Reader comments · Gay hotel couple say they won’t fight for more compensation · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay hotel couple say they won’t fight for more compensation

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I see the Daily Wail online is headlining that the gay couple are suing and that “you” are paying for it.
    Ive just complained to the PCC as I think their headline is meant to incite hatred of a gay couple that are perfectly within their right to use legal aid if that is what they were or are doing.

    1. I think many think that ‘you’ is the people who work and that only working people matter so they report their bigoted lies from that point of view, the daily mail is always inciting homophobia

    2. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 1:01pm

      I was just going to say I bet the media will make it all the Gay couples fault.

      Surely the PCC should make sure the papers that falsely report this should be corrected with an apology. but then since when has papers reported accurately, esp the Daily (Hate)Mail.

      I think the couple are right, these people got off Very lightly and I salute them for leaving it to making a stand against discrimination.

    3. Mumbo Jumbo 11 Mar 2011, 1:13pm

      The Daily Heil printing a story that suits their agenda without bothering to check inconvenient facts. Surely shome mishtake!

    4. Maggie Jeffries 11 Mar 2011, 10:21pm

      Good luck with that, lol!

      I complained once about an article in the Daily Mail to the PCC and got a letter back telling me they didn’t believe the paper had done anything wrong. When I looked at the letterhead and the names who are on the commission, guess whose on the investigation team? Paul Darce, (or whatever his name is), editor, Daily Mail.


      You’re better off making a complaint to a traffic cone, street bench or even a bin.

      At least that way you won’t be suprised with their reply.

      Good on you for caring, though.

  2. The christian institute considers them mean spirited. Talk about, the kettle calling the pot black. Christians have kill and murdered millions and are responsible for mega atrocities against same sex people. What idiots are running this organization? They can get a spoon and eat my back side! errata: I would have used the word ‘ass’, but I am not sure ass can be used on here.

    1. They are a vile bunch of zealots at the Christian Institute (and also the Christian Legal Centre), I don’t know how they manage to keep their charitable status as they are so very invoved in politicking.

    2. KatieMUrphy 12 Mar 2011, 8:22pm

      christianity is the curse of western civilization. It gave us the molesting and jew hating catholic church, wwii and 50 million deaths etc.

      Burning of women at the stake. The inquistion of torture and stake burning as its power was called into question.

      If you want to understand extremist Islam, just study right win christianity. Thats who taught the Islamics about hate.

      By murdering an estimated 40 million muslims during the christian (read catholic) crusades, 900-1500

    3. you are wrong. the christian institute stands against homosexuality because it is wrong according to the bible, which I believe to be true. you may not believe so you don’t have to live your life to its standards, but I do and expect to live my life according to the bible the best I can. If I were in the B + B I would do the same, but the thing is you gays, plus the liberal biased media seem to think that your rights automatically overide us ‘bigots’ because we disagree with you. live and let live. I won’t force my view on you, so why should gays force thier view on these B&B owners?

  3. I bet the DM don’t put this update on their web site? Good on J Cartier for writing in to the PCC. We all should. DM should be fined at worst, closed down at best.

  4. Daily Mail have just updated article with a “Dramatic U-turn as gay couple ditch bid for more cash” headline. I’m really angry about this. Aside from the fact that it is not true, they are clearly just trying to encourage homphobic comments. I am sick and tired of their Christianity Vs Homosexuality crap.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 11 Mar 2011, 12:48pm

      The Guardian has went the same way, claiming that the couple have pulled the action and not the ECHR.

      This one has no comments section.

      It seems to me that on a daily basis we have to go on to various web sites to defend ourselves or at least put forward the true story and legal situation which journalists have either ignored, or purposefully twisted.

    2. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 1:11pm

      I agree the Daily (Hate)Mail are deliberately trying to whip up hatred. The headline may have changed but the Headline is still wrong and doesn’t not represent the story they are reporting.

  5. I’m going wear a badge with a lion on it to let christians know what the’re good for. Lion food

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 11 Mar 2011, 1:20pm

      Your suggestion that lions should be deliberately fed poison is cruel :-)

  6. Good to know that the Bristol paper is right wing mail want to be.

    Another publication I shan’t Bother to buy.

    How dare the Christian lot tho call seekig compensation mean spirited when theydenied a couple a bed and shelter.

    Did they not even have a stale to offer?

    Damn right wing religious hatred.

  7. Jock – I dont get how you can support right wing candidates in elections, who only win due to the fear and hate whipped up by the mail/telegraph, then turn around and moan about the mail.

    Tad hypocritical non?

    1. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 3:24pm

      No. For many reasons. But I don’t have time to deal with them all here.

      What your comment does show is that you are unable to agree or appreciate any viewpoint other than your own. Which is much like the Daily Mail or these Christians.

      1. Not at all.
        Are you seriously asserting that the conservative party do not benefit from the Mail and Telegraphs consistent attacks on the Human rights act, and the Equality Act. You are really going to assert this?
        Plus just saying no, but that you dont have time to say how im wrong really suggests that you in fact want to believe I am wrong, but do not know how to show it.

        1. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 3:58pm

          Not at all what it means is that your maybe a bit slow in the debate stakes and trying to teach you would not only take way too long but its doubtful you’d actually grasp it. Actually more like your not interesting in grasping.

          I guess your wee attack comes because I said I was unable to vote for Ken Livingstone because I hate him for how he sides and defends homophobic Muslims extremsts. To make that as me being the supporter of right wing candidates shows up your own lunacy. Your claim is a tad childish, Very immature. Just because I’m not doing what you approve of you make pathetic claims.

          I don’t side with any party, I go with which party at time of voting, appeals to me most, which one in my mind offers the best way forward. I, personally, don’t believe in being loyal to a political party. They all have to work for my vote, that is what they are there for.

          1. 1) I made no ad hominem attacks on you, so I think it is wrong to make them on me.
            2) Candidates like boris, Cameron etc only get elected because of rags like the Mail. Do you deny this claim? fair enough if you do.
            3) Fair enough being anti-Ken, he did stuff wrong. But to be pro-boris, who has actually been homophobic himself, is a tad hypocritical.

            Are we really going to all sit here and assert that the Mail/Telegraphs consistent misleading attacks on the human rights acts, and camerons British bill of rights Act nonsense (nonsense because if we opt out of the ECHR then a bill of rights loses all meaning as it can simply be changed by parliament, making a mockery of inalienable rights) are not connected?

            These papers take cheap shots at leftwing people and parties, are part of the anti gay industry, and they help every single right wing candidate in the country.

            I am willing to change my mind, If Cameron, or any senior Tory came out and attacked the mail/telegraph f.

        2. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 9:55pm

          I’m sure the Conservative Party does benefit in some respect from the attacks by the Mail and the Telegraph but probably not as much as the BNP.

          I really don’t have the time to write mega-posts. But if you really are interested, my politics probably sits close to Hayekian / Bastiat economics and a fairly liberal social politics. I’m not for laissez faire but regulated markets.

          I support the Right usually because I consider economic control and property rights are the foundation of social rights. I have in the past voted for the Left and would probably vote for Strauss-Khan if he became a pretender for the Presidency (of France).

          I recognise also that the left have done more explicitly for gay rights than the right.

          1. Hmm I doubt any telegraph readers vote BNP, they are also Hayekian economics.

            WHile I disagree with Hayekian economics profoundly, and I think his argument about the road to serfdom is demonstrably BS, I do not see any opposition between being gay and being a right wing economist (gay people are allowed to be silly to :p)

            My point was that, why would a gay person vote for a tory candidate why they are still pandering to social conservatives.

  8. These two charlatans only pulled out after they realised they had pushed too far and were inviting the wrath of the masses. What a vindictive, bitter and greedy pair of opportunists these two guys are. They won their hearing and received more than enough damaged. Now let it go.

    Don’t they realise it was only 70 years ago that gay men were being persecuted for who they chose to sleep with? Now stop baiting and hounding Christians for excercising their right to hold their views, no matter how objectionable they may be to many. We still live in a free society.


    1. What masses? The masses of the Daily Hate readership (ha ha)?! And read the article before commenting for gods sake (lower case g intentional), or are you just like all the posters on the Mails message board who only seem capable of reading a headline?

      PN readers, we should attack the Mails message boards – red arrow all the ‘popular’ comments and green arrow all the unpopular ones – people writing on there seem to think their collective views represent the whole country!

      1. Jon, you don’t have to read The Daily Mail to know that public sentiment has turned against the gay men in this case. You can push a point only so far and state it so loud until people then start to side with the underdog.

        You can hear it on the streets: “Them gays, they have their rights but they just don’t know when to stop – and they won’t until heterosexuality is illegal.”

        And Scott, the law does state you cannot discriminate in the provision of goods and services, in which case why do so many gay-run organisations today ignore it?

        Oh how I long for the imminent furore over a straight couple being refused admission to a pink-lace curtain adorned guest house on Brighton seafront, or are turned away from a gay sauna although they have every right to steam and shower.

        It works both ways. By persecuting this Christian couple to the hilt, this case may very well have sown the seeds for the demise of ALL gay-run premises on the grounds that they discriminate against straights…

        1. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 10:23am

          Samuel B

          All you have done is show how uneducated you are, “and they won’t until heterosexuality is illegal”. My God man how pathetic can you get.

          How about we stop when all humanity has exactly the same rights and some are not treated like second class citizens anymore while others are treated all special just because they chose to be religious!!

          As for this comment about “gay-run organisations”, know this as fact do you. Tried and tested is it? Or did you just read it in the Daily (Hate)Mail?

          Actually the majority of the public support Equal rights, Support Equal Marriage, Support being heard above the noises you lot make. Deal with it.

          “By persecuting this Christian couple”… you mean like how Christians have spent centuries persecuting, murdering, torturing and even worse besides? I don’t see Anyone doing this to Christian here in 2011 and nor do you. Your just making noises because you can’t behave in a decent society like that any more and be expected to get away with it.

          1. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 10:23am

            It’s totally ironic that it is you Samuel B and you ike that seem to be behaving like complete Drama Queens!

          2. Jock, has it not occurred to you that two wrongs don’t make a right, and that by playing fire with fire is likely to explode in your face?

            We will win the war for equality based on intelligent and reasoned debate; not the hysterical, over-the-top claptrap that typically serenades these pages, typified none other by this site’s seemingly resident thespian, Jock S. Trap, who seems intent only on whipping up hatred against all Christians, period.

            You clearly do not have a full-time job as you are on here 24/7 plastering your pompous, boring opinions left, right and centre, and I resent the fact that my over-taxed income pays the welfare that clearly supports you in your zealous crusade.

          3. @ Samuel B

            Two wrongs do not make a right? So you think standing up for ones rights is “a wrong”, do you?

            Look, you can defend the poor christian until the cows come home, but let the rest of us be proud to have a pair of balls.

          4. Jock S. Trap 14 Mar 2011, 7:58am

            Such an attack Samuel B but no substance just bitchin.

            People generally only get that bitter when they have nothing to add. I suggest this means your clearly ranting bitter rubbish because you actually agree against your better judgement and resent knowing people here have a point, you just don’t want to admit it to others or yourself.

            You know as well as everyone else the appalling record of Christian behaviour over the centuries so what are you saying, things change?

            That would be MY point, things do change but somehow their attitude doesn’t and what makes you think that 40 years of being ‘allowed’ to be who I am suddenly dismisses centuries of cruelty and suffering Christianity has caused. We still send men who help Hitler to trial for crimes against humanity.

            As for your last personal rant, you clearly know nothng about me so I’ll rise above it, it actually does nothing more than show everyone what kind of person you are.

          5. Jock S. Trap 14 Mar 2011, 8:07am

            anyway two wrongs? playing fire with fire? what the ‘blazes’ are you talking about man?

            If you are suggesting this persecution crap then that is just plan insulting. Since when have the LGBT community done to Christians what Christians have spent centuries doing to anyone they don’t like?

            You talking nothing but crap it is clearly clouding your judgments.

          6. Jock S. Trap 14 Mar 2011, 8:08am

            “…over-the-top claptrap that typically serenades these pages,”

            Well if it gets you so much, why do you bother coming here?

        2. I dont think hotels should be able to be gay only either. So im not a hypocrite at all.
          Also while i no doubt they exist, most extablishments catering to the LGBT community tend to say gay friendly. I in no way see why gay friendly has to mean no straights.

          SamB so my point stands – anyone who doesnt want to be sued shouldnt break the law

    2. The law says you cannot discriminate in the provision of goods and services, if they dont want to be dragged into things, dont break the law.


    3. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 9:57pm

      > They won their hearing and received more than enough damaged. Now let it go.

      That sits uneasily with the suggestion that the hotel owners themselves wanted to appeal. They lost the hearing, perhaps they, too, should let it go. Or perhaps we will see their bitter and vindictive arguments ventilated on appeal.

    4. I wish they had held out for more. Christians have oppressed and hated for centuries and you have the NERVE to say Christians are being “persecuted”?

      So what if your example of persecution no longer takes place? Any discrimination is wrong and should be fought.

    5. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 10:13am

      Christians may have the right to have their views but they do NOT have the right to force them on others!

      Typical thought to re-invent the story to suit your own ends.

      We are supposed to have a free society. The Equality laws were supposed to improve that but then the Christians felt that they really should be above it.

      Stop making out Christians are victims. They choose to follow a choosen religious lifestyle and must follow the consequences of that choice.

  9. Lets not forget this same hotel STILL has a booking policy which states

    “Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

    Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples”

    As far as I’m concerned this hotel hasn’t changed and as civil partners we would have to sleep in single beds and would be refused a double one…This hotel is still very ripe to more legal cases…they haven’t learnt their lesson and that’s what
    I thought the legal system was there for ultimately!

    They are the ones that are still provacting controversy by having the booking policy..

  10. The EHRC did do a u turn, I have a copy of the statement that they released.



    11 March 2011

    Commission statement on Preddy and Hall legal case

    John Wadham, Legal Director at the Commission, said:

    “This morning we withdrew our cross appeal in this case. It was filed initially because of an error of judgment on the part of our legal team.

    “They submitted the cross appeal in an attempt to clarify the law around how damages are calculated in cases such as this. This resulted in it appearing that Steve Preddy and Martyn Hall were seeking to increase the amount of damages they receive because Mr and Mrs Bull’s Christian beliefs had led them to break the law. This was not our intention and it was certainly not the intention of Steve and Martyn.

    “I would like to confirm that public money will not be spent funding a claim for increased damages in this case.”

    Steve Preddy and Martyn Hall commented:

    “We brought this case to clarify the law, not to make money. We have always believed that the original awa

  12. “I would like to confirm that public money will not be spent funding a claim for increased damages in this case.”

    Steve Preddy and Martyn Hall commented:

    “We brought this case to clarify the law, not to make money. We have always believed that the original award was a fair one, and are not seeking any further compensation.”


    Catherine Spain

    Senior Press Officer

    Equality and Human Rights Commission

  13. KatieMUrphy 12 Mar 2011, 8:08pm

    Thats fair enough.

    What we really need is a way to hold the christian pastors/churches directly responsible for their relgiious speech.

    Speech that encourages bashings and muiders.

    And why do we get this kind of crap?

    When an institution is based totally on a lie, they have to have a victim group so that people are diverted from asking the ‘wrong’ questions.

    BTW, the son of god is an old Jewish expression that suggested the person was ‘god like’ in their dealings with others.

    Nothing at all about the greatest lie ever told.

    And Goebbels had it right – “if you tell a lie often enough and OUTRAGEOUS enough it will be seen as the truth.

    But he didn’t invent that staement – the early catholic church put it into practice, he simply put in into words.

  14. KatieMUrphy 12 Mar 2011, 8:11pm

    Of course there is a corrolary re the issue of non-gay psople staying at a gay hotel.

    If they want to thats fine. But a floor should be set aside with large signs saying “all clothing optional”

    It will probably scare off the homophobic christians – particularly the homophobic men who will get a boner just thinking about seeing those cute gay boys in their birthday suit.

  15. If it was never about money why are we not seeing them donate their compensayshun money to charity????

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.