Reader comments · Labour fear Lord Dear will table a new wrecking amendment for the equal marriage bill · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Labour fear Lord Dear will table a new wrecking amendment for the equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Someone needs to wreck Lord Dear…

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Jun 2013, 12:14pm

      I think he’s already a wreck!

      1. Midnighter 7 Jun 2013, 1:08pm

        Behaves and looks like any other decaying Skeksis to me.

      2. He is certainly not a dear.

  2. Barry William Teske 7 Jun 2013, 11:01am

    “Lord Dear said he is ‘most definitely not doing’ what is described in the emails”
    Double speak for ‘Just watch me’.

  3. You would have hoped that given the large majority, he would got the message.

    Then again, bigots like him never give up do they?

    1. GulliverUK 7 Jun 2013, 11:30am

      No, they usually don’t. That’s why you should always ignore people like that, including that w**nker Welby – he’s made his bed by highly inflammatory language – he’s the new O’Brien. Tatchell’s interview with him was worth a try, but clearly he’s far more Carey than Williams, and so for the next few years I don’t believe there is any worth in having any more dialogue with the Church of England. When someone is belligerent and hostile to you I see no point in continuing the discussion.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Jun 2013, 12:14pm

      It’s the last desperate rant of equally desperate religious loons. Colin Hart of C4M predicted the second reading would fail as would the third. Some of the swivel-eyed tossers even predicted it would be ‘massacred’ in the Lords. NOT!

  4. You’ve been beaten Dear, just give it up! Its amazing how camp every statement suddenly becomes when you add his name!
    Rather like Captain Darling from Blackadder…

  5. GulliverUK 7 Jun 2013, 11:14am

    Unsurprising – stupid, reckless, spiteful, nasty, but we knew someone would try this. His ridiculous approach will just get more and more peers backs up as they have voted to discuss the bill, not wreck it. They know the majority in the HoC and country are behind it – if they don’t pass it that will be the end of the House of Lords – nobody will consider it a valid part of democracy and it will probably have to go completely to be replaced by a totally elected congress.

    Is there no control over these Lords? Does nobody have the power to stop him making a mockery of Parliament?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Jun 2013, 12:11pm

      It’s going to pass, GulliverUK, inevitable. It will probably pass with a slightly smaller majority but pass it will and comfortably, a result we and the majority of Lords in support will be very proud of. Think positively.

  6. He should stick to what he knows best, wanking like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    1. Not that there is anything wrong with wanking.

  7. Enrique Esteban 7 Jun 2013, 11:25am

    Help to sign: prenume=first name; nume=family name; oras=city; tara=country.
    You’ll receive a mail and have to click on 2nd link to confirm.

  8. It’s like a Bond movie where everytime the baddie is beaten he comes back again.

    The outcome of this debacle will be the same as in the movies, though the House of Lords may be destroyed in the process.

  9. bobbleobble 7 Jun 2013, 11:29am

    Now he wants to be mature? When he’s been soundly beaten playing games with people’s lives, NOW he wants to be mature! I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him.

    On a lighter note, in that picture he looks like he’s saying ‘and I would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you pesky kids!’ If we rip his mask off do you think it’s really Andrea Minichiello Williams underneath?

    1. Yes, it is an admission that he was casually, immaturely mucking about with people’s lives when he introduced the first wrecking bill.
      Something we all knew anyway.

    2. You would probably find that he is Andrea Minichiello’s glove puppet and that she has her hand right up his rear end

      1. bobbleobble 7 Jun 2013, 12:01pm


        1. You know, as with Sooty and Sweep and all other glove puppets.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Jun 2013, 12:30pm

      Or worse, that ugly harridan, Sharon James! She must be the looniest of all and Williams a close second. I’m surprised we’ve heard nothing from the other loon, Ann Widdecombe. Interesting too that not one cleric from the RCC has opened his mouth in months since the O’Brien debacle.

    4. Yes, t’is herself !!!! :@)

  10. Oh dear!…here we go again…

    only 800 or so lords to email again, you’d think they’d just want to pass it quickly rather than have a whole load of emails all over again!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Jun 2013, 12:27pm

      I know it’s an arduous task, john, but we have to keep on writing to them. I managed to get 130 done. In every email I sent I urged them to continue supporting the Bill into the third reading, but I’m going to do it all over again, no matter how long it takes. I refuse to allow the minority of religious loons to wreck our happiness and rights any more. We MUST NOT be complacent.

      1. 130?! My God, I’m impressed – well done!

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Jun 2013, 1:34pm

          Not done yet, Rehan. I intend to lobby another 130+. I spent two days doing it and received some lovely responses.

          I was surprised Archbishop Welby acknowledged my email too, not that he had anything important to say. I kept all of my emails polite but firm. In my email to Welby, I raised the issue of disestablishment, not as a threat but as a potential eventuality long after the Bill passes. I think it may have had a sobering effect on him judging from his one-lined response to me. Coincidentally, he now says the CoE no longer opposes the legislation. Maybe some of us have given him food for thought. Disestablishment is the one word they fear most, more than they do Equal Marriage. It would probably mean removal of 26 bishops in the Lords assuming reform ever happens for an elected body.

  11. Teachers are not supposed to be teaching their “beliefs” to pupils in their classes.

  12. Poppy Rose 7 Jun 2013, 11:50am

    Some Lords must still think they are gods even in this day and age

  13. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Jun 2013, 12:08pm

    There is no way anything he submits is going to be supported. The man is a delusional loon, in the minority.

    However, I do encourage all of us to continue bombarding the Lords with emails in a polite manner urging them to pass the Bill. The opposition are at fever pitch doing the same. Don’t let them get their way.

    Dear ought to realise, if the CoE has now stopped opposing the Bill according to Archbishop Welby, then his cause is lost. Welby knows and accepts Equal Marriage is going to become law.

  14. Does anyone know which members of the HoL will be examining the Bill in its Committee Stage? It would seem sensible that all peers who voted in favour of the wrecking amendment last Tuesday should be excluded from scrutinising the Bill.

    1. Midnighter 7 Jun 2013, 12:37pm

      The test for fairness of that suggestion is to turn it about and see if it still works. If a bit of legislation came up for say for employment rights and it omitted rights for LGBT people, one might vote against it at an early stage, but later be interested in trying to get those rights included in an amendment should it pass.

      In my view, if the system is going to be fair and democratic, you have to give everyone a chance to have a go at it. In the interests of fairness, the ‘losers’ should have a chance to propose changes that might suit the majority to accept.

      If you are a maverick idiot like Lord Dear or his cronies and after some changes which the majority opposes, you’ll be democratically denied.

      1. I’d totally disagree with your analogy.

        The people who voted against this bill were against the whole principle of same-sex marriage.

        A proper analogy would be a bill to introduce employment rights, full stop. So any peers who voted against the bill, would be those against employment rights. They would not deserve the right to amend the bill afterwards.

        1. Midnighter 7 Jun 2013, 5:30pm

          I haven’t used an analogy, which would imply I had attempted to compare your statement to a similar one. What I have in fact done is provide an example for the statement you provided i.e. “if you are against a bill, you shouldn’t get to revise it”.

          If you don’t agree with the outcome, perhaps you need to rethink your own position.

          The difficulty with your ammended scenario is that you still don’t explain WHY they do not deserve the right to amend the bill. If you can explain that, you might convince me.

    2. The Committee stage will be in a committee of the whole house so all peers will have a vote.

      1. Thanks, Harry, I hadn’t realised that.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Jun 2013, 4:52pm

      dave, from what Lord Jenkin told me yesterday, the Committee Stage in the Lords is a bit different. It’s conducted from the floor of the Upper Chamber and any number may participate. Probably all those who voted on 4th June will be in attendance. Unlike the Commons’ Committee which was a select panel of nineteen in an assigned room.

  15. Robert (Kettering) 7 Jun 2013, 12:57pm

    He’s one of the most vile, evil, homophobic bigots I have ever had the displeasure of reading about. In the same league as the Paisley clan in Northern Ireland.

    I think though that he was well and truly caught out by the many more sensible Peers which was why he lost so spectacularly with that vote. He’s yesterday’s man and nobody with any sense will support him, except for the Tebbit’s of this world.

  16. Colin (London) 7 Jun 2013, 1:16pm

    Ordinarily I do not wish bad things on people. However I sort of wish this guy a long life understanding that he is a “has been”, and the rest of us have moved to improve the world by debate, actions and the way we live.

  17. I notice that Dear is an honorary fellow of Birmingham City University. I hope that the University withdraws this status.

  18. What about a teacher’s personal beliefs?
    If they believed the world was flat, would their absurd views be protected to tell kids that too?
    Either stay neutral as you should as a teacher. As one would regarding politics and other such matters. Or say nothing. Explain all sides in an unbiased way, or not at all. However, as the law (will hopefully) states, (something like) marriage is between two committed adults.
    I really don’t understand why a teacher’s private superstitious beliefs should even enter the debate. It’s irrelevant. And more to the point, there will be no doubt gay students who feel victimized when some bigoted teacher starts ranting on about how ‘marriage has been perverted’.

    We wouldn’t condone a teacher being critical of islam because it contradicts their faith, or pro slavery / anti women, etc. Neither should homophobic rhetoric be.

  19. The public has spoken, the Commons has spoke and the Lords have spoken. At what point will this loon stop? Very very tired of hearing this old fart continually vent his hate. This is clearly a vendetta. An arrogant man who does not like to lose is now desperate to prove something to the world. Such a big ego. It can only destroy itself and everything in its path…

  20. Why protect the beliefs of teachers? A teacher stating that they didn’t think people of non-white ancestry were equal with whites would be out of a job. Why should it be any different when it comes to homosexuality and equal marriage? It is just as much discrimination, shameful and hateful.

  21. I wonder when he is going to come out as being gay.

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.