Radio Caller Instantly Fact-Checked After Claiming Gay Policemen Shouldn't Be On 'Front Line'

As disheartening as it is to think about, there are still a lot of people out there who refuse to recognize all people as equal, all political affiliations, romantic interests, and other indicators of our identity aside.

While hosting his radio program on LBC, Tom Swarbrick was surprised to receive a call from a UK man named David who expressed strong opinions against gay men appearing in the police force, specifically the front lines.

Swarbrick immediately cut in on the conversation and asked David to share the reasons behind his beliefs, to which the caller's argument and belief system immediately began to fall apart.

David got right to the point:

"I wouldn't put gay policemen out on the front line."

"But what I would do - "

Swarbrick immediately cut in:

"Wait, what?"

"Sorry, you wouldn't put a gay police officer onto frontline service?"

David started to say:

"No, not with all the - "

When Swarbrick demanded to know why, David said:

"Because I don't think... I think gay guys being softer, and - "

Swarbrick argued:

"How do you know that all gay guys are softer than straight guys?"

David began to fumble:

"I'm not saying that all gay guys are softer."

Swarbrick argued back:

"Then why are you saying gay guys shouldn't be on the frontline?"

David tried to pedal back:

"Well, now see, I'm speaking in general terms."

Swarbrick said:

"No, you're speaking nonsense."

The conversation continued on with Swarbrick arguing that gay men came in all shapes and sizes, including the guard sitting next to him who could "crush you."

David tried to argue that he would allow a gay man who was of a certain stature to enter the frontline, but it was clear that there was no way for David to maintain both of those beliefs.

You can watch the interaction here:

Some listeners were just as perplexed by the conversation as Swarbrick had been.

Others theorized that David had never encountered a gay man, at least knowingly.

Some were simply bummed out to hear that this is a conversation we're still having in 2024.

It's fair for us to worry about who will be in roles as important as police officers, who are assigned to protect us, and to wonder if they will be able to rise to the occasion.

But to assume that someone cannot perform their duties because of something as archaic as this is simply unacceptable, especially in 2024.