Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

David Cameron says UK will pressure Africa on gay rights

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Rich (original) 22 Jun 2011, 8:54pm

    “David Cameron says UK will pressure Africa on gay rights”

    HA-HA-HA!!! He is a strange idiot, and nothing else….

    1. billy wingarten 24 Jun 2011, 4:38am

      He should get together with the US air force and they could with 1-3 bombs totally wipe out the Uganda parliment for its attempt to pass a h!tlerite genocide of gays law.

      think of how things would have been different if we had done that to the Reichstag in mid 1930s.

      1. Dan Filson 24 Jun 2011, 2:39pm

        Would have been difficult as Hitler stooges burned down the Reichstag building in the months soon after he came into power. The Reichstag had in any event, under bullying pressure in which opposition members were mostly prevented from attending, voted itself out of existence

    2. Dan Filson 24 Jun 2011, 2:49pm

      Actually the UK does pressure Africa on gay rights, and the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the diplomatic service both before the last general election and since then has been commendable, and especially noticeable in Eastern Europe. In Africa, the pressure is applied somewhat more covertly but nonetheless.

      1. @Dan

        I have been impressed at some of the press statements in terms of LGBT issues that have come out the Foreign Office and from William Hague in interview. Whilst I do not like Mr Hague, I think he has made a clear, unambiguous commitment to LGBT rights.

  2. Britain is the best place for gay equality in Europe? Really? Notice not one word about marriage equality. Instead he makes a comment about that stupid boondoggle called religious services for civil partnerships. Why was Billy Jean King doing there anyway and what does she have to do with equality in the UK? She’s not even a Brit.

    1. BJK is a role model for millions of lesbians

    2. Staircase2 23 Jun 2011, 1:55am

      Doh!
      Do your research, people!

    3. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 7:53am

      Bit naive there Robert.

      Shouldn’t role models be seen no matter where they come from?

      These people campaign tirelessly, I think where they come from therefore is irrelevent.

      1. Robert, millions of people watch wimbledon tennis, quite a few gay people included. BJK is always seen and heard commentating. For her to be seen and known as a prominent gay role model is very positive and sends a great message out. You can be openly gay and be a super sports star and be respected.

        1. The fact that someone is famous gives them opportunities in the spotlight that many do not have. BJK has tirelessly used her spotlight in a sensitive and consistent way (without hogging the airwaves) to campaign for honesty, integrity and fairness in LGBT rights and equality. Regardless of her nationality she has a message which is worth listening to. Are we saying that a British gay/lesbian should not be able to publicise LGBT rights in the US, Uganda, France, Kenya or wherever?

    4. Robert – BJK is an America and Americans known the importance of marriage equality, it may be a good thing that she was there! BS being there would have little significance on marriage equality despite the fact that he is British , if you want Stonewall to get more lucarative contracts with the govt then BS being there would be a good thing.

      1. Dan Filson 24 Jun 2011, 2:44pm

        Once again someone sniping at Stonewall. Stonewall is NOT in existence to get lucrative contracts from the government. It charges a modest fee for taking part in the workplace equality index to help cover the monitoring costs. I do not understand why people constantly snipe at our major gay rights organisation, a lot more effective than its predecessor the Campaign for Homosexual Equality and on a par with the Homosexual Law Reform Society that got us the 1967 Act that legalised gay sex between consenting adults. There is too much sniping from the sidelines.

        1. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 3:28pm

          Whilst I do acknowledge that Stonewall do a lot of good work I think a lot of confidence was lost when they refused at first then had to be pushed to support marriage Equality.
          When they resisted I removed my membership and contributions and will remain so until I see evidence of them campaigning for this Equal Right.
          It wasn’t right that an organisation fighting for Equal right didn’t think we wanted equal marriage rights too.
          It may take some longer to trust them again.

          For that reason I understand why some people are cautious of then and where they stand.

        2. @Dan

          In the main, I agree with you. I think Stonewall has done a great deal of honest and successful campaigning that has been beneficial to both UK and international LGBT rights. I can see in some of the work it continues to do that there are areas where it continues to be effective and has potential to have significant influence.

          That said, I do think Stonewall has lost the confidence of a sizeable proportion of the politically active LGBT communities by its ill advised attitude to equal marriage and the arrogance of BS and some of its other leaders when publically criticized.

          I know Stonewall will claim that it only represents its own members, but nonetheless it has been regarded by both some LGBT people and some in government and other organisations as both a representative of LGBT issues and a barometer for LGBT opinion and it has to accept the reality of that and bear some responsibility for its horrendous PR over this issue and failure to represent mainstream LGBT views.

  3. Would be curious to know who was there to represent the LGBT community outside the world of the famous and the streets of London.

    (Though as I live in Scotland, maybe I have to wait for Alec Salmond to invite me! LOL! )

    1. Wasn’t the Director of LGBT Youth Scotland PIctured going in Garry?

    2. Ben Cohen is from Northampton and made his name playing rugby for Northampton

  4. Yes, I noticed that, Robert – not one word about equal marriage. Very disappointing. I’d have thought one of the countries that has full marriage equality would be the best place for gay equality in Europe. I don’t know how separate can be equal.

    1. Just because a country has marriage equality, doesn’t make it the best place for gay people. Take South Africa for example. It has same sex marriage but it is a pretty homophobic country. The UK doesn’t have same sex marriage, although we do have CP which is pretty much marriage without the name ‘marriage’. I do wish for us to have the option of marriage and believe it will come soon. The attitudes in this country towards gay people are getting healthier every year. I do consider the UK as one of the best places to be an out gay person yet we do not have full marriage equality yet. Therefore having marriage equality in law doesn’t make you not homophobic or more welcoming to gays. It runs deeper than that.

      1. Hi Luke. Yes, I was taking that as assumed – I should have covered that in my comment. Obviously, I took it as read that the atmsophere would be safe/respectful to LGBT people. But I’m still surprised that the UK came out top because I think there are other European countries that are welcoming to LGBT people AND have the bonus of equal marriage.
        I was only considering Europe because that’s what the article said.

    2. LibDems have promised marriage equality by 2015 Iris.

      1. And we all know that the libdems do not deliver on promises.

      2. Lib Dem Parliamentary party has not promised same sex marriage.

        1. Dan Filson 24 Jun 2011, 2:45pm

          So are the MPs saying one thing and the Party saying another?

        2. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 3:30pm

          Indeed.
          The Lib Dems have made campaigning for marriage Equality, party policy but as yet they have not set a mandate.

    3. Yes looks like the uk won’t progress like norway, sweden, iceland , belgium, spain etc……. although cameron claims its best place for lgbt equality, shows how little he knows, and sweden was voted most gay friendly country in the world for lgbt equality, is cameron aware sweden is in europe?

      1. The UK is one of the best places to be a gay person in this world. It may not be the best by your judgement but surely it must be one of the best places?! If not then you must think you’re really hard done by.

        1. The uk maybe significantly better for lgbt legally than many countries in the world( that does not mean that lgbt are equal to others in this country) and what is your point on my comment? which was very obviously in relation to european equality and where was best for lgbt and i disagree with turncoat cameron on his diagnosis on that one.

    4. yes no mention of marriage equality despite the fact that the consultation starts in 2 weeks time…not very encouraging…it would be something that we all would have expected him to mention, after all , it’s his government that have set this in motion…the consultation wouldn’t be happenning if it was what they wanted so why NO MENTIOON OF IT YET AGAIN!!!! Are they hiding something, backing out of it, ashamed of it..I can see no valid reason not mention it along side all the other things he mentioned..

    5. I too am disappointed by the lack of equalisation of marriage being mentioned particularly when it is a key issue in the UK LGBTQ communities at the moment. Whilst it is not an issue that personally matters to me right now – it may in the future and it also prevents LGBTQ people being treated with fairness and equity. UK has done a lot of things right in terms of LGBTQ rights there is still a way to go. The UK has not got the same sense of equality as they have in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden (or indeed Spain). Its an easy sound bit for Cameron to make that the UK has the best LGBTQ rights – but the reality is not that this is the case. Cameron and Clegg need to consistently demonstrate they are on side – particularly given the voting record on LGBTQ rights that were seen by many Conservatives in the last parliament which were shocking and abysmal -= including that of the cabinet minister responsible for equality.

      1. Theresa May, since her appointment has been nothing but supportive of the LGBT community, She is working to change the culture in this country, for example, in sport where being gay is pretty taboo still. Her voting record in the past may not be fantastic but she is now in favour of gay adoption and supported civil partnerships and I believe she is in favour of same sex marriage too. She has come along way and we, as a community, should be congratulating her. There are many people in our lives that were once not the best of friends with gay people but changed their view and support us. I welcome their ‘conversion’ by not blabbing on about their past record but embracing the change of view.

        1. @Luke

          You do have a reasonable point. I must admit I struggle to see how someone with a 14% rating of support on LGBT issues in the previous parliament can then become cabinet minister with responsibility for equality. I do concede that she has publically been very supportive of LGBT equality initiatives and she has made some candid comments that she has changed her views on some gay issues. However, that doesnt change the past – which I do not think we should dwell on, but learn from – and this appointment means (to me) that Cameron and Clegg must redouble their efforts to consistently and continually demonstrate their support for LGBT people. Last night was good (apart from the lack of comment of marriage) but much more needs to be done too.

  5. He called Ian McKellan a queen? I wonder if he was having a reception for the black community he would use the word nlgger to describe a black guest? But he’s right, homophobia is societies problem. One which the tory party has been instrumental in creating the last time they were in power. Don’t forget cameron voted against repealing section 28 in 2003, I think he should have apologised for that first of all. And instead of focusing on africa, maybe they should focus on their own gay equality issues, they haven’t done anything yet.

    1. David Cameron did apologies for Section 28. And they have recently introduced legislation into the school system concerning homophobic in schools.

      1. Bollocks

        The residue of section 28 is Ian Baynham murder an apology is pointless you sack of crap

        1. Using your logic is like a Prime Minister in 20 years time being held responsible for the war in iraq. And thank you for calling me sack of crap because you don’t agree with me, such intellect.

          1. if that pm voted for the war then yes you muppet

          2. No its not. Cameron voted to keep section 28 8 years ago. He said last year there would be no new legislation on gay rights whilst the tories were in power, he’s done nothing for gay rights. What’s the war in Iraq got to do with gay rights legislation?

        2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 7:57am

          James!
          That comment is absolute rubbish and also quite shameful.
          Fact is those that killed Ian Baynham were at school when Section 28 have been removed so that point is cowardly and pathetic.
          To make Ian Baynham’s death political just makes you look sick.
          Show some respect.

        3. de Villiers 24 Jun 2011, 12:08am

          You are a pointless sack of crap. No you are. No you are. No you are.

          Pathetic, James!

    2. You need to remember and tell yourself everyday that Cameron apologised for Sec 28 a few years ago now so get over it. If he didn’t mention Africa, I am sure you’d be complaining about Uganda etc. There is work to do in this country to forward the gay rights agenda to equality but African gay people are more in need of help than us. The government has actually done things, you’re choosing to blindly ignore it. Gay blood ban is begin discussed, gay marriage equality is about to be discussed, historic gay convictions are being deleted, homophobic bullying is given prominence and the government is trying to change how gay people are seen in society, through sport for example.

      You just not happy are you unless you calling the Conservative party homophobic regardless what they do. Give it a bloody rest. I am sick of reading the same comments day after day on Pinknews – getting absolutely tiresome and some of the claims need backing up with evidence too!

      1. So, the tories haven’t done anything yet. It sounds like they’re discussing a lot? And deleting their past homophobic convictions. Do you think if we all sit here and congratulate them on discussing things they’ll do anything? No. So don’t tell me to give it a rest, if you’re sick of reading about homophobia in the world, pink news probs isn’t the best site for you to read, its generally about homophobia. Maybe buy take a break if its tiresome, thats light hearted I think, never read it myself. Or read the daily mail, they don’t think we have anything to complain about either.

        1. I wish the Tories would put you on a rocket and send you to another planet.

          1. Oh well, they can’t. But that’s typical of a tory to want to just try and silence someone by sending them somewhere they can’t be heard. Funnily enough that’s what section 28 was all about, silencing us. Get back to me when the tories have actually done something for gay rights.

        2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 8:10am

          In all fairness we are again comparing 13 years of Labour, which in our Right David Cameron did praise at the reception, to 13 Months of this coalition.

          You may pick on what is being discussed but lets look at it from your view….
          What did Labour do for Gay Rights in it’s first 13 months?

          LGBT in the military didn’t happen until 2000 and had to be forced by Europe after Tony Blair was prepared to fight against such a move.
          The Age of consent came in 2001.
          May I remind people Labour won in 1997.

          I think it is very unfair that while we are getting positive noises from this coalition people are clearly just picking because we have the Tories involved.
          It doesn’t matter if they hand all on a plate somehow some of you will still pick holes.

          Fact is they may be discussing but according to a lot of you if they we so homophobia surely they wouldn’t be discussing so soon after an election.
          They don’t have to after all.

        3. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 8:13am

          The fact they are having a consultation on marriage Equality alone is not worth biting the hand that feeds considering it wouldn’t have even happened under Labour had they remained in power.
          It wouldn’t even be talked about.

          I for one don’t like to live in the past but seek the future and for now I still think we are as a country and as a LGBT community in the right hands of the coalition.

          They aren’t removing rights as quite a few of you dictated they would last general election and they are showing some commitment on marriage Equality.

          Sorry but weither you like it or not, that IS progress.

      2. Exactly Luke. Unfortunately people’s self interests get the better of them. People in this country are hardly being sent to death for kissing in the street, where as in countries in which people are we should be using our influence to change their attitudes, which was the speech given tonight. This government have only been in service (not power) for 18 months give them a chance to push their agenda through before you start putting bricks in your hands bags. If labour where in power Brown would not be pushing gay marriage he stated that civil partnerships went “Far enough”. At least it’s on this governments agenda to be debated.

        1. No, not legally , however ian bayham was murdered at peak time in a central square of our capital city over an altercation which was the result of visibility, hardly the best place for gay equality in europe.

          1. It is one of the best places in Europe but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. Far, far from it. So much progress needs to take place, there is much more to do. However, we do have it much better than so many people in the world.

            I am concerned though about places like Labour run Tower Hamlets and the homophobia in the borough and even in the council chamber! I wonder when Ken Livingstone is going to speak out about this?!

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 8:16am

            Ken Livingstone won’t speak out against it Luke.
            He broke ranks with Labour to support the regime in Tower Hamlets, knowing the homophobia that would result.

          3. @luke , i don’t have any expectation from a homophobic supporter as livingstone.

      3. You just not happy are you unless you calling the Conservative party homophobic regardless what they do..
        .
        No. We call them homophobic exactly because they only do enact anti-gay laws.

        1. Beberts: Before I came out, many people I know were homophobic and many are still coming to terms with homosexuality, but its a life long progress. Most of us have family members that were homophobic but now have changed. It is the same with political parties. The Tories are on the same path. For me, I’d rather be supportive of this and guide them into the right direction because I want equality in this country. For you, well, you’ll be happy when you’re telling us how homophobic they are and completely denying the progress that has happened in the party on homosexual issues. It is a shame that some in the gay community want other organisations to remain homophobic for their own self satisfaction. It’s 2011, wake up!

          1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 8:17am

            Here! Here! Luke.
            Well Said.

          2. Bring a violin and let’s make a song called “Would you forgive the Nazzty Party?”. Do you believe the Nazzi Party can change?

          3. Beberts

            The bizarre thing is you sound even more blinkered and insisdious in your condemnation of ANYTHING Conservative with some of your little tirades.

            Yes, there is a history from some Tory MPs in terms of LGBT voting that is deeply worrying. Yes, they were responsible for Section 28. Yes, there have been homophobic comments and policies brought in by them in the past. Yes, it feels wrong to trust them (to me) on LGBT issues.

            However, there are a number of LGBT Tory MPs (including senior ministers) and councillors. I have never heard as LGBT supportive a leader of the Conservative party as Cameron. There has been consultations announced on equality of marriage (whether you like consultations or not it is progress). There has been pressure, promised and real, on African and other nations on LGBT issues, Under this government we signed UN resolutions on LGBT rights, and there is more evidence besides this ….

            It makes your hysterical “N@zi party” claims clear hysteria

          4. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 12:02pm

            Beberts
            The only ironic thing about you comment is that you’re trying to accuse others of being nasty.

            The buck clearly stops with you.

            Oops hang on phone…
            …Beberts it’s for you.
            It’s the Doctor asking if you’d like to use his TARDIS to join the rest of us in 2011.

        2. Beberts,
          Please tell us the anti-gay laws the coalition government have enacted ?

          1. You mean the Tory Party? Search Google darling and you’ll find out the anti-gay laws. The list is endless. You’ll soon get bored with pages after pages of pure bigotry.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 12:06pm

            No Bebert he means as he said, “the Coalition government!!

          3. Yes Beberts I mean the Coalition government, I have searched google and come up with nothing Dahling, please let us in on a few nuggets.

    3. Agreed , shame some other gay people here don’t have your self worth/respect as a gay person.

      1. I have my own self worth as an individual. As opposed to being part of a group segregating myself from society. They have been in service for 12 months, how many anti gay laws have they introduced?

      2. What is self worth? Harping on and on like a bitter old man…. move on and embrace the changes that are still in development. Get over yourself and support any progress that takes place. But you won;t because you have a different agenda to the rest of us. I want the continuation of same sex rights but it seems your agenda is to make sure only a select few are able to make this progress. Bitter, bitter, bitter.

        1. Rubbish!

      3. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 8:22am

        People with self worth and respect are usually people that don’t follow the crowd and are willing to stand up and show themselves.

        I find it funny that when people don’t agree and can’t win others over they suddenly then become people that don’t have self worth or respect.
        It’s clearly just an insult because they can’t debate back.

        It has nothing to do with self worth or respect and most people have that regardless.
        It is about being an individual happy with one self to able to stand up and be counted.

        Life would be awfully dull if we all agreed on everything.

        1. you pretty much followed the comments previous to yours, so much for you not following.

      4. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 8:23am

        Mores to the point, rapture, shame on you for not respect other people’s individuality.

        1. I do respect others that have that integrity to acknowledge insincerity and injustice , hence i have respect for eddy two’s commentary on this thread.

      5. I have my self worth and honour. I recognise the failures of previous Conservative (and labour) administrations and the successes of this and recent labour administrations.

        I don’t want to live in the past being dogmatic and referring everything that is negative about LGBT rights and some political parties to events from the 1980s and before. Whilst I think it is important to learn from the past and ensure that repeats do not happen, it is also important to have self respect and recognise that people and parties can learn. I will be honest I do not trust the Conservative party with many things (although I think the coalition was the best of a bad set of choices at the last election). However, on the whole, in terms of LGBT issues I have no current complaint other than a more dynamic approach to equalisation of marriage would be appreciated.

        1. Beberts: Other than Sec. 28, what other anti-gay rights legislation did the nasty Tories implement? And whilst you’re at it, please give us the very long list of the new anti-gay laws they want to enforce on us?

    4. Paddyswurds 23 Jun 2011, 12:47pm

      @Eeddy2…
      …Ian McKellen call’s himself a Queen on occasion.
      Since when did the term “queen” in the GLB community become a derogratory term comparable with the racist “n” word. Stop whinging people. How many other countries have the Gay community in to the Prime ministers house for tea and chin wag. Looking through the comments on this page , i’m afraid we are in danger of being labeled a bunch of ungrateful whinging nancy boys. Count yerselves lucky you don’t live in Uganda or some other such hell hole.

    5. Dan Filson 24 Jun 2011, 2:47pm

      Serena will not have taken offence at being called a queen.

  6. I wondered how long it would be before someone was offended by the word “Queen” get a grip, in a country where people are scared of saying anything (Thanks to Labour) we finally have a PM with a sense of humor. David Cameron could announce he was changing the law for more equality and you’d still fire shots at him simply because he’s a tory. Fair play to him.

    1. I have no idea who you are but offence is objective dont tell us how to think and feel you dick. If someone is offended accept it or fcuk off

      1. Personally, I don’t get offended by anything or anyone. Which is why im sat here smirking at you.

        1. course not I bet if you got called a poof you’d think its banter

          1. @James!

            Depending who said it, the intention behind it and the method of delivery, it might be banter … and thats perfectly acceptable … but in other scenarios is might be harassment and thats not. Interestingly, most of us are sophisticated to know that very few things are black and white in terms of absolutes – so queen, poof, f@ggot and various other forms of vernacular against the LGBT communities or race terminology or religious terminology or whatever can be acceptable depending from whom to whom and the intention – but often will not be.
            As for Cameron’s use, in the context of the situation I have no problem with his humour

          2. Paddyswurds 23 Jun 2011, 12:52pm

            @Stu
            ….– “so queen, poof, f@ggot and various other forms of vernacular against the LGBT communities or race terminology or religious terminology or whatever can be acceptable depending from whom to whom and the intention – but often will not be.” ……. especially if you are James! who seems to have gotten out of bed wrong side…..lol

      2. Staircase2 23 Jun 2011, 2:03am

        What you mean ‘I have no idea who you are’………. you don’t know who ANYONE on here is..lol
        I agree – its a tad stupid to get offended by the word ‘Queen’.
        Would I have used it? No – simply because I feel it contains gay men in a cliche. But I know plenty of gay men of a certain age who use it regularly. I just wince because it feels like a pigeon hole – but for them its an acceptable term from an historic sub culture.
        PS FAR more worrying is the fact that Cameron is using it to try to be cool which I find creepy.

    2. Ah shut up you big queen. Not surprised you wouldn’t be offended tho, go and get a sunbed your tan looks like it needs topping up. You might be okay being called a queen, but I don’t like it, especially by a prime minister who has a record of homophobic voting at a reception for the gay community. But I guess it’s a step from him thinking we aren’t worthy of even being spoken of in schools like he thought in 2003. Its not great that people think it’s now okay to call gay guys queens, and that gay guys like you defend him, all because you’re a tory. So I think it’s you who needs to get a grip, queen.

      1. Gay people are their own worse enemy. It’s ok for a gay person to call someone a Queen, but heaven forbid someone straight say it.

        1. No, gay people are not their own worst enemy. I’d say homophobes are our worst enemy, Cameron was one of our worst enemies when he voted to keep section 28, but you defend him and think we’re out own worst enemies? That’s some weird logic you’ve got going on there Craig. And yep, you’re exactly right, a straight guy shouldn’t use those terms that they first thought up as insults. Faggot, queer, puff, queen, pansy etc were thought up by straight people. So no it’s not okay for a straight man with a history of homophobia to use it for some cheap nervous laughs in my books.

          1. Yes they are, the N word is regularly used within the black community towards one another. Yet if a white man says it, it is racism. Stu hit the nail on the head, it’s how to word is put to the person it’s intended for. Fact is, you can call David Cameron a “Homophobic” for legislation introduced in the 80’s by a different government, for which he has apologised for, but the government that went on and repealed it ended up sending us into an ilegal war, where thousands of innocent people as well as british soldiers lost their life’s, but no doubt with your liberal left views you went ahead anyway and voted for him again.

          2. Cameron has apologised for Sec 28, he is furthering the gay rights agenda, if this makes him our worst enemy then god help most of the world and people in this country then! They must be monsters.

            I agree with Craig here. Gay people can call each other gay, queen, queer blah blah and it is fine…. but Cameron used the word ‘queen’ in a jokey way and you’re up in arms. You couldn’t make it up. Crazy! You’re not happy unless everyone is against ‘us’, so you can keep moaning and whining.

          3. Craig, you’re right, white can’t use the term nlgger to describe a black guy, and straight guys shouldn’t use the term queen to describe gay guys. And I’m not talking about a government from the 80’s, I’m talking about cameron voting to keep section 28 in 2003, which was homophobic of him. Can’t you admit that, even though you’re a tory? And who said I’m a liberal or that I voted for labour? As for war, my Dad got killed in argentina after thatcher sent him to defend a bloody stupid island in the middle of nowhere, so I know all about men being sent to their deaths by governments. Are you that soldier btw.

          4. Staircase2 23 Jun 2011, 2:05am

            Actually – the largest part and the most effective part of oppression is the collusion of those who are oppressed.

          5. @Eddy Two

            It appears to me that Cameron has learned from his errors on Section 28 – I may be wrong, and I hope I am not – but he seems keen to ensuer equality – we need to keep him to that.

            Regardless, he is the Prime Minister and he is the person who sets the agenda so we need to work with him to ensure the agenda is correct and equal – not work against him and conspire to ensure no change in LGBT rights.

      2. Eddy Two: Cameron actually did not vote to keep Sec. 28. He voted against the second reading to repeal the bill but the actual vote that repealed the bill, he abstained, therefore, he did not vote to keep Sec. 28. Cameron has apologised on behalf of his party for the Act. Now move on.

        1. Do you really want me to get the tory cabinet’s record on gay rights out. It ‘aint pretty. cameron did vote to keep sec 28, as well as denying gay couples to adopt. When the tories do as much for gay rights as the last government did, we can say the tories have done something for gay rights. But so far, they have done nothing. Except as you pointed out, pledged they will delete past records of homophobic convictions. They haven’t done that yet either.

          1. Eddy, you are on repeat. Go and read the Gaurdian or something, we are well aware of your hate towards the Tories. But you’ve got to accept that he doesn’t have a time machine to go back and correct whatever your grievances are. You should be happy that he’s continuing the lasts governments interaction with the gay community something un imaginable in the 80s, it’s called progress. But like I said before, Cameron could legalise gay marriage tomorrow and you’d still be shouting section 28.

          2. Hate towards the Tories? Why should we? Perhaps because they are anti-gay? Perhaps because they take money from the poor to give to the rich? Perhaps because they are switching off the life support of the sick? Perhaps because they are planning to criminalise the homeless? Perhaps because they are evicting poor families and sending them to nowhere or leaving them on the streets? Perhaps because most of their members, including senior ones, think it’s funny to make crass homophobic jokes in the Parliament on National TV? Perhaps because their “Equalities” Minister is a homophobe? Perhaps because their minister thinks B&Bs should have the right to deny servicing gay people? Those surely aren’t enough reasons, or are they?

          3. This is Britain in 2011. Don’t hate the Tories just because they are homophobes peeps. Hate them because they are just plain nasty.

          4. Eddy two, Cameron did not vote to keep Sec 28. He voted against the second reading of the bill (to repeal it) but on the final vote, he abstained. Which tells me he did not want to vote to keep Sec 28, despite a three line whip. He voted in favour of Civil Partnerships, which a majority of Tories did. He also voted in favour of the sexual orientation regulations and not a single shadow cabinet member at the time (2007) voted against it. Cameron has also expressed support for the equality Act, religious civil partnerships, same sex marriage (according to Pink News) amongst other things.

            The Freedom bill, far as I am aware has not received Royal Assent but when it does, gay convictions can be deleted from then. BTW, the last governments record is pretty good and I am thankful for the changes. Cameron always acknowledges this. But lets remember, the last government were sent to court first before many of the changes actually took place. Homophobic?

          5. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 8:30am

            Well then eddy two, lets give them a chance to do things.
            At least so early in the parliament we can see what they are planning.

          6. Give them time to do what? Even more damage? They are already well into their second year and see what we got. An Equalities minister in urgent need of diversity education herself. Equality bodies and legislation being treated as red tape to be sent to the scrap. What are you waiting for? A new oven perhaps?

          7. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 2:21pm

            Beberts
            Like I said leave 1982 behind come join us in 2011 where things are actually happening.

            Stop whinging for the sake of it, you do yourself no credit.

          8. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 3:03pm

            Trouble is Beberts, over-senstive types like yourself and eddy two do the real serious cases of Real homophobia and tackling it, no favours and do real harm by turning it into a joke for all to see.
            -

          9. Over sensitives? Any more personal insults you big queen? You should change your name to big queen, it’ll go with your union jack. You big queen.

          10. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 3:53pm

            Indeed it would go but for now happy to still to the one I use ta.

      3. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 8:27am

        Thing is eddy two, people in the know, know that Sir Ian does joke around calling himself that so for those that know it’s hard to be offended by it as we can see the funny side of it.

        Yet again I guess assumptions rule.

        1. Are they your assumptions you’re talking about? How do you know Ian wouldn’t be offended? I know Ian, so I probs have a better idea of what he’d think. But it’s not really about Ian, I don’t speak for him. It’s about me, I don’t like being called a queen. I find it offensive. You enjoy being called a queen. Great, you big queen.

          1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 2:23pm

            Well luckily for me I guess like Sir Ian, I’m not someone who gets easily offended by petty things.

            I save that for the real homophobic issues.

          2. How do you know Ian McKellan wouldn’t be offended? He didn’t even show up to the event. If Ian hadn’t been offended by homophobic slurs by politicians with homophobic voting records, maybe he would have attended. You might have a barometer of ‘petty’ homophobia, but homophobia is homophobia in my books, all homophobia is real. And a straight prime minister with a history of homophobic voting records calling a gay man a queen is homophobic, you big queen, especially when one of the central issues at the event was about respect. You might enjoy being thought of as a woman, I don’t, queen.

          3. @Eddy Two

            I see you dont deny that the bandying around of the term queen is a pretty petty thing.

            Now, I don’t know Sir Ian, but I have met him once – and my recollection was that he used the phrase queen more than once to refer to himself or someone else with gay guys and straight guys alike.

          4. Wrong, I didn’t say that it was petty. It isn’t petty. It’s queen jock who thinks there is a measure of homophobia, Like I said, homophobia is homophobia, and a straight man using the word queen to describe a gay man is homophobic. It isn’t petty. You big queen.

          5. @Eddy Two

            No, I didnt say you thought something was petty – I said you were being petty

          6. de Villiers 24 Jun 2011, 3:59pm

            Eddy, your use of the term queen is not insulting because of the word “queen”. Your repetition strips it of its meaning and it becomes instead a word of insult stripped of any other meaning. If you used the word “carrot” in every instance that you have used the word “queen” it would have the same effect.

    3. Paddyswurds 23 Jun 2011, 12:49pm

      @Craig…
      ….i’m no fan of the Tories but…Hear, Hear!!

  7. Great to hear the UK will use its influence to seek to improve LGBT rights in Africa and elsewhere

    1. It should start here give us utopia then tell the world how to live

      1. @James!

        Appealing as that it – it is just not realistic

    2. Rich (original) 23 Jun 2011, 12:11am

      influence of bloody u.k. suckers…. hehehe…. you are an idiot, “stu”!

      1. That’s right, use Inulting and derogatory remarks to someone simply because you don’t agree with them. Very mature, thank god you are not debating gay rights on behalf of the gay community, they’d bring the death penalty back.

        1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 8:47am

          Craig
          He pretends he doesn’t agree with the LGBTQI community, though he does spend an awful lot of time here.

      2. @Rich (original)

        Well clearly you don’t know how to debate – because resorting to demeaning name and insults is hardly debate – and the actions of juvenile with inadequate education (IMHO).

        As for UK influence – one of permanent 5 of the UN security council, still one of the major military powers, major member of the Commonwealth, significant member of the EU, member of NATO, member of G8, etc etc

        So, sucker (to use your terminology) the reality is the UK have significant influence … and are not ashamed to use it – perhaps not as vast an influence as in a few decades ago – but nonetheless we do have influence.

      3. More incoherent abuse from Rich (Original) I see.
        .
        Obviously is name does not do what it says on the label
        .
        In summary, more sock puppetry

  8. Be on the look out for Christian terrorist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

  9. David Cameron used the word ‘queen’ and some fo you are going crazy, desperately trying to scream homophobia.

    Get a grip you idiots.

    Cameron can not win. He does does this reception, the government furthers the gay agenda (debatable how fat or far etc, I accept) and you complain. If they had done nothing, you’d be complaining, if they had gone backwards, you’d be moaning (rightly so!). A no win situation here.

    Moan, moan moan. Everyone is so homophobic. Get a stupid grip and welcome this. I have had enough of some people in the gay community, moan and bloody moan. The gay rights agenda is moving forward. We will get there, there is a lot more work to be done but we have so much to be proud of. We’re SO lucky to be from the UK. Most countries do not have the rights we have or a supportive PM.

    Just give it a rest for ONE thread. Go on. Chill.

    1. Finally, someone not dealing the homophobic cards.

      1. Homophobic cards? Are you for real?

    2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 8:48am

      Well said, Luke!!

    3. Absolutely, Luke

      Lets deal with what we have and encourage more development of rights – lets keep our allies and encourage them to seek more in terms of LGBT equality and support. Accusing people of homophobia based on historical acts for which they have apologised is both disingenuous and dishonest – and damages and campaign to improve things for LGBT people.

    4. I think it’s homophobic for a straight guy to call us queens. You don’t mind being called a queen. Great, you big queen. But I don’t like it. I’m allowed to say that. Don’t tell me to get a grip cause I don’t like being called a queen by the prime minister, just because you voted tory. Why should I chill?

      1. You are a big mardy queeny queen. Moan and groan 24/7…..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        1. I’m offended by being called a queen. So don’t use that term to describe me. Unlike you, you big queen.

          1. de Villiers 25 Jun 2011, 11:27am

            Eddy, your use of the term queen is not insulting because of the word “queen”. Your repetition strips it of its meaning and it becomes instead a word of insult stripped of any other meaning. If you used the word “carrot” in every instance that you have used the word “queen” it would have the same effect.

          2. @Eddy two

            The double standards and hypocracy of your last comment are laughable and do you no benefit in terms of demonstrating any sense of mature, rational or honest debate.

      2. @Eddy Two

        Not sure who the comment was particularly directed at, but for the record – I didnt vote Tory

  10. Good on David Cameron. We should rejoice that we have a champion at the heart of Government in the Prime Minister himself!

    As for objecting to the word ‘Queen’, come on, guys, get a life and lighten up! x

  11. Good for Cameron, and as for his joke about two queens, just shows how comfortable he is with his own sexuality and ours.

    And has for those that hark on about section 28 – move on – Cameron has accepted he was wrong on this and has moved with the times. Are you going to boycott pasta because of Roman atrocities in Britain 1500 years ago or turn purple with rage whenever you see an Audi cos of WWII?

    If he can move on so can you, or are you so perfect you’ve never put a foot wrong?.

    1. Yes he did a massive u-turn on section 28 did’nt he? ,just like the nhs, sentencing on crime etc . Not very consistent as a leader.

      1. Finally nice to see someone comment on the real reason of being against David Cameron, not because of section 28, or any other gay related issues, but simply because he’s a Tory.

      2. U Turn the famous media catch phrase. The problem with this country is we have had government after government implementing policy’s with out people’s input, when the government announces a “U turn”. They get ridiculed for listening to the people. Personally I’d rather the government u turn, it’s enables them to get the correct policy in order. Obviously this doesn’t make a difference to you, because no matter what they do you will always feel hard done by. “Tories picking on the poor, they are for the rich” blah blah blah

        1. They clearly don’t listen or respect the input of young people when it comes to education.

          1. So again this is clearly a political stance and not a stance on LGBT equality

          2. any proposed stance by a government on lgbt equality is political. If you are confused by my comment it was a courteous response to craig on his where he seemed insistant that the tories listened to the people of the uk, i was helping him to realise that is not true.

          3. @Rapture

            Its difficult to take individual comments in isolation on these boards, and in the context of what was being discussed it seemed that you were overtly politicizing the issue of LGBT rights which should transcend party politics.

          4. @stu it maybe difficult to isolate specific commentary but you seem to have a selective knack to it.

          5. @rapture

            That was not intentional but I perceived you education comment as irrelevant to this particular thread and demonstrating political views (of which I agree) in a matter that should transcend politics and where the PM is being positively supportive of the LGBT communities

      3. Rapture: Yes Cameron did apologise for Sec. 28 but it is very sad that you make it obvious you wish he did not apologise for it and wished it was in the Conservative 2010 manifesto. How pathetic and bitter you really are. You can stay in the 1980s. Everything is Thatcher’s fault. Absolutely everything.

        1. Cameron, along with many other tory party cabinet members voted to keep section 28 in 2003, that’s not in the 80’s. Why can’t you accept that? Do you really feel so bad that you voted for a load of homophobes that you have to bury your head in the sand and pretend it didn’t happen?

          1. You are incapable of a rational debate. Cameron did NOT vote to keep Sec. 28. He voted to oppose the second reading (three line whip) but on the legislation itself, he did not place a vote either way, despite a three line whip. This tells me he didn’t want to vote to keep Sec. 28.

            Evidence: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-10&number=109&mpn=David_Cameron&mpc=Witney&house=commons

            Local Government Bill — Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality (Section 28) — 10 Mar 2003 at 19:29

            David Cameron MP, Witney did not vote.

            Now, stop telling porkies. Move on.

          2. Rational debate? Is that before you send me to the moon on a rocket, or after? What’s funny about that link is that it shows the majority of tories voted to keep the act, but fortunately they lost. So probs not the best link to post here as it proves how homophobic the tories are.

          3. The link shows that Cameron did not vote for Sec. 28. So stop telling lies.

          4. The link shows that the majority of tories voted to keep section 28 in 2003, by a huge majority. And Cameron didn’t think it was important enough to bother turning up to vote for our equality, after voting to oppose the second reading. Like I said, probs not the best link you could have posted from tory HQ, seeing as it shows how homophobic the tories were in 2003.

          5. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 10:24am

            Note the hypocritical comments again.

            “And Cameron didn’t think it was important enough to bother turning up to vote for our equality”

            Whenever I pick this same comment up about Gordon Brown I get told it’s because he’s too busy.

            Hypocrite much Eddy Two?

  12. “Recently, Britain was named the best place for gay equality in Europe. I don’t think that means we should be complacent” ….yes but actually I’m going to be quite complacent about marriage equality…for something that is due to be consulted upon in a few weeks time then I think it merits some comment during this reception or is it still too controversial to mention by the PM….it makes me feel that it really isn’t on the agenda at all and reminds me of the open ended timetable on it and the words that Lynne Featherstone used to the church times on it that the whole process on marriage equlaity will be in baby steps..

  13. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 7:51am

    I’m please he was so welcoming and spoke sense about the issues he covered.

    It is important that if we are to give aid to these African countries we have a right to tackle homophobia in that country.

    It is also important that people are clear to see religious Civil Partnerships as successful and add to the framework of marriage Equality.

    Yes I know there is more to be done but I think overall this has been a good, visible, positive event and I hope there will be many, many more to tackle the inequalities that still remain in our society.

    1. No mention of marriage equality. Not even a hint. Not even the most publicised “consultation” on the matter … oh well, he may have forgotten that, that’s really not important, is it, oh dear…

    2. Can you see the word “useless” before the word “consultation”? No? It’s a Tory trick. They can make that word invisible.

    3. JST – we are just 2 weeks away from the consultation on marriage equality and yet THIS doesn’t get mentioned at all… The consultation on “religious” CP ends today…what we will get is a secular CP that can be registered on a religious premise with opts out for the main churches not to do them. This change will affect a handful of people but marriage equality will affect us all and yet again there is no mention of it. I want people who attend these receptions to work for us. We have clearly asked for marriage equality in the UK and yet again no-one speaks out for it. Yes, we have Billie Jean King, Ben Summerskil etc but are they listening to us?????

      1. The consultation is in two weeks, hold your breathe and wait it. Chill out.

        The reception was about gay people in sport and how we can help gay people to be themselves.

        1. No Luke, the party was not only about gay people in Sport. That wasn’t the only thing that was mentioned, marrigae equality is now owned by this government , it’s their consultation that starts in 2 weeks time and it’s their responbility to promote it and to ensure that we actually get it . I have no intention of chilling out and letting the opportuinity pass me by and yes I’m very , very disappointed it wasn’t mentioned at all by no-one! It’s very unusal not to mention it since it’s is the next big thing on their agenda and is only 2 weeks away!!! In their last party, religious CPs were mentioned, are you really suggesting that that party was simply to do with religious CP and nothing else, how ridiculous and naive!

          1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 12:13pm

            Actually john this was a reception on Homophobia in Sport and Schools.

            Also how do you know marriage Equality wasn’t mentioned at all, was you their to hear everything?

          2. I think we’d know if he’d mentioned anything to do with marriage equality. Were you there to hear everything?

          3. JSP – didn’t you read what he said..the may focuses on Sport but he did find the opportunity to mention other things apart from marriage equality..we depend on the media and such to tell us what he said, I’m not privy to any private conversations he has!!!

  14. The comments on this post just highlight how appalling members of the gay community can act. I’m all for freedom of expression but is it any wonder gays in general are pigeonholed as bitter rancid queens when all we do is scrap and insult eachother?! How about we give our overinflated egos a rest and display a united front to try and achieve even more progress on the gay rights front?
    I’m a gay man who votes labour but I have to say I do think Cameron is leading his party down a path that is beneficial to our cause. Yes he has had different opinions in the past but it’s what he does now and in the future that matters. I would understand all of this bitterness on this blog if he had held an anti gay meeting at number 10… But this wasn’t the case.

    1. Well, you’re almost right. He held a “party” to highlight and claim for himself some progresses and debates initiated by the last government. His own government has done fcuk all, zero some, nada, zilt, hasn’t introduced anything new to the gay community. He placed a few mirrors in the room and set a smoke machine off and voila The “New” Nasty Party “welcomes teh gays”. Blimey, I forgot, he had a new insight in what he thinks we need, and dispatched teh gay Tory Nick Herbert to Poland to confront dangerous homophobic bigots. What an idea… he’s a genious.

      1. You’re pretty nasty, bitter and twisted I must say.

        1. But saying “I wish the Tories would put you on a rocket and send you to another planet” to me above isn’t? I think that description might be of what you saw in the mirror this morning.

          1. de Villiers 24 Jun 2011, 12:21am

            It’s not bitter. It was in frustration. I have no doubt that the Conservative Party used to be very homophobic. I have no doubt that it is no longer. Watching a Prime Minister of the Right hold and support a gay party is real and significant.

      2. Agreed , well said.

      3. Stuck in the past, Beberts – makes you bitter and twisted …. oh sorry, more bitter and twisted … and does NOTHING to advance the cause of LGBT equality

        1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 12:17pm

          Indeed.
          Trouble with being struck in the past you can’t do you best to fight for a decent future.
          Which means while they bitch about the past, whilst stuck there, they are really no better than those they bitch about.

          1. So you think this guy is stuck in the past,

            http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1424541_historian-reveals-how-manchester-doctors-used-electric-shocks-to-cure-homosexuals

            No one is stuck in the past. But the trouble with pretending the past never happened is you can’t stop it happening again in the future.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 2:27pm

            Nobody’s pretending anything eddy two.
            We just adults who come to realise nothings perfect but things change.
            Most of us aren’t afraid of that but clearly some of you are.

            Not saying it’s good or bad but it does hold back progress.

          3. So, you big queen, remembering the holocaust holds back progress for Jewish rights? Or remembering slavery holds back progress for black rights? Really? I’m not afraid to face the past like you are, I live in the present and I change the future.

          4. @Eddy Two

            Where the hell does the holocaust come in all of this?

            Yet again Godwins law raises its ugly head.

            I would argue that the case from the MEN that you refer to is largely referring to the past. Those activities occurred on a widespread basis in the PAST in the UK when homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness – which it has not been for decades.

            I believe we have to know about the past and learn from it – but to refuse to accept that individuals can change is damaging and fails to advance our cause.

            The pure fact is Cameron is making a decisive stand full of integrity on LGBT rights. His past is not blameless but then you can say that of many in public live such as Martin McGuinness.

          5. I always think godwins law gets brought up mainly by right wing holocaust deniers. Stops people talking about it. If you read the comment you’ll see that I was responding to that big queen jock who thinks that by talking about the past you can’t change the future. Do you think that the Jews shouldn’t talk about the holocaust and that if they do they are bitter and twisted and live in the past? or that black people are bitter and twisted if they talk about slavery? So why would you think that about a gay man who talks about the tories homophobic past? You big queen.

          6. …to refuse to accept that individuals can change is damaging and fails to advance our cause…
            .
            It seems some ppl would be willing to give another chance to the Nazzis, and believe they can change. Is that correct?

          7. @Eddy two

            Maybe you get Godwins law brought up so often because you infringe it so often.

            No I dont think the Jews should forget the holocaust, not should black people forget slavery or apertheid, or the Irish forget the troubles etc etc

            However, in South Africa they have recalled the past but sought reconciliation, as they have in Ireland. There has been acknowledgements of abolition of slavery and that positive growth and support has been achieved in terms of positive discrimination at times etc

            It would be churlish to suggest everything is perfect and rosy but equally it would be churlish to harp on about views that occurred principally in the 1980s and not allow people to demonstrate they have changed and want to bring about dynamic improvements. Harping on about something from years ago damages our current fight. Remember it, respect what happened by those fighting for rights at the time, hold the people to account and scrutiny – but let go of the past too.

          8. @Eddy two

            I am not right wing and I am not a holocaust denier.

            @Beberts

            Where has anyone on this thread suggested giving the N@zis another chance? Idiot

          9. de Villiers 24 Jun 2011, 12:25am

            Eddy2 – I know Jews who certainly acknowledge the holocaust but they do not live in the past and they have no difficulty buying German products. I agree that we should all remember and be vigilant. However, I also am happy to acknowledge progress and move on.

          10. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 10:30am

            Stu
            Thats what Beberts is calling the Tory Party!!
            Think he must be all of 12 years old coz he certainly doesn’t know his history.

          11. @Jock S Trap

            I’m fairly sure you’re correct and the N@zi is Beberts pseudonym for the Tories. Simply more child like infantile behaviour.

            I’m not going to play his/her games and will presume that he/she is referring to a N@zi party because that is what they say – unless they wish to be candid about what they mean. Of course, doing so woould demonstrate their lack of historical knowledge, lack of accuracy, bias and lack of perspective.

    2. .@Brett, unfortunately, like it or not life is political, and although I sympathise with you in relation to back biting so to speak. Show me progress and change without tensions and strife

  15. Yay! Go Cameron! For a Conservative government to be behaving like this is a wonderful step in the right direction. You’d never have caught Maggie hosting something like this. And I love the fact that it wasn’t all violins and hand-holding; a few jokes make it seem more natural and more believable. Which perhaps it was meant to, but it worked on me! I’d be a fool to believe everything he says on face value, but the same can be said of any politician talking about any issue. Vindication at last! In yer face everyone who said I was a massochist for voting tory…

    1. I didnt and still couldnt vote Tory, there is still a way to go on other issues that mean I couldnt vote for them – but that is more to do with health, policing, defense and Immigration.

      In terms of LGBT issues (and surprisingly some other concerns), I feel more willing to support them than I ever have – although with hesitation. I need some reassurance that it is going to be more than good words – which it has been. One piece of reassurance for me would be a clear demonstration on the issue of equal marriage – sadly that was missing last night – but does not mean there is no such clear demonstration planned.

      I do not want to base my views on Conservatives on the days of Section 28, Heseltine and Thatcher anymore than I want to base my views of Labour on the 1980s and Kinnock, Hattersley and CND. Its outdated, and wrong. Yes remember the history – but think of now and the future and make sure we do not make the same mistakes of the past.

      1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 12:24pm

        If it wasn’t for where the economy was heading I wouldn’t have voted Tory.
        Still first time for everything and I have to say if another Election was tomorrow I would deffo be voting Tory again.
        Will 2015 see me vote Tory again, for a second time? possibly.
        They all have to earn my vote.
        I know I can never vote Labour with Eds Bilibore and Ball-Up at the top.
        They need fresh blood to be electable again.
        People not centred around Blair or Brown.

        However if the Unions insist on major strike it won’t matter if I don’t vote Tory because the Unions will hand the next term to them outright I would imagine.

        1. I must admit its the economy that might have persuaded me to vote tory if I had been in a different constituency. I feel more comfortable with the Tories than I ever have but still dont quite trust them. I also think they have gone too hard and too fast at the economy but I agree action was needed. I also agree Cameron appears to have shown his belief in gay rights, his action needs to now support his words.

          1. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 10:32am

            totally agree he needs to be seen taking the action.

          2. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 10:35am

            Having said that the reception is a great start.
            It shows commitment.

  16. This is why I despise Tories.

    They should be pressuring them since the last conservative government. But back then and I’m sure even now thee are right wing Tory elements that support what happens in African countries.

    For call me Dave to stand their saying how great uk is for lgbt people and rights is a down right lie.

    There is still rampant discrimination and violent homophobia on the streets. Especially in his precious London. This is a guy who cares so much about us he wants a consultation asking religious nut jobs should we be allowed marriage …. Hmm wonder what they will say. Fact is he said about this consultation a year ago, there shouldn’t be one as the right to marry is a fundamental right of society. Also no to mention the fact marriage has nothing to do with religion it was around a long time before Christianity and will be around long after.

    Offer State marriage to all who want it irrelevant of sexuality.

    1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 12:30pm

      “There is still rampant discrimination and violent homophobia on the streets.”

      There is also serious problem with children in gangs, knife crime, gun crime which prodominately with black or asian youths.
      However would I say either are rampant? No.
      It’s just you only get to hear bad news in the media because it sells.
      You don’t get to here the many, mant more counter arguements of people who live perfectly happy being open and honest about themselves and providing to the community.

      Fact is this is a legacy that Labour have left us with which I really hope this coalition will get some kind of action to get under control

  17. Just re read and saw he called sir Ian a queen !

    I find that highly offensive. Sir Ian may call himself a queen and his friends might for fun. But David Cameron calling the man a queen having a joke about it I do not find flattering.

    I’m sure sir Ian being the man he is probably brushed it off and maybe chuckled himself but I dunno I don’t think much of it.

    If some random person called me a queen I would ask why they think that. Being gay makes you a queen ?

    I dunno I may be over reacting to it but once someone starts whith jokes they will soon take them too far.

    1. You are not over reacting , dave thought he was down with it ,making his stupid little quip. And reading some of the comments here it would same theres a tale of two britains in peoples experience and it is an insult for cameron to assume we are content with the crumbs off the table.

      1. @Rapture

        There are changes that are needed to improve LGBT rights but FFS we are more equal than most nations and the coalition government has made it perfectly clear that it intends improving things so your “crumbs off the table” is emotional and inaccurate.

        1. “we are more equal than most nations” but not equal , and i find it very distasteful to compare nations on which is worst for equality , its not a competition and deflective from the point.. To demand the same rights as every other citizen and see anything less as unjust is hardly an inaccurate or emotional response From what i’ve seen so far of the coalition, i have no blind faith in their intentions.

        2. @Rapture

          Equally I do not have blind faith – you will see in my comments above that Cameron and Clegg (in my opinion) need to redouble their efforts to ensure that they demonstrate true commitment to real LGBT equality.
          We need to have balance and realism in our fight for equality. We have had many successes which are to be celebrated and not all can be measured in terms of legislation or statistics – some are in terms of cultural change.
          We do have more to fight for and I wholeheartedly agree until we are truly equal we will not have real equality – but by demonising those who have evidenced they wish to support us we set back our battle for true equality. We need to recognise our allies and persuade them to accelerate and enhance those rights we seek and already have.

          1. From the shower of politicians in this country, i will reserve prudent cynicism with anything they say.

      2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 12:33pm

        Thing is what makes you both think David Cameron didn’t check with Sir Ian before he made the joke?

        1. And what makes you think he did?

        2. Does that mean if Michael Portillo or Michael Howard allowed him to call them mongrels, the public at large should accept it as something amusing?

    2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 12:32pm

      Yes you are totally over-reacting Adam88, overdoing it somewhat too.

      1. No he isn’t over reacting, like you said on another thread, he’s entitled to his opinion. He finds being called a queen offensive, and so do I. You be happy getting called queen by a straight man who has a history of homophobia, you big queen, but don’t try and say someone is over reacting because they don’t want to be called queen.

        1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 2:32pm

          Ironic that you claim not to like it call all it and act very much like a bitter one yourself.

          Strap on a pair or grow a pair but either way grow up and stop being so over emotional.

          Yes your right to say things is just the same as mine.

          1. I’ve never called anyone a queen in my life before Cameron used the word. Ever. But as you don’t mind being called a queen and don’t think its offensive, why are you bothered? You big queen. Does grow up mean to accept homophobic abuse from the prime minister like you are? Queen.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 3:13pm

            Well maybe I’m greatful that at the reception nobody else seemed to be offended and took the joke as it stood.
            It was unlikely anybody would have passed quietly if they had objected to it.

            As for the rest of your comment, all I can say is, oh dear!!
            When I lived through the serious homophobia, the last continuing for 4 years being called a queen would have been the least of my worries, so no being called it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
            Being threatened with violence, worrying about having your throat cut while being called dirty scum because someone broke into you home and discovered your Gay, Thats the real issue. That I worry about.
            Not children calling you a queen. It’s just not that serious in the event of things eddy two.

          3. I’m not talking about children calling me a queen, I’m talking about the prime minister calling me a queen. And like you said to me, stop being over emotional with some sob story, you big queen. If I was a child I might even say, grow up and grow some, like you said to me earlier. You big queen.

          4. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 3:38pm

            That “sob story” is what I lived through.
            Not some child like yourself getting all emotional and pathetic over a silly little name that had nothing to do with you.

            Get Real and Get a life and more to the point Stop cheapening the effects of Real homophobia.
            You do us no favour by damaging us as a community.

          5. Damaging you as a community? How emotional. You big drama queen. When I spend as long as you do on pink news, I’ll know I need to get a life. Queen.

          6. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 3:55pm

            LOL, least you make me laugh eddy two.
            :)

          7. Did you laugh as much as you did when you heard David Cameron’s joke about queens?

          8. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 4:36pm

            No eddy two, I save my ‘special’ laugh just for you.

          9. Must be your special needs. Or is like the queen who has a special birthday as well as her real birthday? You big queen.

          10. @Eddy two

            For someone who allegedly hasnt called anyone queen before, you certainly seem to making up for lost time on two threads today

          11. Yep, that’s what happens when the most powerful man in england uses the word to describe a gay man, you queen. And no I’ve never used it before, ever. I’d never refer to one of my mates as a woman. I might call them kings. But not queen.

          12. Some people appear to be willing to allow the Nazzis in again and again, based on the belief they’d be financially better off with them.

          13. @Eddy two

            Well since you clearly think the word queen is demeaning – you are doing a very good job of demeaning yourself by your repeated use of it

            Your double standards and playground antics make me laugh, there is no way your attitude or actions today could be seen in any credible way

          14. @Beberts

            You live in a land of fantasy … no one wants N@zism

          15. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 10:42am

            Beberts
            Your complete disrespect to all those that served, suffered and dead through the second world war and after is duly noted.

            It’s not hard to see why we have a problem when you show just hatred yourself.

    3. You’re not over reacting Adam88. I find being called a queen by a straight man, especially the prime minister very offensive. I’m sure a Jewish man would find it offensive if he had joked about a yid, and I’m sure a black guy would have found it offensive if he’d joked about a nlgger. Being called a queen is no different. Maybe its the older guys who are okay with it?

      1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 2:39pm

        Clearly however old we are we’re not as immature as you.
        I hope with all the love in the world you do grow up to see the difference.
        I don’t feel this is the place for offensive football banter.
        There is absolutely no way queen is even as offensive as those despicable words you seem to brand around freely, clearly as an immature exercise in “look at me”.

        If you want to make issue over nothing thats up to you but I don’t see the need in making your point using such vile words.
        You pick on older people but it is clearly you that needs to grow up.

        1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 2:42pm

          I suspect it has nothing to do with you being even slightly offended by what David Cameron said but more just whinging because David Cameron is actually doing something positive for the LGBTQI community.

          Then you wonder why I ask if you’d rather tis government did nothing so they could please your yurning to moan.

          All your doing is just complaining and complaining because we have a Tory Prime Minister.
          Nothing else.

          Get use to it eddy two.

          1. No, I’m complaining because the prime minister described gay men as queens. I think the word is as offensive as nlgger, g0llywog, fagg0t, poof. You might be okay being called a queen by the prime minister, I’m not. A queen is a woman, a king is a man. You’re obviously a bitch. You big queen.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 3:17pm

            But he didn’t call Gay men queens?
            When did he call Gay men queens?

            Me thinks your imagination works too much. Seeing things that just ain’t there.

            As for the rest of the words you use, there just is not a need.

            The fact you continue to use them shows you up for what You are.

            Truth is if you truely found them as offensive I doubt you’d be writing them.

            I think it’s all a “look at me” attention seeking comment.

          3. Look at me? I think you with your 400 comments a week is a bit more guilty of that. You big drama queen.

          4. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 3:41pm

            Well clearly your keeping score more than I am.

          5. No, just watching the most powerful man in britain making homophobic comments, and idiots like you accepting it as a joke, you big queen.

      2. To be outraged like this on someone else’s behalf (someone in the public eye and well known for self-deprecating humour regarding his sexuality) on the back of a quip that was essentially an ice-breaker is pointless. The reason it was done was to show everyone that the Prime Minister sees us as real people, complete with a sense of humour and a backbone, rather than snivelling victims who need to be wrapped in cotton wool and have their egos massaged. Getting upset every five minutes, when people are trying to help, is totally counterproductive. It’s like the people who lay into Lady Gaga whenever she does something. It just doesn’t help.

        1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 3:18pm

          Sense at last… Here! Here!

        2. No sven, the reason it was said was to show everyone that cameron thinks gay men are queens. queens are women. I’m not a woman, are you? I don’t want to be wrapped in cotton wool or have my ego massaged, I just don’t want the prime minister referring to me as a woman. queens are female. you might be happy being joked about as a woman, a queen, I’m not. It’s those who find it funny that have no backbone, too afraid to stick up for themselves, laughing along with the most powerful man in the country whilst he uses homophobic terms to describe us. There is no comparison between a gay rights activist like lady gaga and david cameron who is not.

          1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 3:40pm

            I repeat, where/when did David Cameron say that Gay men were queens?

          2. “Who can say they’ve had two of Britain’s most prominent queens over in 48 hours”, you’re just not a prominent queen, queen.

          3. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 3:57pm

            and where in that does it say All Gay men are queens?
            Where does it say Your a queen?

            You know you repeat it but it’s still clearly a joke and one people at the reception thought funny.

          4. The person it was said about has spent his life lving openly and happily in defiance of traditional gender norms. That why gender based words like “queen” wash off him like water off a duck. Your disagreement with the female connotations of “queen” is more about sticking to those gender norms, male for males and female for females, and fair enough if that’s how you prefer to see the world. But it wasn’t said about you. It was said about someone who uses the word to describe himself, and it was said as a friendly comment, not a derrogatory slur. You have implied a negative side to the word yourself because of your feelings about gender roles, and decided it was homophobic when it wasn’t.

          5. You can pretend he wasn’t calling gay men queens, but you’re just fooling yourself. What young gay footballer will want to come out of the closet when the prime minister has just called the most famous gay actor a queen? You might be not be insulted being referred to as a queen, I am, queen.

          6. But your young gay footballer will see that the Prime Minister is relaxed and comfortable around gay people, happy to host a dinner for prominent members of the community to talk about progress and make a light joke about the best gay role model in the country when he didn’t turn up. That would help him feel that gays are treated like everyone else and not looked at like “different” people, making it much easier to come out. We don’t want to be special or different; we just want to be the same.

          7. So you think its okay for football fans to call a gay player a queen from the terraces?

          8. No of course I don’t. I wouldn’t appreciate being called it myself either, I admit. But it wasn’t said about me or you or anyone except Ian McKellen, who says it about himself. I do take your point though, that although it was a joke it was possibly a stupid thing to say. I still say though that it was a well-intentioned joke and it helps no one to get offended on behalf of people who don’t take offence themselves.

          9. Snoop Dogg calls himself a nlgger. Do you think it would be okay for Cameron to call Snoop Dogg a nlgger. Because if he did, I think everyone would be able to admit how offensive it was. Cameron was being homophobic when he used that word, he may not know it, but it was homophobic and he should be told it was instead of everyone on here apologising for him because the tories don’t want us to have ECT anymore. The word queen is like g0llyw0g. Imagine if he made a joke about g0llyw0gs at a reception for black people. It ‘aint funny.

          10. Oh come on be sensible. It really isn’t the same at all. There are levels. Are you suggesting that people can’t make a joke about sexuality anymore? Or colour? Or weight? Or nationality? Just because something references some characteristic doesn’t necessarily make it offensive. If we get too precious about this it’ll only help to enforce the stereotype of gay people as walking self-absorbed humourless victim complexes.

          11. Jock S. Trap 23 Jun 2011, 5:17pm

            Totally agree with that sven.
            Here! Here!!

          12. Answer the question Sven. Would it be okay for Cameron to call Snoop Dogg a nlgger? There is nothing characteristic about calling a gay man a queen. If we don’t stop people using homophobic banter, it will always continue. It’s sad how some of you think its okay for the prime minister to use the word queen and how determined you all are to stop me from resisting being called a fuking queen. Must be because you’re all queens, you big queen.

          13. I personally don’t know anyone who would be offended by the word “queen”. It’s an old fashioned term and it’s hardly offensive anymore. It’s used in songs, films, etc. N’gger on the other hand is still used as an insult to black people often and viciously. So it isn’t the same, like I said, so no Cameron wouldn’t get away with saying it. You cannot expect to be immune from all sarcasm, mockery and jokes on account of some characteristic. Going round branding every jokey reference to our sexuality as “homophobic” just makes us look humourless and that is no way to win friends, tolerance or acceptance. No one likes a whiney kid, and that translates into adulthood.

          14. Characteristic? What do you mean by that? Do you walk around with a crown on or a dress? Queen is a derogatory term to me, like nlgger or g0llyw0g is to a black guy. You might not mind being called a queen. But I and every other self respecting gay guy who doesn’t think of themselves as a woman does. Are you a drag queen? I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t be offended by being called a queen, I guess my circle of friends are not as camp as yours. You even said yourself you wouldn’t like it. I’m not talking about every jokey reference like you said. I’m talking about the prime minister and I don’t want him to use the word queen to describe gay men. I’m not whining, I’m responding to people who are trying to shut me up, like you. Its you who is whining at me.

          15. @ Sven: while I agree there are dangers in seeming oversensitive or humourless, i have never heard the term ‘queen’ used approvingly or admiringly, have you? “He’s such a queen” isn’t usually a compliment. And I think for the PM to use the term about a gay man, as though all gay men are by definition queens, is patronising at best and is actually verging on offensive.
            .
            At the very very least, it was unnecessary. I’m sure there are several other ways he could have lightened the atmosphere without resorting to stereotyping,

          16. @Eddy two

            How the hell do you know what Camerons motivation was any more than Sven does?

            I think Svens explanation is far more balanced and reasonable

          17. Stu, that’s because you don’t mind being referred to as a woman. You big queen. But no sportsman would want to be referred to as a woman, which is why they don’t come out of the closet, which is why we don’t have any role models in premiership football which is the main sport that defeated racism in sport. Nlgger and g0llyw0g used to be words commonly heard on the terraces. And when a gay player comes out, it’ll be queen and queer. Will it be funny then? Have you ever been to a football match, you big queen? Nlgger or g0llyw0g is never funny, and neither is queen.

          18. @Eddy two

            Your comment in no way addresses my question.

            Your repeated use of the word queen makes me laugh but is starting to make me feel you are demented.

            I asked you how the hell you know Camerons motivation any better than Sven does?

          19. de Villiers 24 Jun 2011, 12:30am

            > No sven, the reason it was said was to show everyone that cameron thinks gay men are queens.
            .
            I do not think that was the reason.

          20. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 10:48am

            I guess so long as we focus on not having a sense of homour we can try and make people forget about this reception and the positive message it was trying to give us.

            But then isn’t that what your really doing?
            Trying to draw focus away from the good and instead make a mountain out of a molehill.

            Here eddy two, here a empty jar. Nothing but the air that we breathe in it but I give it to you because I just know you of all people can make something out of nothing and turn it into something negative!

  18. Ok, I concede BJK’s presence is a plus. I’m just angry that not a word was spoken about marriage equality. BS was there, it would have been an opportune moment to raise it.

  19. Baroness Warsi, Tory party Chair, “Many of you will remember that in 2005 I smeared my Labour opponent at the General Election by saying that gay equality laws meant he wanted schoolchildren propositioned by homosexuals. Well, my lawyer tells me I don’t believe that any more but I think this is what society needs to get back to.”
    I wonder if she was at the reception?

    1. But she’s changed now , it happened overnight just like theresa may , maybe if society continues to regress in homophobic acceptance , they’ll turn back again and re introduce section 28 or worse. it seems a lot of tories have overnight epiphanies with relation to equality.

      1. de Villiers 24 Jun 2011, 4:02pm

        Or alternatively, if not overnight then over a number of years, which it appears have passed in between these incidents.

  20. Adam88, my only fear is Cameron will cave in to the religious right (Rowan Williams et al). If Cameron can’t distinguish between religious and civil, then he shouldn’t be PM and he’s not a friend or supporter of LGBT people.

    I don’t care what people believe in, as long as they keep their religion out of politics and in the home or place of worship where it belongs. Allowing us to marry isn’t taking away their rights and its not going to compel them to recognise our marriages. This is the message Cameron has to make quite clear, resoundingly so, especially to the hysterical clerics in the state cult and elsewhere and those of their persuasion in the House of Lords.

    Iris and Luke, I think Holland takes full credit for being the trail blazer and leader on marriage equality and in the English speaking world, definitely Canada where it was handled beautifully and a Prime Minister (Paul Martin) who had the courage and the strength of character to support it,

    1. Yes well we’ll see how long that lasts now that Harper has a majority.

    2. de Villiers 24 Jun 2011, 12:34am

      Do you really consider the religious right to consist of Rowan Williams?

      1. Rowan Williams, religous right ?

  21. UK government is supporting LGBTI rights in Africa. See this interview with Frank Mugisha of SMUG in Uganda on the DfID website: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Features/2011/Postcard-from-the-field-fighting-for-gay-rights-in-Uganda/

  22. And in related news, massive lack of productivity among Pink New readers at work today….

  23. David Cameron needs to get in his own countries issues sorted before he worries about others, and even then we cannot dictate how another country chooses to run its self or make laws.

    Why people are so insistant on wanting the uk to meddle in another country I cannot understand, if a country wants to run itself how it chooses then it should be left to it.

  24. Rich (original) 23 Jun 2011, 8:54pm

    I know very well how to debate on intelligent subject, but not how debate on idiotic subject of promotion of rights of homosexual degenerates. Debating on such rights is idiotism, and antithesis of intelligence.

    1. Yet here you are. Again. And again. Still as boring (and frankly idiotic) as you were several weeks ago.
      .
      Oh Jehovallah, here I go again, feeding that damn’ troll . . . !

    2. Again your English has got worse – is that because this is Rich the deputy standing in while your earnstwhile bigoted colleague is off with his boyfriend?

    3. @Rich (Original)
      .
      So why are rights and issues connected with universal sufferage not important to you?
      .
      So why is debating the issue of human rights the antithesis of intelligence?
      .
      So why is it idiotism to seek to emancipate the oppressed and marginalised.

  25. sven, if you’re referring to Canada’s same-sex marriage law, Harper after being elected as the conservative PM called for an examination of the law, but was defeated by a huge majority 175-123 in the House of Commons on December 7, 2006.

    1. Yeah, but he’s got a majority now. I hear rumblings. The website “slap upside the head” is pretty good for keeping tabs.

  26. Rich (original) 23 Jun 2011, 9:23pm

    “gay” rights….. Only homosexual degenerates concerned about their rights in society which don’t need degeneracy…

    1. Eh, sorry? I see you’ve degraded back to the pigeon English level again. What DOES fuel these sudden and rapid fluctuations in your English, I wonder? Hmmm, what could it be…. oh, yes. Silly me. You’re an fraud…. with the IQ if a banana who can’t actually stick to one persona.

    2. @Rich (Original)
      .
      So what National Survey evidence do you have, that only homosexuals are concerned about the emancipation of homosexuals

  27. Rich (original) 24 Jun 2011, 12:36am

    You, homosexual idiots, better be concerned with such poorly oriented individuals as Victoria Carmen White, a transgender person, who was murdered because you, idiots, never cares for her and just talking nonsense here all the time… Her right to life was violated because all of you are born insensitive to her life in your homosexually degenerated U.K. That’s simple and terrible…. Shame on you all!….

    1. And pray how was I supposed to stop this in the UK

      You talk utter garbage and irrelevance Rich

      The murder of an innocent is evil and wrong, but using it as homophobic material is barbaric

    2. @Rich (Original)
      .
      So you are interested in “Transexual sufferage”, are you a transsexual your self ?
      .
      In what way do people on pinknews not care about the sufferage of Transexuals?
      .
      Since you appear to blame UK homosexuals for the death of Victoria Carmen White, I wonder what you think UK homosexuals did or did not do to prevent the death of Victoria.

  28. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 12:57am

    I totally trust the Tories to protect LGBTs from religious loonies across the world.

  29. Africa has its own traditions and values. Gay rights do not exist in our traditions and these will have to be forced on Africans!! Mr. Cameron should not take price in forcing people to accept foreign beliefs and values. I think democracy (where the majority rules) should should shape the laws on homosexuality in Africa. In fact it is mostly foreigners who are coming here in Africa to teach the youth about this strange orientation (to the majority over 90%) and then Europe wants us to accept it wholesale! NO, let those who do it continue doing it in hiding so that Africa is saved!!!

    1. To what extent was democracy part of African traditions and values as you define them?

    2. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 3:41pm

      “Gay rights do not exist in our traditions”
      But Gays, Lesbians etc do exist in your countries, they are Human Beings too and deserve respect just like everybody else.
      This isn’t about traditions is about everybody nature right as a human being.

      “In fact it is mostly foreigners who are coming here in Africa to teach the youth about this strange orientation”
      Yeah, being who we are is not taught dear it just is by birth that religion feels it has the right to override and prove somehow it’s wrong.
      You can’t teach someone to be attracted to someone else that just Not possible, or logical.

      No human should have to hide themselves from bigots.

      Who we are is by birth.
      We do not ask for it, we are it.
      Religion is taught along with it’s bigotted agenda which does nothing for the progression of humanity.

      If rights have to be ‘forced’ so that people can lives their life’s, true to themselves, not to be shamed then so be it.
      We have the right to be who we are, End of.

    3. de Villiers 24 Jun 2011, 4:03pm

      Democracy is a form of electing governments. It is not a theory of individual rights.

    4. To be fair if we go far enough back in traditions then money, computers, cars, wheels, clothing and hygiene don’t exist – I don’t suppose you want to accept these foreign values either?

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