The way Pride have been going on about the safety of the volunteer stewards being paramount and that was the sole reason for banning UKIP I assumed that meant violence. But if it's not threats of violence then I really don't get what the reason is that they are being banned. The statement they've given is complete politician's answers.
They certainly aren't making themselves clear at all and rightly coming on for criticism.
And even if some people do not like the UKIP view on gay marriage etc surely in a civilised society they can turn their backs, jeer or ignore them rather than being aggressive. Maybe I'm expecting too much of people though...
They have made themselves very clear - I linked to their detailed announcement, which explained the rationale behind the decision.
It isn't just about the safety of the stewards themselves, but the fact that the stewards are just volunteers who are given training on how to deal with a friendly happy crowd. I don't agree with the decision either, but I completely understand why safety is an issue and that as the decision was made 'on balance' (you can see the various arguments that were considered) why safety was the 'tipper'.
I think you and others are expecting too much of a volunteer organisation who had a difficult decision that was always going to annoy a significant number of people whichever way they went.
So does that mean the LGBT members of ukip are also banned?
No blueblade, they are welcome to march. It is marching as a UKIP group (with the banner etc) that is causing concern. I linked earlier to the Pride organiser's explaination, who they discussed it with, and why they decided to, on balance, refuse UKIP's application to march as a group.
No blueblade, they are welcome to march. It is marching as a UKIP group (with the banner etc) that is causing concern. I linked earlier to the Pride organiser's explaination, who they discussed it with, and why they decided to, on balance, refuse UKIP's application to march as a group.
They're welcome as long as they stay in the closet, hide who they are.
The message that this sends is that gay UKIP members must remain invisible because those who hate them to the point wish to tar all members with the homophobic brush based on the highly publicised comments of a few dinosaurs.
With this cowardly decision, based on hatred and fear, Pride has become mired in hateful partisan politics and as such is lessened.
Yet the irony is that gay people will often defend Islam to the hilt. A religion which is anti gay to its core.
Do you know that is just not true. I don't know anyone who defends the anti-gay elements of any religion (because it isn't just Islam). What they do is criticise those elements (and other negative aspects, such as the treatment of women) and, for many of us, try to help LGBT people who are the victims of them. What we also manage to do is acccept that many Muslims, including the ones I know who are trying hard to change minds in their own faith), are decent kind people who no more act on the anti gay parts in the Qur'an than Christians act on the same passages in the Bible.
They're welcome as long as they stay in the closet.
The message that this sends is that gay UKIP members must remain invisible because those who hate them wish to tar all members with the homophobic brush based on the highly publicised comments of a few dinosaurs.
With this decision, based on hatred and fear, Pride has become mired in partisan politics and as such is lessened.
No, they can wear T-shirts and badges and anything else they want - but they can't be part of the official march.
Read the full explanation - this was an on-balance decision and a very difficult one. Do try to remember that many of the groups already marching will be HIV charities who were not impressed by what the leader of UKIP said about HIV 'tourism'... and people who remember UKIP's opposition to ssm; or the part of their manifesto where they support the right for religions (well, Christians) to discriminate against gay people.
The Pride committee made the wrong decision in my view, but I recognise that it was a very hard decision that they had to make. They didn't ask for this problem, but they had to deal with it... easy for people to say what is right from the comfort of their armchairs, but much more difficult when you are trying to organise an event of this size with different views being thrown at you from all sides. Damned whatever they did and for that, even though I disagree with them, I sympathise with them.
Discrimination is perfectly acceptable towards some groups in this country it seems.
If UKIP (or anyone else) were to hold a march and then banned LGBT people from attending on the grounds of 'safety' the screams of outrage would be absolutely deafening.
Well, we are getting screams of outrage over this Pride decision! Anyway, UKIP members aren't being banned from attending Pride.
It reminds me of the sheer hypocrisy of politically 'right on' folk defending the more repulsive homophobic and misogynistic aspects of Islam.
Read the full explanation - this was an on-balance decision and a very difficult one. Do try to remember that many of the groups already marching will be HIV charities who were not impressed by what the leader of UKIP said about HIV 'tourism'... and people who remember UKIP's opposition to ssm; or the part of their manifesto where they support the right for religions (well, Christians) to discriminate against gay people.
I read it, wasn't impressed,(IMO) it read like the kind of statement a politician would come up with on being caught with a hand in a cookie jar. As for UKIP being homophobic I would assume their gay members would think otherwise - or at least would be working from within the party to change that. How unfortunate then that the wider "community" appears to be turning their backs on them - No solidarity for those that support the "wrong" party.
The Pride committee made the wrong decision in my view, but I recognise that it was a very hard decision that they had to make. They didn't ask for this problem, but they had to deal with it... easy for people to say what is right from the comfort of their armchairs, but much more difficult when you are trying to organise an event of this size with different views being thrown at you from all sides. Damned whatever they did and for that, even though I disagree with them, I sympathise with them.
Yes I didn't think you would be in favour.
Pride brought this problem on themselves when they extended an invitation then withdrew it under threat that certain parties might react badly to some gay people expressing their identity. Apparently it's not in certain people's interest for UKIP to demonstrate that actually they may not be the homophobic monolithic group mind that some like to paint them.
To be clear I have no horse in this race, I'm not overly fond of UKIP myself though I don't particularly subscribe to all the negative propaganda that tars millions of voters for the words of a few dinosaurs in the party hierarchy.
I am simply stating how this situation appears to me as a relatively neutral observer. To me this goes against everything that Pride claims to aspire to.
That's splitting hairs. If there's a danger implicit in them carrying banners then there's danger implicit in them wearing t-shirts.
I read it, wasn't impressed,(IMO) it read like the kind of statement a politician would come up with on being caught with a hand in a cookie jar. As for UKIP being homophobic I would assume their gay members would think otherwise - or at least would be working from within the party to change that. How unfortunate then that the wider "community" appears to be turning their backs on them - No solidarity for those that support the "wrong" party.
Yes I didn't think you would be in favour.
Pride brought this problem on themselves when they extended an invitation then withdrew it under threat that certain parties might react badly to some gay people expressing their identity. Apparently it's not in certain people's interest for UKIP to demonstrate that actually they may not be the homophobic monolithic group mind that some like to paint them.
To be clear I have no horse in this race, I'm not overly fond of UKIP myself though I don't particularly subscribe to all the negative propaganda that tars millions of voters for the words of a few dinosaurs in the party hierarchy.
I am simply stating how this situation appears to me as a relatively neutral observer. To me this goes against everything that Pride claims to aspire to.
It isn't splitting hairs - as individuals they are welcome. It is simply a statement of fact.
You seem to not appreciate the difficulty of the committee - it is crystal clear that the LGBT community is split over this issue and they were never going to please everyone so they weighed up the various arguments and made the choice they made. When they extended the invitation there were a great many voices who were disgusted that they did so, because of the stated position of UKIP on a number of equality issues. I can understand that too.
Having been on Pride groups I understand the issues with steward safety from first hand experience and whilst I would have sought another solution I still appreciate why that was a factor - especially given the size of London Pride and the fact that it is just a few weeks away. I can also appreciate their fear that many people would stay away - they are reliant on people attending in order to fulfil their contractual obligations and I am sure this was a factor as well.
They have made themselves very clear - I linked to their detailed announcement, which explained the rationale behind the decision.
It isn't just about the safety of the stewards themselves, but the fact that the stewards are just volunteers who are given training on how to deal with a friendly happy crowd. I don't agree with the decision either, but I completely understand why safety is an issue and that as the decision was made 'on balance' (you can see the various arguments that were considered) why safety was the 'tipper'.
I think you and others are expecting too much of a volunteer organisation who had a difficult decision that was always going to annoy a significant number of people whichever way they went.
Yes the organisers have to a degree though your LGBT link was careful to omit where the threats and pressure had come from.
Since reading up more on it i find myself sympathising with the organisers who have now found themselves between a rock and a hard place as it turns out to be an element of LGBT activists who petitioned against UKIP joining the march.
This from Flo Lewis who is chair of UKIP's LGBT wing and is herself openly lesbian.
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."
And this from your own newspaper Pink News.
The UK Independence Party was granted an official place to march in the annual parade LGBT parade for the first time earlier this week.
But the announcement was not welcomed by some activists and Pride participants, who presented a 1,600-name petition seeking to stop Ukip being represented on the march at the end of the month.
Petitioners have threatened sit-ins or other direct action to disrupt the parade if Ukip takes part and the organisers are discussing the issue with the sponsors, PinkNews reported.
Threatening "other direct action to disrupt" is somewhat ominous to say the least.
However, the event organisers now have a very serious issue to address which will mean reigning in any LGBT dissenters.....or facing the possibility of losing the march altogether.
Boris Johnson has urged the organisers of a gay pride festival in London to reverse a controversial decision to ban Ukip from the event.
Today the Mayor of London, who helps to fund the annual event, said: “I do not agree at all with this policy.
“I passionately believe in the Pride march and the values of equality it represents and think that all should be allowed to participate.
“I hope this is sorted out as soon as possible.”
The move renews calls for Pride organisers to rethink their decision. On Saturday Conservative MP and former deputy speaker Nigel Evans wrote for PinkNews that he would "proudly" march alongside Ukip members.
Conservative MP Nigel Evans writes for PinkNews to explain why he supports UKIP’s right to march at Pride in London.
When I spoke with my good friend and former UKIP Parliamentary candidate Richard Hendron last week he was quite excited that UKIP’s leadership had given the green light backed up with a small budget in order that UKIP members who support LGBT issues were able to fully participate in this years Pride event in London on June 27th.
I clearly reject UKIP policies on a number of areas, and totally reject the tone of their presentation, but Pride is the coming together of peoples of all persuasions in order to celebrate diversity of life, and the equality of all.
There will be peoples of all religions represented and yet the leadership of most of them range from begrudging acceptance to downright hostility.
I am thrilled to see these religions represented during Pride and I support their internal struggle for change within their leaderships.
I certainly would not ban them. They are already pariahs in their own organisations and we should be holding out the hand of friendship not the two fingers of rejection.
After all these years, nay, decades, the gay activists who organise Pride are the same old Wolfie Smith/Guardian reading types that were at it in the days of my youth. What an imbecilic decision - and ironically, I was, actually thinking of going on Pride this year - the first for many years. With the influx of religious crazies into the country, I thought it might be time to get a bit active again.
I remember it used to leave huge debts every year, despite having many thousands of gay men with huge disposable income contained in a field for several hours, such was the incompetence of the organisers. I doubt that has changed.
After all these years, nay, decades, the gay activists who organise Pride are the same old Wolfie Smith/Guardian reading types that were at it in the days of my youth. What an imbecilic decision - and ironically, I was, actually thinking of going on Pride this year - the first for many years. With the influx of religious crazies into the country, I thought it might be time to get a bit active again.
I remember it used to leave huge debts every year, despite having many thousands of gay men with huge disposable income contained in a field for several hours, such was the incompetence of the organisers. I doubt that has changed.
Yes, London Pride has had a lot of ups and downs over the years, but the new organisation is very different from those in the past - who, by the way, still worked very hard despite their obvious difficulties. I am sure you volunteered to help them at the time.
After all these years, nay, decades, the gay activists who organise Pride are the same old Wolfie Smith/Guardian reading types that were at it in the days of my youth. What an imbecilic decision - and ironically, I was, actually thinking of going on Pride this year - the first for many years. With the influx of religious crazies into the country, I thought it might be time to get a bit active again.
I remember it used to leave huge debts every year, despite having many thousands of gay men with huge disposable income contained in a field for several hours, such was the incompetence of the organisers. I doubt that has changed.
Yet the irony is that gay people will often defend Islam to the hilt. A religion which is anti gay to its core.
Well personally I don't defend Islam or any organised religion even if some people do, but this thread has f**k all to do with Islam and is about UKIP.
Let's not turn this into another DS circle jerk over Islam. It's best for all of us.
Well personally I don't defend Islam or any organised religion even if some people do, but this thread has f**k all to do with Islam and is about UKIP.
Let's not turn this into another DS circle jerk over Islam. It's best for all of us.
Hear hear. And I don't think any gay people defend Islam "to the hilt".
Hear hear. And I don't think any gay people defend Islam "to the hilt".
Nope they don't, have a look on Pink News and you'll find quite a lot of strong criticism of Islam and equally strong criticism of UKIP. You see, gay people are as varied in their views as everyone else.
I hate to say it old chap, but I'm afraid your posts on any subject relating to homosexuals do tend to follow a distinctly "anti" pattern. There is more than a slight suspicion of 'flaming' about some of them and I must say occasionally a lack of objectivity.
You are entitled to your opinion and nobody denies you that, but a somewhat Orwellian attitude of "Straight Is Good, Gay Is Bad" does come across.
Gays are not the enemy, you know. We're people, just like you.
Comments
Bigots and idiots might.
The rest of us will assume that some people are prats, regardless of sexuality.
They have made themselves very clear - I linked to their detailed announcement, which explained the rationale behind the decision.
It isn't just about the safety of the stewards themselves, but the fact that the stewards are just volunteers who are given training on how to deal with a friendly happy crowd. I don't agree with the decision either, but I completely understand why safety is an issue and that as the decision was made 'on balance' (you can see the various arguments that were considered) why safety was the 'tipper'.
I think you and others are expecting too much of a volunteer organisation who had a difficult decision that was always going to annoy a significant number of people whichever way they went.
No blueblade, they are welcome to march. It is marching as a UKIP group (with the banner etc) that is causing concern. I linked earlier to the Pride organiser's explaination, who they discussed it with, and why they decided to, on balance, refuse UKIP's application to march as a group.
They're welcome as long as they stay in the closet, hide who they are.
The message that this sends is that gay UKIP members must remain invisible because those who hate them to the point wish to tar all members with the homophobic brush based on the highly publicised comments of a few dinosaurs.
With this cowardly decision, based on hatred and fear, Pride has become mired in hateful partisan politics and as such is lessened.
Do you know that is just not true. I don't know anyone who defends the anti-gay elements of any religion (because it isn't just Islam). What they do is criticise those elements (and other negative aspects, such as the treatment of women) and, for many of us, try to help LGBT people who are the victims of them. What we also manage to do is acccept that many Muslims, including the ones I know who are trying hard to change minds in their own faith), are decent kind people who no more act on the anti gay parts in the Qur'an than Christians act on the same passages in the Bible.
No, they can wear T-shirts and badges and anything else they want - but they can't be part of the official march.
Read the full explanation - this was an on-balance decision and a very difficult one. Do try to remember that many of the groups already marching will be HIV charities who were not impressed by what the leader of UKIP said about HIV 'tourism'... and people who remember UKIP's opposition to ssm; or the part of their manifesto where they support the right for religions (well, Christians) to discriminate against gay people.
The Pride committee made the wrong decision in my view, but I recognise that it was a very hard decision that they had to make. They didn't ask for this problem, but they had to deal with it... easy for people to say what is right from the comfort of their armchairs, but much more difficult when you are trying to organise an event of this size with different views being thrown at you from all sides. Damned whatever they did and for that, even though I disagree with them, I sympathise with them.
I don't think so. I've yet to hear any gay people defending the homophobic attitudes of any religion.
Do they really? Not to my knowledge.
It's a shame this decision was made, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with authoritarianism or the left. You're reading far too much into this.
That's splitting hairs. If there's a danger implicit in them carrying banners then there's danger implicit in them wearing t-shirts.
I read it, wasn't impressed,(IMO) it read like the kind of statement a politician would come up with on being caught with a hand in a cookie jar. As for UKIP being homophobic I would assume their gay members would think otherwise - or at least would be working from within the party to change that. How unfortunate then that the wider "community" appears to be turning their backs on them - No solidarity for those that support the "wrong" party.
Yes I didn't think you would be in favour.
Pride brought this problem on themselves when they extended an invitation then withdrew it under threat that certain parties might react badly to some gay people expressing their identity. Apparently it's not in certain people's interest for UKIP to demonstrate that actually they may not be the homophobic monolithic group mind that some like to paint them.
To be clear I have no horse in this race, I'm not overly fond of UKIP myself though I don't particularly subscribe to all the negative propaganda that tars millions of voters for the words of a few dinosaurs in the party hierarchy.
I am simply stating how this situation appears to me as a relatively neutral observer. To me this goes against everything that Pride claims to aspire to.
It isn't splitting hairs - as individuals they are welcome. It is simply a statement of fact.
You seem to not appreciate the difficulty of the committee - it is crystal clear that the LGBT community is split over this issue and they were never going to please everyone so they weighed up the various arguments and made the choice they made. When they extended the invitation there were a great many voices who were disgusted that they did so, because of the stated position of UKIP on a number of equality issues. I can understand that too.
Having been on Pride groups I understand the issues with steward safety from first hand experience and whilst I would have sought another solution I still appreciate why that was a factor - especially given the size of London Pride and the fact that it is just a few weeks away. I can also appreciate their fear that many people would stay away - they are reliant on people attending in order to fulfil their contractual obligations and I am sure this was a factor as well.
Since reading up more on it i find myself sympathising with the organisers who have now found themselves between a rock and a hard place as it turns out to be an element of LGBT activists who petitioned against UKIP joining the march.
This from Flo Lewis who is chair of UKIP's LGBT wing and is herself openly lesbian.
And this from your own newspaper Pink News.
Threatening "other direct action to disrupt" is somewhat ominous to say the least.
However, the event organisers now have a very serious issue to address which will mean reigning in any LGBT dissenters.....or facing the possibility of losing the march altogether.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-urges-uturn-over-ukip-ban-at-pride-in-london-festival-10306733.html
And Conservative MP Nigel Evans;
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/07/comment-why-i-would-proudly-march-alongside-ukip-at-pride-by-nigel-evans/
After all these years, nay, decades, the gay activists who organise Pride are the same old Wolfie Smith/Guardian reading types that were at it in the days of my youth. What an imbecilic decision - and ironically, I was, actually thinking of going on Pride this year - the first for many years. With the influx of religious crazies into the country, I thought it might be time to get a bit active again.
I remember it used to leave huge debts every year, despite having many thousands of gay men with huge disposable income contained in a field for several hours, such was the incompetence of the organisers. I doubt that has changed.
Yes, London Pride has had a lot of ups and downs over the years, but the new organisation is very different from those in the past - who, by the way, still worked very hard despite their obvious difficulties. I am sure you volunteered to help them at the time.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/20/boris-adviser-we-almost-pulled-funding-for-world-pride-2012/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18722279
Well personally I don't defend Islam or any organised religion even if some people do, but this thread has f**k all to do with Islam and is about UKIP.
Let's not turn this into another DS circle jerk over Islam. It's best for all of us.
Hear hear. And I don't think any gay people defend Islam "to the hilt".
Nail hit very firmly on head, Jane. Well said.
Of course they don't jj, it is just one of those canards that is trotted out and gains a 'faux-truth' simply because people repeat it.
Yeah, this.
I didn't realise BulletGuy's agenda when I replied to them so I won't make that mistake next time.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=78433825&postcount=6
Just what is this 'agenda' you speak of?
Nope they don't, have a look on Pink News and you'll find quite a lot of strong criticism of Islam and equally strong criticism of UKIP. You see, gay people are as varied in their views as everyone else.
I hate to say it old chap, but I'm afraid your posts on any subject relating to homosexuals do tend to follow a distinctly "anti" pattern. There is more than a slight suspicion of 'flaming' about some of them and I must say occasionally a lack of objectivity.
You are entitled to your opinion and nobody denies you that, but a somewhat Orwellian attitude of "Straight Is Good, Gay Is Bad" does come across.
Gays are not the enemy, you know. We're people, just like you.
Well there's either the anti-woman one or the anti-gay one, but given the current topic of conversation, I'd put my money on it being the latter.