Sunday, 4 April 2010

Aye Chris... you were that close... before you opened your mouth and put your foot in it.


Poor old David Cameron. The Times reports a new poll that shows he is back where he wanted to be, 10 points ahead. It’s enough for an actual victory. No hung parliament. Great. Dave must have gone to his bed a happy man last night ....

And then .... and then

Chris Grayling lost them most of the gay votes that they would have got by appearing to put gay people into the same category as dogs.

Currently guest house owners are within their rights to advertise that they won’t allow dogs and, in Mr Grayling’s world some should have the right to refuse rooms to gay people.

Oh dear. Not with the programme there Chris.

The Tories have been desperate to prove to an educated 20 and 30s group of voters who have only known Labour mismanagement, that they have moved to somewhere that roughly equates to the 21st century. At the same time they have had to ensure that the colonel and his memsahib are still blissfully unaware that they anywhere but their comfortable berth in the early 1950s.

It’s hard to appeal to such a diverse audience. And there have to
be compromises. But has Grayling thought this one through? What are the practical implications?

How far will it go? Are we to go back to the days when “No Blacks and no Irish” notices hung in B+B windows? (There were no gays in these days of course.)

If Catholics can be offended by gays, why shouldn’t white racists be offended by the idea of a black person sleeping in their beds, or the other way round ? Why wouldn’t a Muslim owner be offended by a Christian sleeping in their beds or vice versa? Come to that, should a misogynist be able to refuse to have women in his B+B? Will Protestants be able to refuse to have Catholics? Who else can refuse to deal with whom else?

How, in any case, will these owners know that a pair of people are gay? They don’t wear labels Chris. They could be just two blokes, (or two women) saving money by sharing a room. They could be brothers or sisters, or father/son, mum/daughter, cousins. Will they ask them at the desk? Loudly? "Are you two poofs?" What will they do if a single gay person turns up? Or is it just the possibility of their bed being used for gay sex that worries them?

And are these same religious people not likely to be offended by heterosexual couples who may or may not be married, or employ birth control? Will they ask for a marriage licence, check that there are no condoms in the luggage and no evidence of any pills? Will they want to look for other appliances?

Do these people really cast their mind to what other people may or may not do in bed or in the privacy of their suites? Seriously? If they do I think they should get counselling! Really I do.

I can’t imagine anything sadder.

It seems to me that Mr Grayling hasn’t thought it out. We’ve had 13 years of Labour ministers who don’t think things through. It looks like we might be in for another 13 years of Tory ministers with the same problem.

Or maybe not if Chris Grayling has antagonised sufficient gay voters.......



Pictured: Chris Grayling; B+B and A notice dating from the dim and distant past, maybe during the last Tory Government?

56 comments:

  1. As a B&B is private property and a business to suit, it's down to the owner whether or not they choose to do business with anyone. You cannot/should force anyone to do business with anyone, to do so is absurd, authoritarian and totalitarian. It makes the individual lose the right of self determination. A business becomes just a cog at the whim of the state, of thought police and the mob, It's tantamount to slavery. Now if Gays want to boycott the place and encourage others to do so, that's fine, but you cannot force people to act against their beliefs, nor should the state legislate to do so.
    Chris Grayling was right, people might not like what he said, but that doesn't make him wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry Quiet Man but I a disagree with you.Having a ( Sorry No Gay/s) sign hanging outside your business is blatant discrimination which smacks in the face of the fundamentals of owning a business in the UK.

    Tris is right when he compares this daft nonsense from a Tory toff as comparable to No Blacks No Catholics etc.

    What is the big deal with two men sharing a bed?
    I don't know who the gay community vote for but I'm sure they make up around 10% of the population and may hold the balance of power in a lot of constituencies.

    Kind Regards Allan.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually QM, the point I was trying to make is that with one breath the Tories tell everyone they have come out of the 1950s and see blacks and gays and women as human beings with rights, and on the other hand they say that business owners will be able to refuse to do business with gays because it offends their religious sensibilities...

    They are rather inconsistent. And politically they have just thrown away a huge possible vote by implying that gays can be treated differently from straights.

    Will they next be saying that unaccompanied ladies can't stay because they need to have their husband's or fathers approval to spend the £50 the bed and breakfast costs?

    Personally I don't give a damn. I couldn't care less if B and B owners say that X can't have a bed because he has a beard, which is unhygienic and might bring fleas into the room; or Y can't because he's fat and might damage the springs or crack the lavatory pan; or Z can't because he's Chinese and may therefore be a communist spy!

    I just think it's funny that the day that the Tories get a clear lead in a poll for the first time in months, beating Brown into submission, one of their senior men insults 10% of the population.

    Lord they are THICK! And I thought the UK was in shaky hands with Labour!?!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm with QM on this.

    Allan, some people of my generation are of the view that two people of the same sex sharing a bed is immoral. They have a right to their view and they have the right to admit who they wish as a very small B & B business.

    Let me give you another example. You run a small B & B with good quality everything. A 25st person, who has booked a room arrives. You know your new bed will be wrecked because the limit is 20st max. What do you do? Let them wreck your new £800 bed for the sake of a few quid or suggest you'll find them something elsewhere?

    The error the B & B folk seemed to make is that they didn't get the names of who would occupy the room. They possibly only had the name of the person who made the reservation.

    Of course, there's the other side of the coin to think of. If the gays had any courtesy at all, they would have explained they were a gay couple when reserving, thus giving an opt out.

    My example of the obese person is not a moral issue but a practical one. The gays were a moral issue for the B & B.

    For you to say gays are not better than dogs where B & Bs are concerned surprises me Tris. The woman did her best and struggle with her conscience. She at least apologised and they have had to admit on the media today that she wasn't at all rude. They didn't do themselves any justice today.

    There may be more to the story than we're told in the media too, so we shouldn't pass judgement so quickly. As for Grayling's remarks, it was personal he said and I agree with his view. B & Bs do not come under the Inns and Hotels Act.

    For goodness sake, is nobody allowed to think out of the brainwashed box anymore?

    Sorry I'm ranting, but my newish boiler packed in so to top a rotten day I've no hot water or heating.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Allan: I am assuming that he was referring to the minority of Catholics who have historically taken this stance. I wonder what these people think about the revelations today (Times) that Pope John Paul II had a friend who abused over 2000 lads, and he protected him and promoted him.... and the pope is or rather was, infallible.

    None of it adds up does it?

    Frankly who shares a bed with whom is of no interest to me nor should it be to anyone else unless they are part of the sharing.

    Like I said though, I'm damned if I can see how they are going to know. As far as I am aware gay people don't yet have it tattooed on their foreheads.... so far.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Allan and Tris, I suggest you have a look at this post on Old Holborn he explains the principle far better than I do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well of course you’re entitled to rant if your boiler packed in.... I would too. I hope you have more luck getting it fixed than I’m having with my under guarantee cooker from Comet, whos motto appears to be We sold you it; you bought it; it’s broken: tough!

    If older people see these things as immoral, then there’s not a lot I can say. Maybe when I’m older I shall too. I hope not. There are many things that are immoral: unmarried couples; people who have sex without the express intention of creating life; people who cheat; people who are divorced who remarry; the list of things that the Church says are immoral is legend. Not of course paedophile priests... they are fine.

    Of course gay people who do not think of themselves as freaks probably would forget to announce that they are gay when booking a room or doing their grocery shopping lest it upset the shop keeper if you see what I mean. Maybe people should ask....

    And I’m sure there are some gay people who do have manners. Probably not many, but a few.

    I said they were being treated like dogs because you can put up a sign that says No Dogs but you can’t put up a sign saying No Irish, or No Polish, or No Blacks, but it would appear that Grayling thinks you should be able to say No Poofs, or No Dykes. If Grayling was making a personal comment SR, he should be aware that in 6 weeks, god help us, he may be the Home Secretary. He can’t afford personal thoughts on stuff like that.

    I think we have to accept that we are miles apart on this one. It must be a generational thing.

    I hope you’re boiler gets fixed.... or at least that you can boil a pot of water......

    ReplyDelete
  8. QM: I don't get his point.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Subrosa I'm 36 and have been round long enough to hear all the arguments regarding Gay people etc.
    Of Course people are entitled to their opinion and I do understand many people hold strong views on two same sex couples sharing a bed etc but I don't think that gives them a right to (advertise) the fact in a B&B window!

    I dislike the concept of a man dressing up and acting like a woman but from a business perspective I wouldn't want to advertise the fact.

    The case of the 20 stone man (lol) is an extreme case where you do have to state that the bed might not take his weight but I would put that under the same category as fairground notices displaying height and age restrictions for different rides.

    I know we live in an ever increasing nanny state but if we were aloud to put up signs discriminating against other people just because we so happen to disagree with them then society would be poorer for it.

    On the other hand though, some who represent the gay community should take a reality check and understand that not everyone is against them as they would like to make out and they are in a minority.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tris very interesting. I would love to be a gray cell in the minds of some of the Catholics who see homosexuality as repulsive yet fail to criticize those in the church who abuse someone of the same sex but often below the legal age of 16 or is it 18?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just for the record! I don't hold any prejudices against people who disagree with homosexuality. I'm not gay and I'm certainly not a mouthpiece for the gay community but people should be treated as equals regarding sexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't know what age the kids were Allan. But I think they were very young. The story is here:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086738.ece

    But you're right; the hypocracy is astounding. According to the Church sex should only be for procreation, and therefore anyone who uses it for any other purpose (such as pleasure heaven forbid [literally]) is immoral. Ergo, almost everyone in teh world is immoral... which is fine, but where does it leave your Christian B&B person?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Allan: What on earth anyone's colour, religion, sex, sexuality, political proclivities, preferred football team, nationality, colour of socks, etc, etc, etc, has to do with any one else is well beyond my comprehension...

    What someone else’s morality has to do with someone else is also a mute point. If I have a problem with the morality of someone I work with, or someone I employ, is it my business? Is it legal to ask about morality at an interview or when you book into an hotel; how would you do it?

    Oh I’m rambling. ..........

    None of it matters....

    The point I was trying to get through here was nothing to do with morality of sex or sexuality. It was the dipstick Grayling putting his big stupid foot in his big fat gob.

    The Tories don’t like queers; they don’t like blacks, or foreigners or Europeans. They don’t even like women unless they are making a nice cup of tea and cutting some sandwiches for the cricket team.

    Don’t listen to them if they tell you otherwise. They are lying! And mouthy Grayling just let the cat out of the bag. I heard that there was already some doubt over his suitability for a high level role in government.... I think he just proved that there should indeed be. He could even be worse that fathead postman prat or Jackie Smith the porn purchaser.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tris I appreciate the link to the article thanks!

    You have to laugh at some of the guff the church comes out with. I haven't any children but it hasn't stopped me from having pleasure with the opposite sex over the years Lol.

    I think it's the adverse nature of priests not being aloud to marry and the concept (according to the Catholic church) that Darwin's theory is non factual which has the church priests acting in strange and sometimes repulsive and criminal manners towards youngsters!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tris your last comment I agree with it in its entirety!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you Allan. And I agree with yours.... except I'm obliged to point out to you that your morality leaves somthing to be desired!!!

    Best get saying the hail marys.... I understand it gets you a "don't go to purgatory" card, although I'm not altogether sure that Jesus will see it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank God that Chris Grayling will not be able to spill his evil smelling nonsense over Scotland.

    QM and SR since when is discrimination not a moral choice?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh I'd forgotten that Munguin. Yeah, the home secertary has very little in the way of power in Scotland... just as well if he's as foot and mouth prone as this dick head.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tris Lol! As a matter of fact I'm saying my hail Marys right now and forgive me for I have sinned father over the word aloud and I was indeed referring to the great word (allowed) and as such I shall allow my sole to be disseminated across this holy land!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Allan... will that be soul or sole???!!!???

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ Munguin, hypocrisy runs rife in this whole matter.

    A couple of exclusively gay hotels advertising here and here.

    Oh, wait - maybe no straight people want to go there so no-one's complaining.

    See what I did there?

    Service is a two way thing, buyer and seller, as a seller should I not have the right to refuse my service to anyone? If I do it often enough I might go out of business, but it's my choice and my freedom to do so, it's not the job of the state to legislate who I can and cannot sell too. Change the word gay to smoker and you'll see far better the malign influence of the state and who can do what and where.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Most True Blue Torys(especially the English variety)hate homosexuals,lesbians etc with a passion........and that is a absolute fact any Prat who thinks differently is delusional.

    look at that Iain Dale Tory boot licker extraordinaire cannot with all his crawling get
    a constituency to accept him.

    Cameron is selling his marriage tax breaks as a key policy.......same sex couples not allowed though.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Quiet man

    Please take your freedom and fu#k off and die
    we have moved away from times like these although you want them back


    http://www.indymedia.ie/cache/imagecache/local/attachments/oct2009/300_0___20_0_0_0_0_0_no_blacks_no_irish.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  24. QM: taken to its logical conclusion what you seem to advocate is a policy of personal discrimination based only on your own judgements and feelings. Do you then advocate the right of Nick Griffen not to have coloured people in his party? Because he supplies a service for white people only? Choice and freedom are all very well but they sometimes need to be tempered and that is why we need state interference. If not then what is to stop me putting a 400 foot windmill at the end of your garden if I buy the land and want to have the freedom to do so? Also what is to stop me buying up all of something like energy and doubling the price?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what I'm reading in some comments here, but surely Britain has specific anti-discrimination laws. The US certainly does. The argument that owners of public accommodations have a right to decide who they will or will not do business with was consigned to the trash heap of American history about 50 years ago.

    Southern state apartheid, and discrimination elsewhere, was never more graphically illustrated than that hateful sign which was posted everywhere, and said "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." If that right ever actually existed, it surely doesn't now.

    Both federal law and state laws apply to areas of public accommodations, the workplace, and housing to name just a few, and there are quite specific protected categories. In some or all situations, discrimination is illegal based on race, religion, age, disability, family status, gender, nationality, military veteran status, and others.

    As for discrimination based on sexual orientation, federal and state law is in a state of flux involving the areas of marriage, employment, military service, and housing. Various states address the issue of sexual orientation in public accommodations, but there is no blanket federal law in this area. (But as Tris points out, it's rather difficult to enforce your prejudice against a category which cannot actually be identified.)

    All this is US law, but I can't imagine that similar laws do not exist in Britain (which is usually miles ahead of the US in social matters.) Fundamentally, the idea that as a private business owner you have a right to discriminate against those you don't like for one reason or another....well, that's a ship that sailed long ago. Surely those "no Irish" and "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs have literally as well as figuratively been consigned that proverbial trash heap.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You keep missing my point QM. I'm really talking about hypocrisy of the Tory Party here.

    I glanced at your advert, and I saw "exclusively gay" but I doubt very much that you would have a problem booking in if you weren't gay. If you would then they are breaking the law. You could always try I suppose.....


    There are equality laws in both our countries; they may even be the same for all I know. The Tories clearly want Christians to be able to flout these laws, but everyone else has to adhere to them. The Tories say they are gay friendly; the Tories want to discriminate against gays, presumably because they want to impress the Christian vote for the moment. Doubtless very shortly there will be an episode when they will speak up for women against the church or blacks against the poofs or some other thing. They will say whatever may get them a few extra votes.

    Alternatively Chris arse piece Grayling hasn't the foggiest whether he's on this earth or Fuller’s Earth... And that’s the most likely.

    Yes, I suppose items put up for sale, whatever they are are “invitations to treat” if I remember the English Law I did at college “"An invitation to treat is a mere declaration of willingness to enter into negotiations; is is not an offer, and cannot be accepted so as to form a binding contract." I’m not entirely sure I’d be happy with the person selling me my chips that he had decided not to serve me because my hair was too long, or my trainers too dirty… However, if we are going to have this, we have to have it for absolutely everything…. No exceptions. And that might be an awkward world to live in.

    Anyway, as I say it’s about the Tories who don’t know how to deal with this new fangled nonsense of equality and are scared still to upset the blue rinses.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, I guess Niko, you and Mrs Niko will be raking in a wee fortune off this marriage thing eh? Don't you go turning into a Tory now, just when I've nearly got you to be a nationalist.... right? And all for a a ferw of Davey's pennies.....

    Oh and wash your mouth out Niko. My mum reads this blog.... and Munguin's Republic is a respectable place for intelligent discussion.... so I'm off.... bye.

    Now you apologise to QM Niko... and make up KK?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Tris


    Any tax break should be targeted at 'CHILDREN' and not mum and dad

    ReplyDelete
  29. Danny: I think that they more or less have been, but the man of very little brain, Grayling, appeared to suggest that they would bring them back against gays in the case of Christian Bed and Breakfast accommodation.

    This has happened at the same time as the Tories, who are desperate vote they can get, have said that they will stop being horrible to gays and women and blacks and all other people who aren’t THEM. Lots of the Tories are really like your Republican reptiles. And many of them are full of righteousness, as long as it doesn’t apply to them... because to be quite honest the last Tory lot were the most unrighteous set of bounders you could wish to meet. Needless to say they preached family values, goodness and truth and they bonked everything going male and female, and... well whatever.

    They were led by one of the world’s dull, but decent men (you would have thought), who, bless him, initiated a programme called “back to basics” I think, which was all about the values of yesteryear into which Mr Major wanted to herd us. In the meantime, there was hardly a cabinet minister that wasn’t caught with his pants round his knees, or his grubby fingers in the till........and even dull old honest John (Major) was found to have been having a riotous affair with one Edwina Curry.... a Tory harridan.

    Anyway. Tories don’t change.... behind it all, once they are in power who knows what horrors they will come up with for those who didn’t go to Eton and Oxford.....

    ....on the other hand 5 more years of brown.....argh

    ReplyDelete
  30. Niko, I agree completely with that. They should not bribe people to get married, they should ensure that old people have enough to live on. If there's money left over they can find some way of getting it to the kids I'm fine with that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Can you take something down that you've posted? I don't know a way to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think there's a wast paper bin after the posting at at the bottom of your post... click on it Danny....

    ReplyDelete
  33. PS: I know that Munguin and Tris can take down a comment. But I didn't think that I could take down my own.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Try the bin at the bottom of your posting Danny.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Nope....no waste paper bin on mine. Maybe just a British feature.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Icon on the right of the PM??

    ReplyDelete
  37. Nope. No icons. No way to correct "commentators remorse"....LOL. But, out of ignorance, I may not be using all the features available on this blog. I just type in my name when I post. Others seem to have a profile and a avatar. Just ignorance on my part....no prob....LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Aw... poor wee you Danny. Time you got yourself an avatar. A wee picture of your right wing wako Mrs Palin maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Allan I was just concerned for your poor feet mate....LOL

    ReplyDelete
  40. So it's a sake of selective discrimination then Munguin? You don't think my example of an obese person is discriminatory? I do. I also think the fact that the room was booked and then refused on the grounds of two men's sexuality was discriminatory.

    Allan may well laugh at a 20+stone person arriving for accommodation when the accommodation provider knows they have no bed suited to their weight. It actually happens more often that you realise these days. Only last week I was talking to a local hotelier who said they'd had to have several beds reinforced because of the number of obese people booking.

    I have no problem with people being gay Tris, none whatsoever. In fact I think I'm fairly tolerant, although I do get peed off with people using their sexuality for reasons I can never understand.

    The problem with the woman was she was honest. She could well have said she'd double booked the room and tried to contact them etc etc but she decided to be honest.

    As for your facetiousness Tris it doesn't suit you. I've worked with many gay (how I hate that word) people during my working life and they were no different manner-wise than anyone else.

    Grayling has stuck his head on the block - that's his problem and opinion.

    I refuse to allow anyone to tell me with whom I can do business, socialise or work. That is for me to decide, not any politician.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I must say I'm surprised at subrosas attitude. She obviously doesn't have close relatives who are gay. If she did then she would know that people don't choose to be gay. They struggle for years to try and fit in before admitting that they are gay. Then realise that they are still loved by their families and wished well.
    So when I heard that this couple were told to go away because they were gay I thought of my brother and imagined how he would feel.
    If the B&B couple were true believers then they would know that God made us all and you can't pick and choose who to love.
    I'm a total atheist by the way and think everyone should be treated equally and fairly.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hi Anon. Everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess and it wouldn't be much of a discussion board if one people didn't differ.

    I think that you may be right. If you have close friends and family who are gay and who confide in you, as you clearly have, it may make you more empathetic and sympathetic. If you think that you don't know anyone who is gay then it may be alien to you. Some people have the idea that gay people necessarily are hairdressers or fit the Julian Clarey mould.

    I can't imagine saying to someone: "you can't stay here because you're gay", any more than I would be able to say "you can't because your podgy" or "grey haired".

    Hiding behind religion is just rubbish. Jesus preached love.. At least these people should have the nerve to say what they mean. "I don't want you to stay because what you are disgusts me" Don't blame it on Jesus mate, he wouldn't have been disgusted. Not in a million years.

    Once again, however, I return to the main thrust of my argument which was old Chris "you can't stay here coz you’re a baldy git" Grayling... I mean although we have lowered and lowered the standard of Home Secretary till you might as well pick a school leaver at random off the dole queue, he still isn't really up to the job. He runs off at the mouth and has very expensive tastes when it comes to redecoration of his apartments. He’s going to be well stuffed with the changes in expenses. I wonder what his next clanger will be; he’s already embarrassed Cameron by saying that Brown recruiting Dannatt would be a cheap gimmick, till he discovered it was Cameron that was doing the recruiting at which point it became a wonderful idea. Then there were the dodgy comments about Moss Side and The Wire. The guy has the tact of a hippopotamus on heat. He really is a nob!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Tris:

    You are right about Grayling and right about Christ. The first is a black hole when it comes to brains. The second was a bringer of love and understanding

    I object to people using christianity to pillory minorities with. That's exactly what Christianity is supposed to work against.

    Again you are right, these people use the church and the rubbish that some of them teach as an excuse for hate. I don't know where they get it from. Not Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  44. tris

    Yes it seems as if we are continually fighting the same fight.
    No one decides to be gay. They are gay and that's it. The thought of kissing a bloke gives me the heebie jeebies. Which proves to me that my brother is not faking it or 'going through a phase.' No bloke would suck another blokes tongue ( etc ;) ) unless it gave him pleasure.
    Most blokes want to fit in and go after girls.
    I think girls are absolutely lush and could never imagine going near a bloke (yuch) but it's real, it happens and is probably far cleaner for a B&B compared to a heterosexual couple with all their mess.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon:

    Yes. I think there is a big difference between what Jesus taught and the teachings of the Church. A lot must have got lost in translation.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yes Anon.

    My question is how would anyone ever know.... unless they listen at doors>>>>>>>> eeek!

    ReplyDelete
  47. I would never have imagined that in Britain one would encounter anti-gay bias in a matter as fundamental as public accommodations, especially not in a shadow Home Secretary.

    Such a thing would never surprise me in the US of course....among the Tea Party Republicans....or maybe deep south politicians. But no present or potential cabinet secretary of either party could openly hold such a view.

    ReplyDelete
  48. S/R: the trouble with your analogy is of course that you can tell that the person in question is obese without asking them. You cannot do that with people who are gay. In addition the obese person also has the choice to do something about their condition by losing weight. Also, as you point out, you considerations in that analogy are practical and not moral. In the instance put to Mr Grayling it was the other way around, perhaps a more appropriate analogy would illustrate your point better.

    If you are running business where you invite people to share your home, is it not beholden to you to make them feel at home? What would you do is someone was just say fat? Ask them to step on the scales while you asses the suitability of you furniture? Booking into a hotel or B&B run like that would be more akin to filling in an insurance proposal form where you have to go through all the check boxes to suit the owners moral and practical considerations.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Subrosa I never new obese people were causing B&B owners so much problems. Maybe a discrete sign such as (Our beds can only sleep up to 120 kilograms) could be sufficient!

    Back to Grayling, He might well indeed be saying what many people agree with but sometimes peoples thoughts should be confined to themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Danny: Compared with many countries in Europe the UK is still a nasty unpleasant bigoted place. This would never be an issue in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Holland. But there are a lot of people in this country who still live in the 1940s.

    It is particularly bad among our version of the tea-party... the right wing of the Tory party.

    The trouble is these self righteous people often have less than perfect life histories themselves. Mr Grayling, whilst clearly not gay, as a far as we know, has a rather dubious record on his expenses spending so much on doing up his second house that he was obliged to put in the expenses over a two year period, they were so enormous. Many of the self righteous in Mr Major’s government, including Mr Major, were preaching to us and shagging on the side.... such is the way of these people.

    A bit like the republican governor of Nevada.... I guess it happens everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Munguin: You'd need to ask all sorts of questions about the morality of the person. Not just whether they were homosexual. The answers would certainly be revealing.

    The most revolting thing is that they hide behind a man who would never have judged for their petty spiteful miserable behavious.

    Why not just be honest and say what they mean.

    ReplyDelete
  52. LOL Alan... like a bridge. No vehicles over 3 tonnes. Better have height restrictions too. Don't want greasy marks on the ceiling!!!!

    ReplyDelete