Transport for London Tweet they will not run: “Not gay! Ex Gay, Post-gay and proud. Get over it.” advertisement.

There has been some controversy today relating to an advertisement that was planned to run on London buses sponsored by Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust which was in response to Stonewall’s advertising campaign.

Stonewall’s bus ad said:

Some People Are Gay. Get Over It!

And the proposed response ad said:

Not gay! Ex Gay, Post-gay and proud. Get over it.

I can confirm that Transport of London have just Tweeted:

Anglican Mainstream ad just brought to our attention and will not run on London’s bus or transport networks


We don’t believe these ads reflect TfL’s commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London

So there you go.


30 Responses to “Transport for London Tweet they will not run: “Not gay! Ex Gay, Post-gay and proud. Get over it.” advertisement.”

  1. Roger Pearse Says:

    “Inclusive” meaning “Stonewall’s views only” and “tolerant” as in “we will not tolerate anything Stonewall don’t like”… Hatred in TFL. Who’d have thought it?

  2. Dylan Says:

    Not very tolerant or inclusive! I wonder if these people realise how ironic their exclusive intolerance really is?

  3. Why can't we tolerate post-gays as well as gays? - Gentle Wisdom Says:

    [...] Cranmer has not as yet reported the latest development, for news of which I thank Stuart James. He writes that Transport of London have just Tweeted: Anglican Mainstream ad just brought to our [...]

  4. Tim Says:

    This reminds me of the NYT anti-Catholic ad they ran a short while back. And a similar anti-Islam ad was banned by them for being intolerant.

  5. Simian Says:

    Erm. The Stonewall ad does not encourage discrimination, does not make use of contoversial data, and does not potentally promote fear and/or hatred toward ‘people not like us’ does it? Wheras the ‘Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust’ sponsored ad potentially does. It really does. Can people not see the difference?
    I’m neither Gay nor, I hope, extremist, but I regard the Stonewall ad as a simple affirmation, and the counter ad as a deliberately rabble rousing attack. I personally find it offensive, but that’s not the point. More importantly it is deeply unhelpful, and I cannot see any good intention behind it. It comes across more as as childish knee jerk riposte, without regard for consequences to real people.

  6. Tim Says:

    I find the statement “I’m gay. Get over it!” offensive. I find the statements “There is no God. Fact!” (and I have seen a lot of these, especially by gays) offensive, puerile, and rampantly stupid, as are all the people on newspaper articles that recommend such comments. I found the bus campaign by Dawkins totally ridiculous and liable to deliberately mislead a great many people into thinking the man might conceivably know what he is talking about. I am also wondering what Boris is saying/doing about the anti-gay posters and gay-bashing (the physical kind) being perpetrated by muslims around muslim dominated areas and have come to the conclusion that he is not doing very much. But then he wants the gay vote as well as the muslim vote so he is in a bit of a quandary.

    However, I also believe in free speech and the freedom to post counter arguments. This doesn’t leave me in any quandary whatsoever.

  7. Simian Says:

    Your comment prompts a few questions:

    First, accepting that you find the original advert offensive, do you also find the counter advert offensive? And what is the rationale for your answer?

    Second, do you believe freedom of speech should have never have boundaries – that people can say in advertisements whatever they like, regardless of consequences, even if demonstrably leading to something like gross discrimination and violence aganst individuals? Or should there be boundaries, even if you and I cannot agree where these should be?

    Third, do we have a duty to protect those who need protection by society against persecution? I note that persecution is something that attracts a lot of attention when it is aimed at those who act on religious convistion. Should we afford them protection, and if to them, then why not other identifiable groups acting from conscience and living within the law?

    Incidentally, I made a point of declaring that the fact I found an advert offensive was not the point. We are all offended at some time or other by things that others accept as inoffensive. It was the more tangible potential effects and potential misinformation which gave me cause for concern.

  8. Tim Says:

    Simian, you’re disagreeing with me. Remember your New Year resolution.

    But if someone said to me”I’m gay. Deal with it!” My response would be along the lines of “Most people are not gay, neither do they keep rubbing others noses in that fact. Deal with that.” It’s more a question of, if you can’t take it then don’t dish it out. Nor am I happy about Gay Pride parades which are always an excuse for participants to prance about with very little clothing on and behaving in a highly sexually provocative manner, in public and with the attitude that if people don’t like it, then tough. Perhaps we should have a Heterosexual Pride parade? No, I’d get arrested for that.

    The whole point of the adverts by Stonewall is about promoting SSM, regardless of the view of the majority of the population. It is nothing to do with prejudice, violence, and bigotry, unless reference is made to Islamic communities. But strangely enough things are very quiet on that front.

    If adverts lead to gross discrimination and violence, well that is what advertising standards (the ad in question had been approved by advertising standards before Boris yanked it) and the law is for. Unless, again, you live in an Islamic community from what I have read.

  9. Samantha Brick Says:

    I’m so beautiful I can make gay men straight….or is straight men gay? I don’t know, I get so confused sometimes.

  10. webmaster Says:

    You’re a bad man Tim ;-)

  11. Tim Says:

    God hates fags. So does my doctor and although she keeps offering to help me get the support I need for it, I can not yet gather up the enthusiasm to quit smoking.

    Actually I’ll be surprised if you allow this one Stuart, lol. Perhaps you could replace it with “This comment has been removed bya Blog Administrator” :)

  12. webmaster Says:

    :lol: Believe me brother you are on my exclusive “never censor” list!

  13. Tim Says:


    You shouldn’t have told me that, lol!

  14. Simian Says:

    Tim. You will of course recall that was your resolution, not mine! :-) And anyway, asking questions is not the same as disagreeing….
    I asked questions, about which I gave much thought. It is of course your prerogative not to answer them in a way that continues the dialogue. I’ll desist.
    I am left wondering why you think you’d get arrested for participating in a ‘Heterosexual Pride’ event…

  15. Goy Says:


    “I am left wondering why you think you’d get arrested for participating in a ‘Heterosexual Pride’ event…”

    Maybe for wearing a “Not gay! Ex Gay, Post-gay and proud. Get over it.” T-shirt.

  16. Tim Says:

    Ah yes Simian but I made the resolution for everyone else you see. And although I probably look very sexy in my grey Y-fronts, string vest, and matching furry slippers, I think wandering around with my todger hanging out and then simulating sex with a nearly naked woman in broad view of everyone in the high street, including children, would have me arrested for indecency at the very least.

    Society, in fact all regardless of culture, has a duty to protect everyone. Primary amongst those to be protected are children, and children should come first, last, and everything in between. Overt threats of violence made to individuals or groups come under threats of violence and do not come under free speech. Free speech is discourse, threats are not. Discourse which is open to interpretation, is open to interpretation. My comment about fags could be seen in a different light by Americans than by British.

    A lot of speech is simply common sense and decency. S0metimes people say things to wind another up. However, having laws which dictate what people can and cannot say is the beginning of a very slippery slope. We have already seen examples where discourse is permitted for one group, no matter how offensive, but the same sort of speech then denied to another group because it does not tick all the right boxes in PC land.

    If an advert is touting misinformation then surely it is the job of the ASA to check it out first. But again, why the outcry simply because Christians disagree with homosexuality, and the total silence about the actual crimes committed against gay people in places such as Tower Hamlets?

  17. Tim Says:

    Interesting post just made by Cranmer:

    As he says (writes I mean):

    “…but the case of incest does bring us up sharp against the sure and certain knowledge that in matters of sexuality, not everything goes.”

  18. Tim Says:

    This is what should really be making headlines:

  19. Simian Says:

    I think your link is a reasonable example of where information careessly or maliciously used can have harmful consequences.

    Neither the written report or the video mentions the word ‘Muslim’ and yet the article is posted on Youtube under the headline: “Muslim child sex trafficking probe in Oxford widens”.

    In the report these men are described as Asians. Someone has infered that they must therefore be Muslims. (Because of course all ‘Asians’ are Muslims….)

    And the nature of the headline implies that the offences were somehow connected to the fact that the men were Muslims. And as if by Pavlovian response, someone has left a predicably nasty comment.

    Does any rational person seriously think these men committed these appalling crimes because they were Muslim (if indeed they are)?

    What would your reaction be if the headline was “Catholic child sex trafficking probe in Oxford widens”? (Probably because the perpetrators all just happened to have been baptised as Catholics when they were infants).

  20. Tim Says:

    They were labelled as Muslims because they are Muslims. Every single one of them. I have been following this case, you clearly haven’t..

  21. Simian Says:

    You appear to rather miss my point Tim. Perhaps I was unclear.

    Why would knowing the religion these men were born into make a difference to your attitude towards the crime? What purpose is served by this headline? Do you think men born into other major World religions would not commit this kind of crime? Do you think people should be labelled in this way?
    So one might say “The men who committed this were Muslims. No surprise there then. Just the kind of thing you’d expect from Muslims.” Is that a just, fair, and rational point of view?

    I absolutely agree with freedom of speech. But with this freedom comes responsibility. And thereby lies the conundrum. You and I have different views of what is acceptable. My view is that we should all try to see things in the most positive way.

  22. Tim Says:

    “So one might say “The men who committed this were Muslims. No surprise there then. Just the kind of thing you’d expect from Muslims.” Is that a just, fair, and rational point of view?”

    Based upon a great deal of history, both mediaeval and modern, it is a perfectly just, fair, and rational point of view, with literally thousands of examples together with Muslim teachings to draw upon.

    This is why I’m not an atheist and you are. I am willing to face things head on, and accept things that other people seem to find hard to do. I know what facts are, I make rational and logical decisions based upon knowledge, logic, reason, and go where the evidence leads me. This is what I have done with regards Islam, but you won’t do.

    They committed these crimes because they were Muslim. You will notice that they do not force any girls of their own Muslim community into drugs and prostitution. No, that kind of slavery (and it is slavery) is only to be pushed on the kuffar, and this is exactly what Islam teaches them to do. Have you any idea of the amount of slavery that exists today within Muslim countries? I doubt it.

    There’s a saying, “Don’t be so open-minded your brains fall out”.

  23. Simian Says:

    “I am a Jew. Hath
    not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
    dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
    the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
    to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
    warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
    a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
    if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
    us, do we not die?”
    – Shakespeare – Merchant of Venice

    You’ll not be surprised that my views are quite the opposite of yours. I suggest that what you talk about is not so much religion as about tribalism. Your ‘in’ group includes mainly (all?) British Christians. I strive to make my ‘in’ group significantly larger. We are all human under the skin, as Shylock so eloquently states, and there is so much more that unites than divides us if only we take the decision to embrace it and nurture it.

    I don’t agree your rationale as to why I am an Atheist and you are not. I think you confuse cause and effect, and you appear to me to be very certain that your views are the only right ones – (“I know what facts are…etc.”). Are you open to having your mind changed? If not, then that, I would submit, is the biggest difference between us. Actually I’m a Humanist who happens also to be an Atheist. The only substanial difference between us, in terms of the way we lead our lives, is a belief in God.

    I find your statement: “They committed these crimes because they were Muslim.” very disturbing. I don’t understand how an intelligent person such as yourself can intellectually justify this view.
    Have you considered the far worse crimes committed by ‘Christians’, who thought that people not in their ‘in’ group were fair game for all manner of atrocity. In what way does this make one group any different than the other.

    I’m with Shylock. Discriminating against those who are not in our narrow ‘in’ group is both morally wrong, and impractical in real terms. Your parting saying may resonate with you, but to me it makes no sense. Being open minded is not the same as being vacant. Indeed it is intellectually far more challenging to be open minded than to stay behind the barricades of orthodoxy. But ulimately it is I believe the more humane (Humanist) and progressive position.

  24. Tim Says:

    There is so much wrong with what you have said that I find it difficult to know where to start.

    Tribalism. Hmmm. I guess that is why an Anglican is on a Catholic bloggers page. The reason for that is because I found more charity and understanding here than I did on a popular Anglican site. In fact, a great deal more. Even now I notice that the particular gay atheist that tried to cause me so many problems is still purveying hos own particular brand of self-righteous indignation, double-standards, and hypocrisy.

    Tribalism, again. Hmmm. I guess that is why I like to read about the various branches of the Orthodox Church including just yesterday, an Indian Orthodox Church in the UK which dates its origins in India back to Saint Thomas. I would happily join them in their services if I was able to.

    What you mistakenly call tribalism is probably my love of all things Anglo-Saxon/English. But from numerous writings and quotes on the subject by liberals it appears that Englishmen are not allowed to be proud of their heritage. Everyone else is, but not Englishmen.

    You constantly sit on the fence, trying to be all things and think all things to all people. I don’t. I also don’t believe that only my views are the right ones. But what I do not do is go lecturing people about subjects I clearly know little about. Curious thing about atheists. If a Christian says something the atheists automatically deem it as completely wrong. I remember last year talking about genetics and biomolecular science, citing quite well-known facts (well-known to those in the field) about the subject and yet you thought you knew better than I. I think of Stacy, being accused by atheists of being ignorant of science and not qualified in it at all. She is actually very intelligent and very highly qualified. I recall an argument last year on another site between an atheist and a christian about astrophysics. The atheist constantly arguing against everything the christian said and accusing him of complete ignorance on the subject. To everyone’s amusement, apart from that of the atheist, the christian then stated that he had simply been copying and pasting his information from an authoritative University website, and asking the atheist the question ‘who was the ignorant one now?’. The atheist disappeared from the site.

    I am open to having my mind changed where the facts warrant it. When they do not warrant it, and are in fact the reverse, then why should I? I would not have the qualifications I do if I was not open to new ideas. It is impossible to learn unless you are open to new ideas and accepting of facts regardless of personal inclinations. But like the professors said to us, criticise anything you like, but make damn sure you have the evidence to support it first. Wishy-washy ideas are just that, wishy-washy ideas. In fact, based upon my understanding of facts, where they lead, and what constitutes evidence, a number of propositions I put forward, and at the time others were sceptical, have nearly all turned out to be absolutely correct. All bar one, and that only because it has not been examined yet. Can you say that? No. In fact and as an aside, two of my professors were atheists and they were both extremely happy with my work and the rigorous standards I applied to it .

    You find my comments about the Muslims disturbing. There is only one reason you do so. You know nothing about Islam nor its history. I can guarantee you that there are many many (millions) Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Middle Eastern Christians that would agree with my conclusions, and none of them with yours. But then we know history, and you do not. We accept facts especially when they are staring us in the face. You do not. All crimes committed by Muslims are endorsed fully by Islamic doctrine and Mohammed himself. Far worse crimes committed by Christians? Crimes have been committed yes, but never with Christs endorsement, and certainly never on the scale of those committed by Islam. Again your lack of knowledge and understanding of the past is showing through here as woefully inadequate. But as usual you won’t accept it because it doesn’t fit in with your personal beliefs/agenda and the desire to be all things for all people…except for Christians, and especially not English ones.

    Your stance is both morally and intellectually barren.

  25. Simian Says:

    Let’s not let this descend into trading insults. I’ll try to defend my position as briefly as I can:

    You criticize my accusation of tribalism around ‘British Christians’ but you use examples of your broader ‘in’ group that are both Christian and manifested in the UK. Doesn’t that make my point?

    If I sat on the fence and tried to be all things to all people would I be arguing with you? It is surely irrelevant what other atheists have argued on other websites. This is between you and me on this blog, and stands or falls on the strengths or weaknesses of the arguments we express here.

    It is incorrect to state that I know nothing of Islam. Is it not a weak argument to state that you must be correct because millions of other people agree with you? Millions of people are Muslims. Millions are Christians. Presumably millions are therefore wrong.

    What evidence do you have that I do not accept facts when they stare me in the face. Could you give me an example? Are you stating that this particular crime would be fully endorsed by Mohammed? I think sincere and conscientious Muslims would disagree with you. There are explicit commands in both the Bible and the Koran to commit extreme violence against other humans. Islam is perhaps 600 years behind Christianity in learning to adapt or ignore the more bloodthirsty passages and exhortations.

    I hope I am as patriotic as the next man. Perhaps we differ on what it is to be patriotic in 2012. I am immensely proud to be British. I don’t think gives me a license to criticize with impunity people who are ‘not like me’.

    Your last sentence makes a huge assumption, and I don’t believe it is warranted by previous discussion. Insulting me does not win your argument. If you are going to state that I have ‘wishy-washy’ ideas you should support your premise with rational argument if you want me to take it seriously.

    As I have stated before on this blog, I am here to exchange ideas and to try to understand other people’s points of view. It is one of a range of religious and atheist blogs to which I contribute, but I particularly enjoy reading this one because of the way our webmaster runs the blog.. I remain fascinated by religion, and I rate it overall as a force for good. I do appreciate that this is a Christian blog, and I try very hard to be polite and courteous even if I disagree. So throwing insults at me is rather like hitting a man who pulls his punches.

    Perhaps we should stop this particular argument. I’m not sure we can take it any further.

  26. Tim Says:

    Trading insults? No, simply being very blunt and forthright, as is my way. If you don’t like the heat then get out of the kitchen. Clearly you don’t know me at all. The man that knows himself sees with the clarity of the sun and the moon, and I know my weaknesses as well as my strengths., my failings as well as my abilities. That’s why I only address subjects I know. I choose my battles, I choose the battlefield. Knowing myself, I also know you (although not in a biblical sense should anyone reading this be confused).

    Let’s not be under any illusion about this. You are dishonest. You are not here to exchange ideas. It might be what you tell people here but I have read your words. You are a Sigmund Freud wannabe and you are here to try and “understand how Christians minds work”. So please don’t try bull****ing me any more. It might work with other people but it is not going to work with me. To you we are simply nothing more than an ‘experiment’.

    My last sentence makes a conclusion based upon what you have previously written and is therefore not an assumption.

    “You criticize my accusation of tribalism around ‘British Christians’ but you use examples of your broader ‘in’ group that are both Christian and manifested in the UK. Doesn’t that make my point?”

    What do you expect me to do? Sprout wings and fly? Or are you going to give me the air fare to travel to these other countries? You really argue from a weak position and then refuse, as usual, to concede one single point. You argue with me because you cannot admit when you are wrong, or don’t know enough about a subject but refuse to admit it, which is why ‘discussions’ with you constantly go around in circles and why people get tired to arguing with you.

  27. Simian Says:

    Ask me a simple question on any relevant matter and I will gladly explain and justify my position Tim. By contrast you write with a view to imposing your point of view as the only truth, and appear to have no interest in even discussing an alternative point of view. You avoid direct answers to my open questions, and instead lash out with bad tempered insults, that tend instead to make one question the robustness of your arguments.

    You really argue from a weak position and then refuse, as usual, to concede one single point. You argue with me because you cannot admit when you are wrong, or don’t know enough about a subject but refuse to admit it, which is why ‘discussions’ with you constantly go around in circles and why people get tired to arguing with you

    No Tim. This is just unique to you. I am trying to stay polite and respectful, but you do make it very hard. Maybe that’s your strategy to see off anyone who questions your position. Isn’t that a hollow victory?

  28. Tim Says:

    Bad tempered insults? My my, you are sensitive aren’t you. Apparently you can read my emotions over the Internet even. Apparently. Wow. But anyway, I support what I say with facts. Facts you are either unaware of or refuse to acknowledge.

    You are the only person on this site that anyone has a problem with, not me. So please stop trying to blame others for your behaviour, and stop trying to make out that what you do is actually what I do. You should have come across the word ‘projection’ by now.

    As I clearly stated before, I have proven my ability to learn, proven my ability to understand and accept new ideas, and I can very easily prove that I know what I am talking about. What I will not do is allow myself to be lectured to by someone that refuses to do any of those things. In the ‘discussion’ we had last year you clearly demonstrated your inability to grasp anything not in keeping with your purview. You demonstrated an inability to grasp anything I was writing despite the fact that others demonstrably had no problem understanding me. I was happy to concede points and in return received nothing but scorn and refusal to listen from you. I have already answered your questions but are clearly blind to that fact because they are not what you want to hear.

    If anyone is being insulting it is your refusal to even acknowledge the fact that there are people on this site that might conceivably have a better knowledge and understanding of things than you do. That is the insult. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Just because someone has read a book on first aid does not give them the right to march into a hospital and demand to be allowed to perform open-heart surgery.

  29. Simian Says:

    OK Tim. You win. Another hollow victory? I obviously can’t reason with you. I’ve tried to be straightforward, polite and open minded, and I have been honest and, I hope, patient, but all you see in my writing is the worst possible motives. Your last post just continues with your baseless character assasination, and adds nothing new.
    Just a thought: You may want to run this thread past a neutral academic and get their honest opinion on the relative merits of our comments.

  30. Tim Says:

    And we are back to your old trick of projection again. Hollow victory? Another one? Here we go again. Circles with you all the time isn’t it? In your eyes you always are the ‘real’ winner aren’t you? Even when you lose you think you’ve still won because you didn’t concede a single point. You can switch off the violins now.

    I don’t suffer fools gladly. You are the only person I argue with. You, and only you. Ditto other commentors. Please stop trying to blame everyone else for your failings and learn to accept responsibility for your own words and actions. Just a thought: You may want to rethink your strategy the next time you fancy your chances against people that do actually know a little bit more than you.

Switch to our mobile site