« Paul Dacre accuses the Tories of surrendering to the BBC's worldview | Main | Cameron compares government to the stranded ship »


A couple of weeks ago I raised the subject of the proposed Sexual Orientation Regulations with UKIP for their view. I am a "traditional values" Conservative frustrated at the failure of the Conservative party to come out in defence of Christians like me.

I was told outright "We do not consider this is an area for further legislation and State intervention and therefore do not support the measure being forced through Parliament."

I think this answers John Irvine's post of 09:14 today about what UKIP think.


"deliberately refusing a child the opportunity of a suitable pair of loving parents only because they happen to be a same-sex couple seems equally cruel."
"If you were face to face with a same-sex couple who wished to adopt, but were passed over having satisfied all other requirements simply because of their sexuality" Richard Carey at 2117.

But I thought adoption was for the benefit of the child. That must mean a home with a mother and father, as it seems obvious that the roles of both Mum and Dad must be needed in a child's development. And a married mother and father, as marriage has been demonstrated by studies to be the best context to bring up children.

As for the Editor's original question asking if lack of Conservative comment on this issue means there is no major party stands for freedom of religion, and association, this might appear to be the case (will UKIP fill the gap?). But perhaps the silence may have something to do with the type of thing Paul Dacre highlighted in his comment about the Tories being obsessed with bowing to the god of the BBC. It is truly incredible that the Conservative leadership has remained silent about the attack on freedom of religion, association and to live according to conscience that these regulations present.

Better rude than dead?

Well, I do know a homosexual couple who are giving a loving home to a baby who might have otherwise ended up in an orphanage - a damn sight better outcome for the child, I would have thought!

Some of the vicious anti-gay spoutings on this site have been abominable, and no, I'm not part of any gay mafia, I'm a heterosexual pensioner.

The issue continues to be one of two conflicting rights, and EU and British Govt intervention is just making things worse rather than better.

On the one hand, I do think on libertarian grounds that the Catholic Adoption Agency should be free to discriminate against gays, since it is part of their belief system, however much I disagree with it.

On the other hand, would I feel the same way if orthodox Muslims were to be allowed to marry pre-pubertal girls because it was part of their belief system? um, no.

I think Cameron is quite right to stay out of these murky waters.

The Prince "Its those kind of ridiculous statements that make me want to cut my membership card in half and vote LibDem"

Why don't you go and do it then. We can do without your sort in my party.

I presume all there homosexual/pr0-homosexual whingers come from London or somewhere of the sort. There would be little sympathy for them in my Conservative branch and although we're all very much members of the older generation we are part of an ageing population anyway, many of whom can remember when these people would simply have been jailed.

Every statement that comes out from the homosexual mafia sets my teeth on edge. I have a feeling though that the pendulum is about to start swinging back to freedom for ordinary people to speak out and take their own stand on Christian morality. It's good to hear that UKIP is sympathetic to the silent majority even if that creep Cameron is prepared to do nothing.

As for the moron who says he reported "Gandolf" to the police which address did he give. No 1 Middle Earth.

Don't make me laugh!

What about female circumcision? Should we allow that?

Posted by: DavidDPB | January 24, 2007 at 19:09

We do. Though it is not religious but cultural. Just as wearing a niqab is cultural not religious, or a jilbab.

Don't confuse religion with culture which is a big failing in this country particularly simply because the public is so poorly educated with respect to religion.

There are those who think Morality is what Parliament decrees and others who say Law has no Morality but is simply an expression of Power.

The current imbroglio is caused by an EU Directive and a British Cabinet is twisting in the wind because EU Commissioner Frattini has told them to legislate. Until the EU gets authority to dismiss a British Cabinet which fails to implement Directives we shall have this difficulty in implementing EUDirective 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implement-
ing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and

Maybe if Conservatives actually followed what is going on in the EU they would see just where this is going

2. Gender mainstreaming shall be promoted in all sections of
and activities under the Programme.


Article 20
Entry into force
This Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Strasbourg, 24 October 2006.

For the European Parliament
The President

For the Council
The President

"Some of the vicious anti-gay spoutings on this site have been abominable, and no, I'm not part of any gay mafia, I'm a heterosexual pensioner."

I wonder how much you were doing to help them when the state used to lock them up?

Damn all I expect. You liberals are all talk.

Just what I was saying, immediately before Dave's first post, about the change from "We think there is a real unmet need, and we will set up a body, appeal for donations, and do what we can to meet it" to "We think there is a real unmet need, and we will set up a body to demand that the law be changed so that others are compelled to meet it". Except this is even nastier, it's a deliberate attempt to suppress freedom of speech:

Dave @ 20:27 -

"Why dont we all stick a few quid in an envelope and send it to the nearest childrens home or better still ANY one of us nip down and see if we can help in any way. At least it is something postive and a step in the right direction."

Dave @ 23:17 -

"I have reported your comments to the Metropolitian Police."

Well I've never seen this "Dave" on here before. He demands to know whether we on this forum will adopt children though he obviously hasn't done so himself.

But it's difficult to know whether he is a genuine far-left homosexual or whether he's a troll trying to discredit the One Nation/Cameron/gaycompliant brigade.

If the latter he neednt bother. They're doing a great job already.

Mr Irvine, I do not usually descend to personal abuse on this site, but your outbursts make it quite clear why people used to think we were the Nasty Party.

I do not believe what people do in the privacy of their own homes is our business. I have always thought that jailing people for their sexuality was utterly wrong.

Heterosexual males are more than capable of being violent, abusive and murderous in their sexual behaviour, perhaps they should not be allowed to adopt?

Maybe you should try looking at people's personalities, not their sexual habits, before indulging in these bouts of sickening vituperation. Or are you fighting an inner demon?

Why is the BBC again allowing the TOday programme to have a huge amount of space on this subject. After all how many gay couples-in long term loving relationships- I suppose there must be a few-actually adopt children. This is part of a bizarre culture which Andrew Marr said at the BBC self citicism session was due tothe high number of homosexuals at the BBC.
The same goes for Conservative Central Office which is so well known as cruising ground.

I never said it was right to jail homosexuals. I said that these people who now shout the odds about "Gay" rights did nothing to help them when they were out of favour which is the way things used to be.

That particularly goes for anybody who claims to be a Conservative because I can well remember that it was the Labour Party, not the Conservatives, who stopped it being a criminal offence. Im old enough to remember Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery (a Tory) calling it the "B*****s' Charter"

Im also old enough to remember David Maxwell-Fyfe who was the leading Tory who brought in the Maxwell-Fyfe quotas for constituencies which we had to try to meet every year. If you think what I wrote makes us the Nasty party you ought to read what he had to say about Lord Montague and his homosexual set when they were sent down.

I couldn't give a damn whether you think the Conservative Party is the Nasty Party. You havent even got the courage to sign your posts with your own name.

You are a remarkably hate-filled man, but just so you know I'm not old enough to remember the time when Britain used to lock up homosexuals, I've never heard of Maxwell-Fyfe and my knowledge of Montgomery is limited to his war record. We are talking about the situation today, where the party has evolved into a modern one (something which the Conservative Party, despite its name, has historically been good at) so your examples of bigotry from mid-way through the last century, whilst fascinating, hardly shine light on this argument.

John Irvine,
Two quick questions:

1. In attempting to petition the Conservative Party to overturn the ability of gay couples to adopt (a doomed exercise, but hey, whatever floats your boat) do you envisage children already adopted being taken away from loving supportive homes and shoved back into government care?

2. With your belief in fundamental Christian teaching on the subject do you actually think that groups like Christian Voice have got it right and we should re-criminalise homosexual activity?

How predicatable that what looked for one brief moment as if it might become an interesting debate has descended into abusive rantings. This is my particular favourite. Pure genius:

"Every statement that comes out from the homosexual mafia sets my teeth on edge. I have a feeling though that the pendulum is about to start swinging back to freedom for ordinary people to speak out and take their own stand on Christian morality. It's good to hear that UKIP is sympathetic to the silent majority even if that creep Cameron is prepared to do nothing."

Someone else hiding behind a brand new ridiculous ID.

Sorry, but from where Im sitting I dont see any significant change in the party. Just the latest in a line of new leaders.

Most of the old faces are still around

That response was to "Sarkis Zeronian"

Presumably a new name for some clown who posted previously.

No I dont think it should be made an offence again. As long as they do in in private I couldnt give a damn what they get up to.

John Irvine,
Sarkis Zeronian is my real name, google it, go on, you'll see I exist. OK it's not as Anglo Saxon as yours but that's still no reason to call it "a brand new ridiculous ID".

I can only assume, unless you offer an unreserved apology NOW that you are a racist who probably regards foreign sounding names as suspicious. If that is the case I trust the Editor will now ban you from this board. You are an embarassment, even to those who side with you on this argument.

Well I've got to check out for a while John, but I'll look later for your apology for calling my foreign name "ridiculous"...

I've never heard of Maxwell-Fyfe

Pity that and your being a lawyer and all...not to have heard of a man who was British Prosecutor at Nuremberg handling Hermann Goering; Home Secretary; and Lord Chancellor.

Well I suppose that is a gap in your education which no doubt you will remedy.

Can I reiterate that ConservativeHome's position on this is as in the original post.

I'm uncomfortable with a lot that has been said, but believe debate and reason is a better tool than merely deleting opposing views (or worse, getting the police involved).

That said, I've deleted what I consider to be the most offensive part of gandalf's comments.

Tim and I are very busy today, if anyone has any objections to comments made here please email us.

I've googled Sarkis and indeed he exists. I think, John Irvine that it's game, set and match. It just shows that jumping to conclusions on personal matters on this site is not only stupid and unconstructive, but wonderfully reveals people's prejudices.

Anthony S says at 9.04am: "Why is the BBC again allowing the TOday programme to have a huge amount of space on this subject. After all how many gay couples-in long term loving relationships- I suppose there must be a few-actually adopt children." I think it's a bit rich criticising the Today programme for debating this when (a) there have been developments late yesterday (b) there is an interesting split in the Govt which could even result in resignations and (c) it's obviously a topic exciting interest in the politically minded as shown by the huge number of posts on this thread (not all of them from obsessives).

Answering his question, the Telegraph says today that of 3,700 adoptions last year, 185 were by gay couples. So not a huge number, but still material. With civil partnerships presumably it might increase. So not an entirely theoretical argument.

Incidentally as the row has escalated over the last day, it seems absolutely clear that a definite decision must have been taken by the party not to comment. Who would be the relevant spokesman (or woman) and why has the media not been pressing them to comment?

Comments such as John's "The idea of consigning any child to the care of a pair of "gays" will be deprecated by all decent people." make me very sad.

Bigots alive & "un"well on ConHome. Time to read another site I think.

The Conservative Party isn't the nasty party. That title belongs to UKUP! For it is THEIR trolls who are (mostly) leaving all these bigoted and hate-filled comments here.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but it's now obvious that ConservativeHome is now a sauce of embarrassment for the Conservative Party. I've lost count of how many CCHQ people have told me that comments on this site are going to be used by our opponents -especially the Lib Dems. The answer? Registration!

As for the twin evils Gandalf and John Irvine (and a couple of others), I'm not sure about police action but they should definitely be banned from this site.

John, I think it is extraordinarily unhelpful to invoke the unhappy memory of David Maxwell-Fyfe, a thoroughly reactionary Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor who among other things signed Derek Bentley's death warrant. I neither know nor care what his views were about homosexuals. Montgomery likewise who, to put it mildly, was a very strange and unhappy man. You simply give scope for the secular Mullahs in the Tory Party to vilify anyone who criticises their "modern" brand of authoritarianism as a bigot. They are thoroughly illiberal, just like their New Labour and Lib Dem allies, but so are you.

As for the sweeping generalisation about homosexuals in the Tory Party being more liberal, I take that with a large pinch of salt. Even Alan Duncan seems to display a degree of indulgence towards repressive regimes in the Middle East which rather undermines his libertarian credentials.

Gareth's lamentation about the lack of debate, and the prevalence of abuse, on this thread simply makes me laugh. Do unto others, Gareth, as you would have them do unto you.

You believe in freedom of speech, Justin? No doubt you also believe that Adolf Hitler was a Zionist. Good to know that the apparatchiks at CCHQ are mainly interested in appeasing the Lib Dems and not interested in debate. No change there then.

Alison, as I said yesterday I really don't think John Irvine is a Conservative at all. I strongly suspect he is a left wing troll posing as the kind of neanderthal Tory that died out many years ago. This site is still excellent in my opinion as some of the more thoughtful posts on both sides the argument which appeared on this thread yersterday testify.

Just checked in again, and still no apology for John Irvine's borderline racist view of my "ridiculous" ID which happens to be the name my parents gave me.

I thought he would have wanted to clear up any unintentional offence. Perhaps he's been shamed into silence, we can but hope...

I am a gay man that has posted this on another thread on this site. I came across this site as I have voted labour most of my working life. I wanted to vote conservative, but on reading the threads on here , I see their is still this core that has not changed its views on homosexuals. I believe in freedom of speech , but I also believe in respect. Words have consequences. Having spoken to some people in the police force, the label peodophile is used by some persons out there as a threat. They know people react to it. My partner and I keep ourseleves to our self. Yet we have had over the last five years had stuff thrown at our house, had graffiti and have been labeled peodophiles, also we have been threatened. We have had to have special glass now fitted to the front of our HOME. One person did not like the fact that we were gay and started the rumour. I think open discussion is good, but we have to draw the line some where. If you read the link I posted about the consevative council member in Brighton, you will see that is it not right to say that that one group of people go hand in hand with peodophilia. I have reported the comment to the police, and I am pleased that I have.You should all applaud this action because if it happened to you, and you are totally innocent, you could lose everything. It is the most emotive word in this country at present. It should be used carefully and with respect. How would any of you like it if you were labeled like this? So many of you out there think this will never happen to you. Well it does happen to people out there. We as a couple are exceptional neighbours, respect our community and yet sometimes we sit at home scared of what might happen next. Things now hopefully will die down for us as the Police have been invovled, I dont want to go into detail but harrasment orders have been served, and rightly so. Sweeping statments of any kind are dangerous. So next time you upset your neighbour, friend, workmate or customer, be aware that you never know how they might react or enact their revenge. What made it worse in our sitution that at first the person or person that started the rumour about us. Did not know where we lived, and had never even meet us. But because he/she found out we were gay that gave them the right to interfer in our life, upset us, cause great worry and nearly split my relationship up. I have not adopted children, and as I am now too old ,I wont be going to. My point earlier is that many people on here will also not adopt, gay or straight. So what right do we have to stop a child getting a secure home as long as the persons providing that home are law abiding people, regardless of sexuality, when some of us, including myself are not going to provide a home for that child.What is better a child in a orphanage without love and security, or some person ideals satisfied when they were not even going to provide a home for that child in the first place. I feel sorry that a thread which started with a healthy discussion ended like this. I try every day to see compassion in every one, even in the people that have caused us so much upset.Even the people on here that have posted some hateful things.Good luck with the rest of this thread. I have learnt all I need to know about the connservative party, I dont think I will be voting for them after all.

But Sarkis, if I guess correctly that you're of Armenian extraction then you probably won't be a different race from somebody with the surname Irvine ...

LOL! Denis, you are absolutely right. Mea culpa!

John Irvine (if that is his real name) can just apologise for the rampant xenophobia implicit in his nasty comment.

You have my sympathy, Dave, as does anyone who's subjected to harrassment for no good reason whatosever. But I still feel that you were wrong to report the comments to the police. I honestly don't think that anybody who read them would have thought "Oh, from reading this it seems that I'd be perfectly justified in going out and picking on some gays". If we carry on like this, eventually nobody will be able to say anything about anything. In any case the police should have better things to do with their time - such as investigating actual cases of harrassment, rather than following up comments which might hypothetically by some remote and unlikely chance indirectly lead to a future case of harrassment.

Dear Dennis thank you for your sympathy. Like I said the harrassment started with an unfounded rumour.Words, written or spoken lead some people to act on them.


You give dubious statistics and conjecture above and then say, of the source:

"So you are saying the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C. is a liar?"

Well he certainly has an agenda! Have you checked out who they are? Google them and see.

And here's another hint, don't quote WorldNetDaily in your defence, unless you want to be laughed at. It is hardly a peer-reviewed journal of child pyschology and adoption law. Here is a great quote from one of their guest columnists, the actor Chuck Norris:

Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live." It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures.

Dave, just sent you a personal email. Have you received it?

and it was ones person freedom of speech that stared it all

Dave, just to make it very clear that the things you and your other half have put up with are quite intolerable. Threatening and intimidating behaviour of this kind is of course something the police and the courts should be dealing with, vigorously. I hope that they are. I have neighbours, model neighbours, who have found themselves in the same position. I agree entirely with what you say about the word "paedophile". Like "racist", it is a word used indiscriminately to stigmatise people in the way that "witch" was used in the Middle Ages.

Dear Justin, thanks you for the mailing , I did read it and some of it I do agree with you. I promise when it comes to cast my vote I will truely consider everything, not just this debate.

This thread in the news: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3560.html

Actually I have found that from the consituency that I live in (one of the largest conservative majorities in the country and largely rural) and its neighbouring constituencies assocations are exceptionally sympathetic to homosexuals or members see it as just a non-issue. The silent majority are silent for one reason, this is a subject which doesn't interest them it is only zealots that are making a big deal of this. The CoE has only come out and made a statement against this law not to appease members but to appease the fundamentalist anglicans in Africa.

Well said, ThePrince.

I agree entirely with what you say about the word "paedophile".

A stupid use of language about people "who like children" far from conveying the meaning of someone who is a child-molester.

Why we have to use Greek poetical terms to describe something that the English language can readily describe is baffling.

If the Catholic Church wants an exemption then why not have an exemption for Gay Establishments banning Catholics.

In this present day a manager of a 'gay bar' can stop someone coming into the premises on the basis they are heterosexual. This new law bans such discrimination.

This is about removing discrimination and ensuring equality. The lack of comment by the Tories I think is appropriate. It's not their legislation and there's no reason to oppose it unless you agree with the homophobic agenda of the Catholic Church (who are also sexist, against democracy and protect their own against cases of child abuse). Catholicism afterall is a lifestyle choice, homosexuality is not.

Oh and furthermore - if Catholic Adoption Agencies currently place children with single gay parents why can't they do the same with Co-habiting "married" gay parents? The Church basically doesn't want to face up to having it's flaws challenged so openly and yet more people running away from it in droves.

Why don't we move on and return to this debate if and when the Catholic church closes down agencies and removing needed services for vulnerable children in the name of "doctrine principles".

Keep pandering to the Notting Hill Tendency, you so-called Tories, and see where it gets you with Middle England!

Still no sign of John Irvine's apology for the rampant xenophobia implicit in his nasty comment about my name. I thought more of him but he really does appear to be pretty graceless.

In this present day a manager of a 'gay bar' can stop someone coming into the premises on the basis they are heterosexual. This new law bans such discrimination.

I don't think that is true or will be so.

Further, to compare entering a bar with a duty to another person in loco parentis is crass. You'll be telling us next that "Community Centres" like the one at Tower Hamlets Mosque funded by public and EU money should be serving bacon sandwiches and pork dripping....but we all know it won't

Which bit did the editor delete?
It seems to be all there to me.

I was wondering about that, Gandalf. By the way, are you proud to have been namechecked in the Pink News article above?

I'm closing this thread now. I think enough has been said by everybody.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker