Ever so slightly exaggerated?

Slightly late to the game here, but very excited by the dramatic headline in today's Observer:

"Secret Tape Reveals Tory Backing For Ban On Gays"

Really? The Tories want 'gays' 'banned'? Good Lord. So, lets look at that headline, shall we?

"Secret tape .."

Really? Was the Tory in question, Chris Grayling, speaking drunkenly to a couple of mates? Was he secretly taped by an alert journo'? Well, no. He was speaking to a Think Tank. In public. On the record. Not much of a 'secret tape' really, is it?

".. Tory backing .."

Really? Was Grayling expressing the official Conservative position on something? On anything? What did he say?

"I personally took the view.."

So, not 'Tory Backing' then, really?

".. Ban on Gays"

Did Grayling say that he, or his party, felt that 'Gays' should be subject to a 'Ban'? Well, no. He actually said that, perhaps, someone running a B&B in their own house might be able to..

"..decide who does and doesn't come into their own home" 

Not quite a 'ban on gays' then. Jesus H. Christ.

How desperate are the media for a story, and how desperate are the Labour party for an attack angle ?

How utterly, pathetically desperate?

For fucks sake.

.

15 comments:

blognostic said...

1. A think tank is not public, it is private. And therefore the tape was secret.

2. He's a potential home secretary, so his personal view is so senior as to count as a Tory view - if they win the election he will be one of the three most powerful people in the UK and responsible for laws about this kind of thing.

3. It's not their home once they've opened it up as a business. They hadn't pre-warned, the couple showed up late at night with nowhere else to stay and were told to fuck off.

4. Agreed there has been a lot of pathetic Labour desperation but this story is nothing to do with it - this is someone who is a potentially hugely powerful man after the election, expressing a view that is appallingly bigoted straight out of the 50s.

5. Right, here's why I've bothered to respond. My wife and I are of different racial heritage. If we showed up to a B&B late at night and got told to fuck off because they didn't want us using the bathroom, would that be even remotely acceptable in a million fucking years? Is that where you think we ought to be heading?

I believe your anger in this case is way out of whack. And for the record, I have never, ever voted Labour.

Anonymous said...

Is the bottle illustrating your article "Knob Creek"? Is that meant to be funny? Were you trying to imply someone was up Knob Creek without a paddle? If so - well done.

Joe Public said...

bn said "......and were told to fuck off."

Er no.

Re-read the article.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't.

banned said...

Since B&Bs are private households they should be allowed to decide who may or may not stay there but, since travellers might have come some distance and might not be able to find alternative accomodation prior notice should be advertised, like in the olden days.
"No Irish, dogs, blacks or benders" would suffice.

Constantly Furious said...

@blognostic:

"If we showed up to a B&B late at night and got told to fuck off because they didn't want us using the bathroom, would that be even remotely acceptable in a million fucking years? Is that where you think we ought to be heading?"

Of course not.

But do I think we must have legislation to make us all think the right way, and 'head' the right way?

Of course not.

Dippyness. said...

Let's be clear. I've been to places & not been accepted 'cos I had a dog with me. I slept in the car.
Did I make a fuss? NO!!
These people should stop being so precious & get a fucking life!!
Blair has been the biggest hypocrite EVER. Mandy total hypocrite.
As someone said, people in glass houses.

blognostic said...

So out of genuine interest Constantly Furious, where does your libertarianism draw the line:

- if, in response to being refused (without notice) the room I'd been promised, I tied them up, used the room, ate their breakfast and then untied them and went on my way, would you support Statist legislation to protect them from my libertarian instincts? (I still paid them, obviously)

- or what about if I didn't stay there but smashed their windows, torpedoed their website and keyed their Landrover, ie. a non violent but direct fiscal punishment?

Would you support Statist legislation to 'make me think the right way'? Straight question, I'm interested.

Mrs Rigby said...

@ blognostic
Probably a good idea for you to stroll over to Iain Dale's place to read the comments there, or take a look at Old Holborn, or even the comments beneath newspaper articles to see what a lot of people think about this issue.

"Would you support Statist legislation to 'make me think the right way'?"
It depends what sort of wrong thoughts you're thinking, because there are plenty of laws that tell us all what we can and cannot say or think these days.

AntiCitizenOne said...

If the B&B was run as a Limited company then BlogNostic is Right, if the B&B is a partnership/Sole trader then I support their right to deny trade for any reason.

AntiCitizenOne said...

Shut down these Heterophobes! http://www.guyzhotel.com/

Jill said...

I agree with CF that some things should be socially unacceptable but not illegal. But I also agree with blognostic, in that it's extremely worrying that a future Home Secretary could be so gauche in an interview. God knows what fuck ups he'll make when he does get power. The Tories are shaping up to be as incompetent and incapable as New Labour, and that should worry us all, of any political hue.

AntiCitizenOne said...

Jill,

Perhaps the MSM are just not reporting Labour incompetence with the same level of pedanticity?

Furor Teutonicus said...

Jill,

Perhaps the MSM are just not reporting Labour incompetence with the same level of pedanticity?


point one, there are jsu so many of them it is just not "news any more, point two, why should the media bite the hand that feeds them?

Where else would they get fat brown envelopes, bursting with used twenty quid notes passed to them under the table in the back room of a pub in some dilapidated side street, if not as payment for being a little lax on reporting "Government" cock ups?

AntiCitizenOne said...

The payments aren't hidden in backrooms.

Just look at all of Nannys nagverts.

Jill said...

Guys, I'm not making any comment on New Labour other than that they are woefully incompetent. All's I'm saying that if this incident is the level at which Chris Grayling - the future Home Secretary and, as blognostic says, one of the three most powerful people in the UK - intends to conduct his job, woe betide us, because nothing will change.

That, I know, is my constant mantra. But it doesn't make it any less worrying.

They're all dimwits. They're all incompetents. None of them have any level of sophisticated thought. None of them can think on the hop. All of them can be caught out with crude interview questions.

Useless. That's all I'm saying.