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?

EQUALITY OFFENDS THE PONTIFF

The Pope has broken with tradition and made a criticism of the legislation currently going through the UK parliament. Strangely his remarks came as he confirmed that he would make his first apostolic and state visit to Britain later this year. He must be very sure that the government wants him to make this visit.

The Pope told a gathering of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales in Rome: "Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

If you look more deeply into what His Holiness is saying, it appears that he is concerned that the Bill may interfere with the rights of the Roman Catholic Church to discriminate in favour of marriage for its adherents and against marriage for its priest, monks and nuns; he does not agree with the law to demand equal rights for women, nor that of a law to demand equal rights for homosexuals and transgender people. Further, it is thought Sexual Orientation Regulations could force Catholic adoption agencies to consider gay couples as potential adoptive parents, and he doesn’t agree with that either.

I am not a religious person, but as I have said before, I respect the right of people to choose a life as close as they can to their idea of perfection, as long as it does not interfere with the next man’s right to do the same thing.

I think that that probably means that we must accept certain ground rules, as we have done for centuries. Many of these rules will be in accordance with at least some holy teachings: thou shalt not commit murder, is a good example, as is charity to the less well off, and acceptance of equality of people of different races. Others have come upon us since the scriptures were written. So although rules that say women and men must be treated equally in employment law, and that we must not discriminate against someone because they are disabled or gay are not in the scriptures, many would say that they are in the spirit of the scriptures.

Pope Benedict is encouraging his English and Welsh bishops to work against the parliament of the UK to undermine their proposals for law, and that brings several thoughts to my mind:

1. Were this another head of state with a state visit planned, would the government be considering whether he was still welcome here? If it were Sarkozy, for example, who had made it clear that he wanted to overturn UK law, would the government remain quiet?

2. Would the Pope be happy to see his teachings turned back upon himself and his adherents? Would he, for example, be happy if a woman refused to serve a Roman Catholic in her shop, or a gay hotelier refused to have a catholic in his or her establishement?

3. If His Holiness wishes to interfere with the laws of the UK, would it not be a good idea to put his efforts and time and that of his bishops into the appalling poverty and deprivation on one hand, and massive bonuses and greed on the other, that exists in the country which he intends to visit. Inequality of another sort.


Religion most certainly has a place in many people's lives, and therefore in legisation. Where to draw the line in its influence is a very difficult and divisive question.

One thing is for sure; the churches seem to have an unhealthy, and rather unsavoury interest in matters of gender or sex.