Reader comments · Man arrested over assault in Leicester gay pub · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Man arrested over assault in Leicester gay pub

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. C’mon!!!

  2. Well, I hope they have the right person in custody and can successfully charge them – and that the CPS launch a rigorous prosecution, and that appropriate robust penalties are imposed …

    Nonetheless, I find it strange that a serious assault on men in a gay bar was not considered as a possible hate crime by being homophobic in motivation …

  3. Peter & Michael 28 Oct 2011, 4:11pm

    Well, at least the Police have bothered to make an arrest.

  4. I totally concur with your hopes they have the right person! I am sure that any one with a heart and conscience this week has felt and cared deeply for all the victims of crime Stuart Walker, and the burns victims in Leicester.

    The perpetrators in both cases even never seeing the light of day again is not appropriate or robust enough! What happened to these young men is unforgivable.

    What ever happens to the perpetrator in the courts will be little gratification compared to the life changing impact of victims and families.

    The perpetrators have made victims of all three of their families! for they to will feel helpless as they witness he needless pain, suffering and struggles of these injuries to their loved ones. The emotions and distress of them having to deal with the painful recovery life long impact on their sons lives, hopes and dreams or even their careers is pretty hard psychological struggle to be burdened with in life as a result of some ones malicious actions.

  5. I’m sick of the police claiming it may not be homophobic. It was a gay pub, which is not surrounded by any other pubs (round the corner, so the idiots had to go out of their way to get there). If this attack was against a temple, or afro caribbean centre it would be correctly labelled racist. Why is this different?

    1. Absolutely, or at least treated as homophobic until there is sufficient evidence to prove there was a different motivation …

      Surely competant investigators consider the most likely as priority leads to explore (and there may be more than one) … that does not mean they exclude other leads – but if you play down the most likely you run the risk of failing to secure evidence, alienating segments of the community and being blinkered …

  6. Barebacking spreaders 29 Oct 2011, 10:26am

    The perpetrators were probably homosexuals too since they were in a homosexuals haunt.
    the gay brigade must learn to behave.

    1. Hopefully not to the same standard set by the straight brigade, wouldn’t want to stoop to their level.

    2. Ah! Keith is back with a new pseudonym …

      Yawn Yawn Yawn

      1. Barebacking spreaders 29 Oct 2011, 11:28am

        Why don’t you respond to the post instead of your usual M /O of attacking the poster? If you don’t like the post, ignore it, ridicule it or challenge it but please direct your ‘observations’ to the content.

        1. because the content is dog drool

        2. Why do you even bother to comment? You’ve got serious issues. Sort your head out.

          1. Barebacking spreaders 29 Oct 2011, 12:26pm

            What is it to you. Go on condoning practices that spread disease that kills even innovent babies but avoid the obvious cure of a moral lifestyle. That is abstinence until mutual monogamous marriage.

          2. If there ever was any doubt about this being Keith, then the “spreading diseases to innocent babies” line makes it a certainty …

            How many times do we have to tell you that a baby born with HIV gets it from its mother, a mother carrying a baby required HETEROSEXUAL sex to have occurred … when two men have sex there is no involvement of womb, uterus, ovum etc … so baby is not possible ….

            The fact you persist with your dull, ignorant, evil and judgemental rhetoric despite is sounding idiotic (even at factual value without considering the emotional issues) demonstrates the level of compassion, understanding and humanity that you have … Your “God” if they existed would be far more considerate, honest and caring than you – wouldnt like to be you on judgement day …

          3. Perhaps Keith was referring to cases of ‘gay immaculate conception’, though that also begs more questions than answers, and leaves his argument from divine authority in tatters, not to mention his shaky grasp on biology.
            All these breeding gays huh? How do the maternity wards cope with the sheer volume?

        3. Well, the fact that you choose to respond in such a way identifies that the identity of the person may be relevant, because you seek not to address the concern that a person repeatedly violating common decency on these threads is back under a new pseudonym …

          I don’t attack contributors … I challenge what I perceive to be wrong ideas or inaccurate information …

          Of course I am human and sometimes I bite when aggravated, for which I usually apologise – but nonetheless the majority of my posts are challenging content …

          Your content speaks for itself – bigoted, hate inspired and judgemental (not get to heaven that way ….)

    3. why do you bunch of cnuts keep replying to these idiots . youre a bunch of masochists giving a sadist a stiffy

      1. Can’t do right for doing wrong here

        Yesterday I was told off for not confronting people and using the report function

        Today I get told off for challenging people

        I think I will stick to my own personal preferences, since this is a public forum …

        I certainly don’t respond to foul mouthed insults, James!

        1. Ahhhhh. You’re such a sweet guy. I mean that sincerely and not sarcastcially. You know James! is angry, about everything. He just needs some loving.

          1. Thanks, Kyle!

        2. “I certainly don’t respond to foul mouthed insults, James!”

          You did that when you replied to his comment surely?

          1. @Joss

            Depends how you define respond …

            I certainly don’t give the response they seek …

    4. and your evidence for such comments is …..????

      Ah … speculation! Thats what your “facts” are usually based on, Keith …

      Unfortunately, your hate fuelled, evil suppositions wouldn’t know fact if it hit them round the face with a crucifix and shouted “I’m a fact, I’m a fact …”

  7. Below is a link to the Leicester mercury article on the candle-lit vigil. I was there, It was very powerful and moving, so many people turned up to show their support!

    1. At the end of the article it says that the man arrested in connection with the attacks is free on bail! Is this normal in the UK? Surely if he had any connection to the incident he should be held until a trial…. a person who poses this much danger to society should not be walking the streets!

      1. You can only keep someone in custody beyond 24 hours (unless you get a superintendents authority) and beyond 36 hours (unless you have approval of magistrates) if you have charged them with an offence …

        Having enough suspicion to arrest is not the same as having evidence to charge …

        There needs to be a reasonable chance of gaining the evidence in the extensions if either a Superintendent or court are to approve an extension …

        Just because the crime is horrific, does not mean that we should have a lower standard of requirements for the criminal justice system to detain them … there needs to be justice too – otherwise, there is the risk they walk free from court due to breach of process or unfair treatment etc etc

        1. Interesting! a little different from our system where “Justification for Detention” on “Secondary Grounds” (protection/safety of public) would have been a consideration .

          1. Out of interest, where are you based Steve-R?

            There can be a public interest in terms of seeking someone to be kept in custody post charge – the grounds that can be considered there include:

            Likely to reoffend, Unlikely to respond to bail, Likely to interfere with witnesses, Danger to self, Danger to others, Unlikely to comply with any conditions imposed on bail …

            But all of these (with the exclusion of conditions) can not be put into effect unless there is sufficient evidence to charge … In that circumstance the most rigid enforcement there can be is police bail with conditions attached eg to reside at a particular address, curfew, not to enter certain areas, not to have contact with certain people (including via 3rd parties), surrender passport, report to police station daily etc etc

          2. Canada! Based on research only, I understand that much of the intent is the same, wording varies to the UK.

            Differences which may “sometimes” influence different outcomes are Perpetrators location policed by example RCMP – vs Regional or Municipal police. His/her protection under the “Charter of Rights” and strength of the Prosecution case/evidence.

            The government is currently tabling a crime bill which could change many things.

            Generally though most Canadians feel that criminals have more rights than victims at this time.

          3. @Steve-R

            There certainly is a feeling amongst many in the UK that criminals have more rights that citizens.

            Most offences require the consent of the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) in order for the police to charge. Exceptions being particularly low level crime eg theft from shop (with low financial value).

            Sometimes charges are brought where evidence is not solid, but where “there is a case to answer”, and it is legitimate that a court should consider the case.

            However, the CPS has often been renamed the Criminal Protection Service, as sometimes they seem to think more about either the rights of the criminal or the cost of prosecution, to the detriment of the victim or justice.

  8. This is as an example and is not intended to disrespect the thread of the Leicester attacks. but this link to a video of a gay student being assaulted is a shocking display of the vile hatred in society!

  9. Barebacking spreaders 29 Oct 2011, 4:03pm

    “How many times do we have to tell you that a baby born with HIV gets it from its mother, a mother carrying a baby required HETEROSEXUAL sex to have occurred”
    What is your point? I am condemning all promiscuous and immoral bahaviour, not just homosexual sex. Without promiscuity in the loop, spread by those that share your values, HIV would not be infectinginnocent babies in the womb or by mothers breast milk.

    1. you’re not gonig to get an erection from me you cnut

    2. And the prize for the most tenuous accusation of the week goes to…

    3. and it has zero relevance to this thread

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