I would see it pretty much the same way if UKIP banned any gay people from joining their party...which of course they can't, don't and have not. If they did though, i would be questioning 'why'....what is it they have to fear?
The excuse of 'public safety' isn't really a very good one at all. We may as well apply that to all marches! You only have to look at the student protests and more recent protest march against the Tories being re-elected to see that.
I suppose much depends on how you wish to get your message across to the wider non LGBT public at large....by making it an "inclusive event" (their words) which turns out to be selectively inclusive.
As i said, by banning a single political party is certainly counterproductive.
BG1 - this is one Pride, organised by a group of unpaid volunteers who had to make a difficult decision. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will not blame the whole LGBT community for the decision. Pride marches are known for being very peaceful and family oriented - the days of conflict with people watching and the police are, thankfully, well over - so comparison with protest marches are just not valid.
As I say, I disagree with the decision, but then I am not a volunteer organiser having to decide whether I want to ensure that the march doesn't turn into a punch-up because some wallies decide to make an issue of UKIPs involvement.
Edit: here is the full consideration of the group - all the background of the decision is given.
Why don't the UKIP lot just go and join another parade?
I know if I wasn't allowed to join a parade I wouldn't go all drama queen about it, I'd just move on and look for another parade.
Or is this, as I suspect, more a case of mischief making and pot stirring.....yet again.
Just because you want to join a parade doesn't give you "a right" to force the organisers to let you join. If the organisers do not wish to let them join them, then you cannot go running off bleating about not being included!!
A bunch of drama queens, that UKIP lot, the lot of 'em!
BG1 - this is one Pride, organised by a group of unpaid volunteers who had to make a difficult decision. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will not blame the whole LGBT community for the decision. Pride marches are known for being very peaceful and family oriented - the days of conflict with people watching and the police are, thankfully, well over - so comparison with protest marches are just not valid.
As I say, I disagree with the decision, but then I am not a volunteer organiser having to decide whether I want to ensure that the march doesn't turn into a punch-up because some wallies decide to make an issue of UKIPs involvement.
No, maybe i expressed that wrongly but the point i was making is it doesn't really put them in a very good light does it? Though i realise organisers have some responsibilty to overseeing an event, concern over 'public safety' is just a red herring as we can see from the article below.
Ironically it appears the decision not to include UKIP came from threats within the LGBT community who pressured the organisers.
Flo Lewis, the chair of LGBT in Ukip, said: "The board of London Pride 2015 have not decided to reject our application. Instead they have decided to rescind the invitation under threats from and complaints by other members of the LGBT community.
"We should be very sorry this decision has been made, equally we are sorry the organising committee and board of London Pride 2015 has been put under the sort of pressure it has over the past few days.
"All people, regardless of creed, colour or sexual orientation, can find a home in Ukip. It is a sad day for diversity and freedom when these people are prohibited from expressing their selves as part of the wider community."
A bit strange that the Gay Pride organisers would ban UKIP but welcome the Catholic Church to their march.
They're big pals now....especially with Catholics in Ireland. ;-)
Maybe UKIP should stick a few quid into the LGBT pot and then they could have their logo on the rainbow website like these folk, not to mention loads of flags, stickers and a welcome entry to the march.
It's certainly guaranteed to turn public opinion against them. People will begin to see the LGBT community in a very different light now.
I don't think it will go so far as to "turn people against them." The only people who are likely to say such a thing are those who are against us anyway and wouldT simply use this as a stick to beat us with. Most pro-gay people would be against this move, but I don't believe it will radically alter opinions.
Having said that, I'm not in favour of banning those participants who relate to UKIP and its policies. Gay Pride is, and always has been, inclusive and this seems to me to go against that principle.
The reasons given for this ban seem lame to me. It sounds like an "any old excuse will do" response and I hope they rescind this decision
No, maybe i expressed that wrongly but the point i was making is it doesn't really put them in a very good light does it? Though i realise organisers have some responsibilty to overseeing an event, concern over 'public safety' is just a red herring as we can see from the article below.
Ironically it appears the decision not to include UKIP came from threats within the LGBT community who pressured the organisers.
Put who in a good light? The only people who made this decision are the London Pride committee, and as I said earlier, its a bit dim for anyone to think those are the views of all LGBT. I pasted their full statement, which clearly states the pro and con positions of the people they consulted... and you can see that there were many arguments made both supporting and rejecting inclusion. Their decision was made 'on balance' and it was a difficult one.
Concern over safety is far from a 'red herring' - it is a top priority for anyone organising an event of this kind.. the stewards are just ordinary volunteers and the organisation has a responsibility to keep them safe, as well as the tens of thousands of other people on the march and watching it.
Presumably no threats have been made against Catholic marchers.
The threats (over UKIP) came from within LGBT and i wouldn't imagine it to be in their best interests to make any against Catholics given their recent 'success'.
I don't think it will go so far as to "turn people against them." The only people who are likely to say such a thing are those who are against us anyway and would simply use this as a stick to beat us with. Most pro-gay people would be against this move, but I don't believe it will radically alter opinions.
Having said that, I'm not in favour of banning those participants who relate to UKIP and its policies. Gay Pride is, and always has been, inclusive and this seems to me to go against that principle.
The reasons given for this ban seem lame to me. It sounds like an "any old excuse will do" response and I hope they rescind this decision
if they`re saying it`s for safety reasons perhaps objecters were threatening mayhem.
Were there any threats? Or did someone within the organisers simply decide there might be and use this as an excuse to ban a party they don't like.
If there were actual threats to public order I would hope organisers have reported them to the police and are co-operating fully with tracking down those issuing them.
No, maybe i expressed that wrongly but the point i was making is it doesn't really put them in a very good light does it? Though i realise organisers have some responsibilty to overseeing an event, concern over 'public safety' is just a red herring as we can see from the article below.
Ironically it appears the decision not to include UKIP came from threats within the LGBT community who pressured the organisers.
From UKIP's chair of their gay section it does appear the organisers have received pressure from within their own community though.
Of course they have - and the link I provided gave the pro and con arguments that were considered. There are millions of LGBT people in the UK and of course some will threaten 'sit-ins and direct action' (the phrase the Pride committee have used) - but that isn't a reflection on the rest of 'the LGBT community' because we are not the Borg.
This is a really difficult thing to decide - hell, my own wife and I disagree about what is best. UKIP or their members have made some pretty anti-gay statements - but my argument is that so have other political parties (or members)... and so either all or none of the party LGBT groups should be able to join. I am concerned that there would be trouble though, and that the risk of that would mean that people with families; the disabled and others would stay away.
if they`re saying it`s for safety reasons perhaps objecters were threatening mayhem.
At best I could see a big march... then a long 100 metre gap with the UKIP group in the middle surrounded by police and SWP/Anti-UKIP supporters... followed by another big march.
Were there any threats? Or did someone within the organisers simply decide there might be and use this as an excuse to ban a party they don't like.
If there were actual threats to public order I would hope organisers have reported them to the police and are co-operating fully with tracking down those issuing them.
i don`t know, i thought that was clear in my post.
I was simply using the term 'community' as plural rather than specific singular, in the same way as i would refer to 'the Tories' or 'the Catholics' etc.
Were there any threats? Or did someone within the organisers simply decide there might be and use this as an excuse to ban a party they don't like.
Posted a quote in post #30 if you want to read it in full;
Flo Lewis, the chair of LGBT in Ukip, said: "The board of London Pride 2015 have not decided to reject our application. Instead they have decided to rescind the invitation under threats from and complaints by other members of the LGBT community.
Comments
BG1 - this is one Pride, organised by a group of unpaid volunteers who had to make a difficult decision. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will not blame the whole LGBT community for the decision. Pride marches are known for being very peaceful and family oriented - the days of conflict with people watching and the police are, thankfully, well over - so comparison with protest marches are just not valid.
As I say, I disagree with the decision, but then I am not a volunteer organiser having to decide whether I want to ensure that the march doesn't turn into a punch-up because some wallies decide to make an issue of UKIPs involvement.
Edit: here is the full consideration of the group - all the background of the decision is given.
http://prideinlondon.org/news/2015/06/statement-ukip-presence-pride-london/
Erm yes scottie ;-)
Anyway this banning is silly mind you so are Pride parades, they're so not necessary today.
No, maybe i expressed that wrongly but the point i was making is it doesn't really put them in a very good light does it? Though i realise organisers have some responsibilty to overseeing an event, concern over 'public safety' is just a red herring as we can see from the article below.
Ironically it appears the decision not to include UKIP came from threats within the LGBT community who pressured the organisers.
Sad when they can't tell and refuse to see the difference between just a belief and something a person actually is.
This ^
and this too ^
You over-egged your pudding there, bg1.
Maybe UKIP should stick a few quid into the LGBT pot and then they could have their logo on the rainbow website like these folk, not to mention loads of flags, stickers and a welcome entry to the march.
The banned would get their banners up then.
Presumably no threats have been made against Catholic marchers.
I don't think it will go so far as to "turn people against them." The only people who are likely to say such a thing are those who are against us anyway and wouldT simply use this as a stick to beat us with. Most pro-gay people would be against this move, but I don't believe it will radically alter opinions.
Having said that, I'm not in favour of banning those participants who relate to UKIP and its policies. Gay Pride is, and always has been, inclusive and this seems to me to go against that principle.
The reasons given for this ban seem lame to me. It sounds like an "any old excuse will do" response and I hope they rescind this decision
So what? Is the Notting Hill Carnival (or any other fun event) necessary?
Put who in a good light? The only people who made this decision are the London Pride committee, and as I said earlier, its a bit dim for anyone to think those are the views of all LGBT. I pasted their full statement, which clearly states the pro and con positions of the people they consulted... and you can see that there were many arguments made both supporting and rejecting inclusion. Their decision was made 'on balance' and it was a difficult one.
Concern over safety is far from a 'red herring' - it is a top priority for anyone organising an event of this kind.. the stewards are just ordinary volunteers and the organisation has a responsibility to keep them safe, as well as the tens of thousands of other people on the march and watching it.
Not "the community", Just Pride.
I remember overhearing Adolf say just that.
Were there any threats? Or did someone within the organisers simply decide there might be and use this as an excuse to ban a party they don't like.
If there were actual threats to public order I would hope organisers have reported them to the police and are co-operating fully with tracking down those issuing them.
Irony, yes.
Tongue in check. No.
Of course they have - and the link I provided gave the pro and con arguments that were considered. There are millions of LGBT people in the UK and of course some will threaten 'sit-ins and direct action' (the phrase the Pride committee have used) - but that isn't a reflection on the rest of 'the LGBT community' because we are not the Borg.
This is a really difficult thing to decide - hell, my own wife and I disagree about what is best. UKIP or their members have made some pretty anti-gay statements - but my argument is that so have other political parties (or members)... and so either all or none of the party LGBT groups should be able to join. I am concerned that there would be trouble though, and that the risk of that would mean that people with families; the disabled and others would stay away.
Nah, not Adolph.
Just some posters on here.
Their bakery, their rules.
Their B&B, their rules,
Their business, their rules.
Then all of a sudden
And a few interesting things here.
At best I could see a big march... then a long 100 metre gap with the UKIP group in the middle surrounded by police and SWP/Anti-UKIP supporters... followed by another big march.
i don`t know, i thought that was clear in my post.
;-)
Probably.
Seems there are dissenters among their own ranks.
Posted a quote in post #30 if you want to read it in full;