate speech and harassment? It seems you can saying anyhting about gays and get away with it…
I agree the BBC should really have researched this guy a bit more, what a bizarre choice…The edited comments by themselves are a sort of an attack on surrogacy only , but there is that attack on gays by saying the child needs a mother…and having this guy be the anti-surrogacy voice is just an attack on gays really, it’s not a balanced choice, it seems he’s generally regarded as a nutcase …they should have left out the comment part completely if this was the only guy they could get…
Why would a news item about Elton and David having a baby need to be balanced? This is nothing more than a fluff piece. What’s to balance? Does the BBC do this with every other news item they report or is it just any item that involves a gay person?
Readers should realise that 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 it imperative 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 who was frequently asked to comment on such issues.
The BBC makes a habit of thinking that ‘balance’ is achieved by having two extremes of every argument. Usually, the result is not balance but sensationalism and, in this case, offence.
Lets all refuse to pay the joke that is the Tv licence and see the fat cats scream and beg, as of course their precious precocious Tarquin and Pippa need their new ponies and sports cars next month
George Broadhead wrote: “Unfortunately Stephen Green seems to have taken the place of the late Mary Whitehouse who was frequently asked to comment on such issues.”
I’m n ot defending Mary Whitehouse but I don’t remember her being in favour of a husbands right to marital rape as Stephen Green has said he is though.
Lets put some pressure on Christian Voice and start with his website. His his hosting company http://www.simbahosting.co.uk promotes a “Friendly, professional” service, do they know they host a website that promotes the death of Gay people……. Email and phone calls and get his website taken down !!
Top gear is casually homophobic too. Louie spence was humiliated by Johnny Vaghn while the others laughed. Spence does himself no favours but he dosent deserve the be torn apart by bullies
What the hell are two blokes doing stealing somebody elses baby, you all know that it is not natural, a baby needs a mum and dad. Reading some of these comments i realise that most of you view yourselves as victims, well your not, get a life and grow up.
George Broadhead wrote: “Unfortunately Stephen Green seems to have taken the place of the late Mary Whitehouse who was frequently asked to comment on such issues.”
I’m not defending Mary Whitehouse but I don’t remember her being in favour of a husbands right to marital rape as Stephen Green has said he is though.
I agree of course that the views Whitehouse(and readers who are not as old in the tooth as me probably don’t remember her) expressed are not as extreme as Green’s but she was invariably trotted out by the BBC, and the media generally, whenever they wanted a homophobic comment and it does seem that they are doing the same with Green.
@Phil Taylor – do you think ‘stealing’ is the right word ? Are you suggesting the woman who carried the foetus didn’t agree ? That she’s not a surrogate mother ? Are you saying that a man and a woman who couldn’t conceive together, and who found another woman who was happy to be a surrogate mother, would be stealing the child ? What do you mean by ‘natural’ ? Are you saying similar behaviour never occurs in animals other than humans ? Do you think that all human behaviour has to be mirrored in the animal kingdom for it to be right or acceptable ? If I could find some human behaviour that isn’t found in animals, would you devote as much time to surpressing it as you do to this topic ? What are you doing to stop the damage caused to children of single parents ?
You hold your opinions dearly I imagine. Why not try and convince us of their validity rather than just stating your opinions and asserting that all other views are wrong ? I imagine you don’t identify as gay. What would your friends say if they found out that you spend your free time posting on sites for gat people ?
Should women allow to stay childless or should a nation be able to conscript uteri to promote its birth rate? I’m sure BBC could invite a few crazy patriarchs supporting such policy.
Below is a sample of the rabid homophobia from the Stephen Green brand of Christianity. This particular quote is from poster on Manx Forums Isle of Man. http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42883-congratulations-to-elton-david/page__st__60
Can any feeling person really think the BBC was in any degree acting responsibly, or fairly giving a public platform to persons with views such as Green, or this person quoted below?
‘Familial incest is sad to say far from unknown, so to allow the placing a young child, especially a young male child, in the care of two men who have elected to lead a legal but sexually immoral lifestyle is simply wrong.
While I reluctantly accept that it is now permissible to permit people to live in bizarre ways so long as they are not harming others the potential for devastating harm to a baby boy placed in a male homosexual relationship if the homosexual men do succumb to their abnormal sexuality in an incestuous manner is unimaginable. The risk just does not outweigh the potential for devastation.
Then there is the matter of the setting of precedence.
I have no doubt that both parties here are decent people in all other respects than their abnormal sexuality but what about homosexual pairs who are not so intrinsically decent and who will use this and other cases of permitting the procurement of a child to underwrite their desires?
No, there are some things that are just not right. Homosexuals procuring children is one such.’
I find Green and the writer of that quote to be unfit to make any comment about any gay person anywhere.
I was reading the Independant online and it mentioned the story on this site, hence i read the article here before i wrote my comment.
Are you suggesting my friends would be shocked me reading a homosexual website ?, funny that they would not think it odd, but a homosexual does, like i said, your all victims in your own mind and never stop shouting about it.
Your questions don’t really hit any point, just to clarify, what Elton John has done in my opinion is not natural, it goes against all normal human behavior, that child will not grow up without having lots of problems.
Happy New Year to you Harry.
@ Phil, you may have been directed here because you were reading a story somewhere else, but why come back? Actually, don’t bother answering, because no one cares.
I don’t know what you’re point is anyway? that being a homo is not natural? What do you mean by that? It’s possibly one of the most retarded arguments that anyone could use against homosexuality.
Your opinions don’t really hit any point, just to clarify, what Elton John has done is perfectly natural, it goes not go against all normal human behavior, the child will grow up without having lots of problems – unlike you obviously have.
@ Satan. Actually your right. Ignore everything else I’ve written. I’m gay. But no one knows. I think about cock all day. And I’m just bitter about elton because I can’t face up to my true homosexual desires. I’ll go and sort my head out and stop wasting time writing hateful things on a gay website. Sorry.
Anybody who replies to their own comments, and has to make out it came from somebody else is not mentally all there.
You really do need to seek medical advise.
Your heterosexism and heterosexist comments are coming across loud and clear.
Why exactly are you here, apart from wallowing in your “Heterosexuality” like a form of obessive masturbation.?
Thanks for the medical advice, but I think you’ll find that any straight man who spends new years day trolling a gay news website is the one with issues.
@ Phil, btw. I don’t post comments in other people’s names.
@ taylor. I doubt very much a man of you diminutive mental capacity would be reading the independent. Quite frankly your comments bore me, yet another sad closet case with something to prove to himself and a thick one at that, Build a bridge and get over it already.
@Phil Taylor – I rather meant that it’s odd that you’re devoting time to asserting your opinions rather than justifying them; that you’re choosing to do this on a forum where your opinions are more or less antithetical to those of the majority of the forum members. It’s really strange that when you’re asked about this that you ascribe the motives of the questioner to their sexuality, not just one of incomprehension about what you’re trying to achieve ! You’re just repeating “it’s wrong, it’s wrong” – do you think you’re going to persuade people here of your position ? If not, what are you doing ? If not, you must admit that your actions are odd.
” … in my opinion is not natural … ” – what do you actually mean by ‘not natural’ ? Why do you think this ?
Natural, i mean a mother and a father, just like everybody who has ever been born, everybody that you know had a mother and a father, all the people who have written on here have or once had a mother and a father, Elton John and David Furnish are two men, they are not a mother and father, they never have been and never will be.
I am entitled to comment on any website that i like, some of you have responded to me in a very nasty and rude way, some of you are so insecure that i have opposing views to you that your comments are that of a spoilt child.
Phil Taylor do you feel you have a natural right to rape your wife whenever you feel like it the way Stephen Green of Christian Voice thinks you should be entitled ?
The woman ultimately always subserviant to the wishes of her husband…
Is that the natural order you refer to and want to see re-established?
Guys you cant reason with people like that Phil so treat them accordingly
@Phil – You’re conflating ‘natural’ with ‘good’ aren’t you ? Your argument implies that a child whose mother has died and is being raised by their father is in an ‘unnatural’ environment by which I think you mean a ‘poor’ environment. Your argument imples that a child who is raised by foster parents is at a disadvantage from one raised by its birth parents. I see no evidence to support this proposition. Can you furnish some ?
I haven’t suggested that you’re not entitled to comment on any site, nor do I think anyone else on this forum has, bar you. My question remains: what are you trying to achieve ? If it’s to assert your opinions, you’ve done that, but you’re probably not persuading anyone on this forum of their validity or rationality. It maybe that you believe it is enough for you to hold views without rationalizing them, that it is sufficient to feel something deeply for it to be true. I wonder whether you think this is true for your fellow humans ? I can’t see anyone’s responses to you as ‘very nasty and rude’: could you point out the worst please ? I can see people frustrated by what you’re saying, perhaps because you’re making adverse criticism of them without making any rationalization or justification. Do you think the world would be a better place if people thought about their views, rather than just relying on gut instinct ?
I’d still be interested in your answers to my questions posted in this and previous comments. But you seem to have made up your mind that you’re the victim. It is odd that you’re accusing the other members of the forum of having victim mentalities. The reality of the situation is that this is a forum for discussing equality of human beings, with emphasis on the rights of gay human beings. The onus is on you to justify your dissenting views, just as the onus would be on a gay person who was choosing to spend their time posting dissenting views on a forum touching on the promotion of inequality.
Phil Taylor is right, everyone must accept his viewpoint as equal. Because Hitler was just misunderstood, Mugabe is entitled to his views, apartheid South Africa was a wonderful place, the BNP have much followers, all turds must be represented by BBC.
I avidly await interviews with Grand Wizard White Might about blacks.
Lizo Mzimba has been promoted from Newsround.
Get Grand Wizard White Might’s opinion on this black abomination’s appointment to BBC News.
There is much controversy.
Has anyone ever noticed that all we ever seem to do is be forced defend our basic human rights.
Even on our own forums they come to put us down.
Gay liberation my @rse.
Granted, it is better now than it was in the past and I think what we are experiencing is the last of the die hard phobes spitting venom in their final argumental death throes.
My greatest fear at the moment is if the coalition allows these so called persecuted Christians their so called “freedom” of speech.
IE: The right to denigrate other members of society based on an unproven belief system.
Happy New year to all, except if your a brain dead religious freekozoid.
Your hell is awaiting you.
Surely Sir Elton has more pressing issues to deal with like working with the London HIV/Aids Charity sector to ensure they dont send their HIV staff a e-mail advising them they are causing “pain & suffering to alot of people…get another job with a better employer” while on a POLICE ADVISORY PANEL !!!!!
Subject: Crusaid discussions
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:20:47 +0000
Thank you for the email that Robin has forwarded to me as you have requested. I am fully aware of the issues you have raised and hope that your meeting with Robin in January will resolve these for you.
I understand that there is an issue with the given start date on your contract of employment. I also know that you have pointed this out to Robin and that he has offered to look at and amend this for you. However you have included this in your formal complaint and under the procedures that we have in place, this must be handled in the meeting. No-one has at any point inferred or indicated as your email suggests that your job is being terminated.
We are aware of the importance of stress in the management of the HIV virus. However when a formal complaint is lodged, we do have to follow the procedures we have in place. It is the trustees’ view that a speedy meeting according to our procedures that can resolve your concerns is the best way to deal with the current situation. I understand that Robin has made himself available to meet with you at the earliest convenient time.
Crusaid Head of Dept Charity e-mail to HIV Police Panel Member…..
“pendantic,uncooperative and causing stress hassle and pain to alot of people” …..If Crusaid is so bad get another Job with a better employer”
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:12:56 +0000
To: xxxxxxxxxxcrusaid.org.uk; xxxxxxcrusaid.org.uk; hotmail.com
I want to see the two of you in the meeting room tomorrow at 10 am. No excuses. I sincerely hope that this email conversation has not been widely distributed.
Subject: RE: Thank You Invitation to Crusaid Events
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:31:55 +0000
Thank you for the email As you know I am co-chair of Crusaid as
well as their legal adviser .I am writing this to you in the latter capacity as
Crusaid’s solicitor . THAT WAS THE END
Crusaid THEN Sends Letter requesting feedback AND DONATION to HIV Police Panel Member after advising them to “GET ANOTHER JOB WITH A BETTER EMPLOYER !!!!
To: Crusaid Trustees
After your high court injunction e-mail which as you can imagine was very distressing,followed by a letter from a Head of Department a few weels later at Crusaid about being “the lifeblood of all we do, we could not go on without you” which is very kind of you all at Crusaid I received a few weeks later a letter from the CEO of Crusaid requesting a small donation and feedback on the running of the Charity with a pre-paid envelope and the CEO in their letter to me advising me in writing that Crusaid values feedback and to use the new e-mail address email@example.com could I therefore respectfully request you and the Board of Trustees’ clarify to me what sort of feedback on the running of Crusaid you and the CEO would like me to provide you with and I will then give your written request for feedback on the running of Crusaid the attention it deserves.
From: Laurence Gilmore (LGILMORE@hamlins.co.uk)
Sent: 20 November 2006 18:26:10
What is this about and why is he on circulation lists!!!
Best as ever,
Tel: 020 7355 6102
Fax: 020 7518 9102
To: xxxxxxxxhotmail.com; Angus.Hamilton@btinternet.com
CC: AElliot@ukcoalition.org; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; AKeightley@ukcoalition.org
Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:52:53 +0100
I have written to you today. We discussed this matter…. An error occurred. I dealt with it swiftly. … you are going on the walk….which is MARVELLOUS!
coverup Flag 10 July 2010, 6:16pm
Perhaps Sir Elton could apologise to the LGBT Community and people living with HIV/Aids after their CONFIDENTIAL DATA ended up all over London all covered up from them by the London AIDS Charity sector ?
Subject: Response from Information Commissioner’s Office[Ref. COM0179282]
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:45:57 +0100
8th October 2007
Case Reference Number COM0179282
Thank you for your email, and for speaking to me earlier, regarding the sensitive personal information which appears to have been disclosed to you by a charity, and about your problems with receiving unwanted mailings from a charity despite your requests to them to stop.
The information you have sent us is an email from the Metropolitan Police from March 2006 which appears to refer to information about a panel member and an Aids charity’s database being disclosed.
The Information Commissioner’s Office advises on and enforces the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) which is based around 8 principles of ‘good information handling’ which must be complied by an organisation processing personal data.
The seventh principle of the DPA requires that organisations have appropriate levels of technical and organisational security for personal data to prevent unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data, and accidental loss or damage to personal data.
Where sensitive personal data (such as information about an individual’s medical conditions) is concerned extra care should be taken to ensure that information is processed securely.
It is clearly of serious concern that you have apparently received sensitive information of this nature and that you still have the information such a long time after it appears it was disclosed to you, despite having advised us that you made attempts to get the charity to remove it from your computer.
It is not clear from the information provided when these details were disclosed to you (the email you have sent to us from the Police refers to this disclosure and is dated March 2006 which suggests it happened before that date).
When we spoke you explained that the charity concerned tried to remove their database from your computer but did not succeed in doing it properly. You have also explained that the charity has now ceased to exist and that the Charities Commission are involved in some way.
You have indicated that the Police have been involved in this matter however it is not clear on what basis the Police have contacted you, or what the current situation with the Police is.
If sensitive personal information has been disclosed when it should not have been then this is an issue which the Information Commissioner’s Office can investigate. In order to identify exactly what has happened, and to follow this matter up as soon as possible we do need some more information from you:-
1. The name of the charity whose database was disclosed to you.
2. The approximate date that this database was disclosed.
3. The name of the charity who disclosed a panel member’s medical information to you.
4. The approximate date that this panel members information was disclosed.
5. How both these things were disclosed to you.
6. You explained to me on the phone that you had notified the organisations concerned about what had happened. It would be helpful if you could briefly explain how you notified them and what they did when you raised these concerns with them.
7. Could you confirm what sort of information is held in the charity database?
8. You have said in your email that you have been returning confidential information to charities for 3 years. If you would like us to look into this issue we would need details of what sort of information has been disclosed to you and which charities have disclosed it.
I am sorry to ask you for more information however you will appreciate that the information you have provided so far raises serious concerns and it is important that we have enough information to look into the matters you have raised properly. I would be grateful if you can provide the information where you are able to.
Finally, you mentioned separate concerns about charities sending you mailings despite your requests to them to stop. If you would like us to look into this issue further it would be helpful if you could send us a copy of your emails to the charity on this subject and any correspondence you received from them after you asked them to stop.
If you need any further clarification about what we need in order to investigate please contact me.
Casework and Advice Manager
Response from Information Commissioner’s Office[Ref. COM0279871]
Sent: 25 November 2009 15:37:39
25 November 2009
Case reference COM0279871
I am writing further to our telephone conversation regarding your concerns about the information disclosed to you by Crusaid.
As we discussed on the telephone the Seventh Principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) requires that organisations have appropriate technical and organisational security for personal information.
Phil . . . When your first came onto this site you accused us all of behaving like victims. It is interesting that you are now claiming to be the victim.
Phil . . . I think this rather highlights how you only see the world in a rather polarized form
Phil . . . Since you only appear to view the world in black and white terms, I think this explains why you are incapble of recognising the nuances of the debates put forward on this site; and why you also appear incapable of engaging with them.
Elton did what is perfectly legal. Like it or not, he’s not the first person and not the last to have a baby from a surrogate mother, it’s not a gay issue since it’s legal for gays and straights to get babies from surrogate mothers – if any straight or gay person has an issue with gays having children then tough luck , go and live somewhere else…. we’re perfectly capable of giving a child a loving, prosperous and happy life both as a child and as a grown up…There is no debate , if we wanted a debate it should have happenned a long time ago and not now when it was first legalised… We certainly don’t need any comments from someone who is obviously a nutcase and a someone who hates all things gay. I don’t know what the reasons were for dragging up this guy but it is was provocactive and unnecessary….
This is basically a 1 min celeb story to end the news…nothing more!
The incumbent political parties are preparing the grounds for a new homophobic wave in our culture, and those who are denying and sometimes defending them are willfully and/or foolishly participating in this task.
“Your questions don’t really hit any point, just to clarify, what Elton John has done in my opinion is not natural, it goes against all normal human behavior, that child will not grow up without having lots of problems.”
Phil, we can all have an opinion, but in the case of the subject matter you have offered an opinion on there is now actually a weight of research data that contradicts your opinion the the child will not grow up without having a lot of problems.
What the research actually shows is that statistically the child is more likely to achieve and prosper than his/her peers across a wide range of markers, including education achievement, social skills and a host of others factors people look towards for signs of good parenting.
I really would like to know just who the religionists attribute motherhood too! Is it the egg donor or the surrogate?
Are they really suggesting the child should be given to some student who sold some of her eggs to pay tuition fees! How long do they think it will be before she hands the kid over to child services for adoption and returns to her studies? 1 or 2 hours!
Or do they suggest the child is handed surrogate to despite it not having any genetic connection to the woman. Again how long do they think it will be before she hands the kid over to child services for adoption and returns to her life? 1, 2 maybe 3 hours!
Donating a few eggs for a few thousand bucks or renting out you’re uterus for 25K does not a mother make, just as contributing some sperm does not make you a father.
Parenthood is earned by nurture, care and love whatever structure of family you bring a child up in.
By these standards, then every ‘straight’ news item that might offend gays and their sensitivities, should have a contribution from a gay person…but that never happens. It’s just the BBC sticking the knife in yet again. Whether the remarks were aimed at David and Elton personally (in which case they may have a legal case, who knows? Or against gays generally (and Stephen Green is one so-called Christian who advocates death for gays), then they should not have been broadcast.
Just for once, a story with love and hope should have been given as news, and not one that required comment from a homophobic bigot. The BBC may not realise this, but in broadcasting Green’s remarks they are supporting homophobia which, I think, might just be against the law?
A ink to the Independents coverage of the story
I suspect that Stephen Green suffers from a serious deficit of sexual desire.
Can anyone imagine Stephen Green red-hot with lust, and aching with sexual pleasure?
He needs to see a neurologist.
Come and join the new group “Media Watch” on mypinknews
Group dedicated to action on media bias and homophobia
@ Phil Taylor – “Reading some of these comments i realise that most of you view yourselves as victims, well your not, get a life and grow up.”
This kind of attitude really annoys me. I’m assuming you’re straight, in which case you have no idea what life is like for the many gay people who post on here. No doubt you take for granted the many simple things gay people want to enjoy.
Ironically, it’s people like you who make it difficult for gay people to enjoy these simple rights, and then you complain when gay people feel like ‘victims’.
It may surprise you to realise gay people don’t want special treatment, or to be treated like victims, they just want the simple things straight people enjoy – to get married, have children, not have to pretend their partner is a ‘friend’, not be bullied, hold hands down the street, be represented on TV, and not have to justify their right to be gay (ie be themselves) at every ****ing turn.
Oh yeah, and it’s ‘you’re’ not ‘your’.
@Phil taylor….’stealing someone elses baby’…lets have a think about shall we? Since when has surrogacy equated with theft? So now, in your mind, anyone who has the need to use surrogacy to have a child is a criminal?
@Phil Taylor…’that child will not grow up without having lots of problems.’
And why might that be Phil? I think it would be because of prejudices & intolerances like yours.
@ Phil Taylor…and actually the evidence, such as recorded interviews with children of gay parents, suggests otherwise.
God help this little child.Having a ‘male’ mother is bad enough,but when it’s a drug taking,self-important,petulant,dumpy,homosexual git like John,who throws an absolute gay-like hissy fit just because he has to actually walk but 50 yards at the Diana gig.Some role model.Poor kid hasn’t got a hope in hell with that as a parent.God only knows how they’ll dress him.
I dunno Georgy Zuchov,how do you dress a designer accessory?
…If the baby is not a child but a designer accessory as style guru Stephen Green hysterically emotes.
The child doesn’t have a male mother, it has a surrogate mother and will be raised by two male parents one of whom is the genetic progenitor of the child as well as the legal partner of the other parent.
The role of any parent is to provide love, security, support and care for a child.
Plenty of parents fall short of being perfect role models and it’s not a requirement to be one…though who’s to say Elton & David would fail as good role models, Elton has packed-in the drugs now and they are a very successful couple today.
And what if the child really really wants a Marie Antoinette style wig like his Dad once wore … who’s to say he shouldn’t be provided with one anyway?… what’s so special about a buzz cut?
@Georgy Zhukov — I’m so glad you took the trouble to set down your criteria on parental suitability. If only more people took the time to build up a careful and nuanced picture of a human being from newspaper reports. I’m glad at last someone has had the courage to say the dumpy people are not suitable parents — and can never be. I imagine you yourself are not dumpy, and tower physically — as you do intellectually — over your fellow human beings.
It was joyful to read your contribution to the debate. All too often people think that reasoned discussion and informed debate is enought, but you’ve cut through the nonsense by judicious use of quotation marks, and by hijacking ‘gay’ to serve as a pejorative term.
Please carry on posting, and bring some much needed clarity to this benighted forum.
Phil Taylor…..so what about the widowed mother raising children on her own, or a widower father? I don’t hear you denigrating them. What about a straight foster parent couple where one of the two has died and left the surviving spouse with the children in their care? Why not apply the same rule to them? You would have to say they are unfit to parent too to validate your argument against gay people adopting, fostering or having children by surrogate means.
PN and other gay sources really need to keep the pressure up here. Stephen Green should not appear on any respectable media outlet, least of all the tax payer funded BBC! The lunacy of their position can be found in the fact that they would never dream of bringing on an avowed racist who advocated the murder of blacks, jews, muslims etc. They cannot be allowed to get away with this clear double standard.
With their tatty response, they have made abundantly clear that they believe homophobia to be an entirely legitimate viewpoint up to the point of calling for gay people to be killed. The fact that they are so blatantly unapologetic about it only makes their position even more outrageous.
The likes of “Phil Taylor” (how original!! LOL) and Zhukov should be treated with the contempt they deserve and ignored completely. We are under no obligation to engage with such nonsense. They can’t even begin to attempt to construct a point free of bigotry and the worn out stereotypes that exist in their small little minds. Let them wallow in their own sad little worlds and watch helplessly as we continue to make progress towards equality.
You conveniently omitted the appalling behavioural & personality traits of John.I’ll repeat til it sinks in.He IS petulant,he IS drug/cocaine addicted addicted,he IS self-important & he most definitely IS a vile lazy git that fires off a stream of abuse because he cannot be bothered to even walk 50 yards at the Diana gig.
That was documented & filmed both in the press & on TV.There’s also been many,many other displays of childish petulance over the years.
If thats how he behaves God help this child.Anyone who can’t be arsed to walk 50 yards isn’t going to bother much with attending to a child except as some kind of publicity accessory.
All the evidence suggests John is just one big repulsive prick.It’s about time you & others started accepting facts.
“…they would never dream of bringing on an avowed racist who advocated the murder of blacks, jews, muslims etc. They cannot be allowed to get away with this clear double standard. ”
I totally agree. It’s that that really galls me – the idea that we’re perefectly legitimate targets. I bet someone will then say “The Bible says…”. Well, it doesn’t and even if it did, the Bible has also been used to promote racism yet I presume the BBC won’t be giving the OK to anyone who says their racist beliefs are sanctioned by the Bible.
It’s not just the choice of Green either. It’s the fact that any comment was wholly unnecessary.
@Georgy Zhukov — you are so right. Personally attacking Elton John is the only sensible way of addressing the issue of how to achieve balance in broadcast news reporting.
I was also heartened to see that at last someone is advocating Georgy Zhukov as the only person who should decide on the suitability of someone to be a parent.
I have read your comment again and now understand that I should take your gut feelings as accepted facts. How considerate of you to free me and others from the burden having to think about things.
Perhaps you could help me out. I have been wondering how someone like Elton John — who as you say is a vile lazy git — is able to sell 250 million records ? I’m confused !
This is the one problem with PinkNews allowing multiple names, we don’t know if the likes of Phil Taylor and Georgy Zhukov etc are several people or just the one attention seeking idiot.
Ironic isn’t that these people spew their vile comments no doubt feel they are the right kind of people to bring up children themselves.
I fully expect the BBC to use Stephen Green to ‘balance’ the debate the next time a man is arrested for raping this wife being that he thinks that is the husbands right.
Of course that wouldn’t happen because they would be wrong. So how on earth could they have thought using him knowing his views on homosexuality was in any way right?
“It’s not just the choice of Green either. It’s the fact that any comment was wholly unnecessary.”
That is the key point. It’s the way that the BBC and its reporter sought to manufacture a false “debate” and provide a platform to the most extreme homophobic voice in the country that is so distasteful and outrageous. This homophobic mentality that leads the BBC into thinking that there are “two sides” to every gay issue and our rights should always be up for debate in a way that doesn’t apply to other minority groups.
It has to be said though, the BBC does this sort of thing regularly. Whenever there is a gay issue, they immediately turn to Peter Tatchel, who somehow is considered the voice of the “LGBT Community” (whatever the hell that is), and he is allowed to spout his typical leftie views, with the viewer assuming that every homosexual in the country is a fully paid-up member of Outrage.
The range of gay and lesbian people is as wide and disparate as straight ones, but somehow we always seem to get pigeon-holed as a bunch of limp-wristed, Guardian-reading, vegetarian loonies that sound like Ben Elton on a bad day.
Come and offload, and find that cathartic lift away from the battle field!
Join the new group “Media Watch” on mypinknews
A group dedicated to action on media bias, homophobia and heterosexism.
@Georgy Zhukov… Elton John is a human being and like most human beings he has character flaws, as do I and as do you. If you want to fingerwag and judge I suggest you take a look at yourself first before you start on others. I think the biblical sentiments are very true when they say, ‘You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.’ and …’Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’.
. . . and carrying on the biblical theme, perhaps George could take the log out of his own eye; before he continues his nit picking with Eltons cornea.
I am an ardent athiest, however, I do think the Bible is a ‘good book’ with a strong message to everyone on how to live one’s life. The trouble is, it’s not the Bible’s fault, but everyone else interpreting it and bending it to fit with their own ideology.
I think the idiom that all these Bible-bashers should write in big letters right across the front is:
“Judge not others, lest thou be judged oneself.”
[i]I am an ardent athiest, however, I do think the Bible is a ‘good book’ with a strong message to everyone on how to live one’s life.[/i]
Say what?! Have you ever actually opened that heavily edited translation of a translation of a translation (…) in your life? One can find more compassion in a cookery book. I won’t dispute its literary value, though.
Also, atheists can usually spell “atheism” correctly. Oh, and an ardent atheist is an oxymoron, of course. You can’t be motivated by not believing in fairy tales.
(When will PinkNews resume normal service?)
I see italics don’t work anymore. Just great.
Am I the only one who just doesn’t care all that much about Elton, his baby, this Execution guy OR the BBC? This whole ‘scandal’ has been very boring for me…
@Nathan — the original story “couple has child by surrogate” is nothing, and not of interest to most people I reckon.
The manufacture of controversy, and the biased misrepresentation of the spectrum of views — that’s kind of important. It’s really boring that we’re still having discussions about stuff like this, and it’s really boring that we’re still having to get fair treatment. But I guess if we don’t do these things, we’ll go backwards.
I agree with Harry the issue is not about Elton’s Baby, but what the BBC have been done with Elton’s baby.
Providing an alternative view point is one thing, but choosing an extremist to represent the alterative in the name of balance; is to make a mockery of the very foundation of excellence in reporting standards for which BBC used to be recognized across the world
If we do not protest, the BBC will be allowed to set an unwittingly precedence. As Harry points out, this will be a retrograde move with regards legitimizing further grossly biased, unrepresentative and highly offensive treatment of LGBT people and LGBT issues.
Express your concern to OFFCOM now . . .
Surely the need for this ‘balance’ could have been eliminated by the BBC just reporting the news from a neutral standpoint as they’re supposed to anyway.
To Spanner and Lucius. Its a sad irony that the most read and best selling book of all time is the most misunderstood by the greatest number of the people who read it and use it as a basis for how to think and be in the world. I was only saying yesterday in another dialogue elsewhere how so many people who profess to be Christians dont seem to have even a basic understanding about the use of metaphor in spiritual texts.
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.
My letter to Christian Voice’s hosting company, Simba Hosting of Cambridge ( https://www.simbahosting.co.uk ):
I’m writing to tell you how disappointed I am that you’re hosting the domain christianvoice.org.uk, which is an extremist organization with abhorrent views. It opposes abortion, homosexuality, no-fault divorce and compulsory sex education. Additionally it supports the death penalty. and does not recognise the concept of marital rape. The group has also published a paper attacking Islam as untrue, and the multi-faith ideas of it as a religion of peace as false. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in August 2005, killing over 1600 residents and rendering hundreds of thousands homeless, their spokesman Stephen Green issued a statement claiming that this was the result of God’s wrath and had brought “purity” to the city.
The overwhelming majority of people find these views abhorrent, foul, disgusting. Simba Hosting’s involvement with the organization suggests strongly their support for those views.
Some organizations find Christian Voice’s views unacceptable, and are prepared to act on their principles, even if such acts impact on their profits. For example, on 24 June 2005, Christian Voice’s bankers (The Co-operative Bank), instructed the group to close its account because the group’s stance on homosexuality was in conflict with the bank’s ethical policies of diversity.
I found The Co-operative Bank’s stance very impressive, and as a result bank with them. I would urge you to consider following a similar line.
Text of my note to OFFCOM ( https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/specific-programme-epg ):
The BBC Six O’Clock News on 2010-12-28 contained an item on the birth of a son by surrogacy to Sir Elton John and his partner David Furnish. I write to express my extreme concern about the item.
It is inconceivable that such a story would be run if the couple were heterosexual. I’m therefore concerned about the reasons for the piece being broadcast. The implication is that there is something wrong with gay people having surrogate children. As gay couples can legally have children by surrogate, I don’t understand why the decision was taken to broadcast the item. The inclusion of an interview with someone who opposes the right of gay couples to have surrogate children suggests that there is an ongoing debate about the issue. I find this very questionable. A debate may have happened when the enabling legislation was first introduced, but it has little currency now. That the interviewee was Stephen Green, someone who holds very extreme homophobic views, betrays the perception about the reality of the public’s views on the subject. The extremity of a particular standpoint is not compensated by a small number of people holding it. There was also no context given about other opinions held by Stephen Green. This means people have no way of forming a view of his impartiality, and therefore the validity of his arguments. Such suppression of the context is bias. Although there was an opinion against the rights of the couple, there was no counter opinion supporting their rights, or advocating the advantages to the child of the situation. That omission is again clear bias.
The simple way of assessing these questions is to imagine the same broadcast item but with a couple from a different minority that has suffered discrimination and abuse. For example, imagine the piece was not about a gay couple having a surrogate child, but a black couple. Would the item have been run in the first place ? Doubtful. Would it have included an interview with someone who supports the death sentence for black people and who believes it is wrong for black people to have children ? Of course not. The item was clearly biased.
This was a light celebrity gossip news item. I don’t think it really belongs in a serious new programme, but that’s an insignificant point. The unacceptable aspect of the item was inclusion of the interview with Stephen Green, which made it a partisan report. The lack of context or counter opinion reinforces the impression of bias by the editorial team. I should be very grateful if you would consider the matter.
Harry . . . thanks for all your hard work, and sharing your template letter / e-mails – can I add these to the new group “Media Watch” on my pinknews
@JohnK — yes of course; add away ! Not so much my work as a synthesis of some of the comments of more articulate posters here. The OFCOM letter is actually too long to fit in the text box on their page, so needs to be shortened.
How Extremist Fundamentalists like Stephen Green are underming the rights of women . . .
If the BBC thinks this is the best response to this self manufactured row, they really should think again. What are the Gay M.P.’s going to do about this outrage?
(BBC Email Response)
Thank you for your feedback regarding the BBC News bulletin at 18:20, broadcast on 28 December 2010.
We appreciate some viewers were unhappy that a report on Sir Elton John recently becoming a surrogate father included the views of Mr Stephen Green.
We recognise this issue can arouse a diverse range of contrasting opinions. This brief report featured Sir Elton John’s thoughts and an opposing view on the matter at hand. It must be stressed that over time we have heard from all sides of this debate, dealing the subject in a fair and impartial manner.
We acknowledge the strength of sentiment on this matter, thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
BBC Audience Services
I have sent this back to the BBC.
I did not give the BBC ‘feed-back’ I made a serious complaint.
The BBC used a clip from Elton John that had been filmed previously and not specifically about the birth of his child. Stephen Green is the most unsuitable person possible to be used for ‘balance’ and the BBC should have understood that, and I believe did understand that. Green was picked quite deliberately to provoke the Gay community and is a further example of the institutional homophobia in the BBC.
Your response is feeble, does not address the matter in hand and I will not accept it.
I will take my complaint to the next level.
@Johnny — exactly the same message I got back. My response back to the BBC:
“Thank you for your email. It hasn’t addressed any of the points I made in my feedback — therefore I should like to escalate the matter. Could you tell me how I can do this please ?”
Here is the complaint I sent to Ofcom (as there is clearly no point whatsoever complaining to the BBC)… I know it’s a little stilted but there was a character limit and I had lots to say!!
This programme contained an item on Elton John’s new son. It consisted of an old clip of Elton John discussing surrogacy, followed by an interview with homophobe Stephen Green.
I would like to express concern about this:
- Stephen Green is an extremist Christian and believes gay people should be murdered. This was not mentioned in the report, and his opinion was presented as valid. To put this into context: when Dawn French and Lennie Henry adopted their child, the BBC did not interview a member of the KKK.
- The BBC repeatedly offends the LGBT community. It would never tolerate similar abuse towards racial minorities (eg abusive slang).
- The item itself was not a debate, but an entertainment piece. For every item the BBC reports, it does not have an interview with someone who disagrees with it.
To compound this, the BBC responded to my complaint with an automated reply which did not address any of my issues,
According to a news report, the BBC refuses to release complaint figures where there is lobbying. While I am aware of the internet campaign, this does not mean the point is invalid. People are communicating in the normal manner and gathering together to protest (much like a street protest .)
While we are forced to pay the licence fee, the BBC has a responsibility to protect minorities rather than pandering to the prejudiced. I sincerely hope Ofcom will take action.
the idea that executing gay people is a balance for having a baby as a gay person is a kind of logic of the macabre which would make good SNL or Monty Python if the weren’t so in earnest: for god’s sake this isn’t the Nineteenth Century. it’s so much worse than hate.
Bigot revealed at Cardiff Mardi Gras.
If as reported Stephen Green supports the execution of gays, then he is not fit to call himself a Christian, especially if he claims to follow Jesus who is the Prince of Peace. After all isn’t God LOVE. Then why are many of his “disciples” so filled with hatred? So ready to judge and condemn when we are told not to do that in the Bible, because none of us is without sin. If you propose to get gays condemned to death, then you are guilty of murder! You have broken one of the Ten Commandments. And God will show you no mercy.