Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Advertising Standards Authority accused of bias over Lord Smith’s @Out4Marriage video

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Cardinal BoomBangaBangBangILuvU 22 May 2012, 3:09pm

    If the complaint is about the factual accuracy of the advert, I don’t see how a conflict of interest arises. However, he has done the right thing not to vote, for the sake of appearances.

    1. They probably are factual if you have a very selective method of deciding on who to poll. It’s precisely why statistic should never be trusted.

  2. I did wonder how long it would take for them to start crying about this when he released his video. Although given he came out what…1984, you’d think they’d have been a bit quicker on the uptake to start whinging

  3. It seems cut and dried – there is no conflict of interest if Chris Smith would be have a vote on the matter. Case closed.

  4. C4M need to learn that hatred and bigotry are not as protected by the law as they seem to think and will not be tolerated. They also need to learn how to lose with dignity.

  5. O.K. if he don’t vote then ask everyone on the panel there opinions on gay marriage. Then excuse everyone on the panel as they will all be biased in one way or another.

    1. Does seem a bit similar to the “One Million” Moms everyone should be neutral and on our side type of argument doesn’t it

  6. They clearly don’t like it when things are going in out favour!

  7. de Villiers 22 May 2012, 3:41pm

    Perceived bias is perceived bias. If there were a person at the head of the ASA who had made comments against equal rights or gay marriage then it would be inappropriate for them to be involved.

    If Lord Smith is to have no involvement in the decision, however, there should be no difficulty or real problem.

  8. I don’t give a flying fornication session what these twerps think. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else.

  9. Anyone in a judicating position will have bias its called life experience and being human the same way that C4M are biased against gays.

    1. True but they don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot as it were!

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 22 May 2012, 4:18pm

    Always playing the bloody victim card when they can’t get their own way. C4M should be labelled officially as a hate group which is what it really is including the Christian Institute.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 22 May 2012, 7:59pm

      Interesting to note from the bottom of the Christian Institutes web site.

      “The Christian Institute is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England as a charity. Company No. 263 4440 Charity No. 100 4774
      A charity registered in Scotland. Charity No. SC039220″

      In other words it is operating as a LTD company registered as a Charity.

      Since when did small LTD companies have the right to hold sway over sections of the population, and given its “charitable status” means it is tax exempt then it should NOT interefere in politics.

      1. Email to OSCR (Office of Scottish Charity Register)

        I note with interest that The Christian Institute, SC039220, has been very vocal in the current political debate around equal marriage. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether this is an acceptable course of action for a charity to take, or whether they are acting outside of their charitable purposes.

        1. Fabulous. I would encourage other Scottish readers to do likewise.

          Please let us know the outcome.

          1. Dr Robin Guthrie 23 May 2012, 2:40am

            Funny thing is.

            The HTML footer in the CI’s web site has been
            there for years and none of us have taken any notice.

            I would suggest Form CC47 be used with regards to complaints about this “charities” operations with the England/Wales Charities Commission and the Christian Institutes abuse thereof.

            http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Publications/cc47.aspx

            Perhaps Companies House or the Revenue have some details on file?

            As a LTD company it must have a Director and Company Secretary.

            Bear in mind, this “Institute” has been funding all of the legal cases such as Ladelle, B&B owners etc etc that have garnered national newsworthy sympathy of Christian victimisation against our basic rights.

            Seems to me that it is a self created self imposing compendium of religious people banging us around the head with their religion, whilst hiding under the banner of a charity, as a LTD company. Guaranteed…..

          2. @Dr Guthrie

            All you say sounds sensible and logical with one possible slight exception.

            Alan comments on contacting the OSCR in Scotland due to CI’s Scottish charitable links. Therefore, why contact CC for England & Wales? Am I missing something?

          3. Dr Robin Guthrie 23 May 2012, 11:29am

            Nick..

            “The Christian Institute is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England as a charity. Company No. 263 4440 Charity No. 100 4774″

            And Separately in Scotland ..

            A charity registered in Scotland. Charity No. SC039220″

          4. Thanks, Dr Guthrie.

            I clearly was missing something.

            I know the E&W Charity Commission have been tried before as a route to complain about CI – not sure if Scotland have (or a co-ordinated case has) been tried before. Might be worth a punt.

      2. Not very eloquent (I have a cold! My brain has stopped functioning!) but I did the same

        I have concerns about this charity.

        The Christian Institute gives every indication of being a political group masquerading as a charitable institution. At present, it is running a number of campaigns, the most vociferous of which appears to be targeted at same-sex marriage proposals, often with no hint of a religious perspective.

        The CI’s has a director named Colin Hart. Mr Hart is also a director of C4M, a pressure group with the political intent to encourage a vote agains legislation equalising marriage laws within the UK. Articles written by Mr Hart in his C4M capacity appear on the CI web site, with no mention of Hart’s dual role given: ie, the casual reader is encouraged to believe this is impartial comment from a 3rd party.

        Links to sample pages are given below.

        Please advise me if you believe the CI is operating within its remit as a charitable organisation.

        Sasha MacAllister

  11. I doubt it would be considered a conflict of interest if an ethnic minority chairman had made a video against racism and was investigating a claim that an advert was racist.

  12. The anti-equality group is an anti-social group of anti-gay Christians who want to oppress LGBT people and keep them from getting their equal and civil rights and freedoms.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 May 2012, 6:08pm

      And according to Anne Widdecombe, apparently there are some anti-gay gay supporters of C4M, though I doubt there are that many.

      1. Indeed Robert and I am sure we know the type of gay friends she refers to – if indeed there are any. Shall we say gentlemen of a certain age who adopt a policy of being delightful and entertaining and so painfully nice to people in the hope that they will be accepted and tolerated, frightened ever to put a foot wrong or disagree with such a character as our ‘Widders’. The type so beautifully described by Armisted Maupin in Tales of the City, the teacher who stayed at home, rarely went out and grew lilies!

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 May 2012, 10:56pm

          You hit the nail on the head, John F, exactly right! Tales of the City is a brilliant example of that.

      2. I’ve no doubt that there are gay men and women who don’t want equal marriage, but there are also straight people out there who don’t agree with marriage in any form! We don’t hear the Christians harp on about those do we?

  13. Are they really pulling the victim card because they fear they will lose in the ASA adjudication?

    The CI (aka C4M) are entirely familiar with the issue of losing legal issues. So, throwing teddies out the pram is their usual MO (not they have any just cause to throw teddies for on this occasion – or usually!)

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 May 2012, 6:06pm

      Yes, absolutely. The desperate rants coming from our opponents I believe is proof they know they’re losing the battle and they will be made to look like fools in the end, but then they are anyway. They’ll have a lot of explaining to do after equal marriage becomes a reality when they find no demand for polygamous relationships, among others that they obsess so much about.

      1. Yes, they’re definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Good to see them becoming increasingly desperate.

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 23 May 2012, 2:51am

      As I stated before.

      The CI are nothing more than a band of religious individuals set up as a LTD company, at this time registered as a charity.

      Given there clearly partisan public operations acting against democraticly elected government ministers, I fail to see how they can even be allowed a mouth piece.

      The C4M numbers have already been reduced to meaningless , via another chap on this forum who gives a damn and analysed its reality.

      Sometimes you just get pissed off with giving a damn as all you get back is Keith. and its like.

  14. Isn’t the Advertising Standards Agency a public body? Is it not therefore subject to the terms of the 2010 Equality Act? Doesn’t that mean that the ASA SHOULD be promoting LGBT equality and diversity in the community?

  15. Lord Smith actually has form on NOT being biased in his role as chairman of the ASA. Not long ago, when Heinz pulled their brilliant ‘gay kiss’ ad because of squealing American freaks, I complained to the ASA (under Lord Smith’s administration) because I didn’t think it had acted properly at all on the matter. Lord Smith has an amazing record of proactively supporting LGBT rights and equality but it is clear that this has not been grafted wholesale onto the ASA, disappointingly so in my opinion.

  16. C4M or CI or whatever are just the latest version of the KKK

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 May 2012, 10:57pm

      I would compare them with the National Organisation for Marriage (NOM), in America.

  17. Spanner1960 23 May 2012, 12:01am

    They made him a lord?
    And these twats witter on about democracy? Who the hell voted for him?

    1. A lot of people voted for him when he was an MP. Which is a lot more than evr voted for any of the Bishops who populate the HoL.

      Until the HoL becomes elected then ex-MP’s are the least illegitimate of its occupants.

      1. Spanner1960 23 May 2012, 2:38pm

        Well I don’t remember ever being asked.

        1. Were you asked about the appointment of any Lord?

          1. Spanner1960 25 May 2012, 11:00pm

            Nope, but I would prefer people that simply took the job on, rather than being brown-bagged, bribed and bought into the position as some career move.

  18. Does that mean any christians will step down from voting as well!

    How far does one go? Should all gays step down from a vote becuase they would naturally be bias. Should anybody who has already signed one of the 2 petitions step down from voting.

    Surely if the numbers and content of the C4M website/petition are dodgy then that is what is being judged not what the message of the C4M is.

    I think Lord Smith shoudl definitely be allowed to vote. This is bullying.

  19. Where was their problem with bias when they asked school children to sign the petition because normal well balanced adults wouldn’t, hmmm?

    Hypocrisy – the core value at the heart of all religion.

    1. Ken Chekwas 23 May 2012, 9:04am

      I’d like to think that the ‘normal’ and ‘well balanced’ adults signed the C4M petition while the ‘abnormal’ and ‘unbalanced’ adults signed the C4EM petition. This is because it is a well known fact that you are more likel to find mental illness among gays than among heterosexuals!

      1. “I’d like to think that the ‘normal’ and ‘well balanced’ adults signed the C4M petition while the ‘abnormal’ and ‘unbalanced’ adults signed the C4EM petition.”

        Bigots do not think rationally, so its irrelevant what you like. The reason you are imbalanced is probably due to your lack of schooling and lower IQ:- http://www.bilerico.com/2012/01/research_study_low_iq_correlates_with_prejudice_an.php

        “This is because it is a well known fact that you are more likel to find mental illness among gays than among heterosexuals!”

        Only in your head, but you believe whatever trash you want to make you get out of bed each morning and face what a repugnant individual a bigot like you really is in society. But keep posting on a gay site, it reassures us all about your “obvious straightness” – http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

      2. You might like to think that, Ken

        The evidence strongly suggests manipulation and deception in the irrelevant petition by C4M. Its completely discredited.

        Using schoolchildren across national schools, duplicating names, using false names and manipulating figures.

        You might like to think they were all genuine adults – the evidence suggests otherwise.

        There also is no filter on C4M to prevent duplicates – which there is on C4EM. There also is no advice on preventing signatures from overseas which there is on C4EM.

        Now, an organisation acting with propriety and integrity like C4EM appears more “normal” and “well balanced” than one that manipulated children as a political tool, is duplicitous in its actions and lies.

      3. If mental illness is to be found more among gay than non-gay people, it would be largely due to the lifelong need to deal with the toxic attitudes of f***wits like you, Ken.

      4. Spanner1960 23 May 2012, 2:40pm

        And all the God-botherers pray to an imaginary being in the sky.
        And you claim WE are the mentally unstable ones?

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