Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Labour MP Eric Joyce fined £3,000 after attack on gay Tory in Commons bar

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Lincoln and Jaume 9 Mar 2012, 6:06pm

    Any normal people on the street committing such a crime would have been sent to prison. £3000 is a drop in the ocean to him.

    This man as an MP should be setting a positive example and as such a fine of £30,000 would have been more suitable, that or six months in prison.

    He certainly should be removed as an MP immediately.

    1. To be fair I don’t think many MP’s have been setting positive examples lately.
      I’m not going to defend the guy either but none of us truly know what was going on in his head and although that’s not ever an excuse for violence of course all evidence needs to be taken into account.

      1. yes to be fair im a labour party member and i dont think Mr Joyce is exactly homophobe de jure. I may well headbutt tories as well given enough lubrication…

    2. de Villiers 11 Mar 2012, 8:09pm

      I doubt that – having looked at the sentencing guidelines.

    3. Staircase2 11 Mar 2012, 9:39pm

      I cant see how £3000 could be said to be a ‘drop in the ocean’ just because the man’s an MP. Nor do I believe that he should automatically be removed as an MP.

      The key thing that is consistently missing in the information about this case is WHY…And that makes me suspicious…

      Have you not noticed how Pink News has consistently framed the story as one of sexuality – yet each time has a paragraph hidden further down making it clear that noone actually thinks this is motivated by homophobia…

  2. Sister Mary Clarence 9 Mar 2012, 7:36pm

    It is shocking really.

    Hot on the heals of the drunk driving episode, I’m guessing he’s got a serious drink problem, and I would have thought prison would have been an ideal place for him to dry out a bit.

  3. Spanner1960 9 Mar 2012, 10:51pm

    “Too many Tories” in the Commons bar?
    That’s a bit rich. I wonder what would have happened in the 1997 Labour landslide when they had a 179 seat majority?

    Democracy is a wonderful thing as long as you are on the winning side.

    1. Isn’t commiting a crime motivated by a hatred of someone’s political persuasion a “hate crime”? I’m pretty sure it comes under that lovely and fair legislation.

      Also, PN clutching at straws again. You could make a story about anything – as long as someone involved is, or may be, gay.

      1. Doh!

        Doesn’t PN market itself as “Europes largest GAY news service”.

        Doesn’t PN describe itself as “Pink News covers religion, politics, entertainment, finance, and community news for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community in the UK and worldwide. Founded to produce broadsheet quality journalism for the LGBT community, we cover politics to theology in an intelligent manner.”

        So, a connection to an LGBT issue or gay person would be a pre-requisite to meet their own aims.

        Stuart Andrew is gay. He was assaulted. It is therefore a story of interest to PN and, at least some of, its readers.

        Problem with that is ????

        1. Because the story isn’t about Stuart Andrew or his sexuality, and focusing the story on his sexuality is being disingenuous.

          If he was targeted BECAUSE of his sexuality, then you might have an argument.

          1. But the story is, at least in part, about Stuart Andrew.

            Stuart Andrew was headbutted.

            If you are seriously expecting us to believe that Stuart Andrew is irrelevant to the story, thats like saying that the fight between Mike Tyson and Frank Bruno did not involve Frank Bruno. The fight was about both of them. In the case of Joyce – the story is about Joyce, Stuart Andrew, Phil Wilson and others. Stuart Andrew is out as gay, so making comment on that is perfectly legitimate.

            So the problem is …???

          2. @Brett “But the story is, at least in part, about Stuart Andrew. Stuart Andrew was headbutted”

            Because he was gay? No.

            “Stuart Andrew is out as gay, so making comment on that is perfectly legitimate.”

            No it’s not – it’s clutching at straws. Next point please?

      2. Spanner1960 11 Mar 2012, 5:36pm

        Oh stop being a prat.
        When was the last time you headbutted someone because you liked them?
        In my opinion, *all* crimes against the person are hate crimes to a greater or lesser degree. You bop them one because you don’t like them, their attitudes, their persona, age, sex, sexuality, or the fact that they have a spot on the end of their nose.

        I have always considered ‘hate crime’ to be socialist bullsh|t. People should be found guilty of what they did, not why they did it.

        1. Are you calling me a prat? I’m the LAST person to support so-called hate crime legislation. I don’t see why an offender should get a harsher punishment just because he called his victim a naughty word. At the end the day, the victim’s still going to have a broken jaw.

          I was merely pointing to the flaws in the legislation and the complete random nature in which the laws are applied.

          1. @alex

            You were being a pratt!

          2. “You were being a pratt!”

            Translation: I don’t agree with you, but I’m incapable of putting forward a reasoned and rational argument, so I’m just going to call you names.

            People are so bloody rude on this site. You think because you don’t agree with someone you have a right to call them names? If you had the balls to speak to someone like that in real life you’d get smacked in the face, but because you’re on the internet sitting behind your anonymity you’re happy to hurl abuse.

            Good luck with life – you’ll really need it!

  4. another unbiased story from pink news

    1. Jock S. Trap 10 Mar 2012, 2:43pm

      Seriously James!? How exactly?

  5. The comment “Too many Tories” was reported widely at the time of the incident by a range of newspapers including The Telegraph, Mail, Independent, Express, Sun and Guardian. It was also reported in some Conservative blogs. So, not entirley sure why PN reporting this particular comment that Joyce himself is said to have made is a problem. Its a publically know fact.

    1. It reads attack on gay mp as if his sexuality was a factor.

      1. I don’t read it that way. I read the openly gay as being a comment about Stuart Andrew being open about his orientation. I doubt Mr Andrew would have any problem with PN mentioning this.

        If the entire report is read then you can see that the entire event was a belligerent drunk who lost control and threw around a few head butts, punches and pieces of furniture as well as a few choice political barbed comments.

        The report clearly has the sentence “There was no indication the attack was motivated by homophobia”.

        I think you are finding fault where there is none, just for the sake of it.

        1. “I doubt Mr Andrew would have any problem with PN mentioning this.”

          Of course he wouldn’t – politicians love publicity as long as it doesn’t reflect badly on them. Whether he SHOULD get this publicity just because he’s gay (seeing as he wasn’t attacked because of his sexuality) is another matter.

          1. Do you know that his sexuality had no influence on Joyce?

          2. Of course, Alex wouldnt care if someone gay was assaulted – he would just see it as sport – the homophobic prick that he is.

          3. “Do you know that his sexuality had no influence on Joyce?”

            No evidence to suggest it did.

            “Of course, Alex wouldnt care if someone gay was assaulted – he would just see it as sport – the homophobic prick that he is.”

            Dear Jack, did I touch a raw nerve? You sad little boy.

  6. GingerlyColors 10 Mar 2012, 2:40pm

    £3,000 fine, three months ban from all pubs and he will be standing down as MP at the next election, no doubt to board the Euro Gravy Train along with the rest of our political rejects. He should have been potted immediately, gone to prison and banned from holding public office for life. As for the pub ban he should have been banned for three years – the rest of us are entitled to enjoy a drink without thugs like him ruining it for everybody else.

  7. Funny how they failed to mention this was a religiously motivated homophobic hate Crime?

    1. I’m no fan of Labour, and certainly no fan of Eric Joyce, but it seems to me, from reading various newspaper reports on this story that he didn’t attack Stuart Andrew because he was gay. I also feel that Pink News have suggested in their headline that it was a homophobic attack before going on to say there is no indication of this. Pink News did the exact same thing when they initially reported the attack after it happened.

      However, I have no problem with Pink News reporting this story as a “gay” news story given that Stuart Andrew is gay. But I do wish they would be consistent. In the past week, there have been 2 seperate stories in Scottish newspapers about the SNP – who are the party in government – stories with relevence to gay people.

      The first one was in the Sunday Herald a week ago which reported the SNP had immediately suspended Bill Walker when the paper showed them an investigation alleging he was violent towards his previous 3 wives. Yet they said and did nothing…..

      1. …..last August when Bill Walker was speaking out against gay marriage. So is it okay to be a homophobe in the SNP but not a wife-beater? Yet Pink News didn’t report this story.

        The 2nd story was in the Scotsman which said that the Scottish Information Commissioner had criticised the SNP government for not releasing correspondence between them and Brian Souter after an FOI request, saying it was private. The Info Commissioner said they had to release it. There is also still the matter of Souter’s Knighthood which the SNP have again refused to release information about under FOI, despite the fact the Cabinet Office insist the nomination came from the SNP government. Pink News reported this story when the Cabinet Office refused at first to say who had nominated Souter yet never reported it at all when the Cabinet Office finally said it came from the Scottish Government.

        There are gay people in Scotland too who have a right to hear what the party in government is doing.

  8. MPs have never been shining examples of restraint and good order.
    Frankly if one of them was, then I’m not sure I’d vote for him.

    1. Spanner1960 10 Mar 2012, 8:02pm

      That’s not true at all. Years back MP’s did it for the honour. They were not paid and received minimal expenses. Nowadays it is just a bunch of career politicians that want to jump on the gravy train and screw everyone whilst appearing to be there for the public’s benefit.

  9. he’ll only claim it back on his expenses

    1. Including the bar tab.

  10. Spanner1960 11 Mar 2012, 1:18pm

    Well, it’s good to know that lager louts and binge drinking just doesn’t happen on the high street.

    Might I suggest that as Cameron is planning to increase the minimum price of alcohol, (thus affecting the other 90% of us that drink responsibly), but also stop letting the taxpayer subsidise already overpaid MP’s from getting totally wankered at our expense in the Commons Bar.

    I will also point out the bar is one of the few licensed premises that doesn’t have a smoking ban. Seems one rule for them, and one for the rest of us.

  11. Staircase2 11 Mar 2012, 9:36pm

    Does anyone know WHY this took place?

    1. Spanner1960 11 Mar 2012, 9:46pm

      Yeah. Like so many lefties they have a bee in their bonnet about Tories. Particularly when they are running the show and making such a pig’s mess of it.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all