Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Big Fat Gypsy Weddings ‘outs gay teen’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. While I feel for this young mans anger, why kiss someone in front of a camers which you knew was going to be used in a popular TV show?

    C4 should have heeded his wishes too and not used the footage perhaps.

    1. Jason Brown 15 Mar 2012, 4:31pm

      If you read the article it said he was unaware there were cameras about.
      And cameramen don’t have labels saying what show it’s for.

      1. Well surely they told him he’d been filmed if they then blurred his face. No one else in that crowd scene has their faces blurred so I’m assuming there was a release form signed. He’s just an idiot kid who couldn’t say no.

        1. Some posters (McCabe&Krap) should actually *read and digest* contents of article before sounding off me thinks. All those English lessons wasted.

          He obviously signed release after being given assurances face would be unrecognisable. It wasn’t, so he should sue IMHO.

          1. Wind your neck in, I am seeing both sides of the coin on this one but admit that I did misread the article. However, a camera is quite large and not something you can easily miss.

            As you state, he signed the release form, in effect giving C4 carte blanche to do with the image what they wanted. Had he not signed, they would not have been able to use the footage!

          2. Hang on, legally can a 16 year old sign sign a release???

          3. I wouldn’t have thought he’d have signed anything if it was filmed in a public place. Was it filmed in public? I don’t know much about this show but the article says it was filmed at pride so I’m assuming it was in public…

            People don’t sign releases for their images in a public space. Or what, do we think all those people walking behind news camera’s are actors? No, the law requires no release to be signed as it’s expected to be reasonable to expect to be filmed in public.

            What’s happened here is his face was blurred at his request after he has in fact seen camera men. The show complied but unfortunatley blurring a face won’t hide a person from people who know them… You’ve got clothes, body posture, hair colour etc to worry about.

          4. A 16 year old can sign a release form. And while if you are filmed in public you are at the mercy of the production company, the guy he kissed was the one being followed by the crew and therefore would have had to have signed a release.

            As to my original point, I did state that I have sympathy for him but perhaps he should have taken more notice of his surroundings. On the other side, if this report is correct, he has gone to the Daily Star to probably sell his story now, I know it is a bit of a cynical view but that is why we have these comment boards!

    2. Bit more bizarre. Yes his FAMILY recognised him. But who til it to the press for this article to be published? Now EVERYONE knows even those who didn’t or don’t follow that rubbish programme. Sounds like an ‘I’m gonna sue’ story

      1. Valid point. PinkNews and other sites outed him to the whole world by publishing this story. Quite insensitive but not illegal.
        That said, as a journalist myself, I know that, at least in America, there is no expectation of privacy for acts committed in public, no matter who the people are. And the TV station did the right thing by not directly identifying him by name and attempting to blur the pic. Again, insensitive yet still legal – at least by American journalism standards & mass media laws. I admit that laws in other countries are different, and it’s possible under British law that he could sue. If he has that right, I say go for it.

  2. Jason Brown 15 Mar 2012, 4:32pm

    The show is racist so they thought they might as well discriminate against the gays as well.

  3. If I ever needed more reasons to dislike My Big Fat Racist TV Show…

  4. Rudehamster 15 Mar 2012, 4:36pm

    Unfortunately, this is the problem with open air filming at a public event.
    The jellyfish blob, unless there is enough room for it to be done properly, doesn’t hide much from those who know you well. I had a similar issue with an online blog a few months ago. My job is such that I do not want to be filmed or photographed. The blob just drew attention to me, rather than hiding my identity.
    In this case there doesn’t look as if there was enough room to assure anonimity, due to it being a crowd photo.
    I hope he doesn’t try to sue the film company, as that would be a bit foolish and only successful if the image weren’t taken in a public place at a public event.
    Poor little mite. I hope Mickey was a good shag though.

    1. Rudehamster 15 Mar 2012, 4:39pm

      Oh…just to point out. Filming in a public area is deemed as public filming. If you don’t want to be caught on film, you can step out of view from the camera. In this case, he’d obviously spoken to them and agreed the jellyfish option. A shame it didn’t work really.
      I wonder why he didn’t stamp his feet and demand his removal. In doing this, he could’ve forced them to refilm the scene.

      1. Exactly, he AGREED to having his identity blurred. Channel 4 will just give him a record voucher to spend on a Lady Gaga cd to shut him up. Aaah the vanity/stupity/naivety of youth.

        1. You have no way of knowing that – have you ever actually been responsible for ensuring TV companies abide by the rules when filming public groups, especially in sensitive areas like Pride. It is a nightmare to stop them trying it on. Just because you are in public does not give anyone the right to film you and broadcast it (blurred or not).

          1. As he was filmed kissing someone who was the main feature of the programme, he would have had to have signed a release form to allow C4 to use the image even with the bubble. Had he not signed the release form, they would not be allowed to use that section of filming. He signed the form so has to live with it, however C4 should have made more of an effort. Trying to be devils advocate on this one!

          2. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 6:45am

            I am a professional cameraman, and I can assure you it does.
            I always try to be discreet in such cases, and give people time that don’t want to be in shot to get out of the way, but these things happen.

            If you are in public, I have the right to film you. It really is as simple as that.

          3. @Spanner1960

            I largely agree with you, but I think there are some rare cases there the defence that filming/recording/photographing in public would not be acceptable in law but I can’t think of one which would apply to Pride!

            I do wonder whether Leveson might seek a judgement on issues like this due to the consideration of morals.

            Clearly, many (if not most) professional photographers/cameramen/journalists have been undermined by the impropriety of a significant number of people predominantly at one or two organisations. Unfortunately that means that all professionals have to be even more aware of their morality. It sounds like you try to be and I am sure many of your compatriots also do.

            I think this case the guy took a risk and did something in public he would not want disclosed – but it was in public.

  5. That’s certainly a half-arsed attempt at censoring a face. I can see why the family recognized him so easily. I mean, they didn’t bother blurring the hair.

  6. Dangermouse 15 Mar 2012, 4:43pm

    WELL AT LEAST HE DOSEN’T HAVE TO BE LIVING A LIE NOW

  7. How can you not be aware of a camera – professional tv cameras are not small things. Added to that, the individual involved attended a major event where publicity is prevalent. While it is unfortunate that this lead to his sexuality being made public, the complaint seems to be more looking for attention than anything else

    1. Yeah, especially seeing as they would’ve been following the guy that he kissed around, he had to have seen them at some stage.

      1. ever hear of ZOOMMMMMMMM

        1. Spanner1960 17 Mar 2012, 12:28pm

          You mean telephoto. You can get wide angle zooms too.

  8. He should sue!

    1. He should avoid kissing men in front of cameras if he’s not out.

      1. Or kissing men in public for that matter.

        1. The cameras are not massive and people have a right to privacy – C4 were requested not to broadcast an image taken in public which they refused to do (blurring it is not cutting). It is difficult enough to make people feel safe coming to Pride when they are not out without this sort of cavalier attitude by C4. Other Prides the TV cameras are kept on a short leash. If this was within the area controlled by Manchester Pride then there are questions to be asked of them and what guidance they gave to C4 and what control over the footage they gained in return for allowing them inside spaces they were responsible for. Manchester Pride have a duty of care to the people they admit to their festival.

          1. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 7:11am

            You cannot have right to privacy at a public event.
            This does not come under the jurisdiction of either the Pride organisers, or the police. As a cameraman or photographer, one is given a press pass primarily as a security measure, nothing else, so it allows you in front of barriers etc. This whole thing is actually a very contentious issue as many people have been stopped by police, including myself, in public areas and questioned under the prevention of terrorism act, which is totally unacceptable.
            http://photographernotaterrorist.org
            http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

          2. @Spanner1960

            I agree with you. The sorts of rare scenarios I was thinking of are GENUINE publlic safety or security issues eg where there is a suspect device and a photographer is actually getting in the way of evacuating the public safely, or where they are impeding rescue teams helping people. Neither of those things should happen – but I have seen press photographers impede rescue efforts – they should be moved on by police.

    2. Don Harrisoin 17 Mar 2012, 11:51pm

      With our press that would get very messy

  9. why not just cut the footage out instead of blurring it, this is a sixteen year old that is not fully secure with their identity. Its not right that they included the footage despite being asked not to use it.

    1. Agree

  10. it must of been advertised that cameras were going to be filming somewhere and as a previous post stated these cameras are massive,
    when i was younger cameras were filming at london LLGB centre and as we went in there were massive signs that cameras were there and to notify if we did not want to be filmed

    1. modern cameras are not massive, filming at a public event with a lot of people present makes it very difficult to know if you have been caught on camera and unfortunately not everyone working in TV is ethical. Given the nature of this programme I am not at all surprised by the producer’s decision which stinks. They should have cut him out completely once he had made it clear he didn’t want it to be included, I think he should complain to the commissioners at Channel 4 and make a complaint to Ofcom

      1. HD cameras are still large and would have been clearly visible. I also agree the decision to use the footage was agaisnt the boys wishes and is out of order.

        I also wonder now whether he is using this to make a quick buck, after all he has apparently gone to the Daily Star (of all things) whether that in itself true, we can only speculate. And yes I am being a little cynical here before people start getting abgry.

        1. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 12:40pm

          I have full 1080p HD cameras that would damn near fit in a fag packet and produce stunning quality. One could easily be mistaken for some general bloke in the crowd these days,

          1. right on… and then there’s zooooommmmm

            why are so many here blaming the victim?

          2. I know the ones that you mean however, the ones used to make TV programmes are still rather large

  11. Sounds like his bigoted parents are the ones he should be complaining about, not a liberal media organisation.

    1. Why do you assume his parents are bigoted? They are probably in shock and understandably.

      Talk about reading between the lines.

      I feel for the poor kid. Yes, TV cameras are big and there nay have been signs and yes it was at a public event…but he asked for it to be taken out and it should have been.

      I mean he’s only 16.

      1. There son has been outed on TV and was kissing a traveller whilst doing so. Yeah I reckon they’re shocked.

        1. Staircase2 16 Mar 2012, 5:22am

          Whats the fact that it was a Traveller he was kissing got to do with your point?

        2. Spanner1960 17 Mar 2012, 12:27pm

          “I saw you kissing a boy?” “Oh well, lad, it takes all kinds I suppose.”

          “What do you mean he was a f*!£*%ing PIKEY!!??”

  12. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 15 Mar 2012, 5:28pm

    Oh what a shame for the poor ‘boy’ – cute too, I go for a bit of blur meself. I suggest to his parents that they should join some wicked police unit who interpret surveillance images for major crimes, they obviously have what it takes! Seriously, the ‘boy’ has a point he did ask for the footage not to be used and now he has been cruelly denied the opportunity to tell his mum and dad not to expect grandchildren… priceless… but now that it is out (no pun), who cares? Nuffin wrong with joining the other side of the bus or snogging a gypsy, by all accounts.

  13. “Now I feel exploited”…any tool who can’t say no when a camera is shoved in his face, vanity vanity. Surely he was asked to sign a release form if the went to the trouble of blurring his face. Into the bargain that programme is out and out racist.

  14. Whilst I do think it should be every persons individual choice as to when and how they come out (and who to), I do think that if you are not prepared to be open about your orientation that its particularly risky to kiss someone of the same sex in front of TV cameras (as plenty of people have said they are usually pretty obvious!). However, I would also go one step further – I know when I was closeted (years ago) that I was always concerned I would bump into someone I knew if I ventured onto the gay scene and knew that I ran a risk of being recognised if I snogged a guy etc. It was a risk I took and I would never have snogged outside in daylight and certainly not in front of a TV camera. Even at 16 years old I knew that those are public places.

    Yes, he says he was not ready to come out. However, he took a risk – it probably feels like it didnt pay off since his parents recognised him but maybe in time he will have a different view.

  15. I feel bad for this guy but if he and his kind actually paid taxes and didn’t steal land for a living I would be shouting at channel 4 as well.

    1. It wasn’t the gypsy that was outed but some lad he snogged at a parade.

      1. The “lad he snogged” was a member of the Gypsy community too. It stated it in another piece done about this.

        Anyway, I’ve seen loads of T.V Camera’s and it is quite hard to miss one. Then maybe he thought they were not filming.

        Either way if I was at an event doing something I did not want my parents to know about I would not be in a mile of the cameras. And defiantly not if the were filming a show about my culture.

    2. What does ‘he and his kind’ mean? And at 16 I don’t know that he would necessarily be paying taxes.

    3. What i said could seem a bit harsh but i have no problem with Gypsies. Just people who want to break countless laws while refusing to pay taxes and wanting equal rights.
      Equal rights? pay equal tax

      1. Staircase2 16 Mar 2012, 5:25am

        er – so why bring it up then?

        (that is by definition racist…)

        1. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 7:13am

          Travellers are not a race. They are simply itinerant layabouts.

          1. Haven’t you heard? Racism has been redefined as “any criticism of the Left”. That’s why Muslims and Travellers are now officially a race.

            Maybe gays should be classed as a race – ‘racism’ has a much harsher ring to it than ‘homophobia’.

  16. The kid sounds like an idiot. He’s gone public to the Daily Star, that bastion of support for the LGBT community, to moan about Channel 4 outing him cause he didn’t have the intelligence to ask them not to film him. Is it time for the Darwin Awards yet? He’s a prime candidate.

    1. Staircase2 16 Mar 2012, 5:27am

      He’s SIXTEEN

      They would most likely lose if it goes to court on the basis that he specifically asked them not to show it and they agreed they would ensure his identity was kept secret – which they then reneged on by not doing a proper job of it…

      1. Yes you’ve said he’s SIXTEEN before, we know we know. Check my comment below for a response to the issue of his age.

  17. if your not out why to go pride then bleat when someone regonises you? Anyone could have seen this individual regonised and told his parents, he took the risk by been in an openly gay arena and by choosing to kiss on camera, c4 abided by his wishes to blur the image even if not very well, if want to remian in the closet don’t attend open gay events where anyone can see you!

    1. Surely part of the raison d’etre of Pride is that you are proud of who you are i.e. that you are gay and you are taking a stand in standing up and being counted?

      1. Staircase2 16 Mar 2012, 5:28am

        …HE’S SIXTEEN!

        1. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 6:46am

          Don’t go on Pride then!

        2. Paddyswurds 16 Mar 2012, 11:24am

          @Staircase2…
          ……”HE’S SIXTEEN!” and?

  18. I feel rather sorry for the boy but, really, if he didn’t want to be outed he perhaps shouldn’t have kissed a bloke in public at a conspicuously gay event.

    1. We are so used to having cameras shoved in our face. C4 used to be a brilliant channel now it’s sensationalised crap.

      Embarrasing bodies £1m drop deal or no deal Gok Wan Jamie Oliver hugh fernley Gordon I could go on

      1. Channel 4 has about as much integrity as Channel 5, its a channel for the Heat magazine reading generation.

  19. Or maybe he just thought it was a great chance to make some easy money. At the very least it was an odd thing to do wasn’t it. Kiss in public with another man. How do travellers feel about gay people? Are they accepting?

      1. Ah! I see so that would be a no then?

        1. Generally, and historically, but it seems to be changing in some quarters.

    1. I dunno about you but kissing in public with another man isn’t that odd… and at Manchester Pride I definitely don’t think you can call that odd!!

  20. Oh boy, if you want to stay in the closet or not ready to come out, don’t kiss in public. If cameras don’t catch ya, then chances are someone that knows your family will.
    You got caught be proud. At least your mom didn’t catch you with porn.; )

  21. PN!!!! Proof read your artciles plese. And I’ll proof read my coments!!!

  22. Paddyswurds 15 Mar 2012, 8:56pm

    Just exactly how is Ch4 getting away with this sick racist thugfest. If this was about any other minority than Irish Travelers, there would be uproar in Britain with call to shut down the station. Isn’t it time for Ch4 to see the error of their decision and call a timely halt.

  23. Paddyswurds 15 Mar 2012, 9:22pm

    where is my bl**dy post …again

    1. Paddyswurds 15 Mar 2012, 9:24pm

      why is it so utterly beyond Pink News to get someone to construct a site that works properly.This is absolute shyte at the moment.

      1. @Paddyswurds

        I had trouble a few months ago with my comments not appearing immediately. They’d take about to half an hour to appear. I eventually found that closing my browser and re-opening it again would make my comment appear right away. However, I no longer have this problem now. I don’t know why it happened or why it stopped happening.

        1. I had a similar problem and my friend who is more computer savvy than myself sorted it out – it was a combined browser and cookies problem I think. Hope that helps.

          1. The only cookies I know anything about are the kind stuffed with chocolate chips!

      2. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 7:15am

        Do shift to refresh the page.

      3. Robin Evans 16 Mar 2012, 8:53pm

        I totally agree – the content is great but the site is beyond
        belief… It’s like something we used to make before actual social networks happened…

        I have complained about the lack of reply alerts and I just got told “we don’t do that” stupid assholes….

  24. So why was it acceptable when Tatchell did it?

    1. Staircase2 16 Mar 2012, 5:30am

      …Did what…?

  25. He’s gay. Get over it.

  26. It seems that the one thing most have overlooked, is that this young man is not an adult and that his rights have been completey ignored and trampled upon. Underage means underage, he can not sign away his rights, he is, wait for it, one more time, underage, and, he has been victimized. If this were in the US, the producers could not have aired the piece without his parents and or his legal guardian’s consent. Once his objections were made known to them they would be legally obligated to follow his wishes and not run that portion of the tape due to his age, even if it was filmed in a public forum.

    I do not live in the UK and I fail to understand what part of underage and personal rights is unclear to the production company in view of the ongoing NOWT scandal. As a minor, is he not afforded the legal protections of his class?

    1. I think consideration of whether a 16 year old had capacity to make a legal agreement might be a consideration in English law.

      Underage people can consent to quite a lot of legal agreements under English law. Whether this extends to a media release I would not be sure about – but I suspect it could be tested …

    2. Robert White 16 Mar 2012, 12:37am

      One can not tresspass with the eyes. You go to a gay pride event and kiss a guy in public, you don’t get any sympathy. Sorry.

      Just as, if you take a picture in front of a major monument and someone else does too, and they catch you in their shot, you don’t have the right to make them destroy their picture.

      The world is already unworkable enough with people wearing logo-wear clothings that must be blurred out.

      1. I believe that you have missed my point Robert. The young man in question was filmed by a media company. The location of where he was filmed has absolutely no bearing in this matter. What has bearing is the age of the person who was filmed by the media for distrubution to the general public at large vs someone just taking a snap with their point and shoot camera.

        Correct me if I am wrong, but the production company must seek his release in order to publish their vid. In most english speaking countries, a 16 year old does not have legal capacity to do so, hence the video company wronged him. Even though kissing the lead in the vid project was not the brightest idea in itself, it does enforce my point that a 16 year does not usually think things through and because of such, by law, does not have legal capacity to enter into a valid contract, let alone one with a large media company.

        1. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 6:54am

          I will correct you.
          You right in the fact that *everybody* effectively signs off a release form, or at least has a ticket that says the same thing when shows are filmed for both studio and location.

          However, this does not apply to “general public” filming.
          In France, you cannot do “man in the street” filming any more as *everyone* in shot has to give their permission, and it it is a complete impossibility to even attempt to do that, so they simply don’t bother.

          If the production company has specifics, such as this lad, then they can, at their discretion, offer anonymity. This is not a legal requirement, but something done purely as a gesture of goodwill. This has nothing to do with the age either, although you will generally find most people will shy away from filming/photographing under-18’s where possible because of situations such as this.

      2. Staircase2 16 Mar 2012, 5:35am

        Actually Robert, that isnt true – if the person ‘catching you in shot’ is going to use those images for commercial gain then they DO have to get your permission – this is also especially true for young people who should have their parents permission if they are under 18 (which is the legal age for all contracts outside of things which 16 year olds are legally entitled to do without that parental consent…)

        1. No, if its in a public place there is no legal requirement to consent to being filmed or for its use.

          There are cases eg where you are being treated after an accident where it can be morally argued that release should be sought. It is also possible in this context where the person filmed has a workplace that is in the public arena that morally that persons consent should also be sought eg police officers, paramedics being blurred out in fly on the wall docu’s.

          In any event, 16 year olds are able to have the mental capacity to make agreements for many issues in the UK. Being under 18 does not preclude one from making a legal agreement.

        2. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 12:53pm

          @Staircase2: You, like so many other people grab some scrap of information and then bandy it about like they understand it. Trust me, you are in good company because most police officers don’t know the law on this matter either.

          Anybody that states any photography, of anyone, of any age, in a pubic place is illegal, they are talking out of their backsides, police included, and I have already got to a point on a couple of occasions I nearly got myself arrested, but senior officers told them to back off before they had a lawsuit for wrongful arrest on their hands.

          1. @Spanner1960

            Absolutely. As an ex police officer I would agree with you. The mere act of filming or photography (unless it is a building under the SOCA Act) is not sufficient to warrant arrest – there must be something else connected to it eg obstructing a police officer, breach of the peace etc – and most competant media workers would seek to avoid committing such offences – as would most reasonable police officers seek to use less draconian measures to seek support and co-operation of the media, wherever possible.

            Unfortunately not all media personnel are as responsible and not all police officers are so reasonable.

          2. In fact before I retired I stopped a couple of my PCs from being a little over zealous in how they were trying to persuade a couple of journalists and snappers to give us some space at an incident. I did think one of the journalists was pushing it and veering towards obstruction but not quite there. The others had committed no offence other than their presence being annoying to carrying out our job easily. Thats not their problem though. I had to have a quiet word with the lads about the possibility of complaints being made against them and then swap them for another couple to avoid conflict whilst I suggested that I have a chat with the journalists and give them what information I was able to – if they could give me 15-20 minutes to sort the time critical stuff out first. They backed away because I was helping.

    3. Staircase2 16 Mar 2012, 5:32am

      Well said, Frank – youre completey right.

      I dont think the production team would have/will have a leg to stand on if it goes to court simply because not only have they ignored his wishes but they had also agreed to do what he asked for – so they would then not only be breaching his rights but also breaking a contract they made with him to deliver what he asked for.

      1. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 12:54pm

        He has no rights regarding photography.
        The CPS would throw it out without even looking at it.

        1. Be interesting to see which criminal offence would try to be alleged – I can’t think of any off the top of my head!

        2. it wouldn’t be the CPS (criminal prosecution service) he would be claiming via the civil courts.

          1. Even so, I suspect the judge would throw the case out – its in a public arena/

  27. I got caught on camera by Everyman years ago at the 20th anniversary of LGCM at Southwalk cathedral. I’d avoided the cameras all day stepping back when they were filming but didn’t notice them when we were coming out of the cathedral as all the christian bigots were shouting ‘sodomites’ at us and in the melee I got caught full screen for 3 seconds. Luckily my parents had gone to bed as Everyman was screened late but I got loads of calls from friends the next day congratulating me on my TV appearance!

  28. Father Dougal 16 Mar 2012, 12:20am

    If he wanted to minimise the number of people who know he’s gay, why did he (a) kiss a stranger in the middle of a street, and (b) take the story to a national tabloid?

    1. Staircase2 16 Mar 2012, 5:37am

      Did you not read the article?

      It would appear that he had gone to the newspaper to bemoan the fact that Channel 4 had breached his rights by outing him…

      Also, given what we already knew (but officially NOW know) re tabloids, there is a very real possibility that THEY approached HIM for his ‘story’. It might also be the only way he feels he can raise the money necessary to bring a case against the production team…

      Its always best to think about these things before asking the question methinks…

      1. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 6:39am

        There is no case. Period.
        Firstly, let’s get one thing straight, Channel 4 does not make ANY television, it is all subcontracted. The production company that made this (Firecracker Films) is within their rights to film and broadcast anything that is shot in public that conforms with broadcasting standards (which this does) – If he tried suing, he would not have a leg to stand on.

      2. Father Dougal 17 Mar 2012, 12:42am

        ( To Staircase2) Darling, are you drunk?

  29. Robert White 16 Mar 2012, 12:33am

    Okay, you went to a *pride* event but weren’t ready to be *out*?

    Mmmmkay… not smart…

    ‘Fraid I have to blame the boy and ehonerate the channel.

    Never do anything in public you wouldn’t want people to see you do in public. It’s *not* that tricky a proposition.

    Same reason you have to be careful on Facebook and well, life is hard if you are teh doumb.

  30. jamestoronto 16 Mar 2012, 2:01am

    To my mind Reality TV (which in itself lies about its own genre) has got to be the worst television has to offer the masses. Hey if you do, fine. But really who honestly cares about the absurdities of these people. But, if you sign up to one of these reality TV shows, you contractually agree to have your life — for that time frame — completely on camera. You have basically sold your soul for the duration of the contract. I am not saying this is right, but it is legal.

    Point of information — I do not know what the legal age consent for contracts in the UK is, but in most North American jurisdictions it is 18 or 19 years. Was he, at 16 years, allowed to sign a contract without parental approval??

    When one signs a contract, one is expected to abide by the terms, however they may may turn out. If one does not — or is not ready to come out — then WTF are you doing on reality TV?? IF, under UK laws he was a minor at time, then his parents — or legal guardians — bear the responsibility.

    1. Staircase2 16 Mar 2012, 5:39am

      There is no question that him appearing on the show in the first place would only have happened had they sourced consent from his parents beforehand.

      This probably wouldnt cover Channel 4 dismissing his wishes to remain anonymous at Pride though…

    2. Some reality fly on the wall television is very educational and interesting eg immiigration, health docus, prisons, industry, etc etc

      Some is trash!

  31. Staircase2 16 Mar 2012, 5:43am

    Oops – my mistake – it appears the teenager in question wasnt part of the Gypsy Wedding Documentary – but was merely caught up by the cameras when they were covering Mikey at Pride.

    Under those circumstances there is even more reason why they should not have sought to exploit him after agreeing to his requests to shield his identity…

  32. TV is run by scum they en joy ruining lives

    1. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 6:41am

      No, it’s run by people like me that simply want to earn a living.

      1. Mostly people who respect the law and adopt a reasonably moral stance. Of course, there are some exceptions (like in any walk of life!).

        Of course, the public sometimes have beliefs that they have rights and entitlements that they do not have.

      2. Theres a shock.

        I saw a gay couple on Jeremy Kyle once it was hideous. They bring people on to air thir dirty laundry for entertainment. When the cameras stop rolling they are left with the fallout. And deal or no deal a get rich quick horror show for lazy and stupid people. Embarassing bodies again another show that gets people to show the world their illness for entertainment.

        Sick coked up producers who enjoy mocking working class or vulnerable people.

        1. Says a lot for your television choices if they are only Deal or no Deal and Jeremy Kyle.

          Of course, that is the extent of the hundreds of channels in the UK – not.

          1. Stu don’t be a dick I’m giving these examples to show that TV producers see people as ratings and that comes first. A 16year old outed for entertainment is just wrong. If you don’t see it i can’t help you

          2. If you cant see that if you dont want to risk being outed that you dont kiss someone in public where you might be filmed/photographed – then I can’t help you.

        2. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 12:44pm

          @James!: What’s wrong with working class people? Are they any less or more stupid than the rest of the general public?
          Sorry, but if you go on these daft bloody shows you should already know what you are letting yourself in for. These people know this and are just in it for the money as much as the producers are.

          1. Go to hell spanner. That is a rapists argument.

            It’s her fault for wearing a short skirt or it’s her fault for being alone at night

          2. Spanner1960 18 Mar 2012, 9:48am

            @ James: No, that’s a rational persons argument. We live in an imperfect world. Don’t go sticking your head in a lion’s mouth if you are worried about the consequences.

  33. Pride for many people is the opportunity to express themselves, to celebrate freedom, diversity and acceptance amongst our peers which others around the world cannot. For some its a party, and for the four days of Pride a chance to hold our heads high and proud.

    In the crowd of hundreds of thousands are others who see this as a chance to dip their toes in the water to anonymously be a face in the crowd. A place where in the safety of numbers you can explore yourself and become comfortable with a world you are only learning about.

    I feel for this young man, because whilst it is normal to see the media at Manchester Pride, one does not normally expect a soon to be commercial reality TV show being filmed feet from where you stand.

    Pride events, and commercial TV are two separate things. People have the right to know this is happening! To state and express displeasure, deny permission for their image to be exploited, filmed for trashy format TV completely unrelated to Pride .

    1. You perfectly expressed my sentiments.

  34. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 6:33am

    I do sympathise with the guy, but equally, as I work as both a professional photographer and cameraman, if I was at an event such as Pride, then what I see, film and photograph are fair game. I appreciate not everyone will like this, but it is a public event, and if you don’t want to risk being exposed, then you really shouldn’t be there.

    That said, I do think the producers could have been a bit more accommodating and dropped him from the edit completely.

  35. Nelly MANchester 16 Mar 2012, 7:23am

    Pride is a public event ?

    A huge question WHY go to the daily star ?

    How much has he been paid by the daily star ?

    1. Father Dougal 17 Mar 2012, 12:46am

      And how many more people know he’s gay as a consequence? He’s not really being shy about it, is he.

  36. Yes I’m sure he will sue them and then his family will love him again and the money he gets. Bloody gay scum, be out and proud if u didn’t want to make a big deal WTF have u gone to the papers about it. Idiot.

  37. Should not do it in front of camera I’m sure they were not hiding and filming him

  38. I can’t believe some of the comments on here, let’s not forget that this kid is SIXTEEN YEARS OLD.

    Instead we have people on here who although should be showing support (remember what it was like for you at that age?) insist on berating him for going to pride?

    Seriously, it is his right to go to pride and get a taste of what being gay is about for many people in relative safety.

    He kissed a young lad and then noticed the cameras. He did a brave thing by asking them to cut the piece of footage out.

    They ignored him and showed the documentation anyway.

    Yes, it was in a public place and yes there were probably signs that said there were cameras everywhere or whatever but he, as an individual suffered a shock to his dignity (because his right to come out was taken away from him) and should have been listened to.

    Listen to yourselves – bitter, cynical and jaded old queens.

    1. Spanner1960 16 Mar 2012, 12:58pm

      Bitter, cynical and jaded I may be, but I also have a wealth of experience.
      The kid was a fool if he thought he was safe in a crowded, publicised event. I was the same many years ago on a London Pride, but not ‘out’ with most people, and many of us would dart for cover at the first sign of a TV camera, but in those days it wasn’t very publicised anyway.

      The bottom line is he took a risk and lost. Sh|t happens. He will look back in the years to come and probably thank them for it anyway.

      1. The kid was just that…a kid.

        By your rationale you’re saying that anyone who wishes to stay in the closet should not go out on the scene. It’s nonsensical.

        1. Father Dougal 17 Mar 2012, 12:49am

          A kid who wants to stay in the closet doesn’t come out to the world in the Daily Star.

        2. Spanner1960 17 Mar 2012, 12:07pm

          Please define “The Scene” – Other than Pride, the majority is pubs and clubs which are 18+ only.

          1. No actually..you know what I mean so I won’t bother.

      2. Yes spanner always has a story. A kid gets outed for ratings and you lot support channel 4

        1. Spanner1960 17 Mar 2012, 12:08pm

          Stop being so fcking polarised.
          The kid was part of the story, so they used it. It had nothing to do with ratings.

  39. They should of cut the footage but channel 4 are only half to blame.

    If your not ready to.be open do not go to a pride event and snog someone. Simple as that. In this day and age of social network and blogging, anyone cant take a picture and in seconds anyone in the world can see it.

    He lacked forethought about his actions. But channel 4 when asked not to show him did a poor blur job and should of cut the footage. It is his right when to come out, sadly in this vast social media age many people dont have the chance.

  40. Staircase you keep banging on about him being ‘SIXTEEN’ (your caps not mine). So what? Until recently sixteen year olds were considered too young to classify themselves as gay, now they have that right cause people, probably yourself included, argued the point. So he’s old enough to be gay but not old enough to sigh a f–k!ng release form for a tv company?

  41. Steve R (The other one) 16 Mar 2012, 5:06pm

    All this talk of release forms is rubbish. They were filming a public event in a public place. There is no legal requirement to get everyone present to sign release forms. The key word here is PUBLIC. They did not need permission from anybody.
    And as for berating him being at the event. Why the hell shouldn’t he be there? Lots of straight people go to pride events. He could have just told his parents that he was there with friends. If he hadn’t kissed the other lad, there would have been no problem.
    Channel 4, technically and legally, have done nothing wrong. They should have shown more tact and compassion in view of his age and his circumstances, but I suppose the producer’s eagerness to have a gay kiss on screen over-rode any sense of decency.
    Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that any litigation would succeed. The only winners from that would be fat-cat lawyers.

  42. As a gypsey gay guy myself…you need to understand the way we live….we are not all bad….we have a faith ( catholic ) which is so strong that our families live by faith…to be gay is a disgrace in our life…
    hope you understand how hard it is for us…thanks

  43. GingerlyColors 17 Mar 2012, 11:25am

    The irony of all this is that nowadays, members of the travelling community suffer far more prejudice than gays. Fair enough, they shouldn’t be above the law, buying up a field, then moving in and putting hardstanding, water pipes and electrical cables in then setting up their site before applying for retrospective planning permission – permission should always be applied for before they build. In 21st century Britain householders will kick up more fuss about gypsies moving in to even a legal site nearby than a gay couple moving in next door! As a gay man, I feel that I cannot aford to be anti-gypsy – gypsies and gays were persecuted along with the Jews in the Holocaust. Our communities need to work towards a better understanding. The Appleby Horse Fair in Westmoorland is an opportunity to meet the travelling community and it starts on the 7th of June this year, running for a week.

    1. Spanner1960 18 Mar 2012, 9:31am

      Sorry, but there is one huge difference between the racial gypsies of Eastern Europe that have been persecuted for many years, and the itinerant, work-shy, tax avoiding Irish pikeys that roam the British landscape nowadays and patently refuse to follow any laws that the rest of society abides by, parks up on public land, trashes the environment, intimidates the locals and then moves on leaving a trail of upset and destruction in their wake.

      Just because we happen to be both minorities DO NOT try and tar us with the same brush.

      1. GingerlyColors 19 Mar 2012, 4:13am

        You find that the word ‘gypsy’ seems to be a collective term for all travellers. ‘Gypsy’ is derived from ‘Egyptian’ from where the original Romany travellers were thought to originate from. The true ‘Romany Gypsys’ who were persecuted can trace their ancestory back to India several hundred years ago.
        You refered to ‘Irish pikeys’, strictly speaking they are not gypsys, originating from a different racial group altogether. There has been an increase in the numbers of Irish travellers in the UK. This is believed to be due to a change in the law in the Republic of Ireland which now allows land owners to move travellers on on the say so of the Garda without having to go through all the hassle of obtaining a court order.
        As I have said travellers are not above the law and when they start to toe the line and make their contribution to society then hopefully some of the animousity between our communities will dissappear.

        1. Spanner1960 19 Mar 2012, 10:32pm

          When I said “Gypsy”, I meant to infer “Romany”, which is supposedly the true origin of those people.

  44. Some info on video release forms in UK:

    http://www.4docs.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Release_Forms:
    ______________________________________
    Appearance Release Form

    You need a Release From for anyone who either gives you an interview or who speaks on camera. You do not need a Release Form for people on the street as long as your camera isn’t concealed.

    You will need Release Forms for people who are identifiable in sensitive places even if they are not speaking, for example, hospital waiting rooms, gay clubs, law court corridors.

    Anyone under the age of 16 needs to have their Release Form signed by one or both of their parents.
    ______________________________________

    So, ignoring bit on interviews, is appearing in Manchester Pride snogging the face off someone sensitive. To which the answer is patently a yes in this case.

    Whether there was a form signed or not is up for grabs. I guess yes & he asked for a commitment to for blurring and got one. They were lazy and didn’t do the hair.

    1. Spanner1960 18 Mar 2012, 9:55am

      Sorry, but that link is ambiguous at best and totally crap at worst.
      It seems the author is as ignorant of the rules as everyone else.
      I suggest you read some rather more official standpoints:
      http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/filmmaking/guide/production/legal-guide-production-agreements
      http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2

      1. Err…. link 1 doesn’t mention release forms at all, it is all about photographing the Police or the Police stopping people photographing. Link 2 by an large agrees accept it doesn’t mention sensitive locations. Link 3 is about photography and Page1 Column4 Para3 is the most relevant (assuming it applies to video) and suggests getting consent, preferably written. So all still as clear as mud.

        The whole business of the legality of photo/video taking is a mess. I was hanging round the local Magistrates Court to get my signature witnessed 3 years ago, when I started chatting to some pushy American while her son moped around trailing cables to his laptop across busy walkways. She asked me to guess why they were there, I went for ‘taking a photo of a policeman’ – as that was silliest law I could imagine. Bingo. Spot on. This was there 5th court appearance as she fought to defend her feckless son. The cost so far would have made any tax payer’s eyes water, unless u are a lawyer!

        1. Spanner1960 19 Mar 2012, 10:30pm

          Well at least my links are credible sources of information with some inherent understanding of the matter, rather than some-bloke-on-the-net-with-a-blog.

          Also, photography/video are equated technically as the same thing, so the law relates to them equally.

  45. Well there’s never any easy time to come out. I guess they’ll get over it as embarassing as it is… Maybe 1 day they’ll laugh about it!

    Or not…

  46. I kissed another man in public when there were television cameras around. Now I want money for my hurt feelings. Waaah! Waaah! Waah!

  47. So just in case everyone didnt recognise you – sell your story to a national paper and make sure everyone knows its you :-/

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