UKIP's Homophobic Portsmouth Candidate

As gay couples around the country celebrate the advent of gay marriage, UKIP appear to be continuing on the same poisonous path as always.

Douglas Denny is to be the UKIP candidate in the ward of Drayton and Farlington for Portsmouth City Council in May.

Denny, who is the vice chairman of Portsmouth UKIP used the official UKIP members forum to attack gay sex as “disgusting”. He wrote: “What irritates me is they (sic) way they and their leftie, neo-Commie followers seem to want to force the rest of us to consider them as normal. I just wish they would keep their homosexual nature and practices to themselves and stop trying to ram it down my throat telling me they are ‘normal’ when they are not.”

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/ukip/article/3532/ukip039s-homophobic-portsmouth-candidate

....Same old shit from the same old far right fascist scum party then.       

So what is this official forum in the story? Have you got a link to said forum? Or a screen shot?

Disgraceful ..and to think some want these idiots in power.

Joy Division wrote:Disgraceful ..and to think some want these idiots in power.

It would be if it was true.

Another member, Douglas Denny from the Bognor Regis branch in West Sussex, used the forum to attack gay sex as “disgusting”. He wrote: “What irritates me is they (sic) way they and their leftie, neo-Commie followers seem to want to force the rest of us to consider them as normal.

“I just wish they would keep their ­homosexual nature and practices to ­themselves and stop trying to ram it down my throat telling me they are ‘normal’ when they are not.”

Yesterday Denny said: “Private forums and private posts should stay private. I have no further comment to make and don’t wish to discuss it with a newspaper.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ugly-face-ukip-sunday-mirror-1531879#ixzz2xYz9DMvk
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

...Not exactly denied it has he!      

FAIL

Catman wrote:Another member, Douglas Denny from the Bognor Regis branch in West Sussex, used the forum to attack gay sex as “disgusting”. He wrote: “What irritates me is they (sic) way they and their leftie, neo-Commie followers seem to want to force the rest of us to consider them as normal.

“I just wish they would keep their ­homosexual nature and practices to ­themselves and stop trying to ram it down my throat telling me they are ‘normal’ when they are not.”

Yesterday Denny said: “Private forums and private posts should stay private. I have no further comment to make and don’t wish to discuss it with a newspaper.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ugly-face-ukip-sunday-mirror-1531879#ixzz2xYz9DMvk
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

...Not exactly denied it has he!      

FAIL

Again could you tell us which official forum this is Catman.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:Another member, Douglas Denny from the Bognor Regis branch in West Sussex, used the forum to attack gay sex as “disgusting”. He wrote: “What irritates me is they (sic) way they and their leftie, neo-Commie followers seem to want to force the rest of us to consider them as normal.

“I just wish they would keep their ­homosexual nature and practices to ­themselves and stop trying to ram it down my throat telling me they are ‘normal’ when they are not.”

Yesterday Denny said: “Private forums and private posts should stay private. I have no further comment to make and don’t wish to discuss it with a newspaper.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ugly-face-ukip-sunday-mirror-1531879#ixzz2xYz9DMvk
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

...Not exactly denied it has he!      

FAIL

Again could you tell us which official forum this is Catman.

The UKIP one, so it says in the article.
So he'll be suing both the Mirror and Hope Not Hate then, can't think why they would both be reporting stories and then quoted his response as well!

FAIL.

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Again could you tell us which official forum this is Catman.

The UKIP one, so it says in the article.
So he'll be suing both the Mirror and Hope Not Hate then, can't think why they would both be reporting stories and then quoted his response as well!

FAIL.

There may be a problem there - there is no longer any official UKIP forum.

So what this actually means is that some bored journalists are going back over some, not illegal, but definitely immoral, eavesdropping (listening to private conversations when those involved are unaware) from somewhere between 6 months and 3 years ago and choosing bits of it to dress up and present as "new".

After the disgust you showed at the Daily Mail using stuff from the 70s against Labour bigwigs I am surprised you are so supportive of the same sort of behaviour in your chosen news organs.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

The UKIP one, so it says in the article.
So he'll be suing both the Mirror and Hope Not Hate then, can't think why they would both be reporting stories and then quoted his response as well!

FAIL.

There may be a problem there - there is no longer any official UKIP forum.

So what this actually means is that some bored journalists are going back over some, not illegal, but definitely immoral, eavesdropping (listening to private conversations when those involved are unaware) from somewhere between 6 months and 3 years ago and choosing bits of it to dress up and present as "new".

After the disgust you showed at the Daily Mail using stuff from the 70s against Labour bigwigs I am surprised you are so supportive of the same sort of behaviour in your chosen news organs.

Hasn't he just announced his new candidacy?

He hasn't retracted what he said, nor denied the original allegations!

...The electorate has the right to know what sort of far right scumbag he really is!

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

There may be a problem there - there is no longer any official UKIP forum.

So what this actually means is that some bored journalists are going back over some, not illegal, but definitely immoral, eavesdropping (listening to private conversations when those involved are unaware) from somewhere between 6 months and 3 years ago and choosing bits of it to dress up and present as "new".

After the disgust you showed at the Daily Mail using stuff from the 70s against Labour bigwigs I am surprised you are so supportive of the same sort of behaviour in your chosen news organs.

Hasn't he just announced his new candidacy?

He hasn't retracted what he said, nor denied the original allegations!

...The electorate has the right to know what sort of far right scumbag he really is!

Yeah something you seem to have trouble accepting Catman is that much as you or I disagree someone think gay sex is disgusting and they are legally entitled to have that opinion.

Maybe you ought to give consideration to the fact that people who object to gay sex may get elected

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

There may be a problem there - there is no longer any official UKIP forum.

So what this actually means is that some bored journalists are going back over some, not illegal, but definitely immoral, eavesdropping (listening to private conversations when those involved are unaware) from somewhere between 6 months and 3 years ago and choosing bits of it to dress up and present as "new".

After the disgust you showed at the Daily Mail using stuff from the 70s against Labour bigwigs I am surprised you are so supportive of the same sort of behaviour in your chosen news organs.

Hasn't he just announced his new candidacy?

He hasn't retracted what he said, nor denied the original allegations!

...The electorate has the right to know what sort of far right scumbag he really is!

and perhaps you should realise that there is every possibility that "the electorate" (in the greatest majority) dont give a monkeys.

Its like that contentious vote to ban fox hunting....the biggest joke of all
you see they claimed 55% voted to ban hunting....actually no

55% of those who voted said yes to the ban

BUT only about 10% of the electorate actually voted thats 5.5% of the electorate . It also meant that 90% of the electorate didnt give a damn either way....

THAT is what you are facing...

moreover...AND GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD....whilst I personally recon parity of gay marriage is ok, its only fair after all....IF there had been a public vote on it, i seriously dont know if i would have bothered voting on it....I'M not against it, but would I have been sufficiently motivated??? dunno....

However YOUR kind of crowing about it, YOUR PERSONAL crusade to make even those in the churches go against what they believe, will and has already I recon, made a lot of that electorate, if not "hostile", then certainly antsy about it...

As I told you a while back..I will no longer "support" you against those who's attacks are against you in person, even IF they use your sexuality against you...NOT because I agree with or have time for "homophobia". But because I have even less time for rabid humourless crusaders who are past their sell by date. Hopenothate and pink news are just as vile in their tactics as any other rag, and just another mouthpiece for the establishment.

you have to face the possibility that all the work thats been done for the benefit of ALL of you, could be marred by those who's attitude mirror yours. sadly of course that will impact on those who I do have plenty of time for, those who's approach is thoughtful, encouraging, enthusiastic, and determined IN A DECENT PURSUASIVE and INCLUSIVE manner.

Not wanting something rammed down one's throat doesn't make one "far right".  ::D:: 

victorisnotamused wrote:

Catman wrote:

Hasn't he just announced his new candidacy?

He hasn't retracted what he said, nor denied the original allegations!

...The electorate has the right to know what sort of far right scumbag he really is!

and perhaps you should realise that there is every possibility that "the electorate" (in the greatest majority) dont give a monkeys.

Its like that contentious vote to ban fox hunting....the biggest joke of all
you see they claimed 55%  voted to ban hunting....actually no

55% of those who voted said yes to the ban

BUT only about 10% of the electorate actually voted  thats 5.5% of the electorate  . It also meant that 90% of the electorate didnt give a damn either way....

THAT is what you are facing...

moreover...AND GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD....whilst I personally recon parity of gay marriage is ok, its only fair after all....IF there had been a public vote on it, i seriously dont know if i would have bothered voting on it....I'M not against it, but would I have been sufficiently motivated??? dunno....

However YOUR kind of crowing about it, YOUR PERSONAL crusade to make even those in the churches go against what they believe, will and has already I recon, made a lot of that electorate, if not "hostile", then certainly antsy about it...

As I told you a while back..I will no longer "support" you against those who's attacks are against you in person, even IF they use your sexuality against you...NOT because I agree with or have time for "homophobia". But because I have even less time for rabid humourless crusaders who are past their sell by date. Hopenothate and pink news are just as vile in their tactics as any other rag, and just another mouthpiece for the establishment.

you have to face the possibility that all the work thats been done for the benefit of ALL of you, could be marred by those who's attitude mirror yours. sadly of course that will impact on those who I do have plenty of time for, those who's approach is thoughtful, encouraging, enthusiastic, and determined IN A DECENT PURSUASIVE and INCLUSIVE manner.

Why don't you chill out, and watch the nice musical, currently being broadcast on C4....Get over yourself a bit!   

I recon it's YOU who needs to "get over himself" You over opinionated crusty old "spongia".

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

The UKIP one, so it says in the article.
So he'll be suing both the Mirror and Hope Not Hate then, can't think why they would both be reporting stories and then quoted his response as well!

FAIL.

There may be a problem there - there is no longer any official UKIP forum.

So what this actually means is that some bored journalists are going back over some, not illegal, but definitely immoral, eavesdropping (listening to private conversations when those involved are unaware) from somewhere between 6 months and 3 years ago and choosing bits of it to dress up and present as "new".

After the disgust you showed at the Daily Mail using stuff from the 70s against Labour bigwigs I am surprised you are so supportive of the same sort of behaviour in your chosen news organs.

I don't think it was eavesdropping, given the forum was public. I take your point it was a morally dubious thing to do.

lovedust wrote:

sphinx wrote:

There may be a problem there - there is no longer any official UKIP forum.

So what this actually means is that some bored journalists are going back over some, not illegal, but definitely immoral, eavesdropping (listening to private conversations when those involved are unaware) from somewhere between 6 months and 3 years ago and choosing bits of it to dress up and present as "new".

After the disgust you showed at the Daily Mail using stuff from the 70s against Labour bigwigs I am surprised you are so supportive of the same sort of behaviour in your chosen news organs.

I don't think it was eavesdropping, given the forum was public. I take your point it was a morally dubious thing to do.

No it wasnt - the posts were taken from a private forum that required party membership number to join and membership was checked.

It was a case of people joining the party to get access then taking screen shots of various debates and comments - often ones that were deleted shortly afterwards as soon as moderators got on-line - like many voluntary forums the moderators were not on 24/7. Once they have got a nice rich hall of screen shots they left the party and started publicising.
The decision was taken to end the forum completely - anything that comes out now about "official UKIP forum" is either lying or using the stuff stolen over the 2 and half year period we are talking about.

victorisnotamused wrote:I recon it's YOU who needs to "get over himself" You over opinionated crusty old "spongia".

Shame that you don't share the same wisdom of two GP's and a judge, because you are a bigoted old fool, that just tried to hide the fact in the past.  

?? two GP,s and a judge?? whats that refer to then?

sphinx wrote:

lovedust wrote:

I don't think it was eavesdropping, given the forum was public. I take your point it was a morally dubious thing to do.

No it wasnt - the posts were taken from a private forum that required party membership number to join and membership was checked.

It was a case of people joining the party to get access then taking screen shots of various debates and comments - often ones that were deleted shortly afterwards as soon as moderators got on-line - like many voluntary forums the moderators were not on 24/7. Once they have got a nice rich hall of screen shots they left the party and started publicising.
The decision was taken to end the forum completely - anything that comes out now about "official UKIP forum" is either lying or using the stuff stolen over the 2 and half year period we are talking about.

Oh, I did not know that. Thanks for the correction.

lovedust wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No it wasnt - the posts were taken from a private forum that required party membership number to join and membership was checked.

It was a case of people joining the party to get access then taking screen shots of various debates and comments - often ones that were deleted shortly afterwards as soon as moderators got on-line - like many voluntary forums the moderators were not on 24/7.  Once they have got a nice rich hall of screen shots they left the party and started publicising.  
The decision was taken to end the forum completely - anything that comes out now about "official UKIP forum" is either lying or using the stuff stolen over the 2 and half year period we are talking about.

Oh, I did not know that. Thanks for the correction.

Yeah thats why people were so cross about it - it was supposed to be private members only.

victorisnotamused wrote:?? two GP,s and a judge?? whats that refer to then?

anyone  :\\:[: 

victorisnotamused wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:?? two GP,s and a judge?? whats that refer to then?

anyone  :\\:[: 

I think he's talking about his benefits appeal.

and that has exactly what??? to do with what i posted??

OH...I get it...he thinks I meant sponger....OMG what a prat....


spongia = http://www.objectlessons.org/health-and-beauty-romans/sponge-on-stick-ancient-rome-replica/s69/a349/

 ::smthg::  ::smthg::  ::smthg::  ::smthg::  ::smthg::  ::smthg::  ::smthg::  ::smthg::  ::smthg::  ::smthg::  ::smthg:: 

wot a prize prat...I was calling him an arse wipe.....

hey catman...google is your friend

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Hasn't he just announced his new candidacy?

He hasn't retracted what he said, nor denied the original allegations!

...The electorate has the right to know what sort of far right scumbag he really is!

Yeah something you seem to have trouble accepting Catman is that much as you or I disagree someone think gay sex is disgusting and they are legally entitled to have that opinion.

Maybe you ought to give consideration to the fact that people who object to gay sex may get elected

Bit off topic Sphinx.

Who was the first pioneer at the new ADO?