Pride Rip Off
Puppydog
Hi all
Its official then,
Five pounds to get a ticket and one pound booking fee.
If you are underage how do you order a ticket without your parents finding
out?
If you haven't got a credit card how do you get a ticket?
If you are on benefits how do you afford to go out for the day?
How do you explain to your "partner" quote "Whats this item on the credit
card bill dear?"
If you live in an isolated area and are not out to everyone how to you go
out for the day - on spec?
How are they going to refuse people entrance who could not get a ticket
because they were all sold out?
I feel that it's got out of hand, the South London Mafia think it belongs to
them.
If Lambeth council really do not want the Pride Festival there why dont they
say so rather than make up lots of restrictions designed to drive the
festival away, without going against their equal ops policy. They are
hypocrites.
Tower Hamlets have publicly stated that the festival is welcome back at
Victoria Park. Its only 5 minutes walk from Mile End Underground Station and
have two tube lines. The Northern Line is crap, the stations are dangerous
for crowds and London Underground did nothing to make the day run smoothly,
no extra trains or buses.
If the festival is going to remain outside of central London then it has to
be rotated around London to make it accessible to everyone. Clapham Common
is a bad venue, it has poor transport links, an obstructive council and is
too far away from the centre of town.
I shall not be going to a festival that claims to be a celebration of Pride
but is in reality becoming restrictive in who can go because you cant get to
a venue to buy a ticket or cant afford to go or a host of other reasons.
If you really want to have a good day out why not just go on the march and
say F*CK the festival, go for a picnic at Hyde Park (or any other suitable
venue) after the march and celebrate our sexuality without the spectre of
corporate profit and the gay sell outs.
Andrew
Tim
In article <35560...@news1.mcmail.com>, Puppydog <pupp...@mcmail.com>
writes
>Hi all
>Its official then,
>Five pounds to get a ticket and one pound booking fee.
what the heck here goes:-
I had an excellent time at last years Pride, thought the Acts on stage
alone were worth paying well over a fiver for. I appreciate that there
are a lot of principles involved over it being a celebration but
personally I would prefer to pay money than have an event funded by
inappropriate commercial advertising.
The test will be how well the organisers do, whether acts will be so
prepared to appear at a paid for festival and whether they will be
selective in accepting advertising !!
--
Tim Martin
http://www.spillmar.demon.co.uk
Paul Rogers
I'm afraid I totally agree with this.
I think its pathetic that this seems to have become an exclusive event just
for those who are able to access the ticket agencies.
Why were Student unions not given the option to sell tickets and promote
them, there are so many it seems ridiculous not to allow it.
What if I was living in the heart of Devon and have no access to anything in
the west country, and not be out enough to telephone someone. I just wanted
to get to London then hopefully go to the festival without many people
knowing.
At a time when we all go on about how wonderful it is to be gay and stuff,
why are we victimising those that have difficulty either emotional or
financial by disallowing them access to this event.
It WILL fail, because of this, and I think in all fareness that is exactly
what the Council want to achieve, hindering attempts to hold the festival at
Hyde Park.
BTW, the Law which prevents charges to be made is enforceable on ANY park
within the United Kingdom, it does not exclude London. It is the same
situation in London as it is in Birmingham, and again in Plymouth, a (gasp)
in "public" houses as well. Authorities cannot charge for entry to any of
these areas.
A minimum donation can be requested, and people do have the option to pay or
not, but compulsory ticket purchasing I dont think is permissible.
--
_ ________________________________________
/_| _ _ _ /| /_ _/_ /'
/ || (_|(_)/ |/(/_/_ / Part of the UK LGB Resource Web Site
________) ___________./ http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/progers/
Paul Rogers
>
> Hi all
> Its official then,
> Five pounds to get a ticket and one pound booking fee.
> out?
VALID POINT
> If you haven't got a credit card how do you get a ticket?
VALID POINT
> If you are on benefits how do you afford to go out for the day?
Not valid cause people do save up for pride and in previous years it has
been customary to pop a few quid in the charity boxes and end up wasting a
fiver on that.
> How do you explain to your "partner" quote "Whats this item on the credit
> card bill dear?"
If your bisexual, then yes.
> If you live in an isolated area and are not out to everyone how to you go
> out for the day - on spec?
How do you get the flipping tickets in the first place! And is there a
limit on the number available?
> How are they going to refuse people entrance who could not get a ticket
> because they were all sold out?
> I feel that it's got out of hand, the South London Mafia think it belongs
> to them.
Who is the South London Mafia?
> If Lambeth council really do not want the Pride Festival there why dont
> they say so rather than make up lots of restrictions designed to drive the
> festival away, without going against their equal ops policy. They are
> hypocrites.
No equal opps policy law should be used in this way, even Section 28 does
not work in this situation. It IS permitted for Pride Events to be
publicised without enfrindging Section 28. Anyway, there have never been
any formal prosecutions for it. What has been Lambeth Councils reasoning
for holding back on the tendures for this, and what are their current
concerns?
> I shall not be going to a festival that claims to be a celebration of
> Pride
> but is in reality becoming restrictive in who can go because you cant get
> to
> a venue to buy a ticket or cant afford to go or a host of other reasons.
Its gonna end up not being a national pride anymore is it guys, as more and
more cities do better at their prides, its obvious that a national pride
will demise very soon. That I consider is a pity.
Martin
In article <Q4oxIBAP...@spillmar.demon.co.uk>
t...@spillmar.demon.co.uk "Tim" writes:
> In article <35560...@news1.mcmail.com>, Puppydog <pupp...@mcmail.com>
> writes
> >Hi all
> >Its official then,
> >Five pounds to get a ticket and one pound booking fee.
> This is probably too emotive an issue to delurk (after over a year), but
> what the heck here goes:-
<snip Pride comments>
I imagine a year of lurking has given you an opportunity
to purchase the requisite asbestos leisure wear?
Welcome to the bear-pit :-)
Martin mar...@speedsix.demon.co.uk
------
"Only in silence, the word; Only in darkness, light
Only in dying, life; Bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky"
- Ursula K Le Guin
Martin
In article <na.683a424844...@argonet.co.uk>
pro...@argonet.co.uk "Paul Rogers" writes:
> I'm afraid I totally agree with this.
>
<big snip>
>
> BTW, the Law which prevents charges to be made is enforceable on ANY park
> within the United Kingdom, it does not exclude London. It is the same
> situation in London as it is in Birmingham, and again in Plymouth, a (gasp)
> in "public" houses as well. Authorities cannot charge for entry to any of
> these areas.
>
> A minimum donation can be requested, and people do have the option to pay or
> not, but compulsory ticket purchasing I dont think is permissible.
>
I'm afraid I'd want chapter and verse on this. Many London
parks are not 'public' parks - they are Royal Parks. While
I don't know the law on this, I imagine this means the
population as a whole are only allowed in on sufferance.
I have known of other ticketed events being held in open
spaces in London, and have never seen a legal argument
advanced against them.
Chris Heathcote
On Sun, 10 May 1998 20:08:44 +0100, "Puppydog" <pupp...@mcmail.com>
wrote:
>The Northern Line is crap, the stations are dangerous
>for crowds and London Underground did nothing to make the day run smoothly,
>no extra trains or buses.
fwiw the organisers say they are putting on buses to/from Clap Common,
but I can't see 100,000 ppl fitting on (also no clue if these are free)
>If you really want to have a good day out why not just go on the march and
>say F*CK the festival, go for a picnic at Hyde Park (or any other suitable
>venue) after the march
Are we all going to be in Hyde Park :-)
At this rate there'll be no-one buying tickets :-)
c.
--
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|chris (a) deaddodo.com http://www.deaddodo.com ICQ: 6803574|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Da Bunny speak Da Truth |
| http://www.undergroundlondon.com/bunny/ |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
gor...@pronto.demon.co.uk
In article <35632203...@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris Heathcote
<spam...@deaddodo.com> writes(snip details of Pride's latest looming organisational shambles)
>
>>If you really want to have a good day out why not just go on the march and
>>say F*CK the festival, go for a picnic at Hyde Park (or any other suitable
>>venue) after the march
>
>Are we all going to be in Hyde Park :-)
>At this rate there'll be no-one buying tickets :-)
>
the next weeks, there could be ten thousand happy picnickers in Hyde
Park. It would
- make clear that we do not buy the idea of an entrance fee which some
may not easily be able to pay, for the one Saturday afternoon of the
year we could regard as belonging to all of us
- rid us at a stroke of stinky hamburger stands, funfair, and stalls of
naff tat
- remove Bass Charrington's fingers from our pockets at least for one
day
- put a marker down for Hyde Park, the venue we've repeatedly been
denied
- be fun/relaxed/horny/the way it once was
- give the police the heebie-geebies once they twig that we aren't all
going as usual in the same direction, and there is little they can do
about a picnic (any difficulties which can't be resolved on the spot
means everyone can regroup at Speakers' Corner, which they wouldn't dare
bust up)
- mean we miss Erasure/Jimi S/Tom R/the Andrews Sisters/whoever has been
lined up for this year.... though a coup would be to persuade someone
from the official bill to slip away and sing unamplified as we sprawl on
the grass.
OK, that's my burst of idealism over for the moment. If it happens I'm
there.
--
Gordon
x
x
x
Matthew Malthouse
In article <Q4oxIBAP...@spillmar.demon.co.uk>,
Tim <t...@spillmar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
} Subject: Re: Pride Rip Off
} From: Tim <t...@spillmar.demon.co.uk>
} Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:37:35 +0100
} Newsgroups: uk.gay-lesbian-bi
}
} In article <35560...@news1.mcmail.com>, Puppydog <pupp...@mcmail.com>
} writes
} >Hi all
} >Its official then,
} >Five pounds to get a ticket and one pound booking fee.
} This is probably too emotive an issue to delurk (after over a year), but
} what the heck here goes:-
} I had an excellent time at last years Pride, thought the Acts on stage
} alone were worth paying well over a fiver for. I appreciate that there
} are a lot of principles involved over it being a celebration but
} personally I would prefer to pay money than have an event funded by
} inappropriate commercial advertising.
Acording to this week's Pink you're going to pay your money AND have an
event funded by inapropriate commercial advertising, towit Benson & Hedges
every fag's favorite fag I guess.
} The test will be how well the organisers do, whether acts will be so
} prepared to appear at a paid for festival and whether they will be
} selective in accepting advertising !!
Unfortunately I doubt there's any 'test' as I expect it to sell out
regardless of how naff the acts or ubiquitous the sponsorship adverts.
Matthew
--
"Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto"
mailto:matthew....@guardian.co.uk
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6630/index.html
http://www.calmeilles.demon.co.uk/index.html
Mike_B
In article <na.683a424844...@argonet.co.uk>, Paul Rogers
<pro...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>What if I was living in the heart of Devon and have no access to anything in
>the west country, and not be out enough to telephone someone. I just wanted
>to get to London then hopefully go to the festival without many people
>knowing.
The image of someone sneaking around without anyone knowing seems to go
against the whole concept of a "Pride" day. I had thought the idea to be
showing the world how 'proud' you are to be gay, out, loud and proud or
summate of that nature.
It hardly fits then to complain that that people who don't want anyone
to know about them are having trouble sneakily and quietly getting a
ticket :)
--
Mike_B
http://www.blackpool.demon.co.uk/
Scene guide - Free Chatroom - Hotels listings - Blackpool Fiesta Info.
ICQ 12159519
Mike_B
>At this rate there'll be no-one buying tickets :-)
>
What an interesting idea. People taking this thing back into their own
hands. Imagine if nobody bought tickets, but everyone went to Hyde Park
from the march and carried on partying there. One in the eye for the
organisers eh?
Iain Bowen
In article <Q4oxIBAP...@spillmar.demon.co.uk>,
Tim <t...@spillmar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <35560...@news1.mcmail.com>, Puppydog <pupp...@mcmail.com>
>writes
>>Hi all
>>Its official then,
>>Five pounds to get a ticket and one pound booking fee.
>This is probably too emotive an issue to delurk (after over a year), but
>what the heck here goes:-
>I had an excellent time at last years Pride, thought the Acts on stage
>alone were worth paying well over a fiver for. I appreciate that there
>are a lot of principles involved over it being a celebration but
>personally I would prefer to pay money than have an event funded by
>inappropriate commercial advertising.
>prepared to appear at a paid for festival and whether they will be
>selective in accepting advertising !!
Welcome, and prepare you asbestos Calvins.
Would someone remind me what the purpose of Pride is?
Silly old me always thought that the main point was the march and that the
festival was just the entertainment at the end. That once a year chance to
meet up with people, eat a crap burger, listen to things that I wouldn't
even dream to listening to normally, look at all the cute trade, buy a few
bits from the stands and generally be in the biggest queer space in the
world.
Obviously, the festival has been becoming more and more the focal point over
the last few years and I've enjoyed it less and less (too many of *them*
coming along for the freebies), but with the exception of last year, I've
still gone along.
Now we have ticket-sales in gay places only, mainly restricted to London
when we used to be about accessibility. We have the dropping of bisexuals
and transgendered people when we used to be about inclusivity.
I don't fscking care if the bands consist of a couple of local bands, I
don't care whether Radio 1 broadcast from Pride or not. I don't even really
care if the advertising is appropriate or not, there will always be someone
to kick up a fuss about something there.
Would someone tell me of another Pride anywhere, where you have to pay to
get into the post-march festival.
I'm going to go this year and I'm going to march (or watch the march
depending on the state of the feet), but I won't go to the festival.
Iain
--
\/ Iain Bowen is alaric(at)harlech.demon.co.uk. Penguin Inside
"I grow old.... I grow old....
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled."
Mike_B
In article <6j672k$1em$1...@harlech.demon.co.uk>, Iain Bowen
<ala...@harlech.demon.co.uk> writes
>Would someone tell me of another Pride anywhere, where you have to pay to
>get into the post-march festival.
I believe that in Manchester one is expected to pay to enter Sackville
Park for the stuff after the parade.
Chris Heathcote
On Mon, 11 May 1998 08:09:04 +0100, Mike_B <mi...@blackpool.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>>Would someone tell me of another Pride anywhere, where you have to pay to
>>get into the post-march festival.
>
>I believe that in Manchester one is expected to pay to enter Sackville
>Park for the stuff after the parade.
Also Sydney, Los Angeles blah blah blah... I think all of these *except*
London until this year.
Running any event of this scale and expecting to work from voluntary
donations is unthinkable.
Chris Heathcote
On Mon, 11 May 1998 03:16:23 +0200, <gor...@pronto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>- remove Bass Charrington's fingers from our pockets at least for one
>day
I know you can't *buy* drink in Hyde Park, are you allowed to BYOB?
>- mean we miss Erasure/Jimi S/Tom R/the Andrews Sisters/whoever has been
>lined up for this year.... though a coup would be to persuade someone
>from the official bill to slip away and sing unamplified as we sprawl on
>the grass.
I think they can keep them in Clap Common!
c/.
Lyn David Thomas
In article: <flJ30LAn...@pronto.demon.co.uk>
> Is this not a seriously good idea? With the word spread well enough in
> the next weeks, there could be ten thousand happy picnickers in Hyde
> Park.
In 1979 - the tenth anniversary of Stonewall - Pride did exactly this
with the same number of people!
--
__
*Lyn David Thomas* \/
Web pages start at
http://www.stuffing.demon.co.uk/lyn
DP
Mike_B wrote:
> What an interesting idea. People taking this thing back into their own
> hands. Imagine if nobody bought tickets, but everyone went to Hyde Park
> from the march and carried on partying there. One in the eye for the
> organisers eh?
That's bloody brilliant! We could arrange a 'Love-In' or something!
Everyone could wear pink handkerchiefs and pontificate on the local
talent.
DP
Chris Heathcote wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 1998 08:09:04 +0100, Mike_B <mi...@blackpool.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >>Would someone tell me of another Pride anywhere, where you have to pay to
> >>get into the post-march festival.
> >
> >I believe that in Manchester one is expected to pay to enter Sackville
> >Park for the stuff after the parade.
>
> Also Sydney, Los Angeles blah blah blah... I think all of these *except*
> London until this year.
>
> Running any event of this scale and expecting to work from voluntary
> donations is unthinkable.
>
I don't object to paying out £5 and I can see that the festival has become too
big over the years and this is the only sensible way to proceed. However, I'm
disappointed that it means the festival won't be open to straights. One of the
best things about Pride in recent years has been the way straights have been
encouraged to come along and see that we're just human beings, not some sort
of freak show. Pride was originally set up to show the nation that we exist
and that we're just ordinary, regular folk - what better way to achieve this
than to party together!
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <na.683a424844...@argonet.co.uk>,
pro...@argonet.co.uk (Paul Rogers) spake thus:
> BTW, the Law which prevents charges to be made is enforceable on ANY
> park
> within the United Kingdom, it does not exclude London. It is the same
> situation in London as it is in Birmingham, and again in Plymouth, a
> (gasp)
> in "public" houses as well. Authorities cannot charge for entry to any
> of these areas.
crap - they can and do.
--
Mark Ynys-Môn
(who had to check this out when he organised an event in a public park)
sua cuique deus fit dira cupido
http://www.archdruid.demon.co.uk
opinions are mine not Demon Internet's
Chris Heathcote
On Mon, 11 May 1998 13:37:24 +0000, DP <wil...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>That's bloody brilliant!
yes
>We could arrange a 'Love-In' or something!
errrrr....
>Everyone could wear pink handkerchiefs
ummmm....
> and pontificate on the local
>talent.
ok.....
c.
Philip Pearson
Chris Heathcote:
> I know you can't *buy* drink in Hyde Park, are you allowed to BYOB?
>
many types in the cafe by the Serpentine. As to where you are permitted
to drink it.... I believe it depends on the by-laws governing the area
concerned. Royal parks may have one about drinking in public, but may
not, I'm not at all sure. I suspect if they don't like the look of you
they'll get you somehow, but otherwise they couldn't care less.
I have been on many picnics of a bacchanalian nature in Hyde Park
with no problems (other than standing upright).
Phil
JohnM
>say F*CK the festival, go for a picnic at Hyde Park (or any other suitable
>corporate profit and the gay sell outs.
My feelings exactly sweetie. I hope everyone boycotts it
and we return to a free festival next year. Still, the
wankoids would have to try would they not ?
----------------- Football Comments # 30 ----------------
"Celtic manager Davie Hay still has a fresh pair of legs up his sleeve."
(JOHN GREIG)
Web site http://www.scroll.demon.co.uk/spaver.htm
South American Travels in http://www.scroll.demon.co.uk/satrip/satrip.htm
JohnM
In article <355ac25b...@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris Heathcote
<spam...@deaddodo.com> writes
>On Mon, 11 May 1998 03:16:23 +0200, <gor...@pronto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>- remove Bass Charrington's fingers from our pockets at least for one
>>day
>
>
Yes you can.
BTW, Europride in Paris, last year I remember had an all-ticketing end
of celebrations and it wasn't very successful as Gavin told me. Matthew
was there.
Dave
Iain Bowen wrote in message <6j672k$1em$1...@harlech.demon.co.uk>...
>Would someone tell me of another Pride anywhere, where you have to pay to
>get into the post-march festival.
I went to the '95 San Francisco Pride party and there was no charge.
And I would be surprised if a charge applied in Sydney for the party (as
distinct from the dance)
Matthew Malthouse
In article <6j672k$1em$1...@harlech.demon.co.uk>,
ala...@harlech.demon.co.uk (Iain Bowen) wrote:
} Would someone tell me of another Pride anywhere, where you have to pay to
} get into the post-march festival.
Paris, but it was billed as a party. Last year crowds waited to hear the
speeches from such luminaries as the Mayor of Rome then meandered back to
the Marais where the real party was going on.
Matthew Malthouse
In article <355700F7...@dircon.co.uk>,
DP <wil...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
} I don't object to paying out £5 and I can see that the festival has
become too
} big over the years and this is the only sensible way to proceed.
Pride, the festival, has grown and grown and grown. In many ways that's
something to applaud but the organisation, with the obstructionism of local
councils, has not been able to. Last year a smaller part of Clap Common was
fenced off for the festival than the year before yet the numbers attending
rose.
Pride needs to be in a larger place like Hyde Park and preferably the
whople park not fenced into some corner.
Meanwhile I'm for doing something alternative and not holding my breath
waiting for pride to improve, eveb to the fun it was three or four years
ago.
Dave
Mike_B wrote in message ...
>In article <na.683a424844...@argonet.co.uk>, Paul Rogers
><pro...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>
>>What if I ..... just wanted
>>to get to London then hopefully go to the festival without many people
>>knowing.
>
>The image of someone sneaking around without anyone knowing seems to go
>against the whole concept of a "Pride" day. I had thought the idea to be
>showing the world how 'proud' you are to be gay,
This is the first time I have seen the suggestion that Pride is only for
people who are "out"!
In this less than perfect world I imagine that there are many gay people
(indeed people of all sexual persuasions) who choose not to advertise their
sexuality. I can't see any reason why they are any less gay than those who
choose to publicly exhibit their gay pride.
Nor can I understand why such people should be discouraged or denied access
to the Pride festival. Surely the event should be promoting cohesion rather
than exclusion?
Dave
Lyn David Thomas
In article: <894911864.26202.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
> This is the first time I have seen the suggestion that Pride is only
> for people who are "out"!
The whole intention of the march (which _is_ Pride - the festival
only being the post march entertainment) is a public display of
"outness", so if people aren't out ordinarily then Pride enables
them to be so for just that day.
gor...@pronto.demon.co.uk
In article <259297...@stuffing.demon.co.uk>, Lyn David Thomas
<l...@stuffing.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article: <flJ30LAn...@pronto.demon.co.uk>
><gor...@pronto.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Is this not a seriously good idea? With the word spread well enough in
>> the next weeks, there could be ten thousand happy picnickers in Hyde
>> Park.
>
>In 1979 - the tenth anniversary of Stonewall - Pride did exactly this
>with the same number of people!
I was there: My first Pride! It clashed with an anti-apartheid march on
which I was obliged to go, but I got to the park... and seem to recall
seeing Kokomo doing "We are family"... and just wowing at the number of
people... and deciding that they were absolutely the family I wanted...
and that night meeting my first real bf. It was a formative day of my
life.
(having shown his age good and proper, retires with another G&T to await
the Grim Reaper)
gor...@pronto.demon.co.uk
In article <memo.19980511...@mcy.demon.net>, Mark Ynys-Mon
<m...@demon.net> writes(snip)
> Authorities cannot charge for entry to any
>> of these areas.
>
>crap - they can and do.
>
> Michael Nieuwenhuizen spake thus:
>> You're talking shit.
> hmmm, well if that is your level of response there is no point in saying
> anything else.
... and later berated Mik for the repeated use of the same word. Sorry
MYM, is there some difference in kind between crap and shit, whereby one
of these is permissible in response to a post with which one disagrees,
and the other not?
Michael Nieuwenhuizen
Mark Ynys-Mon wrote in message ...
>
> crap - they can and do.
May I quote you from another thread: "since you resort
to four letter words again below I don't see the point of
discussing it with you".
Crap is a four letter word = end of the discussion.
Mik
Mike_B
In article <894911864.26202.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Dave
<Da...@touring.nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>This is the first time I have seen the suggestion that Pride is only for
>people who are "out"!
>
>(indeed people of all sexual persuasions) who choose not to advertise their
>sexuality. I can't see any reason why they are any less gay than those who
>choose to publicly exhibit their gay pride.
Indeed, but attending a Gay Pride march *is* choosing to publicly
exhibit their gay 'pride'. It simply seems incompatible to do so whilst
at the same time being in the closet.
>
>Nor can I understand why such people should be discouraged or denied access
>to the Pride festival. Surely the event should be promoting cohesion rather
>than exclusion?
>
>Dave
>
>
--
Joy Hilbert
Mike_B writes
>The image of someone sneaking around without anyone knowing seems to go
>against the whole concept of a "Pride" day. I had thought the idea to be
>summate of that nature.
>
someone who would like to be gay & proud, but who is scared.
Dale has posted of how he got beaten up leaving a gay pub, and therefore
wouldn't go to Pride, in case he got beaten up there. I suspect that if
he walked through the middle of London with about 100,000 other people,
he'd feel differently.
I have never been fit enough to actually enjoy the march, but the
approaches to it have been very uplifting. As you approach London, and
approach the starting point of the march, the number of overtly
heterosexual people decrease from roughly 100% in your home town to
roughly 0% at the starting point (no arguments about straights on the
march, please, if they're on the march, they're not heterosexual the way
I am currently using the term).
I remember one year when I was living in Oxford, we went to Pride on an
ordinary coach, rather than a chartered one, since there are coaches to
London from Oxford several times an hour anyway. Many of us were quite,
well, non-stereotypically gay. Everyone piled on the coach. I sat
towards the back, and in the seat opposite in front of me, was a fairly
subtle homophobe. I saw a few "blatant" gay people get on, and saw the
homophobe smirk and giggle at them. The coach filled up, and the
homophobe's world was still intact. Shortly after we'd set off, someone
said something that started a conversation about Pride between the
ordinary looking and the not, and I saw the homophobe's face as he
finally realised that he was the only heterosexual person on the coach,
that all the fresh faced students and older sensible people that he'd
taken as "normal" like him, were not.
To sum up, the awareness that gay people are highly numerous and varied
can be an important stage in a person's coming out, and Pride can
contribute to that.
--
Joy Hilbert
Living a both/and life in an either/or society
JohnM
>>In article <na.683a424844...@argonet.co.uk>, Paul Rogers
>><pro...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>What if I ..... just wanted
>>>to get to London then hopefully go to the festival without many people
>>>knowing.
>>
>>against the whole concept of a "Pride" day. I had thought the idea to be
>>showing the world how 'proud' you are to be gay,
>
>people who are "out"!
>
People who aren't 'out' are normally afraid that someone will recognise
them on the telly or in then street and tend to avoid Pride.
Phil Reynolds
In Article <35560...@news1.mcmail.com> Puppydog" writes:
>If the festival is going to remain outside of central London then it
>has to be rotated around London to make it accessible to everyone.
>Clapham Common is a bad venue, it has poor transport links, an
>obstructive council and is too far away from the centre of town.
Clapham Common is a lot easier to get around in a wheelchair than
Victoria Park.
Philip M Reynolds
o ____ Internet: ph...@hedgford.demon.co.uk
|L_ \ / Web page: http://www.hedgford.demon.co.uk/phil/
(_)- \/ Opinions are mine only unless otherwise stated
Michael Nieuwenhuizen
Lyn David Thomas wrote in message <620136...@stuffing.demon.co.uk>...
> "Dave" <Da...@touring.nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> This is the first time I have seen the suggestion that Pride is only
>> for people who are "out"!
> The whole intention of the march (which _is_ Pride - the festival
> only being the post march entertainment) is a public display of
> "outness", so if people aren't out ordinarily then Pride enables
> them to be so for just that day.
And another part of Pride is to show gay people who are
in the closet that they are not alone. For some it might
be the first time they meet other gay people, or at least
meet so many other gay people.
Mik
Dave
Lyn David Thomas wrote in message <620136...@stuffing.demon.co.uk>...
>In article: <894911864.26202.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
>"Dave" <Da...@touring.nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> This is the first time I have seen the suggestion that Pride is only
>> for people who are "out"!
>
>The whole intention of the march (which _is_ Pride - the festival
>only being the post march entertainment) is a public display of
>"outness", so if people aren't out ordinarily then Pride enables
>them to be so for just that day.
I fully understand the intention behind the day. Maybe I didn't express
myself clearly enough.
I think that there are people who choose not to be "out" to their immediate
world (parents, friends or employers) but who would be happy to (and do)
attend the Pride march.
And irrespective of whether the event afterward is merely "entertainment",
it is a pity if people are discouraged due to the booking practices that
Andrew referred to in the original post.
Dave
Dave
Mike_B wrote in message ...
>In article <894911864.26202.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Dave
><Da...@touring.nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>This is the first time I have seen the suggestion that Pride is only for
>>people who are "out"!
>>
>>In this less than perfect world I imagine that there are many gay people
>>(indeed people of all sexual persuasions) who choose not to advertise
their
>>sexuality. I can't see any reason why they are any less gay than those
who
>>choose to publicly exhibit their gay pride.
>
>Indeed, but attending a Gay Pride march *is* choosing to publicly
>exhibit their gay 'pride'. It simply seems incompatible to do so whilst
>at the same time being in the closet.
>
>>
With the crap anti-discrimination laws in this country, I'd have thought
many people would not be "out" at work but still feel comfortable in
attending the Pride march or festival. For some more isolated guys it's
probably a perfect opportunity to meet other gays in a non-threatening
environment.
Lyn David Thomas
In article: <O5TzTFAP...@pronto.demon.co.uk>
> >In 1979 - the tenth anniversary of Stonewall - Pride did exactly this
> >with the same number of people!
>
> I was there: My first Pride!
Mine was 1980, I do wish I'd gone to 1979 too :-(
tigran
Joy Hilbert <hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>:
> I remember one year when I was living in Oxford, we went to Pride on an
> ordinary coach, rather than a chartered one, since there are coaches to
> London from Oxford several times an hour anyway. Many of us were quite,
> well, non-stereotypically gay. Everyone piled on the coach. I sat
> towards the back, and in the seat opposite in front of me, was a fairly
> subtle homophobe. I saw a few "blatant" gay people get on, and saw the
> homophobe smirk and giggle at them. The coach filled up, and the
> homophobe's world was still intact. Shortly after we'd set off, someone
> said something that started a conversation about Pride between the
> ordinary looking and the not, and I saw the homophobe's face as he
> finally realised that he was the only heterosexual person on the coach,
> that all the fresh faced students and older sensible people that he'd
> taken as "normal" like him, were not.
>
> To sum up, the awareness that gay people are highly numerous and varied
> can be an important stage in a person's coming out, and Pride can
> contribute to that.
The subtle homophobe came out to you?! Wow!
-- Tigran
(Didn't know you were 'non-stereotypically gay', btw -- whatever that
term means.)
Lyn David Thomas
In article: <895000503.15049.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
>
>
> Lyn David Thomas wrote in message
<620136...@stuffing.demon.co.uk>...
> >The whole intention of the march (which _is_ Pride - the festival
> >only being the post march entertainment) is a public display of
> >"outness", so if people aren't out ordinarily then Pride enables
> >them to be so for just that day.
>
> I fully understand the intention behind the day. Maybe I didn't
> express myself clearly enough.
>
> I think that there are people who choose not to be "out" to their
> immediate world (parents, friends or employers) but who would be
> happy to (and do) attend the Pride march.
Indeed, like devolution coming out is not an event but a process.
Attending pride is part of that process, it tells the world that
may be watching that you are part of this community of communities
that comprises LGB life.
>
> And irrespective of whether the event afterward is merely
> "entertainment", it is a pity if people are discouraged due to the
> booking practices that Andrew referred to in the original post.
Agreed. I put the bit in about the march being pride for emphasis
because there is a tendency for some to see it as the otherway round
- in particular I was dismayed to see in the run up to the negotiations
over the park at least one of the rival organisations seemed to be
dropping the march.
Tarani Chandola
Joy Hilbert wrote:
> I remember one year when I was living in Oxford, we went to Pride on an
> ordinary coach, rather than a chartered one, since there are coaches to
> London from Oxford several times an hour anyway. Many of us were quite,
> well, non-stereotypically gay. Everyone piled on the coach. I sat
> towards the back, and in the seat opposite in front of me, was a fairly
> subtle homophobe. I saw a few "blatant" gay people get on, and saw the
> homophobe smirk and giggle at them.
I'm not sure if a smirk and a giggle is homophobic behaviour. I've been
on
that Oxford bus many times and sometimes I've laughed (shock, horror) at
some of the outfits on LGBT people on Pride. I think on Pride, we're
especially
conscious of the reactions of 'others' to large numbers of LGBT people
and
love to see 'horrified' reactions of people who we think of as
homophobes when
they twig they're in the midst of a bunch of screaming queens.
> The coach filled up, and the
> homophobe's world was still intact. Shortly after we'd set off, someone
> said something that started a conversation about Pride between the
> ordinary looking and the not, and I saw the homophobe's face as he
> finally realised that he was the only heterosexual person on the coach,
> that all the fresh faced students and older sensible people that he'd
> taken as "normal" like him, were not.
Some of the fresh faced students on that Oxford Tube bus on Pride day
are
straight. The one time I had to come back to Oxford on Pride evening
(I had an exam the following week), I found myself the only gay person
amidst a bunch of very heterosexually behaving students. From their
conversation, it was clear that they'd only come down to see the free
acts.
I wish there were a way to make a 'no march- no party' rule possible.
Tarani
remove the 'x' to email
hated
Mike_B
In article <1d8y1vz.1lp...@dc2-modem104.dial.xs4all.nl>, tigran
<tig...@xs4all.nl> writes
>(Didn't know you were 'non-stereotypically gay', btw -- whatever that
>term means.)
Well, if he's said straight-acting he would have been torn apart.
Puppydog
:
>>Clapham Common is a bad venue, it has poor transport links, an
>>obstructive council and is too far away from the centre of town.
Philip wrote in response to Andrews comments
>Clapham Common is a lot easier to get around in a wheelchair than
>Victoria Park.
I cant agree to that statement, you are forbidden to take wheel chairs on a
Tube line nut are allowed to take one on an Underground line, therefore the
District line in more accessable to persons of disability.
Also IIRC the condition of the grass at Victoria Park in no different from
Clapham Common, there are paths in both parks and of course there was a lot
of parking put aside for the specific use of orange badge holders. If you
are talking about being restricted to paths then Clapham Common does have
more paths for the area allocated to Pride, but (sorry for the use of but),
is still does not make it any easier for someone to push a chair around
grassland.
By all means make it available to all person of disabilities the main
problem is that Pride is not only about disabilities it is a festival for
everyone who is LesGayTransBi irrespective of their physical limitations and
as such should be open to everyone who feels able to attend and that means
that the 99% of people who do not consider themselves to have a disability
have as much right to attend Pride as persons with disabilities, That means
in real terms, is Pride accessable to all, NO, reasons, poor transport
links - one bus route and a tube line that is very dangerous when crowded
with passengers, nowhere to park if you drive, there is plenty of on street
parking near Victoria Park
IMHO Victoria Park was one of the best venues we ever had and I have been
to, Jubilee Gardens (central but small), Brockwell Park (too hilly for
persons with disabilities and too far from transport), Kennington Park (too
small and stuck on that cursed Northern Line) and Clapham Common (problems
as previously stated) as well as Victoria Park (advantages, two tube lines,
buses from many directions and its large with a council that really wants us
there).
What we really need is a venue which is central to the whole of London, and
that means one of the Royal Parks, Hyde Park would be best but St James'
Park or Green Park would also do.
We need to make our opinion felt and IMHO that would be to go on the march
and boycott the Festival at Clapham Common as a protest in making it
restrictive and unrepresentive to the needs of the community that it is
supposed to be about.
I say again
March and be proud to be GAY
Then back to Hyde Park for a mass picnic, working down from Marble Arch
along Park Lane
(or anywhere else suggested as a concensus).
Regards
Andrew
David Ridgway
On 12.05.98 10:15, "Michael Nieuwenhuizen" wrote:
> And another part of Pride is to show gay people who are
> in the closet that they are not alone. For some it might
> be the first time they meet other gay people, or at least
> meet so many other gay people.
Yes!! I remember one year having just got on a train to London on spec, for
a day out. Just standing in Piccadilly Circus as the march went past. At the
time I didn't know what the march was or what it signified.
At the time, I was firmly closeted.
But, I know that watching those people march past I tingled. Tingled with an
awareness of commonality and fright of being near so many other gay
people. I have never been to a march since, but would love to do so.
One day!
--
Stay Gold!
Trip (aka David Ridgway)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Return mail to
tr...@timeforce.demon.co.uk
Opinions strictly my own -
Unless otherwise stated
=========================
pete-d
Andrew "Puppydog" <pupp...@mcmail.com> probably wrote:
>>>Andrew "Puppydog" <pupp...@mcmail.com> wrote:
>>>Clapham Common is a bad venue, it has poor transport links, an
>>>obstructive council and is too far away from the centre of town.
>Philip wrote in response to Andrews comments
>>Clapham Common is a lot easier to get around in a wheelchair than
>>Victoria Park.
>I cant agree to that statement, you are forbidden to take wheel chairs on a
>Tube line nut are allowed to take one on an Underground line, therefore the
>District line in more accessable to persons of disability.
And are you a wheelchair user? Phil certainly is (read his website)
and I would therefore be very wary of disagreeing with him on the
grounds of access for wheelchair users.
It would also appear that you are assuming that wheelchair users (and
other disabled people) have the option of using public transport -
which in many cases is not so.
>Also IIRC the condition of the grass at Victoria Park in no different from
>Clapham Common, there are paths in both parks and of course there was a lot
>of parking put aside for the specific use of orange badge holders. If you
>are talking about being restricted to paths then Clapham Common does have
>more paths for the area allocated to Pride, but (sorry for the use of but),
>is still does not make it any easier for someone to push a chair around
>grassland.
>By all means make it available to all person of disabilities the main
>problem is that Pride is not only about disabilities it is a festival for
>everyone who is LesGayTransBi irrespective of their physical limitations
Agreed
>and
>as such should be open to everyone who feels able to attend and that means
>that the 99% of people who do not consider themselves to have a disability
>have as much right to attend Pride as persons with disabilities
Also agreed but sorry your stats just don't wash with me. The latest
government statistics suggest that 14% of the adult population in the
UK are disabled people - so 99% of people are not likely to 'not
consider themselves to have a disability.' Surely Pride is partly
about celebrating the diversity of the uk's glb community - not
alienating a significant minority within it?
>That means
>in real terms, is Pride accessable to all, NO, reasons, poor transport
>links - one bus route and a tube line that is very dangerous when crowded
>with passengers, nowhere to park if you drive, there is plenty of on street
>parking near Victoria Park
I lose the thread of your argument here - so won't comment any more!
Pete (who believes he has enough personal and professional experience
to comment on disability issues)
___
Pete Denton posting from my office in Halifax
http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/heights/7534
http://www.notned.u-net.com
ICQ#6933855
I like to cook with wine - sometimes I even put it in the food!
Niles
JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk> wrote:
~In article <35560...@news1.mcmail.com>, Puppydog <pupp...@mcmail.com>
~writes
~>If you really want to have a good day out why not just go on the march and
~>say F*CK the festival, go for a picnic at Hyde Park (or any other suitable
~>venue) after the march and celebrate our sexuality without the spectre of
~>corporate profit and the gay sell outs.
~
~My feelings exactly sweetie. I hope everyone boycotts it
~and we return to a free festival next year. Still, the
~wankoids would have to try would they not ?
~
Hmm. All very well and good, but it might be sensible to change the meet
arrangements if too many people are doing this....
Otherwise there will be millions of queens on/ at (?) Speaker's Corner, and
a provincial girl won't know which way to look. ;)
--
Niles * Archers' Family Tree at:- *
"The man ain't got no kulcha" www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alexf/
Michael Nieuwenhuizen
Lyn David Thomas wrote in message <446341...@stuffing.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>> I was there: My first Pride!
> Mine was 1980, I do wish I'd gone to 1979 too :-(
Prides I've been to in my life:
- 1994: Europride Amsterdam -> nice, not to big, not too small, but
the festival coincided with the World Championships Football match
Holland-Belgium... Which we lost: I should have stayed at the
festival.
- 1996: Zurich Pride -> small, but very nice. And I was the opening
shot for the TV documentary afterwards. But it wasn't the best
idea to go for the leather/rubber look on a sunny 30 degree day
- 1996: Amsterdam Pride -> Amsterdam's first (!) pride ever. The
march was a whole float of boats going through the canals, which
were packed with people.
- 1997: London Pride -> hated it: too many people, too big (it took
me two hours to find the main stage). And I had a crap time
anyway: lost my friends before we even got in, and all alone I
bumped into my ex-boyfriend from whom I had just split up and
whom I wanted to get back. He was there with his new bf :-(
- 1997: Brighton Pride -> nice relaxing day, and small enough, so
you're not constantly thinking "I should be there and there now".
- 1997: Amsterdam Pride -> pfew, what can I say. The boat tour
was incredible again, but how would you feel if you've been
physically attacked by a queen who doesn't like your outfit on
the night the Pride weekends starts? And if - during that attack -
you rip open an armpit wound that's healing from an opeation?
Mik, who can't wait for the biggest party of 'm all: the Gay Games
(more competitors than the "normal" Olympics)
Juppy (John Upstone)
On Mon, 11 May 1998 03:16:23 +0200, <gor...@pronto.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>- mean we miss Erasure/Jimi S/Tom R/the Andrews Sisters/whoever has been
>lined up for this year....
Sounds good to me... ;)
John
--
\O/ John Upstone * ju...@cix.co.uk * jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk
|_ http://www.shikasta.demon.co.uk/john/ * ICQ: 9709591
(_)\_ Dial up, Log in, Chill out * Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
....................................................................
"Not that I want to be a god or a hero. Just to change into a tree,
grow for ages, not hurt anyone." - Czeslaw Milosz
Juppy (John Upstone)
On Mon, 11 May 1998 13:37:24 +0000, DP <wil...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>Everyone could wear pink handkerchiefs
Er...
Can I have a black one, please?
John "ex-Goff" Upstone,
wondering if that means something dodgy in the hanky code.
JohnM
In article <355edc00...@news.zetnet.co.uk>, Niles
<alex....@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>~In article <35560...@news1.mcmail.com>, Puppydog <pupp...@mcmail.com>
>~writes
>~>If you really want to have a good day out why not just go on the march and
>~>say F*CK the festival, go for a picnic at Hyde Park (or any other suitable
>~>venue) after the march and celebrate our sexuality without the spectre of
>~>corporate profit and the gay sell outs.
>~
>~My feelings exactly sweetie. I hope everyone boycotts it
>~and we return to a free festival next year. Still, the
>~wankoids would have to try would they not ?
>~
>
>Hmm. All very well and good, but it might be sensible to change the meet
>arrangements if too many people are doing this....
>
>Otherwise there will be millions of queens on/ at (?) Speaker's Corner, and
>a provincial girl won't know which way to look. ;)
>
Yes, I agree. Even on a normal Pride, Hyde Park is full of amblers.
I don't tink Marble Arch is any good. There are many spots in
Hyde Park which are easy to find, most notably around the sough entrance
on Exhibition Rd, near the Serpentine or in the Nottting Hill corner
(which is near the Champion gay pub on Bayswater Rd which is better
all around than the City of Quebec.
I think a few of us whould take this offline and present some
alternatives. The main criteria should be as you said: easy to find
for non-Londoners and not many people around so that people can find
each other. As everyone can vouchsafe from last year, my suggestions
were spot on.
----------------- Football Comments # 31 ----------------
"I spent four indifferent years at Goodison Park,
but they were great years." (MARTIN HODGE)
Lyn David Thomas
In article: <895144699.29985....@news.demon.nl> "Michael
> Mik, who can't wait for the biggest party of 'm all: the Gay Games
> (more competitors than the "normal" Olympics)
Now its outside the USA why can't they call it the Gay Olympics?
After all it was just the US Olympic association that objected
(thought they are quite happy with the US Cockroach Olympics).
Chris Heathcote
On Thu, 14 May 1998 18:17:16 +0100, JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>There are many spots in
>Hyde Park which are easy to find, most notably around the sough entrance
>on Exhibition Rd, near the Serpentine or in the Nottting Hill corner
>(which is near the Champion gay pub on Bayswater Rd which is better
>all around than the City of Quebec.
This has been used successfully before
# by the big tree near the Serpentine Gallery
# in Hyde Park
Also, enough of us have on-line pics for others to peruse so they know
what we look like.
>I think a few of us whould take this offline and present some
>alternatives.
No, There Is No Cabal. What's wrong with thrashing it out here???
c.
--
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|chris (a) deaddodo.com http://www.deaddodo.com ICQ: 6803574|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Da Bunny speak Da Truth |
| http://www.undergroundlondon.com/bunny/ |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
tigran
Mike_B <mi...@blackpool.demon.co.uk>:
> In article <1d8y1vz.1lp...@dc2-modem104.dial.xs4all.nl>, tigran
> <tig...@xs4all.nl> writes
> >(Didn't know you were 'non-stereotypically gay', btw -- whatever that
> >term means.)
> Well, if he's said straight-acting he would have been torn apart.
Stone him! He said 'straight acting'.
-- Tigran, wondering why people are starting to throw stones at him.
Matthew Malthouse
In article <357742bf...@news.demon.co.uk>,
spam...@deaddodo.com (Chris Heathcote) wrote:
} On Thu, 14 May 1998 18:17:16 +0100, JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk>
} wrote:
}
} >There are many spots in
} >Hyde Park which are easy to find, most notably around the sough entrance
} >on Exhibition Rd, near the Serpentine or in the Nottting Hill corner
} >(which is near the Champion gay pub on Bayswater Rd which is better
} >all around than the City of Quebec.
}
} This has been used successfully before
} # by the big tree near the Serpentine Gallery
} # in Hyde Park
}
} Also, enough of us have on-line pics for others to peruse so they know
} what we look like.
}
} >I think a few of us whould take this offline and present some
} >alternatives.
}
} No, There Is No Cabal. What's wrong with thrashing it out here???
Yes, keep it here please. As many people as possible should see this,
expecially those who don't or rarely post. Whenver I try a mailing I
inevitable miss some people - even ones that are here daily :/
Matthew
--
"Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto"
mailto:matthew....@guardian.co.uk
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6630/index.html
http://www.calmeilles.demon.co.uk/index.html
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <B1825551...@0.0.0.0>, matthew....@guardian.co.uk
(Matthew Malthouse) spake thus:
> Yes, keep it here please
quite - now those who want to know what irony means should read the
moderation thread and then note who wanted it to be sorted out in
private...
Mark Y-M
His senses are too gross; and he'll contrive
A sixth, to contradict the other five.
Joy Hilbert
Tarani Chandola writes
>I'm not sure if a smirk and a giggle is homophobic behaviour. I've been
>on
>that Oxford bus many times and sometimes I've laughed (shock, horror) at
>some of the outfits on LGBT people on Pride.
Maybe you had to be there.
>Some of the fresh faced students on that Oxford Tube bus on Pride day
>are
>straight. The one time I had to come back to Oxford on Pride evening
>(I had an exam the following week), I found myself the only gay person
>amidst a bunch of very heterosexually behaving students. From their
>conversation, it was clear that they'd only come down to see the free
>acts.
>I wish there were a way to make a 'no march- no party' rule possible.
This was about 10 years ago. Things were different then.
--
Joy Hilbert
Harlequin
On Sun, 10 May 98 21:49:38 GMT, Martin wrote:
> pro...@argonet.co.uk "Paul Rogers" writes:
>> I'm afraid I totally agree with this.
><big snip>
>> BTW, the Law which prevents charges to be made is enforceable on ANY park
>> within the United Kingdom, it does not exclude London. It is the same
>> situation in London as it is in Birmingham, and again in Plymouth, a (gasp)
>> in "public" houses as well. Authorities cannot charge for entry to any of
>> these areas.
>> A minimum donation can be requested, and people do have the option to pay or
>> not, but compulsory ticket purchasing I dont think is permissible.
>
>I'm afraid I'd want chapter and verse on this. Many London
>parks are not 'public' parks - they are Royal Parks. While
>I don't know the law on this, I imagine this means the
>population as a whole are only allowed in on sufferance.
...
It may not apply to Royal Parks, but I don't think that Clapham Common
falls into that category.
H.
--
Public Enemy #12
(According to http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Haven/9715/)
Harlequin
On Thu, 14 May 1998 13:15:36 GMT, Juppy (John Upstone) wrote:
>On Tue, 12 May 1998 15:18:43 +0000, Phil Reynolds wrote:
...
>>Philip M Reynolds
>> o ____ Internet: ph...@hedgford.demon.co.uk
>>|L_ \ / Web page: http://www.hedgford.demon.co.uk/phil/
>>(_)- \/ Opinions are mine only unless otherwise stated
>
...
\O/ John Upstone * ju...@cix.co.uk * jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk
|_ http://www.shikasta.demon.co.uk/john/ * ICQ: 9709591
(_)\_ Dial up, Log in, Chill out * Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
...
Yours is jollier :-)
Harlequin
On Sun, 10 May 1998 22:21:55 BST, Paul Rogers wrote:
>In article <35560...@news1.mcmail.com>, "Puppydog" wrote:
>> Hi all
>> Its official then,
>> Five pounds to get a ticket and one pound booking fee.
...
>> If you are on benefits how do you afford to go out for the day?
>
>Not valid cause people do save up for pride and in previous years it has
>been customary to pop a few quid in the charity boxes and end up wasting a
>fiver on that.
That may be the behaviour of some people, but it's rare among the
unemployed people that I've known go to the event. Many, possibly
most, of us who live solely on benefits will be put off by the
obligation to spend more than travel expenses.
Harlequin
On Thu, 14 May 1998 13:15:35 GMT, Juppy (John Upstone) wrote:
>On Mon, 11 May 1998 13:37:24 +0000, DP <wil...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Everyone could wear pink handkerchiefs
>
>Er...
>Can I have a black one, please?
>John "ex-Goff" Upstone,
>wondering if that means something dodgy in the hanky code.
That depends on whether you're into heavy S/M or not :-).
H. (with a different colour hanky for every pocket - and I have a lot
of pockets (as Adrian noticed))
Bod
In article <446341...@stuffing.demon.co.uk>,
l...@stuffing.demon.co.uk (Lyn David Thomas) wrote:
>In article: <O5TzTFAP...@pronto.demon.co.uk>
><gor...@pronto.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> >In 1979 - the tenth anniversary of Stonewall - Pride did exactly this
>> >with the same number of people!
>>
>
>Mine was 1980, I do wish I'd gone to 1979 too :-(
Your tales of early prides are very amusing, though.....
Bod
--
If oly I could turn back time
If only I could say what I still hide
Bod
In article <3570b35a...@news.demon.co.uk>,
qui...@bigfoot.com (Harlequin) wrote:
>On Thu, 14 May 1998 13:15:35 GMT, Juppy (John Upstone) wrote:
>>On Mon, 11 May 1998 13:37:24 +0000, DP <wil...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Everyone could wear pink handkerchiefs
>>
>>Er...
>>Can I have a black one, please?
>>John "ex-Goff" Upstone,
>>wondering if that means something dodgy in the hanky code.
>
>That depends on whether you're into heavy S/M or not :-).
>
>H. (with a different colour hanky for every pocket - and I have a lot
>of pockets (as Adrian noticed))
You're not allowed to have more pockets than me (ask Ree-shar)
Bod the multi-pocketed
Chris Heathcote
On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:46:20 GMT, jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk (juppy)
wrote:
>Mine was invented for uk.music.rave, and was meant to be a portrait of
>me at a club. Of course, now it would have to somehow depict me
>sitting on the floor of the chill-out room, skinning up and chatting
>to everyone. With an occasional glance at the dancefloor to remind
>myself that I really ought to get out there at some stage. :)
That message got thru fine fist time *grin*
Matthew Malthouse
In article <6k1l7p$f08...@salford.ac.uk>,
A.D.Mar...@amme.salford.ac.uk (Bod) wrote:
} You're not allowed to have more pockets than me (ask Ree-shar)
Ree-shar, what *have* you been doing in Bod's pockets?
Matthew
(Well, he sad to ask!)
Harlequin
On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:46:15 GMT, juppy wrote:
>On Thu, 21 May 1998 06:52:33 GMT, Harlequin wrote:
>>>>Everyone could wear pink handkerchiefs
>>>
>>>Er...
>>>Can I have a black one, please?
>>>John "ex-Goff" Upstone,
>>>wondering if that means something dodgy in the hanky code.
>>
>>That depends on whether you're into heavy S/M or not :-).
>
>spent my life avoiding pain, why should I actively seek it out? :)
>
>>H. (with a different colour hanky for every pocket - and I have a lot
>>of pockets (as Adrian noticed))
>
The closest I came to an S/M experience was with someone who seemed to
think that my nipples were zits that needed bursting. My orgasm was,
indeed, enhanced, but I don't think that it was worth the three days
of pain that followed.
Heheh... however, many of the colours are absent, and some of the
metaphorical hankies are rather small :-).
H.
Harlequin
On Fri, 22 May 1998 00:53:41 +0100, Matthew Malthouse wrote:
>A.D.Mar...@amme.salford.ac.uk (Bod) wrote:
>} You're not allowed to have more pockets than me (ask Ree-shar)
>
>Ree-shar, what *have* you been doing in Bod's pockets?
Hehe... Where is Ree-shar these days, anyway? I haven't seen any posts
from him for a while.
Harlequin
On Thu, 21 May 98 16:37:13 GMT, Bod wrote:
> qui...@bigfoot.com (Harlequin) wrote:
>>On Thu, 14 May 1998 13:15:35 GMT, Juppy (John Upstone) wrote:
>>>>Everyone could wear pink handkerchiefs
>>>
>>>Er...
>>>Can I have a black one, please?
>>>John "ex-Goff" Upstone,
>>>wondering if that means something dodgy in the hanky code.
>>
>>That depends on whether you're into heavy S/M or not :-).
>>
>>of pockets (as Adrian noticed))
>
Well, I usually have eight plus a harlifax, ten or more if I wear a
coat. I used to carry a towel in my coat linings as well many years
ago (as Lyn might possibly remember), but I ran out of suitable
coats[*].
In Ree-shar's absence I'll have to ask you directly: how many do you
usually have?
H.
[*] Or, rather, the coats ran out of linings.
Harlequin
On Thu, 21 May 1998 11:38:05 GMT, juppy wrote:
>On Thu, 21 May 1998 06:52:23 GMT, Harlequin wrote:
>>On Thu, 14 May 1998 13:15:36 GMT, Juppy (John Upstone) wrote:
...
>>>\O/ John Upstone * ju...@cix.co.uk * jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk
>>> |_ http://www.shikasta.demon.co.uk/john/ * ICQ: 9709591
>>>(_)\_ Dial up, Log in, Chill out * Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
>>...
>>Yours is jollier :-)
>
>me at a club. Of course, now it would have to somehow depict me
>sitting on the floor of the chill-out room, skinning up and chatting
>to everyone. With an occasional glance at the dancefloor to remind
>myself that I really ought to get out there at some stage. :)
Yes, it certainly gives me the impression that you're a raver :-)
H.
Chris Heathcote
On Fri, 22 May 1998 06:51:46 GMT, qui...@bigfoot.com (Harlequin) wrote:
>Where is Ree-shar these days, anyway? I haven't seen any posts
>from him for a while.
He's "a bit tied up" at the moment ;-)
Lyn David Thomas
In article: <6k1l7o$f08...@salford.ac.uk>
> >Mine was 1980, I do wish I'd gone to 1979 too :-(
>
> Your tales of early prides are very amusing, though.....
Thank you - they were fun at the time too (though not the
crabs).
Bod
In article <3573ea75...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>>You're not allowed to have more pockets than me (ask Ree-shar)
>>Bod the multi-pocketed
>
>Well, I usually have eight plus a harlifax, ten or more if I wear a
>coat. I used to carry a towel in my coat linings as well many years
>ago (as Lyn might possibly remember), but I ran out of suitable
>coats[*].
>
>In Ree-shar's absence I'll have to ask you directly: how many do you
>usually have?
In these trousers, 7, others 9, combats 6, (even my shorts have 6 pockets!!),
my coat that I wear when I don't take a bag for weekends away has 5 pockets.
Between the lot of the I can manage shampoo, moisturiser, stuff for my
knees, shaving gear, toothbruch etc, spare underwear, spare shirt, plus all
the junk that I usually carry round claiming that I'd be lost without it (but
am usually proved wrong on those occasions that I _have_ to go out without it,
like when I'm wearing proper (ie smartish) trousers.
Bod
--
Pure as the driven slush...
Bod
In article <35662ff...@news.demon.co.uk>,
spam...@deaddodo.com (Chris Heathcote) wrote:
>On Fri, 22 May 1998 06:51:46 GMT, qui...@bigfoot.com (Harlequin) wrote:
>
>>Where is Ree-shar these days, anyway? I haven't seen any posts
>>from him for a while.
>
>He's "a bit tied up" at the moment ;-)
Oo-er!!
Bod
--
Toyboy to the masses
Paul Barton
: >>On Thu, 14 May 1998 13:15:35 GMT, Juppy (John Upstone) wrote:
: >>>On Mon, 11 May 1998 13:37:24 +0000, DP <wil...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
: >>>>Everyone could wear pink handkerchiefs
: >>>
: >>>Er...
: >>>Can I have a black one, please?
: >>>John "ex-Goff" Upstone,
: >>>wondering if that means something dodgy in the hanky code.
: >>
: >>That depends on whether you're into heavy S/M or not :-).
: >>
: >>H. (with a different colour hanky for every pocket - and I have a lot
: >>of pockets (as Adrian noticed))
: >You're not allowed to have more pockets than me (ask Ree-shar)
: >Bod the multi-pocketed
: Well, I usually have eight plus a harlifax, ten or more if I wear a
wtf is a harlifax?
PaulB
Peter Corlett
Lyn David Thomas <l...@stuffing.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <gor...@pronto.demon.co.uk> writes:
[...]
>> I was there: My first Pride!
My first was 1996. If Pride stays on the route they are heading,
it'll probably be my last too. I'm all for the picnic in another park
instead.
Harlequin
On Fri, 22 May 1998 08:15:22 GMT, Chris Heathcote wrote:
>On Fri, 22 May 1998 06:51:46 GMT, qui...@bigfoot.com (Harlequin) wrote:
>
>>Where is Ree-shar these days, anyway? I haven't seen any posts
>>from him for a while.
>
>He's "a bit tied up" at the moment ;-)
Hmmmm... let's hope he gives us all the details when he gets untied
:-).
Harlequin
On 22 May 1998 11:13:15 GMT, Paul Barton wrote:
>Harlequin (qui...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>: On Thu, 21 May 98 16:37:13 GMT, Bod wrote:
>: >You're not allowed to have more pockets than me (ask Ree-shar)
>: >Bod the multi-pocketed
>
>: Well, I usually have eight plus a harlifax, ten or more if I wear a
>
>wtf is a harlifax?
Ah, I forget who came up with the name now. It's a hip bag containing
assorted bits of equipment (torch, swiss army knife, string, pens,
emergency lighter, 1973 diary, etc.). There was a second volume,
containing my notebooks, but it fell apart.
Harlequin
On Fri, 22 May 98 14:38:58 GMT, Bod wrote:
> qui...@bigfoot.com (Harlequin) wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 May 98 16:37:13 GMT, Bod wrote:
>>>You're not allowed to have more pockets than me (ask Ree-shar)
>>>Bod the multi-pocketed
>>
>>Well, I usually have eight plus a harlifax, ten or more if I wear a
>>ago (as Lyn might possibly remember), but I ran out of suitable
>>coats[*].
>>In Ree-shar's absence I'll have to ask you directly: how many do you
>>usually have?
>
>In these trousers, 7, others 9, combats 6, (even my shorts have 6 pockets!!),
>my coat that I wear when I don't take a bag for weekends away has 5 pockets.
>Between the lot of the I can manage shampoo, moisturiser, stuff for my
>knees, shaving gear, toothbruch etc, spare underwear, spare shirt, plus all
>the junk that I usually carry round claiming that I'd be lost without it (but
>am usually proved wrong on those occasions that I _have_ to go out without it,
>like when I'm wearing proper (ie smartish) trousers.
Shorts with six pockets? Must be military wear.
It sounds like we usually average out, not taking coats into account.
I used to have coats with multiple storage areas but ran out of them.
I agree that reality perversely conspires not to have one need one's
"essentials" when they're not available :-)
JohnM
In article <6k3mkb$838$3...@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>, Paul Barton
<mp...@central.susx.ac.uk> writes
>: Well, I usually have eight plus a harlifax, ten or more if I wear a
>
>wtf is a harlifax?
It is a fax from harli.
----------------- Football Comments # 33 ----------------
"It's headed away by John Clark, using his head."
(DEREK RAE)
Web site http://www.scroll.demon.co.uk/spaver.htm
South American Travels in http://www.scroll.demon.co.uk/satrip/satrip.htm
Paul & Ken
Chris Heathcote <spam...@deaddodo.com> wrote in article
<35815f20...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:46:20 GMT, jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk (juppy)
<snip>
> That message got thru fine fist time *grin*
And what, pray, is "fist time"? Is it like "Happy Hour"?
Paul.
Joy Hilbert
Mike_B writes
>tigran
><tig...@xs4all.nl> writes
>>(Didn't know you were 'non-stereotypically gay', btw -- whatever that
>>term means.)
>
>Well, if he's said straight-acting he would have been torn apart.
I didn't say straight-acting because I didn't mean "straight acting" (a
term I've never seen used about/by women, btw) as none of us were
ashamed of being gay. I meant that many of us did not have the
appearance that homophobes associate with homosexuality.
--
Joy Hilbert
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <01bd8661$18841160$Loca...@homer.dircon.co.uk>,
pau...@dircon.co.uk (Paul & Ken) spake thus:
yes, but noisier.
Mark Y-M
His senses are too gross; and he'll contrive
A sixth, to contradict the other five.
Tom Jordaan
On Fri, 22 May 98 14:38:57 GMT, A.D.Mar...@amme.salford.ac.uk (Bod)
wrote:
>Toyboy to the masses
Back on form...
<g,d&r>
Tom.
--
Tom Jordaan (in Brighton, BN2) t...@phlebas.demon.co.uk
"When all else fails - persuade your ego that you don't need to
succeed at this"
---------------
Replies using the From: header won't work
Harlequin
Hmmmm... I think that's what most people mean when they describe
themselves as "straight acting".
H.
Joy Hilbert
Harlequin writes
>Hmmmm... I think that's what most people mean when they describe
>themselves as "straight acting".
>
(or deliberateness), whereas the "non stereotypical" people on that
coach were just being themselves/having a personal style. I wear a
skirt because it's comfortable, not because I want to be "straight
acting".
--
Joy Hilbert
Dale
It is a bit more different for women than it is for men. You wouldn't
get 'strange' looks if you wore trousers, in public, but if we wore
skirts....
*shrug*
--
Dale - Liverpool, England (IRC/ICQ/Palace/PowWow/iChat Nick: Manawydan)
Life is like stopping to smell the roses...and inhaling a bee!
TO E-MAIL ME: Remove NOSPAM from address above.
Michael Nieuwenhuizen
Joy Hilbert wrote in message <94fQ4RAd...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>...
>
> I wear a skirt because it's comfortable, not because I want
> to be "straight acting".
So a skirt is straight-acting? I'll have to try that.
Mik
JohnM
In article <896530856.4661....@news.demon.nl>, Michael
Nieuwenhuizen <mic...@at.michaeln> writes
In Scotland and Greece you'd be the ultimate in Butch.
----------------- Football Comments # 36 ----------------
"The match will be shown on Match of The Day later
this evening and if you don't want to know the result look
away NOW as we show you Tony Adams lifting the Cup for Arsenal"
(STEVE RIDER, BBC1 - last week)
Niles
Dale <da...@webeyeNOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
~ but if we wore
~skirts....
If? *When*!
--
Niles * Archers' Family Tree at:- *
"The man ain't got no kulcha" www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alexf/
Harlequin
On Fri, 29 May 1998 20:54:05 +0100, Joy Hilbert wrote:
>Harlequin writes
>>Hmmmm... I think that's what most people mean when they describe
>>themselves as "straight acting".
>>
>I'm not sure. "Straight acting" also seems to have overtones of choice
>(or deliberateness), whereas the "non stereotypical" people on that
>skirt because it's comfortable, not because I want to be "straight
>acting".
It may have such overtones to some people, but I doubt that many
people who use it to describe themselves see it that way. I think that
it's general use in self-reference indicates that the person doesn't
believe that they are "obviously" gay.
H.
Paul Barton
Niles (alex....@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
: Dale <da...@webeyeNOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: ~ but if we wore
: ~skirts....
: If? *When*!
Maybe you should consider wearing a skirt to your gdads party?
PaulB
Dale
Hi Niles, you wrote:
>Dale <da...@webeyeNOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>~ but if we wore
>~skirts....
>
>If? *When*!
Nah, I haven't got the legs for skirts, or dresses for that matter!