Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Newly-out gay MPs attend Stonewall Equality Dinner

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Ok, I have my stopwatch set, just waiting for Helen Wilson to make a disparaging remark about the Tories….again…

    1. Here’s what the Tories are doing:
      .
      Setting vulnerable people up:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2011/apr/01/jobcentre-whistleblower-target-culture-welfare
      .
      … while being supported by the bailed-out financial industry:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12401049

      1. @Berberts You Rock!

      2. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 9:08am

        Yet again Beberts you only tell half the story.

        I don’t think Anyone doubts there may be problems but this has all stemmed from a Labour government that left people better off on benefits. How is that productive. The guardian story actually isn’t a new one but are you seriously saying people should remain on state paid benefits while others who work struggle? How is that fair?

        Point is someone has to end this benefit culture, Labour failed and now you want to play the hard done by because someone has the guts to stand up and try to make a change.

        As for you second piece well, I don’t really see what that matters but the point is we need a strong working industry to help get those on Jobseekers into work.

        Now I’m not saying its easy coz I know it isn’t but things simply couldn’t stay as they were. When people are having to work and struggle why should the unemployed be made to feel They are fine.

      3. “So, for example, if you want someone to diversify – they’re an electrician or a plumber, they may not want to go into call centres or something. What you do is keep promoting such and such a job, and you pressure them into taking it off you, the piece of paper. Then in two weeks you look at the system, you ask them if they applied for it … they say no – you stop their money for six months.”

        Not sure what the story is here Beberts, you might earn enough to pay for someone to sit on the dole claiming benefits paid for out of your taxes, while they wait for the perfect job, but I don’t.

        If there is a job available, I don’t give a toss if its not the job someone wants, if it gets them off benefits they should be taking it. Once they have got a job, they can spend as long as they like looking for the perfect career, and it ain’t at my expense.

      4. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 1:41am

        Beberts, your hatred of the Right is blinding you. The Left were as bad as you consider the Right to be. Pick up a copy of Nick Cohen’s book “Cruel Britannia”, read it and weep.

        1. You must be joking… The working classes and the masses will always be on the Left. Read Karl Marx.

          1. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 8:11am

            > Read Karl Marx.

            I have, in German. It is demonstrably incorrect.

          2. Marxism in universally accepted as a failed ideology.

            The theory written by Marx (in places) is not horrendous, but the reality of putting it into practice in numerous regimes has shown it fails in the real world.

        2. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 8:48am

          Yet the likes of the guardian story started under Labour. It’s just convienent to use it as a political weapon now. In any case not sure who you talk about with ‘the masses’ but the working classes may well be ‘always on the left’ but the Labour Party hasn’t really represented them for a very long time. The Labour Party changed in 1997 and the Party that left the country over the last 13 years with the biggest divide between rich and poor. Something I’m sure would make Ramsey MacDonald spin in his grave.

          Even now Ed Milibore talks more about the Middle classes.

    2. They’re also giving weapons to future dictators, while spending billions of pounds to destroy those of present dictators. And from time to time, CallMeDave’s team manage to spin empty promises to keep the gullible of the LGBT community quiet.

      1. And Labour weren’t?

        1. Labour were implementing gay rights, while the Tories were trying to block them from being implemented.

          1. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 9:10am

            Oh Lordy Beberts, please do join us in 2011.

          2. And now it the Tories introducing them and where are Labour.

            Suddenly all in favour of gay marriage though, although when they could enact it, they didn’t.

          3. As if the Tories are “enacting” anything. They don’t even keep their own bigots shut. Enacting gay rights will lose them support form their electorate, the lords, the bishops, etc etc. That’s the reason they’re only launching useless consultations. You’re a dreamer. Go figure.

          4. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 8:56am

            Oh Beberts, you sad little person, we all know you want the Tories to dismantle all Gay rights, you keep banging on about it. But your very tiresome. You said all judgements would go against us, they haven’t. You said within a week of this government, our rights would disappear, they haven’t.

            Your just a tad bitter, I get it you hate the Tories and you don’t want it to be them that progress our rights.

            However although lets not forget Labour may have given us more rights but most of those were forced via Europe and lets not forget, for example, Labour did try and stop the acceptance of our troops to be open about themselves while serving but the election was nearly a year ago.

            Labour Had to go. Do yaself a favour and get over it.

          5. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 9:07am

            Lets also not forget that it was Labour top two, Ed Milibore and Ed Balls-Up that left this country in the mess it was. That is why they are not electable. I know I never will vote for them so long as those two remain.

          6. I am surprised Conservatives are progressing LGBT rights, I must admit – because of how anti gay they have been in the past (and undoubtedly some still are)

            I think Labour did a great job in progressing LGBT rights (just not far enough)

            I think we need to keep an eye on the coalition on this issue to ensure they do progress it – but it looks more promising than I expected it to

          7. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 10:17am

            Beberts

            If “Enacting gay rights will lose them support form their electorate, the lords, the bishops, etc etc.” and you hate the Tories so much, why would it bother you so much? David Cameron has already stated with Nick Clegg his support for equal civil marriage and civil partnerships so if he carries on supporting, against your wishes but technically destroys his party in the process them shoudn’t you be egging them on?

            Truth is I don’t think you know what you really want, little less who by. Your just another person who would rather cut of his nose just to spite his face.

          8. @Jock S Trap

            Whilst I agree with most of your political points (even as a non Tory) there is one I am not convinced is accurate.

            Cameron has publically stated his desire to see equal same sex marriage – I am not sure he has agreed with Clegg on parity on CPs for people of all orientations

          1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 9:21am

            I quote from that pages:-

            “Both the prime minister, David Cameron, and his deputy Nick Clegg, favour opening civil marriage and civil partnerships to all couples, whether straight or gay. The government also privately hopes that religious ministers will be allowed to conduct gay marriages in the same way that they officiate at straight marriages.”

            Daily (hate)Mail only ever gives half truths so their reader can cope.

          2. Fair point, Jock

            It is the first document I have seen that evidences Camerons favour for CPs to be extended to heterosexual couples who wish to have it

    3. A manager comes round on a Friday afternoon and says I have to find one more person to sanction to meet my target; I have one client with previous for GBH, and another with learning disabilities. Who am I going to choose?
      .
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/08/jobcentres-benefits-sanctions-targets

      1. just watched it. It’s shameful while bankers and oligarchs live it up

        1. Yep. It’s sick, and typical Tory.

          1. de Villiers 8 Apr 2011, 6:08pm

            They’re also eating babies and drinking their blood in place of Port.

          2. The reverse of Robin Hood:
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/08/disability-benefits-reduce-payouts
            .
            The coalition’s creed is looking less like the liberalism that it proclaims, and more like a desiccated libertarianism – which talks up the freedoms of people with means, and hurls those with none to the dogs.
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/08/benefits-department-woeful-practices

          3. de Villiers 9 Apr 2011, 12:15am

            To the dogs you say. To the dogs.

          4. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 9:21am

            Lets not forget that under Labour even the most wealth could claim benefits which made no sense and thankfully has been stopped.

          5. You Labour troll

        2. They always have.

      2. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 9:12am

        I agree it’s not good and this does need looking into but still doesn’t change the fact that the benefit systems needed changing.

        1. It is true the benefits system does need to change

          Not sure the manner of change is right, but Jock S Trap is right – the system must change

        2. You say “It’s not good” and “need changing”, a simplistic and false rhetoric you’re supporting. Translating the situation to the real world, people with means are having access to goods and services, while the poor, old, sick, disabled, etc are being increasingly denied access and even their dignity.

          1. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 3:02pm

            “simplistic”…. “false rhetoric”….

            I think your just summed yourself up. Don’t tell me you one of those who thinks we shouldn’t have any cuts?

            Where you going on your holidays this year love, I hear De Nile is good this time of year.

          2. Cuts? What have you been eating? Are you planning to switch of your internet or your light by any chance? Are you giving your excesses to the needy and poor? I bet you’re not. It’s much easier for your kind to promote the myth that you’re short of cash.

          3. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 1:23am

            Beberts, you are a speak-your-weight machine.

          4. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 9:09am

            Ahhh, I think that comment actually says it all Beberts.

        3. Behind all the false rhetoric, that’s exactly the kind of society you’re supporting. Forget it not. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Socialist. …

          1. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 3:04pm

            No most of us live in the real world and can see whats been happening.

          2. Leave your glass dome for a second and pay a visit to those who are dying to keep your castle afloat. Are you attending the royal wedding darling, or are you too busy commenting on PN news? Maybe you can do both, if you have the latest gadget, don’t you think? How much did it cost?

          3. Of course had Labour addressed the problems of the greedy and lazy (both claiming benefits and working in the banking sector), what a different world it would be

          4. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 1:22am

            Reform! Aren’t things bad enough already?

          5. Bad enough? You’re living in luxury. You still have a lot to give darling.

          6. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 9:11am

            Sorry Beberts but I can’t help laughing at your comments now. They border on the ridiculous. I say border…. lol

          7. Carry on laughing darling. But don’t get too excited or tired, you’ve got to save some of your energy. Come back here in a week to tell us how you’ve been spending your free time to help the Big Society.

          8. If you’re short for ideas, here are some: Go take care of a disabled neighbour who is loosing the the local council’s help. Clean his toilet, etc etc. Then spend your evenings in soup runs for the homeless. Just be careful not to be seen. The Tories are now criminalising this activity. In any case just let us know what you’ve been doing for Big Society.

          9. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 9:52pm

            Beberts, not only are you a broken record, you have no sense of humour.

            But then, I suppose it is difficult to have a sense of humour when David Cameron is murdering the innocents, is it not?

          10. He’s recklessly neglecting them.

          11. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 8:14am

            Beberts, your immediate comment above reads almost like a concession.

  2. Helen Wilson 8 Apr 2011, 1:46pm

    Why should I bother commenting on a bunch of useless T**ts having dinner with another bunch of useless t**ts.

    Stonewall will be doing what it does best today, counting money.

    At lest I now know my suspicion that CMYB is Mmmmmmmm has just been confirmed.

    1. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    2. Please see my post below in reference to your comment.

    3. Yes, but they STILL do something which us better then NOTHING.

  3. And that group is representative? They don’t see the irony

    1. Of course they don’t,why would they? Everyone looks and acts like them. BUT it’s a step forward.

  4. Equality at home, at school, at work…

    And please in front of the marriage registrar too!

    It would be good to know what was said at this event about Stonewall’s marriage equality campaign, which has not been greatly in evidence.

  5. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 2:11pm

    Lets hope the money raised will go to good causes which includes Equal Marriage. A subject they still seem to remain silent on.

    1. Certainly they need to rectify the horrendous mistakes they made over the handling of the gay marriage fiasco and their public proclamations that Stonewall is not a democracy were arrogant and offensive …

      I wouldn’t want to undermine some of the very good work they have done

      1. Exactly.

  6. Jane Hill is not the only gay on the BBC News channel I am led to believe there are at least 3 others, some of it I know to be true …

    1. Evan Davis the silly old cow

      1. One of the 3 I was thinking of … and I am not disclosing the other two but at least one of them is out I think

      2. Evan Davis is out and cool about his sexuality

        1. Yeah I meant I knew one of the other two I was referring to was also out … the other I am not sure about

  7. Doesn’t take long to smoke out the Tory basher. I was basing my assumption on your quote from another story; ” Also what would closeted Tory MPs do without Clapham common? ”. As for me being mmmmm- wrong! That’s twice in one post, for shame!

    1. That was for Helen Wilson.

  8. Its funny posh people quaffing champagne in the name of equality.

    1. de Villiers 8 Apr 2011, 6:12pm

      They could, at least, have drunk Crémant.

      1. Strongbow

        1. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 9:24am

          Blue Nun

          1. Next you will be suggesting Asti Spumante lol

          2. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 1:28am

            Perhaps they deserve New World.

          3. Hmmm dont diss New World

          4. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 9:13am

            What about Oldy World, de villiers?

          5. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 9:13am

            Most stuff taste better with age.

          6. Prefer NZ Sauvignon to any Old world … lol

          7. You’re wasting yours and Big Society’s time peeps, you’ve got work to do. Champagne is not on the menu. Go figure.

          8. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 9:55pm

            And Beberts yet again brings down the guillotine on what was an entertaining thread.

            But then why not, when the Right are guillotining babies, torturing children, and shooting the elderly.

  9. Dromio, and I bet not one word about marriage equality was spoken. I’ve checked Stonewall’s site, nothing is mentioned, as usual. As long as we’re segregated under a different name (CPs), straight society will never regard our relationships as valid as theirs which means we are less than they are, a prime target for bullying, denigration, villification and discrimination.

    1. I do like the proposal by the Scottish Lib Dems to equalise CM and CP

    2. In fairness to Stonewall, and I say this as the person who ran the campaign calling on them to support marriage equality, it is mentioned on their website here:

      http://www.stonewall.org.uk/about_us/2534.asp

      Spot it? I didn’t either until they told me it was there. I’d say we should push harder for them to press for marriage equality, but frankly it’s probably better to just lobby our MPs directly now that Stonewall are at least no longer actively obstructing it.

  10. The reason why so many of us hate gay tories is that they spent years voting against gay rights, disparaging labour and lib dem attempts to improve them. Then when the work of left wing parties made the country more accepting they decide to jump out and go we are gay too.

    They are pathetic.

    1. agreed the frigging closet cases are the most dangerous. And now these gay tories are acting as if nothing happened

      1. They’re being funded and sent out to shortsell the LGBT community.

        1. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 9:27am

          Yet another ridiculous claim Beberts.

        2. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 9:32am

          I for one am still willing to let this government continue. I think the fact the Lib Dems are in there is even better. Lets not forget both David Cameron and Nick Clegg support Equal Marriage so hardly looks like they’ll go against us.

          Fact is Labour could not continue. If they had the consequences would have been dire. I reckon we ourselves would had to have a bailout. They left us bankrupt and it needed some new blood to sort it. People not afraid of getting their hands dirty.

          1. we would not have gone bankrupt, while we had a high deficit we actually have a relatively low level of debt compared to historical levels. To compare the UK economy to Ireland, Spain, Portugal or greece is either 1) scaremongering. 2) complete ignorance of any real economics.

          2. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 3:18pm

            Scott

            We have the worst deficit since before the second world war. Are debt is very high but the difference is that compared to other countries esp from the G7 we are the only countries that has much longer periods to pay back borrowing. This is why other countries are fairing worse.

            Lets not forget that the UK economy over the next quarter is predicting the UK’s economy will grow more slowly over the next quarter than that of any other G7 country apart from catastrophe-stricken Japan.

            By making cuts now we go someway in helping our credit rating as a country, the quicker the better. The more business that comes to the country the more jobs and with that comes growth and increasingly better economy. Sections of industry are already picking up but others are still struggling.

            There is nothing scaremongering about how the last Labour government left the state of this country and it is only ‘complete ignorance to pretend that it was anything else than dire.

          3. The uk’s level of debt is not that bad, and is in no way comparable to greece and spain and portugal. We do not have a high level of debt, we have a high deficit. FACT.

            Investors punish economies when they are shown to not grow. This is the problem with cutting spending, if the economy shrinks, investor confidence will take a knock, investors will doubt our ability to pay back loans, and our borrowing rating could be altered, which would be devastating for the economy. Thus the very cuts you support could damage the economy.

            Other facts – until 2007 the conservatives agreed 100% with labours level of spending.
            The deficit was not an issue until after the govt bailed out the banks. Labours deficit 1997-2007 was smaller than the major governments. It was bailing out the banks that caused the deficit not government spending, to say otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

            The real criticism one should have of the labour party (and every partysince 1980) is that theyfailed to regulate banks

          4. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 1:31am

            The UK debt is bad. And it could have had real problems – far worse than is imagined.

            It is true that UK debt has been higher but that has been due either to the Napoleonic Wars or the World Wars.

            The debt from the Napoleonic Wars was able to be wiped out due to the industrial revolution and the extraordinary tax revenues and wealth created. The debt from the World Wars marked the beginning of major decline for the UK, from which it has never recovered.

          5. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 9:19am

            Scott, what planet do you live on?

            This countries deficit is one of the highest in the world, thanks to Labour, that is why we are having to have such deep cuts now. If we do this now we try and pull ourselves out quicker. If we don’t we end up paying for it for years with no progress.

            Who in their right mind leaves debt? We have to get this under control. It is why the cuts are deep. If we pay quicker things will start to inprove for us as a country. But then this is what the Parties do. Labour over spends and leaves the country in a right ol mess and then the Tories usually have to clear it up.

          6. You’re overspending your time on PN News. You’ve got spend your free time working for Big Society darlings. Come back in a week to report what you’ve been doing.

          7. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 9:57pm

            Beberts, if only you too could leave for the Big Society and coming back only after an extended period.

    2. de Villiers 8 Apr 2011, 6:19pm

      I can appreciate the concern about gay Tories. Much of what you have said is correct – the parties of the Left did all the heavy lifting.

      However, those who are gay and take a different view on economics to those on the Left will tend to sit on the Right, as will others for cultural reasons.

      It is also desirable for gay people to remain in parties of the Right. It would be unthinkable for the Conservative Party to revert to its social intolerance when there are prominent gay Conservative MPs. It would not be healthy for all gay people to be in just one party so that the others could ignore our concerns – which seems to be what happens in the United States.

      Finally, it is worth noting that political parties in both France and England are coalitions themselves. The Conservative Party is not one unit. There are still those on the left of the party who have never managed to make peace with Margaret Thatcher and those on the right.

      1. You have a couple of fantastic points there – notably the fact that political parties in the UK are largely coalitions themselves and the thought of not having LGBT people in the Conservative party is frightening.

        That said, I do find it hard to reconcile a gay person being comfortable with their party given the heritage of gay rights (or lack of it) within the party. I also particularly struggle with ministers who were also in ministerial roiles in the Thatcher/Major days such as Francis Maude who were calculatingly homophobic in their language and voting but now seem to have made an about turn and are LGBT friendly – it just doesnt quite ring true …

        1. Perhaps it was the death of his gay brother from HIV in 1993 that changed his mind. He did nurse him on his death bed…

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/214804.stm

          1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 9:26am

            Yes, it’s just ashame that his (and others like him) opinion only changed when it was too late to save the one person he must have loved.

      2. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 9:33am

        Lets not forget their are now more Gay tory MPs than any other party. With that comes change so having Gay tories can only be a positive thing.

        1. I do agree Gay Tories is a positive and, in some ways, a powerful thing.

          I do accept Francis Maude has declared his old views as immoral – I just find it hard to reconcile such an about face in terms of views – and its seems to my cynical mind as being for electoral purposes rather than recognition of equality … I hope I am wrong …

          I do think that the coalition is more balanced having the Lib Dems within it … and that is a very good thing …

          1. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 1:34am

            With politicians such as these, I think it is more a case of them having been dishonest about their intentions when they were younger – that is conforming to the more strident, conservative social agenda whilst being of a personally liberal persuasion.

            That, realistically, is politics where people hide their true opinions in order to get ahead. I can see why people think this is true with the current Conservatives and their professed liberalism, although I think that this is more likely to be true.

          2. @de Villiers

            I can see your argument could be right …

            Shouldnt have done such a good job at persuading us they were so stridently homophobic or voted in LGBT rights votes against equality when they were free votes …..

          3. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 9:36am

            Lets face it attitudes have changed over the years because we have been more open and people have actually got to know us rather than make inaccurate judgements and assumptions have accepted they were wrong.

            I think this is proof is anything that having a good open society with all kinds of people equally will genuinely generally accept.

            I think you may have a point about people hidng their true feelings but isn’t that part of the course? People know those commnets are not acceptable just as they aren’t for racist or sexist comments. It actually goes some way in proving things are changing. We are becoming part of the norm and abusive discriminating language isn’t acceptable anymore.

          4. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 9:38am

            I’m all for remembering how the Tories were, how they voted but if we accept times change don’t we have to give fair play when such a party is doing it’s best to show it has. Now I’m not saying the Lib Dems being there hasn’t helped because I’m sure it has but I do feel this shows that if the Tories are willing to go out there to try and convince us as a community to trust them we have to be more than just a small minority otherwise our votes wouldn’t matter.

  11. miketruth 8 Apr 2011, 3:27pm

    Robert, it’s completely untrue that there’s no mention of marriage equality on Stonewall’s website: “Securing equal legal treatment in areas where it doesn’t already exist such as extension of the legal form of marriage to same-sex couples.” is listed as a current priority.

    1. Good to hear that … but getting there was a fraught process

  12. Gay Tory: “I’m gay but oppose redefining marriage”:
    .
    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/commentator-im-gay-but-oppose-redefining-marriage/

    1. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 9:40am

      So thats one gay Christian point of view. One even he is entitled too and yet CPs are progressing and for the first time under any government we have a Tory/Lib Dem one consulting on Equal Marriage. Something the last Labour government opposed and if they had remained it is doubtful we’d even be hearing about Equal Marriage now.

      1. He is entitled to his view – most of us who are LGBT will (I suspect) disagree with it …

        There is progress on CPs and consultation regarding progressing CM. None of this would have been possible without any of the equality legislation introduced by Labour and supported by Lib Dems (and some Tories) …

        I do think the LIb Dem Scottish proposal of equal CM and CP for all is the best idea

  13. “Stonewall deputy chief executive Laura Doughty said: ‘All funds raised tonight will go towards Stonewall’s pioneering campaigns for lesbian, gay and bisexual equality – at home, at school and at work.” ”

    Stonewall are a useless and unncessary group.

    The fact that their leader Ben Summerskill was caught campaigning against LGBT equality by actively opposing marriage equality has rendered them the enemy of those of us who believe in equality.

    Stonewall do not represent the LGBT population.

    They really ought to disband.

    What are Stonewall actually going to do with that 340.000 quid.

    What is that homophobe Ben Summerskill’s annual salary?

    1. Its fatuous to say that Stonewall are useless and unnecessary.

      They clearly are not in tune with the majority of gay people on some issues including notably gay marriage. That is something they need to re-examine and their approach to it has been damaging to them as an organisation.

      It is also fatuous to describe Ben Summerskill as a homophobe – despite some of his comments at the height of the gay marriage Stonewall fiasco first becoming apparent being ignorant, offensive and lacking any sense of empathy with the vast majority of gay people.

      There is a vast amount of work that Stonewall has done in the past (and is currently doing), much of it strategically led by Summerskill, that has moved on gay rights in significant and dynamic ways.

      Ok,there are many of us who are appalled at Stonewalls actions and commentary on the issue of same sex marriage – but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water and say evrything Stonewall has done is defined by their views on marriage

      1. Stonewall’s treachery isn’t only defined by the gay marriage issue. There was also this from Ben Summerskill in 2009.

      2. Stonewall ARE useless and unnecessary. They did good work in the past but they are now past their ‘Best before date.’

        There is not a single issue Stonewall deals with that can not be done by a group which believes in full LGBT equality.

        The fact that Ben Summerskill was not sacked for his homophobic treachery shows the utter contempt in which Stonewall holds the LGB community.

        1. I agree that all of the work currently undertaken by Stonewall could easily be taken up by other gay organisations.

          There are good examples of research such as the Gay British Crime Survey and the BBC attitude to gay and lesbian people etc etc that have been significant in campaigning

          There are very good things they do with employers including the diversity index and support campaigns.

          There are also some historic examples of excellent work and campaigning.

          They do exist and have significant support in terms of numbers and from those with influence.

          Fighting them detracts from the message of true equality – we should perhaps be either seeking to change them or building up an alternative, reputable and successful organisation that can build on and beyond what Stonewall has achieved but have in grounded in fact, genuine LGBT opinion and in democracy

    2. Histrionics doesn’t further gay rights.

      Full stop.

      Strategy……

  14. What have these newly out MP’s done to introduce marriage equality.

    The Tories are always babbling on about how their party has more gay MP’s than any other party.

    Well what are they doing to achieve marriage equality?

    Or is their function merely as PR to look like the Tories are no longer the Party of Bigotry?

    Oh yeah – and Stonewall are a useless group who have no worthwhile purpose any more (after they were caught campaigning against LGBT equality, they should have sacked Ben Summerskill – their refusal to do so has destroyed their reputation among LGBT people who believe in equality – who Stonewall don’t represent any more

    1. The lib dems have made the Tories more gay right.

      1. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 9:41am

        I think that certainly may be the best way of putting it.

  15. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    1. Yep pig here my Boyfriend is a goat

      1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 9:22am

        So who does the Bull belong to?

  16. miketruth…there was no mention of it several days ago when I checked. I revisited after your comment and there is a scant reference to it and is placed 4th out of 5 on its agenda. It should be number one.

  17. Sebastian 8 Apr 2011, 6:51pm

    What a bunch of luvvies/rogues. Of all the millions squandered on this decrepit, out of touch “charity” what exactly does it have to show fo it? Gaffe after gaffe by its over-paid, arch-Fabian, Quango Queen chief executive, that’s what! Stonewall serves only itself when it is not jumping to the diktats of its Whitehall masters. It’s time is truly over.

    1. You may well be right Sebastian

      Its however essential that we do not undermine either the fight to ensure equal rights for LGBT people and the good work that Stonewall have historically done and those good bits it continues to do.

      By blasting Stonewall without supporting alternatives we hamper the influence we can have in striving for rights.

      We need to be proactively campaigning whilst ensuring that an alternative body is sufficiently, supported, resource and endorsed to take things forward (and if necessary leave Stonewall behind).

      1. Stonewall can remain involved in the campaign for equality.

        But they need to do a couple of things first.

        1. Sack Ben Summerskill. He is simply not fit for purpose as the head of a gay rights charity, when he was caught campaigning AGAINST LGBT equality.
        2. Clarify who they are accountable to.

        The damage they did to themselves through their own actions should not be swept under the carpet.

        1. Not gonna happen with Ben. He has brought in too much money and change.

          What NEEDS to happen is that WE need to educate him about the future of gay rights.

  18. Didn’t realise that these MPs were actually fighting for equality, that’s a new one on me! The coalition govt have already laid out their equality agenda and like a broken record come out with the same one liner “In June 2010, the Government published “Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality”. Is there a “private” meeting going on at Stonewall which is different to this???.What’s the point of this dinner party and as someone pointed out what’s the point of a one bunch of losers speaking to another bunch of losers. None of these mps or Stonewall are fighting with gusto for marrigae equality, none of them are interested in any pressure from Europe to improve equality here and abroad. The cons consistently oppose any equality legislation from the EU….why would they suddenly want to improve equality here in the UK…I don’t think having non religious!!!!! CPs held in a church is huge step towards equality …

    1. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 1:36am

      So a dinner of openly gay MPs to show to the population that gay people should be involved in politics is a bad thing?

      1. A few minutes ago you were complaining that things were bad enough. Now you are applauding a mise-en-scene champagne party. Which is which?

        1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 9:25am

          Erm, but this is to raise money to help with Gay causes. It’s people digging into there pockets to help Gay people.

          Your a mystery, Beberts. If it’s communism you want may I suggest China.

          1. @Jock S Trap

            I think China might be too liberal … I suggest he considers North Korea or Burma

          2. So when you are not raising money, you feel things are bad. When you’re raising money you feel happy? I have a feeling you’re not going to feel so great working for Big Society darling, but I’m sure you’ll get used to it. Come back here in a week and report on your achievements.

          3. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 9:40am

            Beberts

            I don’t think people give money to make themselves feel happy. We give money surely, because we understand there are people much worse off than us that need that extra help.

        2. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 10:02pm

          Beberts, you must really be intending to be so belligerent. I copied the reform mark, taken from a period when the British Parliament extended the franchise in 1832. I was parodying you.

          I can see nothing bad in a group of gay MPs having a party to attract attention to the fact that there are openly gay MPs in Parliament and that other gay individuals should consider this to be an avenue that is open to them.

          1. Gay Tories can party, sip champagne and get their photo-op. In the meantime, they are trying to convince the public we’re all in the gut together, and we need to drop the ‘tick-box’ approach to equality, but that’s exactly what their being used for.

          2. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 8:16am

            It was not gay Tories, Berberts. It was gay MPs of all parties. It was a cross-party event.

            The tick-box approach is yours Berberts. Whenever the word Conservative appears, you hit ‘No’ regardless of the merits of the particular policy.

          3. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 8:23am

            I say cross-party, I mean to say that it was not a Conservative event. It was a general event at which Labour luvvies and politicians were invited – those politicians including politicians of all parties.

          4. Beberts

            So also sipping champagne were
            Angela Eagle, Harriet Harman, Baroness Scotland and a number of other Labour MPs and figures

          5. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 9:42am

            Stu

            Ah, thats different when it’s Labour MP, his comment are only for Tory ones.

          6. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 9:44am

            He absolutely hates the Tories doing Anything good in any way. I think he feels them doing so would take away his right to whinge about anything Tory. Even though he’s shown he’ll find anything.

          7. Darlings, labourites weren’t talking us down with their gutter rhetoric while sipping champagne. That’s a Tories achievement.

          8. @Beberts

            So Labour figures are allowed to sip champagne and discuss their views (arguably rhetoric) whilst Conservative figures are not allowed to sip champagne nor discuss their views (arguably rhetoric) … correct me if I am wrong, but thats how your argument seems to come across

            Sounds almost along the lines of – you can discuss politics so long as it fits into my world view of things – quite a Marxist (ie failed) ideology that one …

          9. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 9:20pm

            Beberts – you deserve Labour. Just like the previous Prime Minister Brown, you are incapable of seeing your own error or admitting when you are wrong.

  19. So Beberts, you don’t like the Conservative party it seems……..

    1. Jock S. Trap 9 Apr 2011, 10:58am

      Wherever did you get that idea from?

      1. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 1:38am

        He was comparing Conservatives to Nzais above, with his quotation of Niemöller’s work “First they came”.

        1. You surely dont believe the myth that the Nzais were on the left side of the political spectrum do you?

          1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 9:27am

            Beberts

            Your talking the crazy now.

          2. de Villiers 10 Apr 2011, 10:06pm

            Berberts, I was pointing out your absurd comparison of the Coalition government to the Nzai party and government in Germany 1940, which I consider to be a distasteful rehabilitation and light treatment of the subject.

            I cannot see that to which your question refers.

  20. “‘All funds raised tonight will go towards Stonewall’s pioneering campaigns …”

    What pioneering campaings?

    “…..We still really need Stonewall to fight the bigger battles…”

    What bigger battles?

    Most LGBT orgs around the world in our sitution (ie countries where LGBT rights aren’t that bad really) are fighting for marriage equality , that’s the main fight!!. What do we have ? more bloody research papers and more winging guys with top notch jobs wanting more gays around them, we’re not interested in a gay mafia….can’t Stonewall move on and fight for the big one ie marriage..

    1. I absolutely endorse the battle for equality in marriage and stand 100% behind the fight for equality in this area.

      That said, there have been many fights that Stonewall has campaigned in and researched for in the past (and currently) which have resulted in better equality for the LGBT communities or may do.

      Same sex marriage is not the only fight for equality for LGBT people – if you think this then you are blinkered.

      1. Did I say the only???

        1. No you didnt …

          You did say it was the main fight – not sure I would agree with that – I would have thought universal acceptance of LGBT people existing is the primary fight – and we don’t have that currently

          Same sex marriage is important but not the only battle

          Stonewall does need to move on and join in the fight for same sex marriage – I agree – but lets not undermine what they have achieved and are achieving in trying to persuade them of this

          1. I’m talking about the UK not the whole world…anyway I did ask what was referred to by Stonewall staff and supporters by the below comments and frankly I’m don’t give a toss about Stonewall’s past performances only what happens now in a far more gay friendly environment altogether in the UK…..I think Stonewall would be naive to think marrigae isn’t a huge issue which they will be judged upon..

            “‘All funds raised tonight will go towards Stonewall’s pioneering campaigns …”

            What pioneering campaings?

            “…..We still really need Stonewall to fight the bigger battles…”

            What bigger battles?

        2. @John

          “Frankly I dont give a toss about past successes …”

          Frankly you wouldnt have the privilege of giving a toss and focusing on same sex marriage if Stonewall and others had not campaigned and won great battles in the past – equalised age of consent, equality act, repeal of section 28 etc etc – maybe you don’t give a toss – I for one (and I am certain there are many more) am thankful that Stonewall and others battled to secute these rights and I am stunned at your arrogance of saying they don’t matter (or if you don’t mean that what do the words “I don’t give a toss” mean)

          1. Simply living on past glories is now not enough….that’s life I’m afraid, past glories are easily forgotten, I don’t know much about those past days and who , currently at Stonewall, were involved in them. I’m not very good on history. I doubt Stonewall then and now are organised the same, have the same heros, have the same visision etc….sorry to be offensive but I, for one, can’t live in the past especially when it doesn’t seem very important to me now. Lots of advancements for all people (not just gay) have happenned, I can’t continually stand still and not criticse people for how things are now….that’s absurd, so if not giving a toss means that then yes that’s what I mean…

          2. @John

            Ok I get your more measured comments – and I have some empathy with them. I do think it is important we look at both the present and the future. Sometimes, that involves recognising successes and failures of the past. That is what I am trying to say. I dont deny that Stonewall have hugely misjudged how to handle the issue of same sex marriage and their media response was appalling. I think it calls for the organisation to review both their policy on this and how they handled this debacle. That said, there are staff who have been at Stonewall through thick and thin. There are good things happening in Stonewall. This needs handling properly though.

    1. What point are you making, Kevin?

        1. Ok

          Two thoughts come to me though.

          1) the raw charity commissioners figures do not evidence either positively or negatively any social return – so further info is needed to make that judgement

          2) most well managed charities will have a surplus – partly for contingencies and some because of longer term projects that require front loaded finance to be obvious

          BHF is a charity with a regular surplus

          1. Stu,

            It would good I think for charities to presnt this data within it’s annual accounts, a comparrisson for example showed the DOH investing £42m for Direct Payment of which London has 7.8million people saw just 30,000 people in support. Its about investment, how monies are spent, reported and accounted for. http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/PBDPanalysis10.pdf

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all