Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay Tory MP Conor Burns: ‘Lady Thatcher did not have a problem with gay people’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What rot!

    If she didn’t have an issue with gay folk then she should have stood up the people like Jill Knight, the same way that she stood up to the unions.

    She stood by while Section 28 was allowed to ruin and damage many young men & womens lives.

  2. “Children are being taught they have an inalienable right to be gay. All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life.” — Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, October 9, 1987. Conservative Party

    1. Philip Breen 24 Jun 2013, 11:04am

      Exactly! It is obvious Mrs Thatcher did think being gay was unfortunate otherwise she would not have made the above comment. Also, she did nothing to protect gay people in Britain from homophobia fuelled by section 28. What MT said and did in private when faced by gay people who were her close associates, is a different matter, but it was all of as little help to gay people then, as it is now, frankly.

    2. It a shame this sights founder is a Tory fan boy and its now a propaganda tool of LGBTory!

    3. Thank you for posting this chilling speech. There can be no further debate.

    4. Now now now, we all know facts aren’t fair when rhetoric and anecdotes are in play.

  3. “When you go and look back at some of the stuff that local authorities were doing then – the ‘Jennie lives with Eric and Martin’ books – which were aimed at five-and-six-year-olds, there is a question as to whether that is an appropriate age to introduce any aspect of sexuality and sex.”

    Well, he’s successfully convinced me that he has a problem with gay people.

  4. Please, enough with the re-writing of history. The evidence is conclusive that she very much did have a problem with gay people. And as James says, he’s let his own murky views be known too.

  5. You are opening up a can of worms….it would be wiser to leave Thatcher in her grave.

    1. Better to open the can of worms, wildseas, than allow this individual to come to PinkNews and attempt to rewrite history.

  6. David Hancock 24 Jun 2013, 11:24am

    I think Section 28 pretty much proves the homophobic views of the 1980′s Tory Party. Her husband Dennis was certainly homophobic, I remember the infamous episode of Nationwide where she was questioned about the sinking of the Belgrano and Denis, in a fit of pique afterwards, accused the BBC of being all “Trots [left wingers] and Woofters”

  7. Conor Burns, I and 1000s of others will NOT let YOU rewrite history!

    How dare you say MT “accepted Section 28″! MT was fully aware of the 100,000 who first demonstrated against S28 in Manchester. She was fully aware of the larger number who protested it in London. She was fully aware that mounted police attacked and picked off some of us at the rally in Kennington. She was fully aware of the RAGE in the liberal newspapers for MONTHS.

    I was a teacher in the classroom at the time. MT was fully aware of what the insidious S28 would achieve. She gagged us. She gagged EVERY school employee. None could utter a positive word re. homosexuality for fear of prosecution under her odious law.

    MT’s S28 was a piece of hateful legislation that in effect vilified homosexuals and homosexuality.

    MT FORCED S28 through, in the same way that certain dictators have vilified other minority groups.

    You WILL NOT rewrite this truth.

    You need to accept that MT was a double-thinking hypocrite.

    1. Thank you, Eddy. Well said.

      1. Thank you, Valksy.

        We will not forget. What does Conor Burns take us for?

  8. Conor Burns, IF MT behaved in so friendly and warm a manner towards YOU and others in high circles, why did you never have the gumption to confront her!

    Why did you never confront her and tell her that her S28 had gagged every educational employee in the land from uttering one positive word about homosexual people or homosexuality?

    Why did YOU never tell MT that she was therefore causing unforgivable psychological suffering to young homosexual people?

    Why did YOU never tell MT that she was causing unforgivable stress for the 1000s of homosexual people who were teachers?

    Why did YOU never tell MT that she was causing great distress to parents of young homosexual people, and to the many open-minded teachers who did not wish to indicate that homosexuality was an unmentionable subject?

    J’accuse!

  9. she denounces our right to be – to be us – and supports and promotes a quintissential anti-gay law

    Quislings like this man disgust me. They’re always willing to throw us under the bus, to lick the hands of the bigots in the hope that if they fawn enough the straight bigots will pat them on the head.

    Grow a spine Mr. Burns, grow some self-respect and stop trying to crawl to the bigots; your hurting all of us with your excuses for homophobia

  10. Does Pink News even try to have interviews? Because this isn’t an interview – this is a speech and a propaganda piece. Where are you questions? Where are your challenges? What does a Tory have to say before you counter “no, this isn’t true?”

    This is supposed to be a “gay news service”? This isn’t news, this is re-writing history

  11. What utter crap…….how can de defend their actions or her conference speech…i resent this whole attitude that when someone dies all of the wrong things they did in life are forgiven

  12. lots of people have ‘no problem with gays’ as long as we remember our place – as second class citizens, keeping quiet and inconspicuous unless we’re hairdressers or antique merchants or camp comedians sending ourselves up to amuse the straights.

  13. Why are we treating the imagined opinions of a dead politician as news? The rewriting of history here is daft and the interview was meek to the point of obsequiousness.

    And I’m sorry that PN didn’t take the opportunity to actually interview Conor Burns, instead of asking him to act as the Iron Lady’s medium. Will we get a Conor Burns interview in due course?

    Surely the story here (as James pointed out) is that Mr Burns, who said some decent things during the marriage debate, is apparently opposed to age-appropriate LGBT-inclusive education.

    And if Mr Burns thinks “Jennie lives with Eric and Martin” is about sex then he might need some age-appropriate education himself.

  14. Michael 2912 24 Jun 2013, 12:19pm

    WTF? Pink with a deep tint of blue News!

    I really don’t give a toss what Thatcher thought. What I do give a toss about is what she did. What she did helped to ruin countless lives and give legitimacy to homophobia.

    Mr Burns: get off your knees and have some self-respect.

    1. .....Paddyswurds 24 Jun 2013, 12:36pm

      Pink News and Cohen seems to be sucking up to the homophobic Tories for some reason that escapes us. Time will tell….methinks!

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2013, 12:25pm

    If she really wasn’t homophobic, she should have issued an apology for Section 28 before dementia set in, but she didn’t. She died a homophobe in my view.

  16. .....Paddyswurds 24 Jun 2013, 12:34pm

    What a pile of utter bull crap. I can smell it from here! Then I realised it was a Monday and that PN just had to post something even if it is utter drivel…..

  17. Connor Burns is a pathetic creature suffering from Stockholm Syndrome if he can’t acknowledged the fact that Thatcher ewa extremist scum who caused massive harm to our community.

    I suppose I should be surprised that Pink News is giving a platform to a quisling Uncle Tom but PN has dispayed nothing bit contempt for its readership.

  18. So Pink News and Benjamin Cohen are just mouthpieces for the Tory Party then

    Good to know that this website is utterly biased.

    Judging by the relentless gaybashing stories about WBC I think it’s reasonable to ask if PN is a homophobic website.

    Who authorized this Tory propaganda piece.

    Has the homophobic Pink News website forgotten that over 50% of Tory mp’s support apartheid against us.

    Shame on PN. Shame on Benjamin Cohe.

  19. Anecdotal bilge disguised as proof? Sounds tory to me.

    As someone who grew up under, and was victimised under, and is well aware that S28 has helped shape and inform the opinions people hold about LGBT people for a generation (that we are wrong, shameful, should never be spoken of) I will point out to the odious lickspittle who wrote this foul piece of retcon that she was responsible for real and demonstrable harm to a great many people.

    But hey, at least she got you some nibbles with your G & T.

    Moron.

  20. Tim Hanafin 24 Jun 2013, 1:08pm

    Please – no more attempts to rehabilitate Thatcher. I don’t want to hear it. I lived and taught in schools throughout the Thatcher period. Section 28 was an evil, pervasive and destructive piece of legislation, which paralysed teachers into inaction. As others comment, it was all based on lies (fuelled by a rabid right wing press) The book in question always remained on the reserve shelves of a library resource for teachers, available should it be judged an appropriate resource.
    The bitch is dead. Move on.

    1. Paul Halsall 24 Jun 2013, 6:56pm

      It’s not cool to call a women you disagree with – and I detested Thatcher – “bitch”

  21. Midnighter 24 Jun 2013, 1:13pm

    I never gave a sh1t what this crazy baggage thought about social issues when she was in power, and I certainly don’t support this attempt to whitewash her persona by her sycophants.

    I was a gay student and a gay teacher under her government, and I’m proud to say I was very vocal about Section 28 and went out of my way to create debate within the staffroom on the matter such that there was a solid core of staff who came round to a pro-gay perspective as a result of such discussions, as intelligent free-thinking people usually will. I counselled many gay or questioning children in those days for whom this legislation was nothing more than another cruel and contemptuous injury to their self esteem.

    Maggie had zero understanding or interest in social issues, and demonstrated a psychotically narrow minded stubbornness shared only with history’s worst dictators.

  22. This is an incredibly superficial eulogy. And Section 28 may have “mythical status” for someone of Conor Burns’ age, but to those of us old enough to have been directly working with young people during the 1980s, for whom as local authority employees we were unable to provide any support if they had questions about their sexual identity, the legislation was grim, cold-blooded and devastating.

  23. …to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation without consequence and to continue (its) persecution and lies about gay people without being held to account including the denigration of young people in schools who may know they are gay or bi-sexual or may come to know, and the attendant bullying that can result from this. It is child abuse – pure and simple to instill in children (and young people) a sense of inferiority for who they are – sexuality is not a choice it is something you discover and is as innate as the colour of your eyes or skin or whether you are left handed. ……
    Loony left ?
    No Mr Burns you did not have the guts to guestion her opinions and tell her the damage she would cause to countless lives by allowing the un-guestioning denigration of a large minority of the population.
    MT was a bully who held great store by her own opinions and sidelined any one who questioned her.
    Lets not rewrite history.
    S28 -she enabled and encouraged it and you fawned on her.

    1. He wasn’t even around at the time.

  24. We can add her to the long list of leaders who had gay friends and had “no problem personally” with gay people: Bush, Putin, Kaczinsky, Pope Benedict, Hitler…

  25. barriejohn 24 Jun 2013, 3:19pm

    This ludicrous claim SO puts me in mind of an episode of “Till Death Us Do Part” where Alf Garnett was holding forth about his lack of prejudice against “foreigners” (with whom he’d worked, fought, etc, of course). Dandy Nicholls then pipes up in her inimitable way: “Course there’s nothing wrong with foreigners…..as long as there’s foreign countries for them to live in”!

  26. Section 28 was an over-reaction to something that was real at the time – age-inappropriate sex lessons in some schools, sometimes with very young children.

    To her credit, Thatcher opposed it initially and said it was something that should be dealt with on a case by case basis, not through national legislation. But the right-wing tabloids wouldn’t let the issue rest, and in the end she supported it.

    Judging a politician’s whole career by something like Section 28 is childish. She did some good things, she did some bad things, she made mistakes, and it’s time to move on.

    1. You telling me she couldn’t deal with the tabloids? Like she didn’t have Murdoch by the balls. Try another one. I’m judging her on her record of being a nasty, selfish, blinkered witch who served to make rich people richer and poor people poorer across the breadth of her policies.

      1. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the economics. The gap between rich and poor widened far more under Tony Blair than it ever did under Thatcher.

        And she was not the first and won’t be the last to capitulate to the tabloids. Love them or loathe them, the likes of the Daily Mail, Express, the Sun etc. often understand the politically incorrect sentiments of ordinary people better than you or I do.

    2. JackAlison 24 Jun 2013, 8:16pm

      On balance!?
      she created a needless war
      blew the retreating Belgrano out of the water with hundreds of lives lost
      she was the friend or tyrants and dictators
      Zimbabwe’s MUGABE, noted gay hater and abuser and human butcher from Zimbabwe
      General Pinochet who slumed it in London because he had supported her war with Argentina with spain wanting his extradition for war crimes and torture in Chile
      She called Nelson Mandela and his Black freedom party “terrorists” and parleyed and did business with the white pro apathtied govt of Sth Africa
      Enthusiasm for police prosecuting gay men and community gay hatred increased dramatically under her watch.
      the list is endless
      she pretty much pissed off QEII and thats saying something. The Queen was very distressed about her methods of divide and rule politics which turned the country upside down….it was never consensus or bringing the whole UK country along ….or to put to it in her words…”is he one of us?”

    3. David Hancock 24 Jun 2013, 8:19pm

      Age-inappropriate sex lessons were not a problem at the time. Sex education was still very much in its infancy back in the days when Section 28 was introduced. It was a massive over reaction to something that happened in, literally, a handful of schools and blown out of proportion by the right wing tabloid press – it certainly wasn’t a “real” issue. Thatcher and her Tories were very much under the influence of their cohort at that time Reagan (who publicly considered homosexuality an illness).

      It is wrong to judge a whole career on one policy (but in the UK we tend to do that – we remember Churchill for his performance in WW2 and forget his premiership of 1951 and the fact that he, pretty much single-handedly, caused the General Strike); but it demonstrates that she was a far weaker person that her supporters would have people believe in the fact that she backed down and didn’t say “get a grip, the reality is this…”

  27. She might not have hated us on a one to one basic, but its clear she thought homosexuality was ‘unfortunate’ and inferior and not to be supported

    1. Like 99% of society at the time. History has to be studied taking into consideration the social context.

      1. You are a fool to think social context lessens or vindicates the culpability.

  28. Conor Burns must be a moron. Section 28 came in on her watch, if she didn’t like it she could have banished it to the back of beyond. Tryinmg to make out that she was a befuddled peasant from a bygone age is absolute crap. She was the Prime Minister. If she couldn’t grasp the concept of homosexuality then how the f*ck did she understand the complexities of the Cold War?

    Section 28 exists because she was a f*cking witch and her bunch of racist, mysogonist, homophobic asswipe friends made life hell for me and millions of others. 80′s Tories were the epitome of self-centred privilege grabbers and f*ck anyone who didn’t have their wealth.She didn’t die a moment too soon. In fact she lingered too long.

  29. JackAlison 24 Jun 2013, 6:38pm

    Oh God
    This is all touchy warm fuzzy feely.
    This woman time and time again has reiterated that she never workd with CONSENSUS..she even mocked european govt.’s who did so.
    She alienated vast swarthes of the countryside to politcal exile and generational/ economic oblivion
    Reminds me of the photos of hitler with german shepherds jumping up licking his face.
    This article cites every excuse in the book
    great leaders are great leaders precisely because they are NOT of their generation. They look to the future and how to lead public opinion to a better society….not “there’s NO society”

  30. Paul Halsall 24 Jun 2013, 7:01pm

    I detested Thatcher. And Section 28 will smear her forever.

    Shen did, however vote for Leo Abse’s decriminalistion bill (just as she voted to allow abortion)

    She appointed gay cabinet members – Lord Avon (who died of AIDS) and Norman St. John Stevas.

    She also back Norman Fowler, certainly a friend of the gay community, in supporting efforts to reduce the impact of AIDS.

    I still dislike her for her attacks on the working class and unions, but let’s take a rational look at what she did re. gays

  31. This is a disgracefully oleaginous PR stunt – sorry, “interview”, PN: I’m surprised to see such an extremely poor level of journalism.

  32. Two words: Section 28

    Thatcher was a bigot, no more no less.

  33. Nice article. Thanks for posting. Too bad some people can’t analyse historical events within a social context. It’s like calling the ancient Greeks “Nazis” for having slaves.

    1. Your logic implies we should look at Stalin’s purges as simply a product of the social construct, or perhaps the killing of the Jews, Roma and gays (among others) is simply seen in the social context of Germany circa 1941?

      Section 28 was wrong.

      You are a fool to think social context lessens or vindicates the culpability.

    2. JackAlison 25 Jun 2013, 5:24am

      oh nanny spank me harder
      ive been a naughty gay Mrs thatcher
      I might even become a whole person…NOT!
      thx to section 28
      I know my proper place now
      as a second class citizen with filthy homo genital practices
      because thats wot the hatred is all about
      “deviant sexual practices”…never mind love or caring about somebody
      She played on every red neck hatred and prejudice with section 28
      along with her ass wipe nutjob homophobe leiutenent Tebbit

    3. It is not even remotely similar. Thatcher was operating well within the lifetime of many if not most readers here, which is hardly the ancient world.

      1. @@

  34. Crap. Judge her on her record not by the splutterings of an unheard of MP.

  35. The only way to know is to ask the lady herself. It’s a little late for that now.

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