Robbie Williams - anti gay - the B&B

[joggerjayne]

Okay, so Robbie Williams is vehemently anti-gay.

When The People newspaper suggested he might be gay, Robbie sued for Libel.

Remember that, to claim for Libel, you must allege, and prove, that the thing of which you have been accused is (to use the Court's definition) "generally considered repugnant".

So, Robbie's view of being gay is that it is "repugnant".

He held that view strongly enough to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees, to prove that he was not a repugnant homosexual.

So, no equality in Robbie's mind.

Robbie would presumably have fully supported the B&B owners in refusing accommodation to a gay couple. After all, Robbie had given evidence in Court to the effect that the gay couple's lifestyle was "repugnant".

So, question ...

Robbie ... won his case ... if people think you are gay, they think it "repugnant" ... Robbie won "undisclosed" damages and a published apology.

The B&B couple ... lost their case ... gay people must be treated the same, and regarded the same, as non gay people.

So ...

Irreconcilable principles?

One law for Rich Robbie and another for Poor B&B Owners?

In claiming that "being considered gay is repugnant", why has Robbie not been punished under the anti discrimination legislation?

[joggerjayne]

Spooky ...

IF he thinks that his fans will stop buying his records just because they think he is gay, he should disown those fans.

There is no room in society music fans who hate gays.

Gotta go out now.

x

[SpookyMan]

I was thinking more on the lines of young sexy females with loose knicker elastic who buy my records and want to jump into bed with me not the who hate gays mob.

[rov1100]

George Michael offered the same protestations but he was caught with his hand in the public toilets.

[Haggisdj]

In this day and age is it permitted to call Spaniards, "greasy Dagos"?

"So the Brits sent the greasy Dagos packing ... " joggerjayne - 13:34 Thu 17th Feb 2011

[Oneeyedvic]

Sorry JJ but you are starting on a completely false precept when you start talking about repugnant - this is not a courts definition.

Pure and simple, Libel must be proved to be defamatory.

From Parmiter v Coutland:
“A publication, without justification or lawful excuse, which is calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule…”

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of someone's preferred sexuality and their openness about it, it is (presumably) the Judge's belief that the paper was trying to make Robbie the subject of contempt or ridicule

[flip_flop]

post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Svealand]

I've never met anyone from Stoke who was gay, it's a pretty tough place.

[DTCwordfan]

I've never met anyone from Stoke who was straight, it's a pretty tough place.

[jackthehat]

http://www.independen...ibel-case-518408.html

The actual circumstances of the case are outlined here...........

[eyethenkyew]

"...why has Robbie not been punished..." "punished" For what???