Reader comments · Gay MP Conor Burns amuses Commons with tales of his ‘friend and mentor’ Margaret Thatcher · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay MP Conor Burns amuses Commons with tales of his ‘friend and mentor’ Margaret Thatcher

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Thatcher was one of the liberal wing of the party; she was known for her strong record of supporting gay rights. Section 28 was not actually her idea – she was attempting to push through economic policy she believed vital to the UK, and the price demanded by backbench MPs was its introduction and a harder public line on sexuality. Conversations she had in private suggest that throughout the late 80s and 90s she was still very supportive of gay colleagues.

    While Section 28 was terrible, I can understand why a leader would prioritise the well-being of the national economy (whether or not you think she took the right decisions).

    1. Section 28 was an evil law.

      Make no mistake about it.

      It was utterly abhorrent.

      Russia is bringing in its own Section 28 now.

      Thatcher can be compared to Putin in this regard.

      You do agree that her funeral costs should be privatised I hope.

    2. Not a very strong leader after all then. Found wanting at one of the most important times gay men needed strong leadership. She didn’t provide it, and you find that excusable? I find it lamentable

    3. Are you serious? When in the House of Lords she was a staunch ally of Baronness Young who fought vehemently to oppose gay rights. Thatcher’s passing, even if 35 years too late, is cause for celebration, not mourning. Section 28 was introduced by HER government. Your suggestion that it didn’t have her enthusiastic support is utterly preposterous. Her relationships with colleagues who happened to be gay, if the accounts of Matthew Parris and Connor Burn are reliable, were not with those she regarded as equals but with rather weak obsequious characters who themselves deserve our contempt for their collusion with her. Finally, there is no requirement to prioritise the economy at the expense of anything and everything else, and certainly respect for the dignity of citizens and taxpayers. Get real.

    4. Go on then, demonstrate that she improved the well-being of the national economy. I expect solid evidence that the economy was better off than it would have been if she had concentrated on other issues, not a couple of cherry-picked figures or ideological hand-waving.

      Besides, while she was “prioritising the well-being of the national economy”, she still found the time to call Nelson Mandela a “typical terrorist”, and secretly provide training and supplies to Pol Pot’s followers.

    5. How old are you, James?

      Or are you so old you no longer have a good memory?

      Do you not remember Thatcher literally spitting the line:

      “Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay!”

      In case you have trouble understanding what the above line means, it translates as:

      “A gay or lesbian child does not have a right to be gay or lesbian!”

      Thatcher said it, and Thatcher utterly believed it!

      And in case you suggest someone wrote those words for her, remember that every human being is responsible for his or her own behaviour!

  2. Was the cab driver’s name Alf Garnett?

  3. Conor Burns is a clear child of Thatcherism – “Screw everyone else, so long as I am personally doing OK.”

    Why oh why is the taxpayer being forced to pay for this vile woman’s funeral?

    At least the fact that the public is being forced to pay for this scumbag’s funeral means that all protests are legitimized.

    1. Indeed. Having a state funeral for such a wicked woman is an insult to the people that she helped kill and the lives she helped ruin. She should be dispatched off a warship like Bin Laden.

      1. Your assertion that she’s a ‘wicked woman’ is not a truism though, it’s just your opinion. Your comparison between her and Bin Laden however makes you just look a bit silly.

        1. Dan, I’ll go with the “wicked”, though yes, the image of her being slipped off into the briny like Bin Laden is a bit far-fetched! :-)

          1. Couldn’t agree more…I didn’t like the women. But she was no Bin Laden!! That man was evil incarnate! She was just an rubbish prime minister who protected her own!

        2. de Villiers 11 Apr 2013, 3:38pm

          I doubt that she was wicked – I do not know as I did not live here then but I really doubt it. Wickedness, true wickedness, as one has seen in Europe is too high a description.

          Similarly, to compare a democratically elected politician who left their office after losing the support of the other elected deputies and who fought communism in Eastern Europe to Bin Laden is stupid.

          This characterisation of people into simplistic good/evil is too much in the way of George Bush Junior and his simple American view of good/bad. Most people are good in some things and bad in others. That is to be human.

          The difficulty for people is in a mature way to acknowledge that persons who have done wrong things are in other ways good or have done good things.

          1. de Villiers, she forced through a measure that was intended to criminalise any positive affirmations of we homosexuals or of homosexuality in any school, primary or secondary.

            I call that nothing but WICKED.

            And it IS so.

            Let’s NOT be passive.

            Therefore, one CAN say Margaret Thatcher was wicked!

            Not entirely, but partly.

            And that’s why there is such strong disagreement about her and her legacy this week following her death.

          2. de Villiers 11 Apr 2013, 5:13pm

            That is too simplistic at each stage of your analysis, which rests overly on bivalence.

            The law that was made passed to make criminal positive affirmations of sexuality was wrong. I cannot say whether it was as high as “evil” – or deeply beyond any redemption. I can only try to posit it among those acts which I consider to be evil.

            To make sexuality criminal, to punish sexuality by death or torture as is in this way suggested in Uganda and as in Iran would to me be evil and wicked. Here, Margaret Thatcher imposed no such condamnation but wanted the homosexuality to be performed legally in private.

            In looking at this, I read that an MP wanted to put the names of all the gay people on a register and to make them wear homosexual identification. That, to me, approaches more close the wickedness.

            But even if this was wicked, it is not enough to say that the person was wicked. Good people can do wicked things. The difficulty is to see maturely the complexity of the person.

          3. David Myers 13 Apr 2013, 9:59am

            In my opinion, her balance was decidedly on the “wrong things” side of the scale!

  4. What’s the betting that Conor ‘Uncle Tom’ Burns is going to claim the maximum costs possible for his attendance at the parliamentary session today?

    Does Conor Burns condemn the majority of his Tory colleagues who remain evil bigots, opposed to marriage equality?

    Of course he doesn’t – he’s a Thatcher Tory – ‘screw everyone else, so long as i’M ok’.

    1. “Uncle Tom” is what instantly came to my mind, too, Steve!

    2. David Myers 13 Apr 2013, 10:01am

      Or, as I prefer to say, Aunt Tom! (I’m alright Jack. I got mine!)

  5. If Conor Burns regarded Thatcher as a ‘friend’ then I hope he gets treatment for his Stockholm Syndrome.

    Is he so damaged (or perhaps he’s simply stupid) that he doesn’t grasp that it is impossible to be friends with someone who thinks you are inferior, like Thatcher did.

    If there was a hell, Thatcher would be rotting in it – probably sucking Pinochet’s mouldy old c0ck all the while.

  6. Enough already PN, no amount of pandering to this obnoxious old hag is going to make a diffrence. She despised homosexuality and section 28 proves this. I do not care about Connor Burns or his relationship with this woman. My teenage years along with many others where destroyed by her. The ridcule, the pain, the icolation pushed on to us because of this law. Hopefully Burns will soon follow her. These bigots make my skin crawl.

    We have got children’s heart surgery centers closing, defense’s been cut, the sick and disabled been thrown into work, sexual health clinics been cut and yet we have to pay for this war mongering, homophobic biggots funeral. One rule for the rich I guess, mourning? Well not in my name, tis bloody sickening!

    1. She despised it so much that voted to legalise it…

      1. I’m pretty sure you despise a lot of things while still thinking they should be legal. Do you honestly think we should applaud someone for not wanting to lock all LGBT people up in prison?

      2. what she did was in the 60s she voted in favour for homosexuality, but in the 80s, restricted that yes. In other words, come on the bus, but sit at the back and know your place!!!! Dreadful woman.

  7. if Judy Garland (!) gets to number 1 this week, then there’s a certain poetic justice about it.

    Urban legend (ie it’s not really based in reality) has it that the Stonewall Riots in New York in 1969 (and hence the modern gay rights movement) were inspired by Judy’s death – when the police raided the bar that night, the griefstricken gays decided that enough was enough and fought back.

    Imagine THAT being number 1 on the week of the funeral of the Section 28 prime minister.

    1. I talked to a man in New York once who told me that the gay men he knew were very saddened when Judy Garland died, all of his friends had skipped work that day to stand in line to go to Garland’s viewing. The patrons at the Stonewall who were over 40, would have been irritated and depressed enough that day that once they had a couple drinks in them they fought back against the police. After all, the confronatation was a long time coming. I think where the “urban legend theory” started was because gay men who were asked about being at Stonewall the night of the riots in various documnetaries were in their teens and earlly 20s at the time and so they were not as affected by Garland’s death as gay men who were older in 1969 (and not available to speak for the documnetaries). It would be the same as if Streisand died today. 20 year kids listen to Gaga. To say that the boozy moods of a barfull of gay men including drag queens weren’t affected by Garland’s death that day seems uninformed.

    2. SteveC, I have to agree with you about the irony of poetic justice!

      I like Edward heard similar and varied stories about Stonewall riots. Which supposedly gave birth (despite other claims) to the expression “Friends of Dorothy”
      When the raid happened, it was supposedly early am when the Stonewall Inn was raided. Those being arrested were resisting and there were skirmishes with police flowed onto the street, The men who had been to Judy Garlands viewing that day were making their way to the Stonewall, saw the patrons resisting arrest and that is supposedly how the riots started as they joined the confrontation. Jubilant that the mourners were running to their assistance and would outnumber the police, some protestors were heard to shout to each other “We’ll be fine now friends of Dorothy are coming!” hence the urban myth of Dorothy!

      Now if we could get all the Gay bars on the day of the funeral to play “Somewhere over the Rainbow” that would be even more poetic

  8. I’d expect an ‘openly gay MP’ who ‘visited (Thatcher) almost every Sunday’ to be able to quote something she said that indicated her lack of homophobia and regret over Clause 28 – as Cameron did – in an attempt to deflect the loathing that many LGBT feel towards her. Its noticeable that he didn’t even try….

    1. I expect he was too busy lying on his back giggling idiotically as she fed him fairy cakes whilst failing to recognise that he was being patronised

  9. What a bloody idiot. Being gracious when Michael Foot died hardly stands as evidence of character.

    Mr Burns: how many of the advances that we’ve made since your heroine left office do you think we’d have made if she hadn’t done? Have some self respect man and stop returning, like a tragic dog, for yet another kicking.

    1. Why’ve I been marked down for this?

  10. Pink news is a Thatcher loving disgrace

    1. You have been too. I’ve given you a green tick which will get you back to zero. Sadly I have to agree with you.

    2. Yes, PinkNews appears to have a Tory bias. We shall have to consider this. There are other alternatives. We may need to migrate.

      1. Where? Can you let me know?

      2. Or if they don’t like what you say, they simply gag you taking down your post!

  11. The phrase “Friends of Dorothy” predates the Stonewall Riots by several decades. It originally referred to the people (many of whom were gay) who attended dinner parties at the home of Dorothy Parker.

    The fact that it predates Stonewall isn’t even open for debate as there are many texts referencing the phrase in existence before 1969.

    In the modern context of Judy Garland, it refers to the Tin Man, the Straw Man and the Cowardly Lion. The three queers who accompanied Dorothy to the Emerald City. By extension, it refers to the gay men who migrated to SF, LA and NYC post-Stonewall in search of a supportive community.

    1. I mentioned in an earlier post, there were many different claims to it’s origin, some by urban myth make the connection to Stonewall and Judy Garland (generational) the most related. Others preceding it by decades (1940’s) and intimated it’s use as code used by gay men/service men, when being gay was criminal offense. I agree how ever what your explanation appears to be the most accurate and consistently documented.

    2. David Myers 13 Apr 2013, 10:18am

      Thanks for this information and perspective. Very interesting.

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 11 Apr 2013, 12:42pm

    Thatcher sycophants such as Burns of course would never refer to Tory MPs in opposition to equal marriage homophobes or bigots. He wouldn’t dare would he because he probably views some of them as his ‘friends’. These are the types Loughton and Burrowes use to deflect their homophobia and bigotry.

  13. I do worry about the political naivete of PinkNews journalists when I read articles like this. A gay Tory MP flatters one of the vilest politicians this country has ever had, the only politician who has intentionally forced through a measure to diminish and “disappear” gays and lesbians, and we get an article that seems to suggest that Conor Burns is a good chap? Personally, I found his little jokes sickening.

  14. Families with kids baton charged by mounted police, communities torn apart…some still haven’t recovered. 18yrs of tory government to be replaced by new labour, who for a further 14yrs did little to regenerate, old industrial areas. Sucking up the arses of the city of london, contiuing that culture of greed and man mind thy self thatcherite policies. Look where thats left us. She did feck all for millions of working class people and nothing for the lgbt community. That said I don’t think a street party on her death is respectful to her kids or the people who stood on picket lines, to oppose her devisive brand of politics!

    1. Divisive!

  15. The difference being she actively helped to push through decriminalizing homosexuality in the 60s despite party opposition & the same in the 80s! you also have to blame those around her including the government scientists and advisors who helped formulate her opinion for section 28, she wasn’t a unelected dictator who conjured up every policy, if not her, then another Tory leader in her place would have brought in section 28.

    1. Haven’t you even heard the Tories yesterday themselves laughing at Thatcher’s definition of a consensus politician?

      Michael Howard in the Lords hit back at claims that Thatcher was divisive. “She was!” he said. “She had to be! There was no room for consensus.”

      Lady Thatcher was a “conviction not a consensus politician”, the prime minister told MPs

      And Malcolm Rifkind, Conservative former foreign secretary, said he recalled Thatcher saying she did believe in consensus – a consensus behind her convictions! At the time he thought this was a joke. But as time went on, he concluded that she was deadly serious..

      Watch the following and then think again as to whether Thatcher was only doing what other people around her made her do!

  16. I’m just waiting for the football matches in the North and Scotland this weekend… it’ll be amusing to see how the minutes silences work out ….

  17. Sorry I don’t care how many nice things say about her, me and my family were at the thin end of the wedge. My dad was a minor and neither she nor the NUM would back down. She stated as such that the miners were scum! My father worked damned hard in a very dangerous job for very little money! He was given little choice in striking and we were queuing for food parcels etc for a year! Yes she sorted out the stupid unions that labour would deal with! But she also went on to screw the country! I was a child though most of this, but my memory is long!!

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.