Robbie Williams - anti gay - the B&B

Avatar Image
joggerjayne | 09:51 Fri 18th Feb 2011 | News
34 Answers
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?


1 to 20 of 34rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by joggerjayne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author
Just thought I'd throw one of the regular hot potatoes into the melting pot !
I think that this is stretching logic, jayne.

Just because someone is not gay, gets accused in the gutter Press (I can't really draw myself to call the People a newspaper), and then defends himself, does not make him a gay-basher......

Perhaps you were a French philosopher in a previous existence.......?
I think the key here is *generally considered* repugnant.

Robbie William's lawyers would doubtlessly express the point that we don't yet live in a world where being Gay is not a handicap and that his career could be damaged by it.

If you don't believe that just read what Geezer or Joe Luke have posted about "bandits" ( I think that's Geezer's line of choice )

It would be nice to be in a world where a judge could throw out a case like that as frivillolous in the way he might throw out one about someone not being naturally blonde.

Maybe if a few more mad old B&B businesses are prosecuted we'll get there
Question Author
Actually, DTC ... I think it does.

If the paper had said ...

You are a Manchester United fan

You are half Welsh

You are a secret Buddist

You are addicted to chocolate muffins

... etc ...

then he would, presumably, have thought ... what the heck, even if people think that?

But ... to have people think I'm gay? I think they will find me repugnant !!!

What's his mind set there ?
Dont think that would stand up .It would be like in simpler terms because I buy a television licence I am saying I agree that what the stations put out is good entertainment and worth the fee ..He sued because he is not gay .He as far as I know did not suggest being gay was repugnant.
Well I'm assuming he must have claimed that he suffered because of it

It may not have been personal distress from it being repugnant to him personally it might have been loss of earnings due to other people's homophobia.

(Can't believe I'm here defending Robbie Williams' sensibilities For Funks Sake! )
Question Author
weecalf ...without alleging that, he could not have won.

But here we had a celebrity, with a golden opportunity, to say ...

"Look, I'm not gay. But even if I was, would it really be so terrible?"

Instead, he says ...

"I'm not gay, and the mere suggestion that I could be will land you in Court."

Maybe it's a case of ... "not on my doorstep, please"

We all want to make open minded noises, as long as we don't have to actually BE open minded ourselves?
"frivillolous" ?
Nice word, j-t-p.
Much better than plain old frivolous.
Question Author
"frivillolous" is a jolly word.

I might start using that.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Question Author
Oh, the irony of it ... !!

So Robbie is having his cake, AND eating it ?

My charity supports gay people (I am just SO "right on" guys !!) ...

... but if you dare to suggest that I AM one of "those types" then I will sue your butts off !
I don't believe you need find gay people repugnant, surely what you have to do is show being labelled the same is detrimental to you ? And I think most of the country are happy to accept the perversion as being something private to the individuals concerned, but would be offended to have it genuinely thought about them when untrue.

As for a comparison with someone running a business. A business must be run without unreasonable discrimination; whereas personal image is something quite different. The two are not comparable.
As I understood it Robbie Williams found it repugnant to him that the paper suggested he might be gay. That is not the same as claiming gays are repugnant.
You seem to be suggesting there is an inconsistency with supporting someone afflicted and yet being upset when it is suggested you yourself are the same. I see no conflict. Not a case of having cake and eating it, it is a case of being tolerant over other personal desires but not wanting to be labelled the same. Perfectly reasonable. Unless the suggestion is that homosexuality has become compulsory overnight for all those who are happy for others to be so.
Question Author
Yes OG, but "detrimental to you" does not satisfy the definition of "defamatory".

And your own explanation ("perversion" okay for others but not for me) reinforces the idea that society still has double standards.

People claim to be hip, pc, and fine with the idea of "gay" but ...

... applied to themselves, they go AWW, GROSS, DISGUSTING !!

Well, that can't be right, can it !
Question Author
Mousey ...

Why is it repugnant to suggest you are gay?

It may be incorrect ... but "repugnant"?

Surely it is more repugnant to suggest that he is a [email protected] singer? But he doesn't sue every paper that gives him a bad review!

So he would rather be thought of as a bad singer, no good at his job, than be thought of as gay?

It isn't double standards, it's accepting in others what you find uncomfortable applied to yourself. We can't expect everyone to be the same.

I accept some folk have the bad taste to (claim to) like cucumber and celery and suchlike, but for me, I unfortunately was born with working tastebuds so it's AWW, GROSS, DISGUSTING !!
-- answer removed --
Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed

If most of the people who purchase his records are female and he thinks he will lose sales what should he do Jayne

1 to 20 of 34rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Robbie Williams - anti gay - the B&B

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.