Reader comments · Telegraph Blogs editor ‘did not accidentally tweet outcome of Catholic schools investigation’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Telegraph Blogs editor ‘did not accidentally tweet outcome of Catholic schools investigation’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. That There Other David 15 May 2012, 11:02am

    State funding for faith schools needs to be abolished. Let’s hope now that the Labour Party is free of Blair’s Vatican-inspired influence the next Labour government will do the necessary.

    1. Let’s hope so.

    2. This tweet is proof that the evil Catholics are like the CIA and want to keep their evil plans “Top Secret” so nobody knows but them so they can carry out their persecution and new inquisition against LGBT people today around the world.

    3. State funding for private schools (the kind of system Michael Gove loves) should be abolished too. I’d be shocked to see the Labour Party get rid of them though.

  2. NOW you can all see the Tories for the party they actually are- riddled with homophobic attitudes that will NEVER change. Ax I remember- Michael Gove- was the person who wanted to re-instate Clause 28 on a county by county basis.

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 15 May 2012, 2:41pm


    2. @Sister Mary Clarence

      Yes he did want to reintroduce Section 28 in a piecemeal approach.

      “… the rat-faced sycophant who has blindly been put in the position of Education Secretary has ushered in the return of Section 28, a piece of infamous legislation which banned the “promotion” (ie: speaking) of LGBT issues in schools. … ”

      “… a sustained effort on the part of Gove to reintroduce the homophobic Section 28 through the back door.”

      “when I looked at The Model Free School Funding Agreement, the similarities between these new stipulations and the former Section 28 were glaring”

      1. Well Labour did introduce Amendment 70 which specifically meant that religious schools could teach their scripture as fact in PSHE – teaching kids that contraception, abortion, premarital sex and being gay is wrong and you are going to go to hell … something very different to what PSHE is actually meant to be. It was the Coalition that removed this from the law.

        1. Amendment 70 was wrong.

          That does not make Goves goals of a new section 28 right.

  3. Michael Gove should reveal all his emails, social media contacts, texts, meetings etc in relation to this matter to ensure transparency and propriety and should hand the decision over to someone else.

    1. Fan of Locke 15 May 2012, 11:20am

      Perhaps PN could ask the Dept of Education how they will ensure transparency on this issue and whether Gove will hand the decision to others?

    2. Seems he has been compromised and should stand aside.

    3. Perhaps someone should make a freedom of information request of the Department of Education about the emails, texts etc of Gove and meetings (including social events) he has had where this matter has been discussed?

      Has Gove published this meeting with the Telegraph blog editor in line with the governments openness on meetings with journalists?

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2012, 3:49pm

      Absolutely he should reveal all, totally agree with that. Obviously he can’t be impartial and his resignation should be called for post haste.

    5. leveson inquiry anyone?

      1. Highly appropriate!

  4. Very disappointing. Perhaps Dave’s biggest lie was to try and present them as a different party. They aren’t of course. About as open minded as a collection of Jesuits. They are of course entitled to their views but the least we can expect is some honesty? No?

  5. Surely Gove should resign. He is saying that he will influence the outcome of an enquiry, which is totally unprofessional. Gove must go.

    1. Agreed

  6. Faith schools should not even exist in the UK. Education is for one purpose only – To provide young people with the necessary tools for adulthood. Not to pre-programme more exploitable people for superstitious cults.

    1. They weren’t bad (except for catholic schools firing gay teachers), until the aggressive politics of the current Vatican.

      Aggressive religionism is probably having a bad effect on some schools.

  7. Does PN have a friendly and supportive MP (ideally Labour) who would be able to raise a question in the house to Gove to respond to on this issue?

  8. Found in online twitter accounts (never fully deleted!):

    DJamesMacMillan3: supper w Fr J Large & M Gove last night. Common ground. Gove promised Catholic schls cn oppose gay marriage. Top secret!

    One of these days I’ll get the hang of Twitter…

    Both sent by @holysmoke

    1. Holy smoke!

  9. Collusion between a senior politician and a journalist? Unthinkable—Er, no, hang on a minute. Haven’t we heard a lot about that recently?

  10. Is it not possible to have a mainstream party that is both financially competent and responsible and yet be socially progressive? Is that too much to ask?

    Actually I feel some sympathy for moderate tory MPs who will end up going to the wall while the dinosaurs and wannabe theocrats in safe tory seats stay at the trough.

  11. They had a chance to stamp out this behaviour but instead appear to be condoning it – Gove in particular, by enabling lots more faith schools, is changing the landscape of society with social engineering.

    On the matter of their petition – it only has about 177,000 ONLINE signatures.
    “Page 177307 of 177307”

    Also, I’ve been analysing the names. In the first 62000 I checked there were over 4000 duplicates. Whilst Ian Smith might be a common name, other distinctive and usual appear twice or more times, indicating the person has signed twice.

    If you look at
    with 62000 names, and search for
    “Frederick Gavin Sharpe” it appears twice in a short space of time. And “Adebayo Ayinde”, and “Hugh Nicholas Wilson”.

    One thing has always been clear, Gove is not our friend.

    1. That petition stinks to high heaven and those in power should dismiss it as irrelevant at once.

    2. Well researched. I also spotted the distinctive name of a gay person in HK, who I seriously doubt would sign even if he lived in the UK.

  12. Even if Gove had said this to the guy he’s still technically correct. As I posted when the story first appeared

    “Scenario A

    Teacher says “Our religion teaches us that same sex relationships are sinful and marriage should be between a man and a woman”

    That’s ok

    But scenario B

    Teacher says “Our religion teaches us that same sex relationships are sinful and marriage should be between a man and a woman. And here’s the website for a (declared political, not religious) organisation where you can all sign up to say so”

    That’s not ok.”

    The opposition to equal marriage wasn’t the issue here. It was the trying to involve children in a self-declared political movement that was the problem.

    1. Yes, Kris

      Gove should be condemning the politicisation of school children and should take action for the breach of the Education Act

      1. I would agree with you Stu but we wouldn’t want Keith getting carried away again now would we? :P

  13. There should be no faith schools in this country – public, private, none of them. Education is too important to entrust to private self-interested hobby groups committed to demonstrably wrong and ridiculous fairytale nonsense. And education regarding important issues like human equality and dignity most of all.

    We shouldn’t just be campaigning to stop catholic schools being discriminatory, we should forcible take back all those schools and make them properly secular. Religion has no place in education – it’s a private hobby.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2012, 1:02pm

      I agree. I like the French system. There is no religious instruction in the state schools and if pupils want it, they have to seek it outside the school, outside of school hours and in some instances, pay for it.

  14. Maybe the tweet was not sent accidentally.

    Which given that the tweet was sent – suggests it was done deliberately.

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2012, 12:59pm

    Gove should resign, NOW! He shouldn’t be endorsing any religious denomination’s ethos, nor should MPs either.

  16. Craig Denney 15 May 2012, 1:00pm

    The Tories hoodwinked the gay community into helping them to come to power and that’s not going to happen again.

    After this the Tories will ‘never’ be trusted again and they have lost the gay vote!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2012, 1:05pm

      I agree. They will also lose the election in 2015 because they didn’t support it, economic policies aside. I wonder how many of those openly gay MPs will vote yes to equal marriage and I wonder if any of them signed C4M using a bogus name?

  17. Paddyswurds 15 May 2012, 1:08pm

    This is just more proof, if proof was ever needed, that the Law and Justice Tories don’t intend, never intended and never will enact Marriage Equality. It has been used to keep the “queers” quiet especially leading up to the mid term elections and now that they are out of the way, well we can be pushed out of sight without any great consequence.
    I have banged on about this since the beginning of the so called consultation, whatever that is and why is it taking so long btw? Can anyone tell us what exactly this consultation entails and where exactly are the hearings, if any, taking place?.
    No I think the whole thing is an exercise in deception and will be strung out by various means until such times as an excuse can be found to drop the whole idea. Call me Dave is just another two faced Tory twit talking out of the two sides of his mouth at once and as for his lap dog Cleggy, well what can I say…frankly words fail me except to say the LibDems have become Tory Lite….

    1. That There Other David 15 May 2012, 1:30pm

      The Tories have never been the ones pushing this. It clearly comes from the Lib Dems. Cameron is claiming it because he’s clever enough to see the opinion polls and realises that if the Tories are to continue with their demolition of the Lib Dems that they need to ensure that Clegg cannot claim ANYTHING from their time in government come the 2015 election. It also helps Cameron and co. in their efforts to ditch the Nasty Tories™ label.

      When (not if) a Bill is presented to Parliament the entire Lib Dems, Labour, the one Green MP and most likely the SNP will vote for it. That’s quite a bloc for the anti-crowd to get around. Unless the entire Tory Party joins up with the DUP the Bill will get through the Commons.

      And when I say “When” I mean it. Now that the subject has been breached a Bill will be drafted, even if the Tories have no involvement with it themselves.

      Meanwhile expect the language to get nastier as the anti-equality people get more desperate. Sadly, it will.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2012, 1:58pm

        Totally agree with all of that but….what if it passes in the Commons and fails in the Lords? Would Cameron have the guts to invoke the Parliament Act and prove he really did support it? Marriage equality would never been on the table had it not been for Nick Clegg which explains why a Liberal Democrat, Lynne Featherstone, is heading the consultation. A smarter move on Cameron’s part would have been a Tory at the helm but I suppose he didn’t want to upset the back bencher bigots, the ones who are trying derail it as well as bring their party down in 2015.

        1. Lets not talk ourselves into that barrier until we are almost at it eh, Robert?

          1. Paddyswurds 15 May 2012, 3:24pm

            Apparently none of you can tell me what this so called consultation entails, where it is being held and who are the inquisitors and how many or who has been consulted yet. Is it a coven of blue haired WI ladies somewhere in the home counties, is it self appointed jurists in town halls up and down the country, who is consulted, Anglican Vicars, RC priests out on parole from their prison sentence for paedophilia of the nations children, retired and bewildered judges or defrocked and retired bishops sitting somewhere in a quiet corner of Cornwall. Where exactly, we would all like to know so we can give evidence and show that we are also human beings and deserve our rights without a FU*K*NG CONSULTATION!!!!

          2. Padyswurds

            I have directed you to the consultation website elsewhere on a different story (where the location of the consultation was also including in the main content of the story).

          3. “Lets not talk ourselves into that barrier until we are almost at it eh, Robert?”

            I wish I could be as optimistic as you, Stu! I’m afraid I tend to expect the worst case scenario all the time – which explains my constant worries about the SNP and marriage equality here in Scotland!

      2. @ That There Other David

        In Westminister, the SNP have a policy that their MP’s don’t vote on legislation that only affects England. I would presume this falls under that category even though it affects Wales too.

  18. This is a big story. Seems government policy on marriage equality is being set by the Daily Telegraph. Recall the opening shot was a Telegraph interview with the Archbishop of York. Presumably “Fr J Large” is the provost of Brompton Oratory.

  19. GulliverUK 15 May 2012, 1:23pm

    I look forward to the day when religion is taught in schools … only in the History lessons, where we look at the bizarre things we use to believe !

    Seriously tho, I’m not against people and their faith, just the wingnuts who have hijacked it, and the thick and stupid who haven’t spent the time to fully research passages and find out what they really mean. We seem to have gone from the more precise previous position of we love everyone, but hate the act, to the very lazy “the bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore even being gay is wrong”. This is what happens when a heated debate happens, to distinguish one side from another both can be in danger of moving to the extremes.

    Here is one apparent word-for-word translation of Lev 18:22
    “And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed; it is an abomination.” — yet in all modern bibles we’ve lost the “women’s bed” bit ! Why corrupt the text?

    1. GulliverUK 15 May 2012, 1:29pm

      Then there is this video by gay Christians,
      which suggests that passage relates to Temple Shrine Prostitution. Also, the use of the word “abomination” is inappropriate – a more appropriate meaning would be “not ritually pure”, i.e. not something people should do when worshipping or in a temple. Lev 18 is primarily a holiness and priestly code, meant for the priests. Then, you have all those Christians who say that the Old Testament is replaced with the New Testament and therefore none of the OT still applies. I think that most Christians just simply read the passage and interpret it as they have been told by others and priests / bishops – they don’t do proper research in to what the passage means. They need to look back to the original Hebrew / Aramaic and Greek, and also find out about the culture at the time. Even reading the original proper translations you cannot understand without learning about the culture of the time.

    2. I remember being told in my Catholic school RE class (quite a few years ago!) about pagens and how they used to worship oak trees before Christianity came to these shores. How we all laughed at the stupidity of it, while we at the same time were worshipping a wee man on a cross and his virgin mother! Thank God I eventually came to my senses, if you’ll pardon the pun!

    3. see that suggests to me that it is about respecting women’s space and not having sex in their bed, nothing about gays.

    4. hocus pocus !

      Remember I was saying I thought Christians had become lazy by condemning the whole person, where they used to say they loved us all, but the “act” was sinful, well I just found this article, quite by chance, at boxturtle.
      They could joyously love the sinner (but not his sin) so much that they longed for his soul to know God (and give up all that sin). But when it came to individual rights and civil liberties, that distinction evaporated. When talking about whether someone should have job security or the right to rent an apartment, suddenly the Bible declared “it’s a sin”.

      but then see the poll at the bottom – 54% now think relationships between gay people are ‘morally acceptable’.

  20. Given that the Catholic church does it’s damnedest to be a political force, surely that means it is disqualified from running schools, as it has a political agenda?

    1. It appears that Michael Gove does not agree – more reason why he should resign as Secretary of State for Education.

  21. It’s odd that they haven’t started a petition to ban divorce, and instructed all catholic pupils to sign it.

    Divorce is also contrary to Catholic dogma around marriage.

    So really, it’s all just about bashing gays, and creating a disguised way to do that.

  22. I think we should introduce a Bill that bans Catholics from getting divorced, and see how the schools react to that.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2012, 4:58pm

      I thought Catholics couldn’t get a divorce, only an annulment. I daresay some catholics do actually divorce but are not allowed the sacraments or something or does it go as far as excommunicating them? Now starting a petition banning Anglicans from divorce might have more of an impact. I’m sure the Christian Institute and all of the bigots who signed C4M wouldn’t have a problem with that. I wonder why they haven’t already started one?

      1. I think Opus Dei’s point is that divorce is just as wrong to Catholics as being gay is, yet they’re only going out of their way to protest about marriage equality and nothing else which means it’s not really about their religious beliefs at all but simple homophobia.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2012, 6:25pm

          Point taken, thank you.

  23. I came across this site on that little creep Mabel.

  24. Oh dear! Does thim mean I have to throw away my James MacMillan CDs?

  25. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 May 2012, 11:51pm

    Never a day passes whereby this awful catholic owned rag doesn’t publish some anti-gay drivel.

    Odious odious paper, stuck in the imaginings of its own bigoted readership.

  26. Don Harrison 25 Jun 2012, 6:57pm

    Telegraph Blogs editor ‘did not accidentally tweet outcome of Catholic schools investigation’
    In other words the Telegraph Blogs editor
    tweeted in on purpose. Well done

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.