Reader comments · Video: Homophobic street preacher arrested in London · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Video: Homophobic street preacher arrested in London

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Seen this story covered in a couple of places – Tend to be full of christians snotbubbling over how “persecuted” they are. It doesn’t register in their tiny magic-boggled delusional minds that these are OUR laws, and we think not being abused in the street is more valid than being abusive.

    That they feel their laws should apply here, or are better somehow, are simply the ridiculous mind state some (not all by any stretch of the imagination) US citizens have – it doesn’t seem to register that they aren;t the kings of the universe.

    What’s more, every time they babble on about their “freedoms” go ahead and show them footage of any number of “Occupy” protests, or that delightful image we saw in recent memory of a police office pepper-spraying a student point blank in the face. They hold up their principles as noble and immutable which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense.

    1. Pam Harrison 5 Jul 2013, 2:13am

      Oh, trust me, many of us wish that a Public Order Act banning hate speech would come about in America, as well. The far-right fringe and their undying hate will not be abolished easily.
      It’s going to get worse here before it gets better. In the meantime it seems that Christianity in America will shortly put itself out of business. I hope so. These people alone make the rest of the world think Americans are ALL frothing idiots.

      1. Well it is perfectly legal to own firearms in america, so why not clean the streets yourself? I’m sure you could create a religious cult that would allow you to do so, after all the law cannot interfere with your religious rights.

    2. Christopher in Canada 5 Jul 2013, 3:00am

      Want to remind US citizens of their “freedoms”? Three words: McCarthy; Kent State.

      1. Paula Thomas 6 Jul 2013, 12:31am

        You could have added the Lavender Scare

    3. not seen the phrase “snotbubbling” before and must say I rather care for it

      1. I like the imagery of a snivelling petulant child having a tantrum – Something that should never be taken seriously by anyone over the age of 5.

  2. He’s not the only homophobic preacher in London … but curiously, the only one they bother to arrest is white…. how brave of them…

    1. Jock S. Trap 4 Jul 2013, 3:23pm

      Think it’s bad enough without making it a race issue. It’s the preacher at fault here not the police.

      1. Indeed, the preacher is a git.

        … but why him? Why not any of the countless Muslim preachers?

        1. Paula Thomas 6 Jul 2013, 12:27am

          Have you reportred them? The Police can only act on reports.

  3. Jock S. Trap 4 Jul 2013, 3:18pm

    Yet again Christians ‘being persecuted victims’ while persecuting all others… How does that work exactly?


    1. They’ve been doling it out, unchallenged, for hundreds of years. They do not like the fact that their religious ‘belief’ and privileged position in our society is now being questioned. Quoting passages from an old novel must NEVER become a licence to peddle this disgusting bile. This man’s ‘views’ SHOULD be challenged and he should be told his behaviour could be regarded as ‘incitement to hatred’, which is illegal in the UK.

  4. Julian Morrison 4 Jul 2013, 3:23pm

    Homophobia isn’t illegal. But whipping up homophobic hate is.

    1. Actually the law brought in 2010 makes it clear, incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation is an offence.

      1. Spanner1960 5 Jul 2013, 10:28am

        I think what Julian was trying to say is there is no law to prevent one being racist, homophobic or bigoted; but there is when you try to voice or promote those beliefs.

    2. Exactly. Why do they have to call gays all the time.?Why doesn’t he voice his support for slavery like the bible does! These people are so selective: he is deliberately targeting gays and he should be punished for that.

  5. Frankly I don’t give a rat’s arse what he thinks is “sin”, he can think what he likes.

    But as for shouting in the street, I think he should have been arrested for causing a public nuisance (and for being a bore to boot).

    1. Har Davids 5 Jul 2013, 12:49pm

      If I were this ‘god’ they all seem to know so well, I might just smite him for being a nuisance. ;)

  6. Beelzeebub 4 Jul 2013, 3:30pm

    I see the christian institute is over this like a rash.

    These people really must be told that their religious freedoms end where our freedoms begin.

    We all have a right to walk around town centres without this sort of hate being spewed on us and using religion is just an excuse for them to hide their blatant homophobia.

    I’m pretty sure if I stood on a street corner shouting biblical based racist abuse at people the law would have done exactly the same.

    These stupid bigots fail to see the similarity.

    1. Yet not a peep out of them about that lecherous old so-and-so Keith O’Brien.

    2. If you ban people from preaching their beliefs then you would have to ban Dawkins from saying that Christians are deluded, and you would have to ban gays from saying that Christians and Muslims are bigots – free speech is precious and should be protected.

      1. Midnighter 7 Jul 2013, 2:23pm

        Since UK citizens are indeed allowed to preach their beliefs in UK society there is clearly no problem here. When it comes to “free speech” the speaker is not the only person with rights, as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread.

        This also raises a further point that, as a foreign visitor who is not a member of our society, he should expect to be subject to greater restrictions than a protected member of this society speaking from inside it; the government can (and does) deny people entry to the UK on the expectation they will preach things that are contrary to the interests of society.

        On a point of detail, your conclusion that denying religious bigots free speech means denying the freedom to publicly call them bigots is a fallacy; laws of defamation already protect statements of fact even where offensive, and as a corollary it would be possible (for the sake of argument) to deny “free speech” to those who speak without evidential basis.

  7. As usual with these god bothering moralisers, they will not allow comments on the youtube page unless they are support.

    I might have said something like this

    “We really don’t need people like you trying to find loopholes in our laws. Go back to the US and spread your hate there.”

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jul 2013, 3:38pm

    At least he’s including hetero sinners for a change, not that I condone what he’s doing These so called ‘christians’ can’t have it both ways. Either we should be able to vilify and denigrate them in public just as they do gay people or face the consequences.

    Obviously he hasn’t read Matthew 6:5: “. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.”

  9. Hitherman 4 Jul 2013, 3:39pm

    By the point of exclusion – those who are not with us must be against us/ will be damned to hell etc, This is why I believe all religion is wrong. There is nothing to respect in any organisation or group that actively excludes others. I also believe it should be a crime to stand on a street with a PA system and shout at everyone- unless it has been licensed by the local authority. Such licenses should not include faith based preaching – that is what places of worship are for. All hate-fuelled odious preacher creatures should be silenced by law!

    1. Thankfully, for the time being, they are not. Praise God.

  10. Makes no sense…

    Since when is saying that fornication or homosexuality or whatever is a sin an arrestable offence? Why is this the concern of the police?

    1. It should be, if an individual is making a public nuisance of himself: after all, who asked his opinion? He should restrict his “preaching” to his pulpit, or whatever low-rent equivalent he has.

      In fairness, those bloody Hare Krishna idiots should be banned too.

      1. Some people feel the same way about Gay Pride. No peaceful preaching, protest or movement should be banned, however offensive it may be. That’s how totalitarianism begins. Every one has (or should have) the right to say whatever they please, unless they are explicitly stirring up hatred or encouraging violence. Even Peter Tatchell agrees. If your ‘feelings’ get hurt, I don’t f**king care. Freedom of speech is just too important to worry out the plight of delicate little flowers who wilt as soon as you look at them wrong.

        1. Midnighter 4 Jul 2013, 7:29pm

          The difference is that an anti-gay sermon is expressly contrived to attack a particular group, whereas Gay Pride is not an attack on anyone but rather a celebration of diversity and tolerance.

          If you stand in public and are deliberately offensive to a group of people it is reasonable to expect that you are looking for trouble and deserve to be challenged on that basis. Totalitarianism has nothing to do with it; this is not about suppressing speech against “the system” but rather addressing the issue that free speech does not trump the rights of others, hence hate speech and defamation laws.

          By contrast if you are offended by someone’s mere existence you have already demonstrated that your position is unreasonable and anti-social.

    2. Because he is causing harassment, alarm and distress in a public place. He has caused somebody enough offence for them to feel that they need police to assist.
      Not everybody is offended by his words clearly as a lady walking past says she agrees with him but all it takes is 1 person to feel as the informant did and the offence has been committed.

      1. So if somebody is offended by a pro-gay sermon in a public place, an offence hals been committed?

        1. Have you ever heard a “pro-gay sermon in a public place”? No, thought not. It might assist you if you asked yourself why that may be, though if you’re fond of proselytising you may not get it.

          1. Perhaps Gay Pride parades would qualify as something “pro-gay” in a public place.

          2. Pride parades are hardly sermons telling those who don’t conform that they’re “sinners” though, are they? Or perhaps you’ve attended livelier parades than I have.

        2. You’re missing the point – the man is saying that homosexuality is wrong – even thought it is legal – therefore he’s inspiring hate about an issue which the legal system has no problem with.

          If someone is offended by a pro-gay sermon, that’s their problem. being pro something is not the same as being anti something that isn’t illegal.

          A better example would be if someone was giving an anti semitic or anti christian sermon on the street – then yes they would be arrested if someone complained. As it isn’t illegal to be Jewish or christian, and so it’s causing offence by inspiring hate against a group that are legitimate.

      2. Demon teddy bear 4 Jul 2013, 8:01pm

        Absolutely. All it should take is one person to make a phone call, if they hear something that they don’t like in the street — or someone who just looks a bit funny –, and they can get someone banged up for seven hours. So long as the first person belongs to a powerful group, and the second person doesn’t.

        Erm … are you quite sure you want laws like that?

        Of course you probably feel that gays outrank Christians in this game, so gays can send Christians to prison, but not vice versa.

        But do gays outrank Moslems? If a moslem walks past a pair of gays holding hands, can he send them to a cell for seven hours, to be “questioned”, because he is “offended”? Hard to say, in 2013. But what about in 2015? Or 2020?

        The comments here mainly reflect a belief that gays will never be on the receiving end. That, to put it mildly, is quite an assumption.

        Too much hate here. You have to hate people pretty bad to inform on them to the police.

    3. Spanner1960 5 Jul 2013, 10:13am

      His words could be construed as “inciting hatred based on discrimination of sexuality”.

      I’m sure if someone started shouting in public that Christianity was evil, you would be the first to complain.

  11. I listened to about 10 minutes of it, but then gave up because he wasn’t saying anything that hasn’t already been said over 9000 times before.

    1. Maybe you should have listened to it all you might have got the message that fornication, homosexuality and sexual sins of any kind are an abomination before God and you WILL have to stand before Him on Judgement day whether you believe it or not. As for the gentleman being homophobic that is utter nonsense, he has no fear of homosexuals at all. His love for mankind is in his message ‘Repent’. Simple.

      1. Midnighter 4 Jul 2013, 11:58pm

        If the “gentleman” cannot be trusted about his claim of being afraid of homosexuals, he clearly is a liar and cannot be trusted regarding any of the other nonsense he was spouting.

        If you are lying and he was not talking nonsense about being afraid of homosexuals, then you are not to be trusted in the rest of what you say.

        Christians; inconsistent liars. QED.

      2. I don’t doubt the preachers or your sincerity, but how do you know that there is a god, or that your particular god is the true one, or that you are so intimate with that god’s mind, you know his opinion on whom we might sleep with and how? It is your job to prove that before we move any further in the conversation.

  12. A dangerous precedent.

    Incitement to violence, sure… but this law criminalising insults is absolutely stupid and a very dangerous can of worms

    1. You’ll be pleased to know then, as it says in the article, that said law has already been repealed.

  13. Unless he was advocating violence, there is no way he should’ve been arrested. If he wants to rant and rave, let him. All it does is give us the moral high ground.

    1. Midnighter 4 Jul 2013, 8:22pm

      When dealing with proselytising bigots who set themselves up with public address systems to preach hatred you’d have to go a lot further than arresting them to lose the “moral high ground”.

      In my opinion – having faced complaints from UK citizens regarding hate speech to the point of getting arrested – this should prejudice his future admittance to the country.

      At the very least by using a PA system he’s moving into the category of “creating a public nuisance”, whatever he’s saying.

  14. Why this preacher? He’s not the first… there are plenty of non-white homophobic preachers who apparently are untouchable!

    1. The police respond to complaints, don’t they? This was in Wimbledon, and someone obviously complained. Perhaps the non-white preachers you refer to operate in areas where they’re preaching to the converted? (Either that or nobody bothers to take any notice of what they say.)

    2. Why are you defending him? Would it make any difference if he was Asian or black?

      Of course, one of your own…

    3. I have no idea why you want to turn this into a race issue. Is can perhaps only be because you yourself are racist

  15. Take your pick, in no particular order:

    A: God does not judge and has unconditional love for everyone and everything in creation.

    B: God does not exist

    1. Option C (according to the Bible): God does exist, he does judge, and does not love everyone unconditionally.

      1. Jock S. Trap 4 Jul 2013, 4:38pm

        Option D – Not everyone believes that so why is it being forced on us.

        I don’t believe but you won’t find me on the street, upsetting religious folk by saying it.

        Oh, but what tantrums we would see if I did!

      2. Option C(a): don’t believe everything you read.

      3. There is TRUTH on this forum after all. Praise God.

        1. Christopher in Canada 5 Jul 2013, 3:03am

          Yes, praise the God who created influenza, Ebola and tapeworms… and loves them.

        2. Yes, he (I think it’s a he) has commented many times on this and other threads. Don’t know why you need to bring Gaad into the equation though.

  16. Noise nuisance, throw the book at him for disturbing the peace.

    Our towns and cities are getting noisier and noisier and these tiresome types just crank up the loudspeakers to be heard over the background din, people should certainly be stopped from using amplifiers to regurgitate unoriginal and uninteresting opinions over the rest of us in public spaces.

    1. I couldn’t agree more. I often find myself longing to have a pair of insulated scissors handy, to cut through the wires to those damn’ amplifiers (also those horrible cheap headphones that give us the benefit of whatever trash the inconsiderate person on the Tube is listening to … but don’t get me started on that).

  17. It amazes me how someone can stand there and call people names and tell them they are judging him because they don’t agree with him. Is he really that out of touch that he does not realize he is judging them? And he claims he is not homophobic but yet he says the one woman that disagrees with him is “obviously a lesbian”. THAT’S not homophobic or judgemental? Give it a break buddy.

    1. The word homophobia would indicate a fear of homosexuals. He does not have a fear of homosexuals, he is simply quoting directly from the Bible as to what is and is not sin. If the Bible is true, the kindest thing he could do is to warn people of the judgment to come, and their need to repent of their sin and trust in the savior, Jesus Christ. All have sinned and fall short of God’s perfect standard. While we were still sinners Christ died for us. Repent and put your trust in Jesus Christ, God in the flesh–he lived a perfect life, died on the cross to take the punishment for our sin, and rose again the third day. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jul 2013, 5:37pm

        Stupid twat! As an atheist, even I am aware of the following which you and him obviously aren’t and clearly exemplifies the sheer hypocrisy of both of you and others of your ilk:

        Matthew 6:5…….”And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.”

      2. Superstitious, arbitrary, selective drivel. Go away.

      3. bobbleobble 4 Jul 2013, 6:17pm

        First of all the dictionary defines homophobia, not you. It’s not simply about fear. Second how do you know he hasn’t got a fear of homosexuals? And finally no he isn’t simply quoting from the Bible, he’s giving his interpretation of the ramblings of Bronze Age mystics that are contained in the Bible which is not the same thing.

        The kindest thing he could do is stop judging others and stop upsetting people in the street. Instead he feels harassment of strangers is the best way to conduct himself.

      4. If someone had screamed at this preacher because he wasn’t British, then it’d be fair enough to suggest that person was xenophobic. Just as xenophobia doesn’t mean said person is *afraid* of foreigners, homophobia doesn’t mean the homophobe is afraid of gay people. Both refer to an irrational fear or hatred.

        Stop trying to re-write the English language; stop obsessing about other people’s sex lives; and stop pretending you speak for god/gods/goddesses and trying to dictate how other people live. It won’t distract you from your own problems.

      5. Grow up, and try to think for yourself. You might find it hard, even verging on impossible, but it’ll be worth it in the end.

      6. Midnighter 4 Jul 2013, 8:52pm

        ” If the Bible is true”

        Let me stop you there …

        There very few statements in the bible that are demonstrably true, little to no historical accuracy and is an appalling reference on matters of morality. It doesn’t even read as good fiction.

        If you choose to abdicate rational thought and morality, then it is nothing to be proud of; quite the opposite.

  18. This is terrible. If this preacher can’t express his unpopular views, why can anyone be able to say voting for party X or Y is wrong?

    if this preacher can be silenced, why can’t
    Russia silence gay speech or Nigeria jail you?

    1. …. because his ‘views’ can most certainly be considered ‘incitement to hatred’ which is illegal in this country. It is absolutely correct that he should have been challenged. Pity other ‘believers’ were not treated in the same manner YEARS ago.

      1. In what way did he incite hatred?He wasn’t challenged, his was arrested under suspicion of committing a criminal offence, he didn’t, he was released without charge.

        He did however directly challenge the complainant, (after having told him to F-off) to debate with him, she refused.

        Are we as people so weak that we need to the Police to do our bidding and have people locked up for preaching mere words?

        1. I too am puzzled how telling someone he/she is doing something wrong constitutes incitement to hatred. If I tell my son to stop playing with the electric socket, how am I encouraging bystanders to hate my son? The only reason I am telling my son to stop is because I love him and don’t want him to get hurt.
          In our society the definition of love has been twisted to mean making people feel good rather than doing what’s best for someone regardless of how it makes them feel.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jul 2013, 5:28pm

      Then equally, those of no beliefs or those who aren’t even ‘christian’ should be allowed to publicly vilify and denigrate religious loons too. So how would you like it if someone called you a demented, vile religious bigot in the street using a megaphone?

      1. I’d say then prove it! He directly challenged the complainant (who had actually told him to F-off) and she did not have the courage debate with the man, instead, she thought it would be better to call the Police and see him carted away; this had nothing to do with her being offended, it was about stamping out any opinion that doesn’t conform to hers and in that, she is misguided and in fact by definition, the bigot.

        1. People who think religionists are mad and/or deluded seldom take the trouble to hector those in the streets with the aid of amplification. It’s called live and let live – in peace and quiet.

  19. It is not what he was saying that he should have been arrested – but for using a loud hailer in a public place at such volume ( it was so loud you could not hear the sound of busses close by) that it was oppressive to passers by.

    1. Agree – I have thought for many years that freedom of speech is one thing but disturbing the peace is quite another. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are Christians out there who cringe at the image given out by noisy street preachers turning public areas into their own personal pulpits.

  20. Quite rightly so! Had this imbecile been ranting in this vile and insulting way about a racial issue, he would most certainly have been arrested. Religious ‘belief’ must NEVER be allowed to be a licence to peddle hatred.

  21. sad old bible thumper scared of his own feeling of attraction.
    Self proclaimed, righteous god appointed sooth sayers are a plague on this earth.
    Go home false profit.

  22. It’s sad to think that someone bases all there morality’s on a book that was created by hateful individuals, who where scared to lose what power that they had at the time.

    Jokes on him when god turns out to be a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  23. Is it not about time some silly Christians go to Plymouth and find a raft and take off.

    1. Thanks, but no thanks. We have enough bible-thumping loonies over here already…unless you know of an island that we can send them all to?

  24. white squirrel 4 Jul 2013, 6:28pm

    ‘one man and one woman for life’

    like king David? [ the supposed bloodline of jesus]
    or maybe
    Lot and his daughters?
    etc etc
    and im fairly surely his clothes are breaking some of ‘god’s stated laws as well

    1. Yes, and what about all of the African societies that profess antigay views and yet straight polygamy is perfectly legal and legitimate, amongst African fundamentalist Christians as well as Muslims? It’s great fun pointing this out to westerner fundies…

  25. I’m not a fan of gagging people – especially these types. It only encourages them. And I certainly want to be able to say in public that these religions are all evil.

    So let them speak and in doing so dig their own graves.

    I’m glad the ‘insulting’ word was excised from the bill. Incitement to hatred however is another thing.

  26. white squirrel 4 Jul 2013, 6:38pm

    ‘to even think sexual thoughts is adultery’

    if thats true then the things I imagined doing to this lunatic earn me a place on death row

    1. Be careful what you imagine. ‘It is afforded for man to die once, the JUDGEMENT’

  27. Maccuscuria 4 Jul 2013, 7:31pm

    Do calm down!

    The man was preaching against all forms of sexual sin and not just homosexuality. Surely it’s acceptable in a free society to share one’s views openly?

    Just why is it homophobic to believe sex should only take place within marriage between a man and a woman? Why is expressing this belief an “insult” or a cause of “offence” or “distress”?

    You may not agree – fine; that’s your right. If anything the public order offence was committed by those telling him to “F-off”.

    1. white squirrel 4 Jul 2013, 7:45pm

      expressing belief is fine
      but there are places called churches and mosques set aside for deluded people like him to spout their creationist and homophobic garbage, and where who dont want to hear such nonsense can choose not to go
      with this lunatic no one was given the option of not being forced to hear his deranged ravings
      what was needed was some male to ask him :
      ‘yes the penis is evil – so can you help save my ‘soul’ by sucking the demons out for jesus?’

      1. Maccus Curia 4 Jul 2013, 8:46pm

        Ever heard of free speech? And where is your evidence for claiming he is ‘homophobic’? Or that he is ‘deluded’?

        And you last sentence reveals so much about your level of intelligence and the state of your morals.

      2. So any kind of street ministry is now against the law? Has it really come to this?

        1. Why shouldn’t it? Do you want to be hectored by Hizb ut-Tahrir as well, or is it only “Christian” “ministries” that you’re concerned about?

    2. If anything the public order offence was committed by those telling him to “F-off”.

      Why? Isn’t it just free speech?

      1. Maccus Curia 4 Jul 2013, 10:11pm

        No – its a deliberate offensive remark. Do check the law.

        1. Jock S. Trap 5 Jul 2013, 9:30am


        2. Spanner1960 5 Jul 2013, 10:20am

          And telling all homosexuals they are sinners by default is not offensive? I suggest it is you who checks the law. That’s why the man was arrested.

        3. So what? It’s still “free speech” and therefore you should be defending it, shouldn’t you?

          If you’re especially concerned about the law, this could well come under the category of harassment. I for one am not at all happy about being hectored by some deluded loon with a loudspeaker when I am walking around.

  28. Like many homophobes, he claims that he can’t be homophobic as the word refers to people are afraid of LGBT folk, and he’s not afraid. Of course this is complete bollocks; the word is derived from the Greek for afraid of homos, but that is not, and never has been, the meaning of the word.

  29. Maccus Curria 4 Jul 2013, 7:48pm

    Do calm down1

    The preacher was simply spreading the Gospel and sharing his faith. Why is this ‘homophobic’? As for any public order offence, surely the two people who told him to “F-off” were more guilty of this.

    He was simply stating his views on sexual sin – heterosexual and homosexual.

    Maybe his message is “distressing” and “alarming”. And maybe its worth thinking just why this might be so.

    1. bobbleobble 4 Jul 2013, 9:02pm

      If he wants to share his faith he can do so in a church.

      It is distressing and alarming because it isn’t nice to be going about your business when some loon decides to yell at you that you’re a sinner apropos of nothing. I assume you wouldn’t be happy if I stood outside a church and flung insults at the congregation as they emerged telling them my views on Christianity and the truth that god doesn’t exist. That would be harassment and this is no different.

      1. Maccus Curria 4 Jul 2013, 9:56pm

        Come now, “distressing” and “alarming”? Do man-up bobbie boy. If you don’t believe in God, presumably you don’t believe in the concept of sin or hell. How could you claim upset?

        I’d be absolutely fine about you explaining your position to me – not if you were being wilfully provocative. Why would you need to fling insults about? The preacher didn’t. A couple of “distressed” (poor dears) passers by told him to “F-off”. Argue your point, like this preacher. Show some maturity and intelligence.

        1. Midnighter 4 Jul 2013, 11:18pm

          Rational people tend to get a tad upset when religious fanatics perform the intellectual equivalent of evacuating their bowels on the street. Believe in their drivel is not required, their noise and stupidity is offensive in and of itself.

          1. Midnighter 4 Jul 2013, 11:21pm


        2. “I’d be absolutely fine about you explaining your position to me – not if you were being wilfully provocative.”

          Allow me.

          Personally I disagree with him being arrested – as far as I’m concerned as long as you are not inciting violence you should be free to spew whatever vile racism or homophobia you want, and accept the consequences. But when you say ‘why was this homophobic’ I really struggle to answer – basically because I don’t understand how you can think it is NOT homophobic, presuming we are both using the word in its popular meaning.

          It is the very definition of homophobic – he’s saying gay couples are not only lesser than straight ones but that they deserve to be punished. If I said black couples were lesser than white ones and were going to hell, that wouldn’t be racist?

        3. I’m well aware that these passages form the basis of a 2000 yr old religion that has helped form the basis of our society – but that does not make them immune from criticism or exempt from the definition of words.

          If you believe it is not homophobic then please explain how.

          And if your justification for these views doesn’t examine the validity of the views themselves but relies solely on the infallibility of the source then please explain why this doesn’t apply to slavery, polygamy or banning eating prawns – all of which are equally sanctioned.

  30. Why’s he rubber necking those schoolgirls that passed by? What a sicko!

  31. He asks why so many gay teenagers commit suicide. I don’t think it takes a genius to figure out that they feel lonely and estranged from family members, and if their family is religious, people like this guy is only exacerbating the problem!

  32. So.. USA centric. He thought that in other nations also use Fahrenheit? well.. 110 degree!! omg the Earth became giant oven! Something like that, he schould know in some countries ‘Hate Speech’ is crime. not like his home. even in Cananda ‘hate speech’ is punishable.! Minesota is just next door as well!

  33. AdoptedWales 4 Jul 2013, 8:48pm

    Lets be clear, he has as much right to freedom of speech as the LGBT community does (or should we ban Pride events since they may cause distress to others?) and as said above at least he was being balanced and arguing against all sexual immorality in the hetero and homosexual communities.

    If we have descended to the point that we call others bigots, try to restrict their freedom to air their own opinions then we are no better than those who wish to see our freedoms rolled back, or worse following Islamic law seeing us hanging by the neck in the town square. We have become fascists ourselves and that serves the LGBT rights to freedom no good.

    In a free and fair society we all have a right to offend and be offended as long as no physical or life threatening action occurs or sooner or later we will end up censoring academia as well.

    And just for the record, hardly any Christians are creationists these days, and it is quite possible to be a happy gay man and Christian.

    1. Midnighter 4 Jul 2013, 9:02pm

      Wrong. The speaker isn’t the only person with rights in society, thus “free speech” doesn’t get to trample over other people’s rights. If society agreed with your view of totally unlimited and consequence- free speech then we wouldn’t have defamation laws, let alone hate speech legislation.

      This is not to say that free speech is unimportant, and I’m on record on this very website for defending the rights of the very people opposing me in debates. The important point to note is that this is a completely different context than someone who sets themselves up with a PA system to attack specific groups within society.

      1. AdoptedWales 4 Jul 2013, 9:50pm

        But where have I said that there should be totally unlimited free-speech, or failed to acknowledge that there are consequences to such an approach?

        And I haven’t argued that anyone group’s rights supersede another, just that we must accept that juggling every group’s rights is difficult and that in that process the only truly liberal and right thing to outlaw is violence or incitement to violence not a person’s right to pass comment on another person as long as it does not become slander/libel or violence.

        The PA has been raised several times now and I’m just wondering, if he hadn’t of had the PA would it have been different somehow?

        1. Midnighter 4 Jul 2013, 10:48pm

          You are disingenuously comparing his right to espouse irrational hatred and bigotry attacking a specific group of people with an event celebrating that group’s identity. You are comparing things that are not equivalent, which is fallacious.

          By accusing the critics of this bigotry of “fascism” (a term you apparently don’t understand) and conflating it with a slippery slope prediction of Sharia law, you compound logical fallacy upon logical fallacy.

          I hope that explains why I felt your original post gives a highly skewed perception of the rights of this issue.

          I would have thought it is clear why operating a PA outside homes and businesses and amidst a busy street might offend people, irrespective of the content of the messages. There are locations where that is accepted practice and unlikely to offend.

  34. In 1 Corinthians chapter 6 Paul lists some of the types of unrighteous people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. “Such were some of you,” he writes, “but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

    As for me, writing this e-mail, I’m right there on that list too. I’m one of the lucky ones, all thanks to the amazing grace of God in Jesus Christ. He reached down and, as it were, pulled me into the lifeboat. No doubt over the coming years he will do it also for some of you reading this website.

    God delights in turning round the lives of people whose lives are on the wrong track, which frankly is all of us. The apostle Paul was a supreme example of this, having been a Pharisee in his early life and a savage persecutor of Christians, with the blood of many on his hands. Remember too the many homosexuals throughout the world whom Christ has reconciled to God in recent years.

    1. What utter twaddle.

    2. Midnighter 4 Jul 2013, 11:26pm

      This is the same fictional god who also delights in encouraging people to bash babies’ heads out against rocks, genocide, slavery and all manner of other things that would be considered atrocities in the real world. Hardly a great example to follow.

    3. God delights in turning round the lives of people

      Who are you to speak for God? Impertinent twit.

  35. On behalf of the United States of America, I apologize for this asshole. We’re not all that hateful, stupid or downright ugly.

    1. That’s okay, we know that you aren’t. Unfortunately, your fundies try to export their stupidity to others. And as for the Ian chap just above you, hey, I was educated at a fundamentalist private school here in New Zealand and I was cured! I became a happy, healthy gay man after some time in therapy! You can have a decent hairstyle! You don’t have to wear polyester and be poorly colour coordinated! Your knuckles don’t have to drag on the ground! The sin of inbreeding doesn’t have to taint your life!

  36. Deport the tit.
    We have enough of our own.
    We have one here in Market St. in Manchester.


  37. For “TONY MIANO” read “KEITH O’BRIEN”.

    Two peas in a pod.

    Both sickening.


  38. The UK is turning is a police state these days. I might disagree with what he’s saying but I will defend to the death his right to say it.

    1. He should be arrested for child abuse.

    2. lot of hate speech on in this thread… let’s hope they don’t start policing this also

    3. If imbeciles have a right to have a homophobic rant in the street in broad daylight, infront of other people’s children, then I claim my right to stand naked in the same street and wave my appendage around and shout ‘look at me’,

    4. Not shouting over everyone through an amplifier, the man is obviously unhinged and should be taken into care in a secure unit somewhere, preferably back in the US.

    5. Just out of interest, would you similarly defend a white supremacist who, with about as much evidence as those who believe in the purported sayings of supernatural beings, denounces the intelligence, with the assistance of a loudspeaker, of non-white people in the street?

  39. Just occurred to me this is the misogynist piece of sh*t who stands outside abortion clinics in Portland, Oregon and harasses the women entering it.

    I wouldn’t even let him enter the country.

  40. Spanner1960 5 Jul 2013, 10:09am

    “It was unnerving to be questioned about my Christian beliefs and I was made to feel that my thoughts could be held against me.”

    Nobody is concerned about your thoughts.
    We are concerned when you go shouting them at the top of your voice in a public high street though.

    Oh, and the first amendment doesn’t work over here mate, I suggest you sod off back to “the land of the free” and spout your bigoted filth there.

  41. Why are you giving these people the publicity they clearly set out to get.

  42. We get this all the time outside Tescos on Walworth Road in ‘sarf’ London (SE17)…I just ignore them…I am an aetheist and I work with the police, but if I complained everytime I heard a Bible-basher spouting homophobia, I’d never get into Tescos to buy me shopping! Of course it is offensive, and should be dealt with, and one day I migth be tempted to call Lily Law and get me shopping later.

    1. Midnighter 5 Jul 2013, 4:49pm

      I’d have thought a quick note to Tesco to indicate that these people’s hate speech put you off entering their stores might be more effective and less hassle for you.

      I’m not suggesting you go all militant on their arse, but I’d urge you to at least complain periodically. Tacit acceptance of this sort of background hatred only helps normalise it.

  43. He talks about sexual immorality all fornication and includes homosexuality. Can’t we tolerate that view? Does it make any difference to us? He should not have been arrested. Pop up to Speakers Corner any day.

  44. He wouldn’t look out of place on a Pride March would he….

  45. Many of these ‘preachers’ would say they are traditionalists.

    If they are going to be persecuted they probably want it to be done traditionally, right? Back in the day there was PROPER persecution. Bring back the fine, old tradition of throwing them to the lions.

  46. He has his freedom of speech. Homosexuality is a sin and abnormal in my opinion . I don’t hate anybody.

  47. Donald J Morrison 13 Jul 2013, 10:33pm

    We applaud and salute Rev Peter Radcliff for once again defending the absolute truth of God’s word, as recorded in the Bible. Every true Christian will endeavor to speak the truth of God, in love and sincerity, to his fellow-sinner when he witnesses to them about their need of Christ and salvation. This is what Tony Miano was doing on Monday July 1st in Wimbledon – this was what Rev Peter Radcliff was doing when he spoke to the press afterwards, following this incident.

    Can I add that every practicing homosexual should regard every genuine Christian as his best friend, because he will tell him the truth, whether he likes it or not, about his sin and guilt before God.

  48. David Snow 29 Jul 2013, 4:32pm

    Tony Miano isn’t “homophobic”. The word is meaningless. He love’s homosexuals, as I do, and he loves them enough to warn them, that like all of usl – we are ultimately heading on a road to eternal separation from God (our Heavenly Father, whether we choose to believe it or not…), if we don’t repent of our sins, and accept Christ’s redeeming love. Any of you who have ever brought up children will know you don’t “love” them by telling them only what they want to hear. I’m pleased to hear some of you readers defending Tony’s right to air his opinions. I wish some other members of the Gay community could be as gracious. :-)

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.