Keep it up Peter,it just shows you are getting up their noses!
Good guy. Sincere, selfless and someone we can completely rely on to keep making things better (with the help of others). He’s right to take the “snub” as a good sign.
I’d imagine 60,000,000 other people don’t get invited to Downing Street despite all the tax they pay for its upkeep and the salaries of those who work there and yet I don’t hear them whining about it.
Don’t be a fool
Did you read the fourth paragraph in this report?
What a load of old cobblers…
Read the bloody article for fcvks sake!
Maybe they just don’t like you?
You have your own website and try to get in the papers everyday, why would they need to meet you to hear your opinions Peter?
To be honest, i’d make excuses not to meet you in their position too, there’s plenty of other things that need to be sorted so close to the Olympics and with the economy struggling and you still want to use the Olympics to ban homophobic countries despite the fact that seeing a country where straights and gays aren’t trying to kill each other will probably do more to change their opinions than banning them.
Not to mention the fact that the Olympic rules don’t allow it to be used as a bargaining or political tool
“I would not want to go to Downing Street while the Prime Minister is allowing this mistreatment of LGBT people. ”
That’s the single biggest issue you go on and on about Peter and i don’t believe it for a second. It’s your biggest tool for your self promotion and I would have believed you more if you claimed to be a rare breed of turkey from Mars
Have you any idea of the work Peter has done over the years for all kinds of different marginalised groups?
And that automatically guarantees an invite to any gathering and/or party does it does it?
Not any, but one acknowledging work in the field of gay/human rights, yes, I would have hoped so.
I do agree but not for someone whose only interests in these event is to grab headlines. Peter does do good work but he is not bigger than any event. It’s a combination of people, together, working together to improve things for us. It’s not time for Mr Tatchell to grab all by upstaging the event in the quest for headlines and we all know thats what it would be with him.
But really, he’s hardly ‘upstaged the event’, has he?
And that automatically means everytime a law or a decision in the morning is thought about Peter Tatchell has to be contacted to make sure he won’t kick up a fuss?
Let’s not forget Peter Tatchell is a big name activist, it’s his job to get his name in the paper as much as possible to further his cause and that’s why he keeps bringing this up
Oh Peter, so you didn’t get invited to the ‘party’… Get over it!!
If you don;t care about it, then why feel the need to release a press statement?
There is a very good reason for your blackilisting……maybe one day you’ll get it.
If Peter, in addition to all his determined campaigning, could grow a sense of humour he might find invitations starting to flow.
…a national treasure!
And a predictable backlash from the chronically intellectually, spiritually and ethically challenged amongst us…
It’s the same kind of hogwash that suggested that Ken Livingston was a bloody homophobe
…what a bunch of doughnuts…
Treasure? I wish they would bury him again.
Tool by name tool by nature.
Ah, some sanity on this comments page; quite a rarity from the looks of it. One does not have to agree with everything Mr. Tatchell advocates (hell, I certainly don’t) to recognise and respect him as a tireless campaigner for gay rights in Britain, who has done wonders for us as a community. Those people mocking him here might not be enjoying the current liberal attitude to their sexualities in Britain if it were not for the important work of Tatchell and those like him. Show some respect people.
Narcissistic with grandiose delusions!
David Cameron can hood-winkle some of us in the gay community but not all of us. He has not invited Peter because he would see straight trough him.
Every time support for Mr Cameron wanes, he has a reception. I can’t remember this many receptions from the over leaders.
And Mr Cameron’s tone has changed from “this government will bring in equal marriage” to “the government would legislate” The difference between “will” and “would” is huge and he’s now saying he personally backs it. Is that a future cop-out encase his party doesn’t?
I don’t think the majority in the Tory party support it which means if it’s defeated in Parliament, it will down to them.
…it will be down to them I meant.
If we get marriage equality in this government it will be in spite of, not because of the Tory Party.
Well, if it weren’t for Peter, there would be NO equal marriage discussion or consultation. He was the first gay rights activist in the world to advocate for it, long before the Netherlands became the first country to legislate for it.
Ask yourselves how many of you would have put your lives on the line as Peter has done in Moscow to make life better for Russian gay people and elsewhere? Think before you start bashing him. We owe him a huge debt of gratitude, whether you like him or not. He’s a giant among the few true activists we have out there and not afraid to speak out at injustice at home and abroad.
Well said, Robert.
Why should he be expected to be invited? The man has invited himself to way too much already. He doesn’t represent any official body or organisation, and he certainly doesn’t represent me.
If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to set up a proper outfit, or join an existing one like Stonewall.
Until then he is just another member of the public with an axe to grind.
Peter joining Stonewall would definitely be a significant credibility boost, but certainly not in the direction you’re implying.
Why should’nt he expect to be invited? Afterall it is billed as a reception for the LGBT community and Peter is as much a part of our community as anyone else.
For over 40 years he has campaigned tirelessly for Lesbian and Gay equality, and for human rights in general – he has bravely stood up for what he believes despite the threats and personal cost to his own well-being.
And what I admire most is that he has done this openly in his own name, on the principles that he believes in without hiding his identity – if only the same could be said for those of you who criticise him now.
Love him or hate him – long may he carrying fighting the good fight, helping raise issues that we need to address, in my opinion we would all be the poorer without him.
Whether Peter’s invited or not he will still try making headlines out of it.
Surely he’ll carry on regardless so why make such a fuss. Don’t get me wrong he does do good work but me thinks he, yet again, overstates his own importance.
Isn’t that the point, though, that Peter is his person and does not represent organisations whose agendas are invariably contaminated by their governmental links (naming no names, eh Stonewall?!).
Peter has funded all his own initiatives from his own pocket and the few scraps the community throw his way.
He has done selfless, thankless work and made enormous strides for our rights while most of our community looked the other way in indifference and carried on shopping and pulling on Gaydar and, latterly, Grindr.
Peter knows how to harness energy and channel that energy into positive, worthwhile pursuits:- imagine all the energy the rest of us expend on shopping, hunting for sex and other frivolous pursuits being harnessed into something that leaves a legacy even half us meaningful as what he has achieved?
Procrastination and complacency are not words in Peter Tatchell’s vocabulary.
>”He doesn’t represent any official body or organisation…”
If YOU want to be taken seriously, please do your homework before posting. Peter has set up the Peter Tatchell Foundation.
Unfortunately, I can’t find a link listing all the achievements of the Spanner1960 Foundation…
Oh big deal.
An organisation of one.
I wonder who the key directors and chief benefactors are?
You know, what I detest most about some of the comments posted on here is the absolute ignorance and prejudice of those who post them. For God’s sake – just do a little bit of research for a change; with the internet, it’s not hard. Peter is the Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, a legally constituted entity, company limited by guarantee and one applying for charitable status. He is answerable to a board of trustees, themselves upstanding professionals in the LGBT community. So, yes, he does represent an official organisation, this is a proper outfit and it is a respectable one. Furthermore, this is not his axe to grind. The PM’s keynote speech at the LGBT reception was on Marriage Equality – an issue that Peter has championed far longer than Stonewall has deigned to support and one which, through the Equal Love campaign, existed long before Out4Marraige. You may not agree with Peter or his approach but, in his 60th year and after 45 years of active campaigning/Ctd
Ctd/ he darned well deserved to be invited. That he was not is down to a small cabal, a queeny little coterie of gay civil servants and advisors who advise on the invitation list and who have long declared Peter as persona non grata. It’s about time that these people were named, exposed and shamed. Moreover, I’d like to hear what the official Lib Dem line is as to why Peter was not invited. Presumably they co-hosted the reception and their Deputy leader is one of Peter’s supporters. What say you, Simon Hughes?
Yes, well, quite.
The obvious difference, of course, being that Peter doesn’t financially gain from his work unlike the outrageously (six-figured?) salaried Summerskill.
In fact I believe I am correct in stating that he has lived in the same little council flat for several decades now.
Would anyone else even consider making a similar sacrifice to seek to considerably improve the lives of others?
Nope, thought not.
You know, what I detest most about some of the comments posted on here is the absolute ignorance and prejudice of those who post them. For God’s sake – just do a little bit of research for a change; with the internet, it’s not hard. Peter is the Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, a legally constituted entity, company limited by guarantee and one applying for charitable status. He is answerable to a board of trustees, themselves upstanding professionals in the LGBT community. So, yes, he does represent an official organisation, this is a proper outfit and it is a respectable one. Furthermore, this is not his axe to grind. The PM’s keynote speech at the LGBT reception was on Marriage Equality – an issue that Peter has championed far longer than Stonewall has deigned to support and one which, through the Equal Love campaign, existed long before Out4Marriage. Ctd/
Yes, we’ll, quite
The obvious difference being that Peter has never sought to profit from his work, unlike the outrageously (six-figure?) salaried Summerskill.
In fact I believe I’m correct in stating he has lived in the same small council fiat for several decades now.
Would anyone else even consider making a similar sacrifice to improve the lives of others?
WE love you Peter, that’s what matters! :)
Peter has a reputation for disrupting formal events. Just as he’s entitled to protest, so is a host entitled to not invite him because they fear he will disrupt what they are trying to do. What a fuss about nothing.
He is a serial pest. Good on the Government for standing their ground.
He has done more damage to our lives than any body could imagine.
Thank God Australia got rid of him.
Of the many stupid things you have written, this has to be one of the worst. Get a grip and a sense of proportion.
Some ‘radical’ you are!
With comments like this, I have absolutely no idea why you refer to yourself as a “radical” in your user name. Unless of course you wish to imply that you are radically reactionary.
I’m no fan but he deserves a place. The gay right have won. Gay tories are sickening
Gosh, Peter really does divide the room. There are many stupid, ignorant comments about him posted here. Let me point out that without Peter and his zero tolerance approach, all you Tory Boys would look like extremists.
You immediately assume that anybody that is anti-Tatchell is automatically pro-Tory and probably some “self-loathing” individual.
Peter Tatchell is simply a self-aggrandising, self-promoting band of one that refuses to bother trying to work with any other groups; all he has done for the past thirty odd years is moan and whinge about the state of play, whilst continually getting up the backs of all concerned, alienating a large sector of LGBT people and trying to become the self-appointed spokesman of the “gay community”. I remember this fckwit trying to storm parliament and Canterbury cathedral when he was with Outrage. Is that really the way to get your message across?
He is anti-establishment, anti-monarchy, anti-tradition, and being Australian, probably anti-British as well. If he had tried to pull half the stunts in his native country that he has here, they would have probably locked him up and they wouldn’t have to continue putting up with his insufferable lefty whinging.
I don’t agree with you, Spanner. I don’t know why you call his tireless campaigning for our rights “self-promoting”. He has always been ahead of his time. It was disgraceful that Stonewall took so long to support equal marriage – I am still dumbfounded by that. Peter has employed some extreme methods but, I said before, we need the extremists to make the moderates look moderate.
and being Australian, probably anti-British as well
You really think this, do you? And you would think this explains why Tatchell has lived in the UK for 41 years and is a naturalised British citizen?
Really, if you have to descend to cheap nasty shots, you could surely do better than this.
Oh really? Maybe he should do the same and drop the totally unnecessary and spiteful sideswipes at the royal family during their Diamond Wedding Anniversary celebrations then.
If that isn’t ‘cheap and nasty’ I don’t know what is.
Being anti-royalty means being anti-British, does it? Last I heard he wasn’t the only person in Britain who would prefer it to be a republic.
I do feel his timing and attitude towards camapigning linked to both the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee were pure opportunism and did nothing to support either of the issues he was campaigning on. In fact, they seemed to negatively impact on the issues he has been campaigning for and portray Peter as a media whore seeking opportunistic publicity.
I respect Peter. I am by instinct a republican (although I can not think of anyone I would prefer to be UK head of state in preference to the Queen). I strongly support his stance on LGBT rights and equality.
My feeling and view that these two particular acts are severe misjudgements and damaging to the campaigns Peter seeks to lead are not incongruous with supporting LGBT rights, republicanism or equality. Indeed, it is because of my support that I am dismayed and concerned about how Peter has handled these matters.
I do value Peter and a lot of the work he does.
I have been on demonstrations which Peter has organised and contributed to many of his campaigns.
I will continue to do so, with those campaigns I feel are legitimate, and targetted honestly and effectively.
I will also say when I disagree with him (for example I felt the timing of his Olympics campaign was purely opportunistic and headlining to massage his own ego)..
These comments sounds very much like Peter crying that he wasn’t invited to the party and do little to enhance his credibility and seem to me (and clearly others) portray him and his focus in a negative light.
It’s all a little strange really, as the British establishment has been quite sophisticated for around a century in encompassing (and frequently disarming) opposition through engaging socially – I think first of all of George V and Queen Mary inviting Gandhi (in loincloth) to tea at BP 80 years ago.
Still, I can see that Cameron and Clegg might well shy away from inviting someone someone as unequivocally confrontational at PT, since I doubt he’d let them get away with polite evasions.
I wouldn’t doubt any politician of any political persuasion inviting that prat along. He is a loose cannon, and certainly not somebody I would wish to have on my guest list.
There are lots of people I might not want to have on my guest list either (and I daresay many guest lists that would exclude you too), but that’s irrelevant: if a party is being given to acknowledge people who’ve been important in the movement for LGBT rights in the UK, it’s a disgrace that one of the most prominent is ignored.
Maybe you’re just not as important as you think Pete…