Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

High Court backs Transport for London’s decision to ban gay ‘cure’ bus adverts

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Shame on all this! I am the one who got rid of my homosexual lifestyle and am now feeling happy! There are thousands who did the same thing. And yet we are being discriminated! Our movement will go on, despite your hatred!

    1. That There Other David 22 Mar 2013, 11:27am

      No hatred for you from me, just pity.

    2. It’s not hatred. It’s a logical well-reasoned protection against advertisement something that has no medical or scientific proof. Providing false ‘hope’ for venerable people is cruel and unethical.

      Do what you will but don’t impose it on me. Basic libertarianism. If you don’t like it don’t live in a liberal country.

      Troll.

    3. Nawal Husnoo 22 Mar 2013, 11:31am

      What’s this about causing offense???

      Isn’t the fact that it is a lie enough? (The Core Issues Trust’s advert used the word “ex-gay” in a context where it was clear it meant that they were no longer gay. Back in reality, their website makes it very clear they just don’t like the word gay, but they still feel homosexual attraction.)

    4. GingerlyColors 22 Mar 2013, 11:32am

      Obviously it hasn’t worked otherwise you would not be on this site. Are you only feeling happy because certain other people are happy now that you are conforming to their bigoted ideals?
      Most people now accept us for what we are, why can’t you accept yourself?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Mar 2013, 11:45am

        Quite! Even Alan Chambers who heads the largest ex-gay scam admits that one can never really change one’s natural sexual orientation and said there is no cure. Aversion therapy may work for some who are in denial, but for the most part, it doesn’t do any good, just more harm.

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Mar 2013, 11:42am

      I feel sorry for you. Whoever these thousands are about whom you speak, where is the proof? There is no overwhelming evidence to support your ex-gay conversion. There have been no controlled studies replicated in the legitimate medical and scientific literature. The day that a straight person can be converted to a gay orientation, then perhaps your argument might have some credence. Sexual orientation is inherent at birth, just like eye and skin color, immutable whereas religion is a lifestyle choice. Sorry, but your movement is diminishing. Only yesterday, conservative governor Chris Christie of New Jersey just signed a bill banning conversion therapy. Such therapy has already been condemned by the British Psychological Association. You can continue living in a world of delusion. You will always be gay and no amount of intimate relationships you may have with the opposite sex will ever change that reality.

    6. Windsor, you are liar, plain and simple.

    7. Brett Gibson 22 Mar 2013, 12:44pm

      Trololololololol.

      Even if you’re not some Christian idiot just posting shit on here, I pity you, you absolutely PATHETIC man, you’re a disgrace to yourself and humanity. I hope you’re happy with your ‘fulfilling’ life as a hetefauxsexual. Dick head.

    8. Bless. To be the very first to post on this story you must subscribe to the PN email alerts – which suggests you haven’t quite got rid of your ‘lifestyle’ just yet, doesn’t it?

    9. I think the add for most people reflects that feeling and emotions that an individual would have are considered a disease. Something that can be cured which in fact is wrong, in many ways sickening. Where’s your humanity?

  2. GingerlyColors 22 Mar 2013, 11:29am

    Surely these adverts would be an infringement of the Trades Descriptions Act as there is no cure for being gay. Perhaps these gay conversion therapists should do something more constructive and find a cure for the common cold instead.

  3. Nawal Husnoo 22 Mar 2013, 11:30am

    What’s this about causing offense???

    Isn’t the fact that it is a lie enough? (The Core Issues Trust’s advert used the word “ex-gay” in a context where it was clear it meant that they were no longer gay. Back in reality, their website makes it very clear they just don’t like the word gay, but they still feel homosexual attraction.)

  4. This judgement sounds fair to me. Transport for London probably didn’t go through all the proper procedures because it was all done in a bit of a hurry. But the main point is that the ban was justified and correct.
    The right decision was made – for once I actually feel a bit pleased with our justice system. Doesn’t happen very often.

  5. Can’t understand why the report in the Independent breaking the news that disgraced ex-archbishop Keith O’Brien has now been revealed to have been in a very long homosexual sexual relationship with a priest does not appear on the front page of Pink New!

    Is it old news? Is Pink News not aware of it?

    Surely it’s a story that should remain on Pink News’s front page for at least a week!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Mar 2013, 11:48am

      Totally concur, Eddy. Have you noticed the silence of the hierarchy in all this, north and south of the border? Ann Widdecombe and her ilk at C4M and CI, likewise.

      1. Hi Robert. I’m away from home at the moment, with poor connectivity in a BnB, but am gobsmacked that PN hasn’t got the O’Brien relevation on the front page tonight. OK, we’ve had a gutful of the man’s hypocrisy, but this news that he’s been IN A CONSTANT SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP is simply . . . monumental. I mean, it ought to shove one almighty great hole into the side of the Vatican war-ship and we ought to be making the absolute MOST of this revelation. This hypocrisy is almost beyond unbelievable. For years he’s been spitting vitriole against homosexuals, and now we hear that man was in a homosexual relationship – though probably not at exactly the same time. PN does a great job, but not covering this story is a major blunder.

  6. I, too, am a bit puzzled and troubled about the ‘offence’ argument and it would be tough to nail it as hate-speech.

    It is, however, clearly peddling a lie, which advertisers are not allowed to do. This should have been the reason for banning this claptrap.

    As a result, there’s an opening for an appeal now on a free speech test – allowed by the judge – which I’m sure they’ll go for. Disappointing.

    1. If they go for a free speech clause, then you’d be able to say pretty much anything in an advert. I’m not sure they’d want that.

  7. Quite right too.

  8. Either Windsor was never gay in the first place, or he’s in denial, just like Keith O’Brien was.

    Probably the latter, otherwise why would he bother to keep visiting PN?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Mar 2013, 12:36pm

      I think we can safely say it’s the latter, Gerry. Notice religion is at the root of their comments and often in their user names which really gives them away? We all know don’t we the nature of religious nutters who spew hatred and spread lies about gay people when they themselves are deeply closeted such as O’Brien as a classic example of self-loathing.

  9. Simon Gardner 22 Mar 2013, 12:25pm

    The judge has made the same basic error as the UDHR, the EDHR and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Religion is not a basic characteristic of anyone’s humanity. It’s exactly like a political belief and deserves no legal protection. Someone’s sexuality on the other hand, is a human characteristic like skin colour or gender ad does deserve protection.

    Plus theistic religion is bollocks.

    1. You missed total and utter from your bollocks.

    2. I hate to disagree. The Judge has to take the law as she finds it. The law (sadly in my view, on the basis that religion should not be price legend above any other conscience claim) does privilege faith. I look forward to the day when it doesn’t; but in the meantime…

      1. For “price legend” read “privileged”. How did that happen?

  10. Judging by your comment, Ex-gay seems to me to mean brain-wished and represents a very sad position for someone to be in. Why would homosexual (not homodeviant) feelings have to be controlled if they are unnatural?

    1. Troll.

      What a twat..

      1. “Good health”? Shame the evidence of your posts indicates quite seriously otherwise then, isn’t it Keith?

    2. Bless. Despite all your apparent efforts, you just can’t keep away Keith, can you?

    3. Dave North 22 Mar 2013, 2:29pm

      Reported.

      PN. Please remove this sh!t from the bottom of our shoes.

  11. Brett Gibson 22 Mar 2013, 12:45pm

    Trololololololol.

    Even if you’re not some Christian idiot just posting shit on here, I pity you, you absolutely PATHETIC man, you’re a disgrace to yourself and humanity. I hope you’re happy with your ‘fulfilling’ life as a hetefauxsexual. Dick head.

    1. Brett Gibson 22 Mar 2013, 4:47pm

      LMAO.

      Think you need a lesson in HIV mate. Even in percentage amounts, more straight people have HIV in the world than gay people. Guess you’ve just forgotten about the 98% of HIV cases in subsaharan Africa. My ‘lifestyle’ as you put it does NOT spread HIV, people having unprotected sex spreads HIV. Also, these innocent ‘babies’ getting HIV is NOT a result of homosexual sex, but rather rape and heterosexual sex. Go read a book apart from that best seller fiction novel you call the bible. Tit.

      1. Brett Gibson 23 Mar 2013, 2:29pm

        You need to get a life mate. lol.

  12. So is Ben Summerskill actually saying that had these adverts appeared in The Telegraph or The Spectator then they would have been perfectly acceptable “free Speech” and if so- expect the Core Trust to be advertising in those papers pretty soon!!!!

    1. No, I think he’s saying in those rags the ads would have had minimal impact because it’d have been preaching to the converted.

  13. For once, a right decision has been made!

    1. There has been a whole series of cases recently brought by the Christuan Institute and others (the registrar; the guest house owners; the Marriage Guidance Counsellor ones to name but three) where our right to protection under the law had been defended successfully in the domestic courts and in Europe. I don’t think you really have grounds to be disappointed in those who operate the law. We don’t yet have a right to get married but that’s down to the lawmakers not the courts. I should declare an interest here as a Judge.

  14. That There Other David 22 Mar 2013, 1:28pm

    Sigh.

    You’re the victim of a scam. Being gay has nothing to do with paedophilia, that’s just what they’ve told you. Just like they’ve convinced you to feel ashamed of being you. All very tragic.

    However, if you really prefer to live your entire life in denial then that’s your choice. Do me a favour though. Don’t try and project your own inability to cope with your actual existence onto others. You are the one who needs the magic father figure and promise of jam tomorrow, nobody else.

    1. Brett Gibson 23 Mar 2013, 2:42pm

      Pity religion maniacs like YOU can’t be controlled, or better yet euthanised.

  15. Why bother to respond to religious fools when it is the case that religious faith is a mental illness.

  16. Please do not feed the (barely literate) troll

  17. This judgement is superbly well-balanced and thoughtful. Essentially the case was resolved on human rights grounds rather than strictly procedural ones and it followed that the right decision was made even though the procedure was flawed. Had human rights arguments not been advanced then the outcome, as the judgement makes clear, could well have been different. I wouldn’t discount the possibility that there will be an appeal.

    For those who are interested the judgement can be found here:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/651.html

    These people will stop at nothing in their pursuit of bigotry dressed us as a love for justice.

    1. Oops. For “us” read “up”.

    2. Sad to see that my suspicion that there’d be an appeal has proved well-founded. They’ll stop at nothing.

  18. The rather big difference between these two “sins” as you call them is the one involves consenting adults only and the other doesn’t.

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