Pink Fascism

It is a shame that such a nice colour has been hijacked by the homosexual lobby, but so have the rainbow and the word “gay.” It all helps to give the impression that all homosexuals are soft and cuddly, harmless and peaceful.

I wasn’t going to write about my latest round of exchanges with a certain malevolent homosexual – not yet, anyway – but I will mention it in the context of tonight’s planned “Kiss-in” at the John Snow pub in Soho.

On Wednesday night a woman claiming to be the landlady allegedly ordered two men in their twenties to leave the pub for kissing in the corner.

More than 400 people have pledged to join tonight’s demonstration, while 600 say they will attend a similar protest at the pub next Wednesday,

Attendees are being urged to order nothing more than tap water to prevent the bar making money.

The pub is in Soho, the heart of London’s gay scene.

So, basically, if you run a pub in the “gay” quarter, you have to be a “gay” bar or you get targeted. How very tolerant.

The couple said the woman and a man who said he was the landlord called them “obscene” before forcibly removing them from the pub.

Mr Williams tweeted: “Seven years in London & I’ve never been made to feel bad for being gay.45 mins ago the John Snow pub, W1F had me removed for kissing a date.”

His date, James Bull, said the woman tried to claim that a straight couple would also be asked to leave for kissing.

He told “I haven’t heard of the pub having a no-kissing policy and I’ve never heard of any straight couple being thrown out for kissing.”

A patron who was seated at the next table, Jamie Morton, told he too was asked to leave after questioning why the couple were being thrown out.

The general public has been trained to defend homosexuality.

Mr Morton, who backed up Mr Williams’ version of events, said the couple’s kissing was “innocent, not raunchy”.

He said: “The woman was really aggressive, shouting at them. It’s outrageous, they weren’t doing anything wrong. I was shocked.”

The woman may have handled it wrongly, although we don’t seem to have her recollection of events. I would have asked the pair politely to behave themselves if they wanted to continue drinking in my hostelry.

But yet again, it comes back to property rights, which are far more important than “gay” rights, because if the government can tell us what we must allow on our own premises then there is no freedom.

This brings me to my private messaging on Facebook over the past two days with a man I have blogged about before and who has obviously just seen the post. As I discovered from the blog stats, he found the post he considers offensive by searching for his name on the 123 People website. His name brings up all sorts of information, including blogs he has been mentioned on!

All I did on that post was to report on his incredible intolerance towards me. This he claims is libel, or slander, and he has ordered me to remove all mention of him.

I have absolutely no intention of giving in to pink fascism or any other kind.

He says that the “anti-fascist league” are onto me. To date, his last words to me are these:

You and your small-minded poorley educated opinions will be silenced.

That’s the gist of it, isn’t it? The silencing of dissent. They have to understand that they will never, ever get everyone to agree with their agenda and accommodate their behaviour, which many will always regard as unpleasant and immoral.

A tiny minority cannot and should not dictate to the rest of society what they should think or how they need to conduct their business.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Pink Fascism

  1. English Viking says:

    The law in the UK concerning a Landlord/lady’s right to refuse to serve anyone, and remove them from the premises, by force if necessary, is crystal clear – they do not need a reason. None whatsoever.

    BTW Stewart, don’t worry about the Antifa muppets; my experience of them is a bunch of dole-sponging, scruffy, smelly fantasists that think that Stalin was a reasonable chap. They always get battered at EDL events, and only want to actually fight when they are mob-handed. They are pretty good at hurting old ladies and throwing paint on people’s cars though.

    Ironic that the moron thinks that you are ‘poorley’ educated. Still wet behind the ears.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Haha, yes his spelling is atrocious. He probably thinks it is slanderous to point it out. I think he is in such a rage when he types that he doesn’t bother to check the spelling, such is his eagerness to press “submit.” That’s what he wants me to do – submit!

    I’m not worried about any of these people.

    The homosexual pair Hall and Preddy successfully sued the Bulls, who had refused them a double bed in their B&B. I expect they could legally have denied the double bed to anyone other than sexual deviants. Not sure if taking offence to them kissing in a pub isn’t also a serious homophobic crime…

  3. lionheart says:

    English is quite correct you as a licensee have the right to refuse entry without having to give a reason BUT if you do decide to give a reason it can’t be one that is considered “illegal” (ie racist etc).

    They certainly wouldn’t have the right to forcibly evict (even from their own establishment) without

    a) Having a reason to believe that force was necessary in the defence or protection of others safety

    b) Holding a licence to undertake frontline work (owner or not makes no difference) and having completed a course to get such a licence (that also has to be displayed I think)

    c) Using the minimum amount of force in the circumstance.

    I would rather hear the proprietors version before commenting on the rest.

    As for the Emails then it just goes to show what extremist views do to rational debate and if he can’t explain his point without abuse then he just damages the cause he claims to stand for.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    It would be pretty hard not to give a reason, though. If someone is being obnoxious or unruly then I expect those would be acceptable reasons, but the difficulty now is that some bad behaviour has been purified through the prism of political correctness. The government has decreed what is right and wrong behaviour, independent of God-given or natural justice or standards and the right to freedom of religion and conscience is apparently no more.

    I think the further the homosexual agenda goes, the more obvious it becomes to the layman what damage it is doing. I just hope enough people wake up and say, “No more” before it’s too late, especially those with children at school.

  5. English Viking says:

    Hey Stewie,

    Believe me, I’ve been thrown out of a dozen places.

    NO reason is required.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    But, English, you weren’t thrown out for kissing another man. I assume! Like Lionheart says, if you give the “wrong” reason then you could be in trouble.

    In 2007, I received an email enquiry from an organiser of one of the “Gay Pride” marches. He wanted the rainbow flags and bunting. I replied that I didn’t stock them – and explained why, in no uncertain terms. He said that after receiving advice, he was going to report my email as a homophobic hate incident.

    Nothing came of it, but a few weeks later, the police came round to the house to get a statement from me on a totally unrelated matter. Afterwards, I told the coppers about the threat of getting reported for “homophobia” and they advised me that if I get a similar enquiry again to use a different excuse to avoid having to deal with the order, such as say that the equipment has broken, i.e. tell lies.

    Plus, I imagine a lot of officers don’t actually know the law. They get all this diversity trash and some automatically think that expressing a negative view of homosexual behaviour is criminal.

    If the law of the land says that a landlord can chuck anyone out then I expect the “equality” laws trump the real law, because you aren’t supposed to deny goods or services based on someone’s sexuality.

    Just because these pair were thrown out because of their actions rather than their sexuality per se, it might not do the landlord any good. The way they handled the situation will no doubt be described as “homophobic”.

    And as we have come to learn, “gay rights” trump just about all other rights.

  7. English Viking says:


    Does ‘Glasgow kissing’ count?

  8. Vee says:


    “I just hope enough people wake up and say, “No more” before it’s too late, especially those with children at school”

    Sorry. People are not waking up. They are instead sleep-walking into the sordid world of gay rights. They, like homosexuals, are in denial of the frightening consequences of sexual debauchery.

    What was once a vice is now a virtuous variation, by and large sanctioned by the established voices of Christendom.

    Our culture is becoming increasingly effeminised to the same extent it is becoming homosexualised.

    As to the future, watch out for increased rights of transsexuals and the creeping formal indoctrination of young children at school.

    You aint seen nothing yet!


  9. English Viking says:


    You are, most sadly, completely correct.

    The legalisation of pædophilia is also on the agenda. Why deprive a child of their ‘sexual identity’?

    I withdrew all 3 of my children from school, to prevent indoctrination by the State. Attempts were made by the State (2 States, in fact, as I tend to live here, there and everywhere) to intimidate me into retreat.

    They were not successful.

  10. English Viking says:


    A Landlord/lady can use force to remove a person from their premises if;

    a) The person they wish to leave has been asked to do so (no drinking-up time has to be given)

    b) the person asked has refused to leave

    c) the person concerned has been verbally warned that force will be used if they do not leave of their own volition.

    No certificates or training are required to be held by the person doing the removing. The force can be used by the Landlord/lady, or any other person so instructed by the Landlord/lady.

    The Landlord/lady can refuse service for no reason whatsoever, just because they can.

    A ‘Public’ house is considered the private dwelling of the Landlord/lady in such circumstances.

  11. lionheart says:

    As I said English a landlord does not have to give any reason for removal but if they do it has to be lawful (ie not discriminatory)

    A landlord can’t even stand on the door of his own establishment letting people in and out in the even of it being full without completing and holding a licence to do so and that involves a CRB check that they ave to pay about £200 for. (Check out the SIA website for the full explanation)

    Even if an officer is called they have to be very very careful not to use force unless they feel an immediate threat is in place, read this

    Its a minefield English and just on a quick summery reading what Stewart wrote of the actions of the landlord in this case I would not be surprised at all if they end up in court (civil action)and have to pay compensation.

    Don’t get me wrong here I’m not commenting on whether I think its right if it happens but rather on the restrictive and complex nature of the laws in this area. (its one of the reasons that some officers hate responding to such cases especially when any sort of discrimination is claimed)

  12. English Viking says:


    Thanks for your explanations.

    I am shocked that the law has changed to such an extent. The points I made further up the thread were what I understood the law to be, but I now know it has changed.

    I once saw a Landlord literally throw a man through the window. When the Police arrived, one of them shouted ‘SEE TO THE VICTIM!’

    He promptly ran over to the Landlord and asked him if he was OK, whilst the ejected scumbag rolled in blood and broken glass, squealing like a stuck-pig.

    Both coppers stayed for a quick one, as the scumbag regained his feet and was told not to darken the door again. He never did.

    Ahh, the good old days.

  13. Vee says:


    On the basis of the evidence in this case I would say that the homosexual pair have recourse to police action in claiming they are victims of a hate incident.

    “A Hate Incident is defined as:

    Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

    A Hate Crime is defined as:

    Any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.”

    Alternatively, they could seek redress/compensation through the civil courts by way of an action for discrimination. Indeed, it is useful to ask if they have already consulted with the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

    Why, only recently Keith Vaz MP urged the EHRC to make greater use of their enforcement powers. Vaz is the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and thus speaks with considerable parliamentary authority.

    This incident raises one additional question, To what extent was it premeditated in order to push gay rights even further? Contextually, it reflects the Bed and Breakfast row. In my view, this was planned.

    What is the history of the publican and his wife at this particular venue? Have they been targeted by the gay community in the hope of getting them out becasuse the public house is in a gay area?

    Further ‘kissing’ demonstrations are planned by Soho gays, so will their efforts spread to other venues in other districts?

    Kissing in public, even of the heavier kind does not breach the criminal law. There has to be an element of indecency before the police can take action.

    The point has been usefully made. The publican may have been acting well within his rights as a licensed publican, but it does not follow this allows him to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

    The evidence suggests he has breached the rights of two homosexuals to kiss in public.


  14. English Viking says:


    Oh, and you were doing so well.

    What about the Landlord’s rights not to have two queers performing in his pub?

  15. Vee says:


    For a criticism of the police power to enforce hate crime/incidents see

    “The following article is about so-called hate crime, a term not known to the law. As the article says, this pseudo-law was invented by the police and a group of civil servants in the Home
    Office. Since publication of the article the latter have put on the Home Office website.”

    See Introductory note by Francis Bennion



  16. Vee says:


    Yes, I find this behaviour highly objectionable, deserving of considerable censure.

    I would like to arrest, or have them arrested for a Breach of the Peace, but…. Here’s the problem:-

    “Human Rights Concerns over Breach of the Peace

    Breach of the peace has the potential to conflict with a number of articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, including Articles 5, 10 and 11, which protect the rights to liberty and security, freedom of expression, and assembly and association respectively.

    Due to the loosely defined nature of the concept of breach of the peace and the wide powers afforded to those who intend to stop or prevent a breach, any use of the powers are closely examined by the courts to ensure that there has been no undue interference with respect for human rights.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>