There are good day. There are bad days. And then there are those days that just make you despair of the infantile character of the human race…
A Tory councillor who suggested gay people were paedophiles was given a conditional discharge today.
Peter Willows, who has been a councillor in the UK’s self-styled gay capital Brighton and Hove for 12 years, made the comment at a mayor-making reception in May.
The 75-year-old was asked by the editor of a gay magazine whether he thought a gay councillor was a paedophile, Brighton Magistrates’ Court was told.
“James Ledward asked Willows, ‘Do you think Paul’s a paedophile?”‘ prosecutor David Packer said.
“Willows replied to that with, ‘I know you are not Paul [Elgood], it’s the other gays’.” The barrister said the words “equated gay people with paedophiles”.
Willows, who the court heard has “fixed, traditional views on marriage, church and families”, was found guilty of using threatening, abusive or insulting works or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress after a day-long trial.
He had denied the charge, which was brought under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Chairwoman of the Bench Pauline Quinton said: “It’s quite clear that you did use the word gays not guys, despite your denial.
“Because you knew that both men were gay…your remarks would inevitably be insulting.”
But she added that the comments were not borne from hostility towards people who were gay. Willows was given a conditional discharge and told to pay £250 costs.
Yeah, right guys. That’s real fucking clever isn’t it. Let’s stitch-up the local homophobic dinosaur and teach the reprehensible old scrote a fucking lesson he’ll never forget.
Whatever you might personally think of Willows’ views of the gay community, and frankly equating homosexuality and paedophilia is about as a foul as such views get, if our pair of fearless gay avengers think they’ve somehow struck a blow against the evils of homophobia then they’re a bigger pair of prize idiots than even this case has makes them look.
The only thing that this kind of sanctimonious crap ever achieves is to harden attitudes. No one who harbours an irrational hatred against the gay community is going to ever read a story like this and come away from it with the idea that maybe their view of the world is just that bit fucked-up and offensive. Their sympathies will automatically lie with Willows, who they’ll see as having been royally stitched up by a pair of conniving queers and then dragged into court to be publicly humiliated and pilloried for being a ‘traditionalist’.
They couldn’t have done much worse if they’d beaten the living shit out of the old codger on the spot.
That’s just real fucking clever isn’t it. Sending a very public message to the prejudiced that simply confirms and reinforces their prejudices; one that bolsters their belief that the system is already being stacked against them. Fuck the moral high ground, let’s just have a bit of petty revenge on the antiquated old twat, who, if the content of this letter from the local business community about this incident is anything to go by…
Whilst collectively we are supporters of all political parties and indeed none, we cannot help but note that repeated comments have been made against the city’s diverse communities over the years by Peter Willows and too often gone unchallenged. Last year we saw the good work of our local LGBT Police Team undermined by his unwise comments. Sadly, last month he failed to support a council motion to mark the International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO), with the flying of the rainbow flag from Brighton Town Hall. Through the letters to the editor page in the Argus he has been critical of the Pride celebrations and in his latest outburst he suggests LGBT people are not normal and paedophiles.
…is already doing a damn fine job of painting himself into a corner and making himself look like a complete arsehole all by himself and without your assistance.
And as for crap like this, from the same letter…
We call on Councillor Willows to resign from the Council. He is not fit to make decisions which affect the City’s 35,000 strong LGBT population. Furthermore we call on the Conservatives to expel him from their party, and demonstrate that the recent commitments of their national leadership to communities such as ours are not just hollow words, but are followed through with deeds.
Yet again, we seem to be forgetting that we still live in a fucking democracy and that the only right and proper place for dealing with such matters is the ballot box.
If Willows had aired his appaling views in a public arena then, fair enough, you’ve got damn good cause for complaint through the appropriate channels, starting with his local Conservative Association and the Leader of the Tory group on the council – in case you haven’t already worked this out, demanding that the Tories live up to the ‘recent commitments of their national leadership’ means jack shit if they’re only expected to do that with the fucking media breathing down their necks. The real test of the Tory’s commitment to equality (and that of any political party or other organisation) is whether or not they can manage to clean the shit out of their stables without being put under that kind of pressure. Commitments to equality mean something only if such commitments are both made and acted upon voluntarily, if people do the right thing because they want to, not because they’re backed into a corner and forced to.
But in this case, Willows didn’t make his comments in public, he made them at a public function, but in what looks for all the world like a private conversation, and only then in response to a deliberately leading question.
The only mitigation for the decision to take this public is if a complaint was, in fact, made to local Tories, and they refused to deal with it or take action against Willows. In that case, then you have some justification for taking things further – although your next step should have the Tory Central Office or perhaps the Standards Board – must as I loathe their getting involved in such matters.
However, when it comes to talking bollocks, its this part of the letter from the business community that completely takes the fucking biscuit…
Finally, we ask the Police to investigate these comments and act on what we believe to be inflammatory language intended to incite hatred. Such comments are highly destructive to community relations.
What the fuck?
So far as one can tell from the reports of the trial, it would seem that the only people present at the time these remarks were made – at least in earshot – were Willows, Ledward and Elgood, the latter pair both being gay men.
So if Willows intend to incite hatred with his remarks, who was it who was supposed to respond to this incitement? Elgood or Ledward.
I suppose it must a Elgood, as Willows clearly excludes him from the ‘charge’ that homosexuality and paedophilia are synonymous…
Nah. Still don’t make sense. Still sounds like a load of overheated and hysterical bollocks to me.
And the moral of this story?
Look, if you really, seriously think that someone’s private and personal opinions are so downright fucking appalling that they absolutely deserve a come-uppance then, for fuck’s sake, just give them the rope and let them hang themselves.
Don’t get caught tieing the noose and kicking the chair out from under them – that only makes you look like a cunt, not them.
8 thoughts on “Yet more twattery”
I gave up reading after the first few paragraphs because in essence all he did was get his maths wrong. what he should have said was not all gays are peados but most peados are gay.
Elgood’s one of the two Lib Dems in my ward. Apparently everything fine in the world is a result of their tireless work, so I’m afraid I couldn’t possibly go along with the “sanctimonious” assessment…
I wrote a piece on gay Muslims for a liberal Muslim website some time ago and it was generally greeted with approval, but there was the usual nonsense, including the gay=paedo slander (plus a few requests for sex!). I wanted to answer the gay=peado, knowing it is simply a ignorant view people hold and thus one that might benefit from a clear minded response. So I emailed a certain British gay rights group and asked ’em what to say. The response was a stoney (hint hint) silence.
what he should have said was not all gays are peados but most peados are gay
Not the ones who get prosecuted in the courts where I am, Rizla; the people who download child pornography — or at least who get caught doing it — are mostly men interested in very young girls, and the cases involving actual assaults are almost always fathers/stepfathers and their daughters/stepdaughters. We have some cases involving men and young boys, but I wouldn’t say it’s more than about a fifth at most. Maybe it’s because cases involving very young girls come to the notice of the police more than do ones involving young boys, for whatever reason, but that’s certainly my impression from actually working in the criminal justice system.
Ah well working in the industry you should be aware of many of the false allegations and of http://www.inquisition21.com which details the ongoing class action regarding operation ore.
Certainly I’m aware of false allegations; it’s a standard part of the summing up in such cases that sexual abuse is a very easy crime to allege and a very difficult one to disprove. Nevertheless, people do, quite rightly, get convicted of the most barbaric treatment of young childen (typically their own). Sometimes they even plead guilty.
I’m also aware of the problems with Operation Ore. That doesn’t alter the fact that we get a constant flow of men through the courts who plead guilty because they can’t really contest the fact that these images were found on their computers. And the simple fact of the matter is that the production of these images necessitates very grave abuse of children. People who download these images are usually paying customers, so, in effect, they’re paying others to commit serious crimes and provide them with the photographic evidence.
With regard Operation Ore the mere fact that images were found on a computer in my opinion means nothing however the law seems to have other ideas. Locally, a vicar was prosecuted for “making” (Notice how downloading according to law is termed making) images of children and pleaded guilty. He said he had no idea the images were on his computer but still pleaded guilty.
I believe him, being that my background is in IT I am well aware how easy it is to have some file download onto a machine without the user knowing. I have enough problems trying to stop unwanted rubbish downloading on my machine so God knows what it must be like for a casual surfer.
What this vicar had done was pay to view porn which was perfectly legal, granted not the done thing for a vicar, but my best guess is he just happened to click on the wrong link and bingo he’s now labelled as a child abuser.
There are many cases like this and you’ve got to ask yourself why are the Police and other organisations being so obstructive as is the case with inquisition21?
I believe him, being that my background is in IT I am well aware how easy it is to have some file download onto a machine without the user knowing.
That being so, does this apply just to Windows based PCs with IE on them, or does it include non-Windows machines and non-IE Browsers?
This is an important distinction, because although it is possible to load images ‘invisibly’, so that they load into the browser cache but may not be seen by the users*, it is known that there have been problems with Windows/IE in security matters.
As regards the Operation Ore claims – some particularly odious accusations can be particularly difficult to be cleared from.