Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay Soho priest sacked after propositioning gay men

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. That’s…just…plain..creepy.

    I don’t care who you are, if you’re in a position of trust and attempt to abuse that for sexual gratification you’re stepping on thin ice.

    But then we don’t know the background to this story.

  2. Why were they shagging in his house

  3. its friggen gross, but a priest at my local church had propositioned what he thought to be a 12 year old girl online (it was the cops) and was only barred from working as a priest for only 4 months….

  4. Well surprise, surprise.

    And as for only being banned for two years, the catholic church is desperate for priests, so they won’t bar him completely. Likewise your example Mello.

  5. er… he’s in the Anglican Church, not Catholic. Still bloody stupid, though.

    Why were they shagging in his house?

    Why shouldn’t they? It wasn’t a Cornish B&B! Doesn’t mean he has an invite to a threesome. Silly man.

  6. Exactly, they’re a couple. They can shag wherever they please within reason.

  7. WhatI’m saying is such delicate flowers who write complaints about harrasement may be a pair of prick teasers

  8. Doh! He could have just listened from outside the door like all the other priests.

  9. “WhatI’m saying is such delicate flowers who write complaints about harrasement may be a pair of prick teasers”

    You think someone who has objections to another coming into your room at night and harassing is being “delicate flowers” and naturally conclude that the couple were “prick teasers”???

    Are you drunk?

  10. Inexcusable behaviour, of course, but it suggests sad desperation.

  11. prick teasers?

    Not quite the same, since I’m a girlie, but I’ve stayed over in spare bedroom of a gay couple i’m friends with and when i hear the bedsprings creak in the master bedroom, I certainly don’t think of joining in. Should they want to come and stay at my house, they can shag to their heart’s content in my spare room as long as they bear in mind that the guest bed is a futon that won’t take too much in the way of horizontal gymnastics.

  12. So long as the couple weren’t making noise while having sex then they absolutely should not have been harassed by the priest.
    Then again if they were screaming and moaning then maybe the priest thought it was an invitation to join in.

    Apparently he tried to join them while they were shagging. Was he lurking outside their door.

    Or were the couple being ignorant and stupid but making loads of noise?

    We don’t know.

  13. 2 ex army blokes cant sort out a preist something aint right. How did he know they were shagging and why did they accept his offer of a room

  14. If a straight priest make inappropriate advances toward female parishioners or children (sic) he gets counselling and moved to another parish.

    Is not the problem for this priest that the Church of England make gay priests live a celibate lifestyle. While his behaviour is wrong, I cant help but think the behaviour is a manifestation of all the repressed sexual feelings his religion forced him to keep pent up inside himself.

    We are all sexual beings and those feeling repressed become problematic sexual behaviour.

  15. oh yeah most definately helen, if you’ll remember how difficult it was coming out to yourself celebacy is definately a destructive option, they delude themselves so badly, and then they turn to celebacy on a very very long term basis, its classic freudian repression and pretty much all of the above (dealing with freud trauma) on a case to case basis that eventuates to them going COMPLETELY NUTS. Particularly the (elusive) church pedophiles, being attracted to the church, which most likely means they have an attraction to innocence as a path to holyness most likely turn to children (among other factors) because they are easier to control then an adult (adults – who may very well go to the press and actually know their rights), children are in fact innocent and suggestable particularly when looking to a guiding figure. I find it funny in their views being raised with gay parents is extremely traumatising but having sex with the child is somehow understandable………im gonna have to call a WTF on that!

  16. “Should they want to come and stay at my house, they can shag to their heart’s content in my spare room as long as they bear in mind that the guest bed is a futon that won’t take too much in the way of horizontal gymnastics.”

    Rose, you made my day, I had a good laugh at your comment.

    Seriously, though, this priest obviously can’t control his sexual urges and gives us a bad name as sexual predators, but his straight counterpart wouldn’t be tarnished as much with the same brush. There is a double standard out there, one for straights, one for gays.

    In America, from what I’ve read about these kinds of occurrences, when its a straight male, especially a politician, they’re not demonised or denigrated but when its a gay person, then the media goes ballistic with slurs and other forms of dehumanisation and denigration because of his sexual orientation.

    Interestingly, the catholic molestation scandal in America didn’t garner much villification of the straight clerics who molested girls and because the majority of the victims were males, the media and the right wing religious nutters equated homosexuality with paedophilia but paid little attention to the straight violators. Truly amazing, the hypocrisy and bigotry of it all.

  17. There is another angle on this,

    The churches try to portray ALL homosexuals as promiscuous deviants incapable of having a monogamous relationship and on the constant prowl for meaningless sex with as many people as they can. This suits their agenda.

    Here we have a confused priest, celibate (unmarried so I assume so) in close proximity to two of these homosexuals and makes a bad call based on ignorant information and probably intense unfulfilled sexual desperation/frustration.

    While this in no way excuses or condones the priest actions you have to ask why he even thought this was remotely appropriate and some of it must track back to he way his church stereotypes particularly gay men.

    I am not suggesting that there are not gay men like that, I know many (I also know a lot of heterosexual swingers and doggers) but there are plenty of gay men in long term committed monogamous relationships too.

    Before anyone jumps on me I am not offering and excuse, just a perspective.

  18. Come on…we are men of the world!…If Rev Gilmore was not a priest would they have said anything? Instead they have fuelled prejudice and stopped a good man from doing valuable work in Soho. They were soldiers afterall!!!

  19. it was a honey trap

  20. tattydog I understand your point but it is simply not right to just assume that because guests are having sex that it is an open invite to join in – it is a bad call but it is also predatory to some extent.

    The man may do good work in the community but this does throw up questions about his being trustworthy.

    It was a stupd thing to do and he should be forgiven if this is just a one off but he was in a position of power (being a reverend AND a host) and should not have abused that position.

  21. Also, how many of you can honestly say that if your partner and you are staying with a friend or associate and start having sex only for them to walk in the room naked you wouldn’t be at least a little freaked out.

  22. “2 ex army blokes cant sort out a preist something aint right. How did he know they were shagging and why did they accept his offer of a room”

    Oh, quite right. And I suppose women who are raped were asking for it too, hmmm?

    Both issues you stated are irrelevant. As you do not have any further facts on the situation, you are assuming that the couple are at fault and the priest is somehow innocent, which is ludicrous. Begs the question why you are so desperate to absolve the priest of any wrong doing.

  23. Will – 2 men trained to kill with their bear hands are shagging in a strangers house then complain when he wants a go too. The preist aint no saint and those 2 slappers who cant keep it in their pants for one night are no better. Why are you so quick to condem the preist who campaigned to keep a brothel open to keep women off the streets?

  24. James? Are you serious?

    1. People aren’t trained to “kill people with their bare hands” in the army. They’re trained in a whole variety of skills from cheffing to medical work.

    2. It’s indecent and unwanted and I’ll bet that if someone wanted to ‘have a go’ with you that you may not be best pleased.

  25. Danny If I was a guest at a strangers house I would not have a shag. Those guys acted like a pair of slappers and got treated accordingly

  26. seeing as its an anglican vicar couldnt pinknews use an anglican picture instead of a catholic one? as a gay catholic i find it offensive that they use the same image for all christian related stories thinking it is all the same

  27. Rev Gilmore is the victim. Fair enough he did wrong, but they were not women, underage or alone…it was a proposition and not attempted rape. If he was neither a priest or famous they would not have done this. I much prefer Rev Gilmore to Bishop Nasty Ali, he is a good man and devotes time to ‘thieves and prostitutes’ like Jesus, rather than sitting in a palace witchhunting gays.

  28. If the Evening Standard is right, he doesn’t sound enormously repressed to me. I suspect that a straight priest would get done in exactly similar circumstances. Turning up naked in someone’s room who has already turned you down does seem very pushy:

    Mr Gilmore, 40, who is gay, agreed to let two members of the Armed Forces stay at the rectory after a servicemen’s gay rights conference in December 2009. The 30-year-old RAF member and a sailor aged 20, referred to as A and B, claimed Mr Gilmore plied them with wine and engaged in “lurid” conversations, including details of his sexual conquests. They told the panel he made it clear they “were not the first people he had tried to sexually lure, that he had never had a sailor before but soldiers were fun, and that he offered B to come and sleep with him in his bed”.

  29. I suggest that some of your readers might like to acquaint themselves with more of the facts of this case. All credit to the Church of England for making them available. You will find the full determination of the case at http://www.ecclaw.co.uk

  30. get over yourselves 11 Jan 2011, 7:35pm

    The two fellas who reported him sound like sad fvckers to me. Two pathetic drama queens trying to make a fuss. It’s stupid that he got sacked.

  31. Why didn’t they just tell him to piss off , why bother wih the complaints etc…

    ar leat they appeared to have a free nights stay…

    Don’t know the details of this story but it all sounds over the top…and why get into the papers like this

  32. Naked priest steps into my room in the middle of the night for a bit of slap and tickle…….all I can say is my prayers have been answered!

  33. Are we talking of the vicar of Dibley here or the vicar of soho!

    For heavens sake , we get a gay modern priest for Soho who tries it on with a couple of grown up guys and then he gets sacked for it! What a couple of vindictive pruds!

  34. westcoastkid 11 Jan 2011, 11:02pm

    This whole situation sounds weird. Why would two gay men want to stay in a the home of a Catholic priest.

    Call me crazy, but that’s the last place I’d want to sleep with my lover.
    …and when they were confronted by the nude priest they stayed the night and left “early” the next morning. Call me crazy twice, but I would have been out of there in a flash due to the “creepy” factor.

    Was the priest allowed to give his version of what happened?

    I’m not a religious person, more less a friend of the Catholic church, but I must say something here just doesn’t make sense.

  35. Have a look at the post from faithful, it links to the adjudication and evidence. From a church perspective treating his rectory like a darkroom is gross misconduct, that is why he was punished.

    I withdraw my sympathetic perspective. If the guy being punished was the owner of a sex club I would have laughed at it and he would never been punished, but it appears this guy has form – from his own mouth and if he can’t play by the churches rules then get out.

  36. “Will – 2 men trained to kill with their bear hands are shagging in a strangers house then complain when he wants a go too.”

    So, they should have killed the priest, instead of doing the correct thing which is bring it to the authorities? Sure, much better option to kill him. And a couple having a shag in the privacy of their room is obviously an invitation to . You have some sick mind if you think that. Maybe if you lifted you sexual habits from the sewer, you’d see not all gay men think a couple having sex is an automatic invitation. Its people like you, with your degenerate view of what’s permissible sexually, that let the catholic church away with child abuse for so long.

    And you’re reference to the couple as “2 slappers” shows there’s something wrong with you, on a very intrinsic level.

    “he is a good man and devotes time to ‘thieves and prostitutes’ like Jesus, rather than sitting in a palace witchhunting gays.”

    Now the poor, poor, priest, is compared to Jesus. Yes, a,logical comparison.

  37. Oh, and for those that were thinking there was obviously something amiss when the two armed servicemen stayed at his place, take the time to read the Disciplinary Tribunal report:-

    It was the Chaplin to the Royal Navy that set up this Equality Conference, and it was he who asked Rev Gilmore to accommodate people attending.

    Now, to me, this is accommodation offered to people attending the conference on behalf of the Chaplin, not an obvious invitation to join a couple in bed and sexually harass them.

    So, despite what some idiots here think, the priest was hardly innocent (and certainly not like the “Jesus” comparison that was stupidly mad here), he was using this opportunity for predatory behaviour in a place of work. The couple were not staying there as friends, so it was not a proposition as suggested.

    The same applies to any person in a place of employment. To those that think otherwise, the 1960’s are over, and sexual harassment is not permissible by law. To make a complaint about it is not reason to be branded “slappers” or “sad fvckers” as some degenerated here have refers to them.

    And the man is a priest, for christ sake, if he can’t follow the vows (and boy does it sounds liek he’s doing his best NOT to follow them), get out.

  38. Oh, and for those that were thinking there was obviously something amiss when the two armed servicemen stayed at his place, take the time to read the Disciplinary Tribunal report:-

    It was the Chaplin to the Royal Navy that set up this Equality Conference, and it was he who asked Rev Gilmore to accommodate people attending.

    Now, to me, this is accommodation offered to people attending the conference on behalf of the Chaplin, not an obvious invitation to join a couple in bed and sexually harass them.

    So, despite what some erudite comments here say, the priest was hardly innocent (and certainly not like the “Jesus” comparison that was stupidly made here), he was using this opportunity for predatory behaviour in effectively his place of work. The couple were not staying there at friends, so it was not a proposition as suggested. They were offered this accommodation on behalf of the Chaplaincy of the Royal Forces, where they work.

    From the Tribunal Statement, the priest masturbated in front of them, in their room and physically touched the groin the defendants. This is harassment, not a “proposition”. The sexuality of the defendants is irrelevant, and its clear from the report that they had clearly told the priest his advances were not warranted.

    The same applies to any person in a place of employment. To those that think otherwise, the 1960’s are over, and sexual harassment is not permissible by law. To make a complaint about it is not reason to be branded “slappers” or “sad fvckers” as some degenerated here have refers to them.

    And the man is a priest, for christ sake, if he can’t follow the vows (and boy does it sounds like he’s doing his best NOT to follow them), then get out. And to be honest, he’s lucky he wasn’t charged for this behaviour.

  39. @ westcoastkid: he was an ANGLICAN, not Catholic, priest.

    The two servicemen were being billeted for a conference. London’s Soho in the middle of a December night is hardly the time or place to search for decent and/or affordable accommodation, I daresay they felt that had little choice but to stay till the morning.

  40. Dirty pig. These holy joes make you sick, they’re all the same it seems.

  41. Will – you may want to increase the dose

  42. “Will – you may want to increase the dose”

    Given your erudite comments, you may want to start yours.

  43. James:- “Will – you may want to increase the dose”

    To James, next time come back with an intelligent response as others have done, you’ll be thought less of an idiot I assure you for your stupid “slappers” remark.

    Will, after reading your comment, I have read the link that Faithful provided. Initially I though the two serviceman were being overly sensitive, but after reading the report and seeing the bit about the Reverend masturbating in their bed room, I agree with you, if this was an office place the reverend would have been fired. No difference here.

  44. Very hard to be a moral paragon 24/7….even vicars are human…..why didn’t they just turn the other cheek?

  45. why did they accept his offer
    why did they stay there in central london you can find a room 24/7 cheaply
    why after rejecting his advances did they feel sufficently aroused to have a shag knowing the man who harrased them was in the same building. I would have packed my bags and gone to the YMCA

  46. Read the report yourself James, we’re not here to school morons.

  47. “why after rejecting his advances did they feel sufficently aroused to have a shag knowing the man who harrased them was in the same building”

    Yeah, you’re right. Anyone that had a priest wanking in their bedroom clearly deserved it. They were probably dressed provocatively, and when they said no, they really meant yes. The couple were probably just uptight, and were clearly of lose morals if they were engaging in sexual activity something in private and the priest was only watching. It probably thought them a thing or two about life, and sure no harm done, he’s a priest after all and it was only wanking……

    …….are you brain damaged James?

  48. I read the report what a complete drunken mess they all played a part and no one is innocent

  49. Linda I love the way you are so comfortable making disabled people the butt of your jokes. you cow

  50. “Linda I love the way you are so comfortable making disabled people the butt of your jokes. you cow”

    Yeah, but the difference is you seem to chose to be a complete fcuking idiot. Well done, moron.

  51. “I read the report what a complete drunken mess they all played a part and no one is innocent”

    The rest of us didn’t come to that conclusion, thankfully. You’re more obsessed with defending a priest than the truth. Maybe you’re into that sort of this James, mayeb you like some old f***er tossing over your face uninvited and you think rejecting that sort of thing makes them a “pr*ck teaser”. All it says to me is that you probably spend most of your time lurking around a park at night looking for that kind of fun because you equate gay with sordid voyeuristic behaviour and those that don’t let you toss over their face are a obviously nothing more than a “honey trap”. Not everyone suffers from repression. Not everyone is as vile as a dirty old fool like you…

    I think I’m done here, its demeaning to me to discuss this with a vile creature like you. To be blunt James, you disgust me.

  52. Not even an apology for making fun of a disability. Thats what brain injuries are you know. Brain damage is a very old medical term used by people who think disabled people are broken and need to be fixed. very classy Linda

  53. DAvid get therapy you have a hang up about religion and you’re projecting way too much

  54. “Brain damage is a very old medical term used by people who think disabled people are broken and need to be fixed. very classy Linda”

    Really? Lets look at it.

    brain damage noun.
    Injury to the brain that is caused by various conditions, such as head trauma, inadequate oxygen supply, infection, or intracranial haemorrhage, and that may be associated with a behavioural or functional abnormality.

    Strange, you seem to meed the requirement of “behavioural or functional abnormality”. Maybe you’re just plain old stupid? Or just an idiot. Is that better, James?

    I’m with David. You’re a waste of time. You cannot string a logical coherent argument together. You clearly can’t read (school in the 1940’s must have been limiting). And you don’t seem to have a clue that you’re talking about. This is indeed demeaning to anyone with a brain as David said, so I’m done.

    You can condone sexual harassment if you like, but thankfully the law has moved on from your hay day in the 1940’s. So, really, how cares what a sad old dirtbag like you thinks, eh?

    Maybe YOU should up your meds.

  55. B o l l o c k s

  56. LOL! Well, David, you were right.This is the best this low brow troglodyte can come up with. I am actually embarrassed for him, and especially for him to demonstrate such a lack of learning and civility in public for all to see…. ewww. How mortifying.

  57. Whatever…..but it’s not a law court…how dare they name and shame a man in this way and remain anonymous themselves….a really nasty trick and sooooo ‘christian’ of them,not.

  58. Dave G –
    I’ll take exception to one point in your comment:
    “The churches try to portray ALL homosexuals as promiscuous deviants incapable of having a monogamous relationship and on the constant prowl for meaningless sex with as many people as they can. This suits their agenda.”
    You’ve erred in this: not ALL churches portray ALL homosexuals in this way.
    I understand the reason for the unintended sweeping generalization, but it ignores many churches (my frame of reference is American) who don’t require LGBT clergy to be celibate, and who affirm and celebrate same-sex unions.
    Off the top of my head: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), United Church of Christ (UCC), and Metropolitan Community Church (MCC).
    Other mainstream American congregations are, increasingly, moving toward eliminating the “gay clergy must be celibate” strictures (though not yet ready to affirm same-sex unions). One such is the United Methodist Church.
    All that said, I concur with the opinions of those who’ve read the full report – Dave G, David, Will, and Danny.

  59. “how dare they name and shame a man in this way and remain anonymous themselves”

    Yeah, they dare, sweetie. Get over it. And quote right too. Maybe if you get your arse out of the church and think for yourself you might be able to join us in the 21st century where this vile behaviour by a dirty old priest is no longer acceptable. Not everyone is “christian”, and not everyone gives a toss what religious morons like you think, especially those like you who hold priests immune to sanction. The priest is lucky is ISN’T a court of law, or he’d end up fined or imprisoned for sexual harassment, and good enough for him too, the dirty old bastard.

  60. WTF are you going on about linda? A court matter? for what, standing naked at a door in his own home. Get a grip you complete fcuking idiot.

  61. Linda is a silly cow who thinks jokes about disabled people are funny dont waste your time

  62. Rather rude of the good father to ASSume that because this couple was having at it in his home, they would welcome an addition. Not too surprising though. I have known some pretty tacky clergy in my day.

  63. @Linda- You need anger management and counselling and English lessons…don’t know where you get the idea that I’m religious, or why on earth you should attack me personally. Get a life..you are sad.

  64. Two military personnel saw a willy? Oh pass me the smelling salts! I’m fainting!….my Granny had more balls!

  65. “WTF are you going on about linda? A court matter? for what, standing naked at a door in his own home. Get a grip you complete fcuking idiot.”

    So, rape in your own home is not rape? Maybe yo a dirty old fool like you who thinks is a “prick tease” to refuse an advance, but not the law. Place of the crime is not impunity, you stupid, stupid, stupid person James.

    Sounds like I know the real person who needs to get a grip. James, you are one of the most idiotic and stupid people I have seen in here in a while, and that is some achievement in here. Really, you’re a disgrace. For the love of god read a bloody book sometime and spare us your retardation.

    “don’t know where you get the idea that I’m religious,”

    Blind defence of priest. ergo… well figure it out for yourself. And I’ll get a life when you get an education, okay? As for my English, have you read your own comments? Seriously. You write like an infant that watches too much Carry On films. And next time come up with a logical argument, not a lame attempt over one’s grammar.

  66. Nothing wrong with your grammar…just you don’t seem to understand the language and make the wildest accusations.

  67. Blind defence
    Brain damage
    Lame

    Linda seems to have a problem with disabilities too

  68. …and ooooh errrrr matron! Sorry for the carry on language, but I’m sick of rewriting messages because the word checker blocks them automatically.

  69. Yeah, yeah James…. fcukoff back to your kennel, I’m sick of your ignorance.

    Tattydog, I understand it perfectly. What I do not understand is your cheap smutty school yard comments about a serious breach of someone privacy, and the “poor priest” b*llox you come out with. I can only assume both you and James the village idiot are over 70 and come from a different world all together where some old fart tossing over your face uninvited is considered “fun”.

    I’m done here. I do not deliberate with fools.

    Bye now!

  70. @ Linda ” So, rape in your own home is not rape?”

    Rape? – did I miss something. Did the priest rape someone? Erm. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

    Please tell me Linda what the crime is? Cause all I can tell that he did was stand naked at a door. That’s not a crime. If someone did that to me, I’d find it very funny, tell em to piss off, and laugh about it for months.

    Linda. Time to take a deeeeeep breath. Anger management time. Now exhale. And inhale. And exhale. You’ve got some issues darlin. I don’t know what they are, but sort your head out. Life’s too short.

    @ tattydog “my Granny had more balls!” LOL.

  71. Oh No. Now Linda thinks the priest ‘tossed over their faces’

    I’m begining to think this Linda’s comments are some weird fantasy.

  72. Linda I defend the man because these 2 stitched him up nice and proper….he lost job, house, privacy for a silly mistake. I really think you are projecting your own exaggerated fear of men and sexual harassment on this case….grow up!

  73. You pair of muppets still going on? For the love of your dignity, get a life gentlemen,

  74. These two men were not raped by the priest, as some were suggesting. They were subject to an unwanted advance. They should have just told the priest to sod off and be done with it – a man has lost his job and home for nothing. OK, it sounds like the priest made a poor judgment here and embarrassed himself, but it’s hardly something worth such a punishment.

  75. Folks, there is a real tragedy here. This is a local priest to a tough and squalid inner city parish. He had hunmanity, see his sermons:
    http://www.stannes-soho.org.uk/content/fr-david-gilmore
    Gilmore may have been a damned fool and/or misread the signals. But there is a whiff of humbug around, as I have a feeling the public announcement when he was suspended was to do with him barring some community group from using the church; but they seem to have bundled him out of the way with gusto. Being a priest in a church must be a lonely job, and he seems to have paid a high price for his folly. He didn’t rape anyone, all were adults, and nobody suffered anything except embarrassment. I am not a Christian but I feel a little bit of Christian charity might not be inappropriate.

  76. Sorry! but I am kind of scratching my head on this one! Is Homosexuality banned in the Anglican church?

    This guy was in his own home, The two guys were homosexual and having sex, and why shouldn’t he offer to get involved if he was attracted to them?

    And by the way I feel that I have the right to walk around naked in my own home,shouldn’t he?

    Doesn’t Christ tell us all that he will accept us pretty much whatever?

    What exactly has he really done wrong other than fancy his house guests?

    I find their complaint quite sinister actually, and I am not gay.
    What exactly where they trying to achieve?

    This looks like a set-up, or something similar!

    Come on people use your brains! I think someone wanted rid of this guy, maybe because he was a bit more open and forward thinking.

    Christ goes everywhere and operates through people. This man had a good handle on Gay Soho and he was probably a great focal point for gay people.

    By the way I don’t know the guy from Adam.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all