Too many homosexuals in our parliament

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 2:05 pm

English Democrats back 'too many gay MPs' comments candidate

A candidate for the European elections has said there are "far too many" gay people in Parliament.
Julia Gasper, of the English Democrats, said there seemed to be "hundreds of them, all in important positions and giving each other favours".
The candidate, from Oxfordshire, and is standing in South East England, called this a "violation of democracy".
The party backed Dr Gasper, saying she was expressing a personal opinion but was "factually correct".
English Democrats spokesman and fellow European election candidate Steve Uncles said she held a traditional and Christian view.
'Corruption'He said: "I don't think people should be persecuted for their sexuality in any way but I think what we want is a certain amount of subtleness about things and a certain amount of discreteness."
Dr Gasper, from Headington, was formerly a parliamentary candidate for the UK Independence Party.
She wrote a paper accusing Gay History Month organisers of exaggerating the level of persecution of gay people in the Holocaust. She said their message was: "Move over, Anne Frank, we are the real victims."
Last month Dr Gasper wrote on her blog: "Thank goodness we still have some newspapers that are prepared to expose the rot inside our Parliament and the extent of the corruption. There are far too many homosexuals in Parliament."
She added: "They are only 1.5% of the population, a proportion that justifies about 10 MPs in total, yet there seem to be hundreds of them, all in important positions and giving each other favours. That is a violation of democracy."
Commenting on the resignation of the chief executive of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, who was criticised for his views on same-sex marriage, she wrote: "Homo fascism is a threat to fundamental human rights."
Mr Uncles told BBC Radio 4's PM: "That is Julia Gasper's personal opinion and actually she's factually correct - as a proportion the amount of people who identify themselves as gay is probably less than 1% of the population."
There was a greater proportion of homosexuals in the House of Commons, he added.
There should be equal rights for all, Mr Uncles argued, not special rights for minorities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27242561

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 2:10 pm

The same Julia as this one, a genocide denier?

An MEP candidate who complained there are "too many gay people" in positions of power, and criticised World Aids Day for "spreading the disease" has been backed by her party.

Dr Julia Gasper is a former Ukip chair in Oxford who is now standing as a MEP candidate in South East England for the English Democrats.

She has also previously called for gay dating app Grindr to be banned and wrote a paper 'The Myth of the Homocaust' accusing Gay History Month organisers of exaggerating the persecution of gay people in the Holocaust, with the message "Move over, Anne Frank, we are the real victims."

“Every year we have a special day to celebrate AIDS and congratulate all those people who have done the most sterling work spreading this disease world-wide. It has been another year of glorious global achievement," she posted in her blog in December last year.

"But according to official statements... there are still some people who are not doing enough to promote and maximize this disease. These people are called “heterosexuals” and they display a bigoted preference for partners of the opposite sex, sometimes remaining with one for a lifetime.”

“Coming soon…a World Day of Thanks for Lung Cancer. Smokers will be Marching in Pride.”

In another blog published last month, Gasper said of parliament's gay MPs: "They are only 1.5% of the population, a proportion that justifies about 10 MPs in total, yet there seem to be hundreds of them, all in important positions and giving each other favours. That is a violation of democracy."

English Democrats spokesman and MEP candidate Steve Uncles said Gasper was "factually correct".

"I don't think people should be persecuted for their sexuality in any way but I think what we want is a certain amount of subtleness about things and a certain amount of discreteness," he added, speaking to the BBC.

There was a greater proportion of homosexuals in the House of Commons, he claimed.

Gasper quit as a chair of Ukip's Oxford branch to save her party further embarrassment, after it was revealed she branded gay rights a “lunatic’s charter” and claimed some homosexuals prefer sex with animals on an official party forum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/02/julia-gasper-mep-gays-world-aids-day_n_5251712.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 2:11 pm

It astounds me that there is such ignorant people like her around today to be honest.

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 2:11 pm

There are too many for the house of commons to be a true democratic representation of the people.
There are only less than 1%, probably less than 0.5% of people who are homosexual, that should equate to perhaps 3-6 homosexual MPs.
There are far more than that, the article says over a hundred!
No wonder the gay marriage went through!
A minority group having such an over representation in parliament is surely not good for fair and impartial voting.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 2:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There are too many for the house of commons to be a true democratic representation of the people.
There are only less than 1%, probably less than 0.5% of people who are homosexual, that should equate to perhaps 3-6 homosexual MPs.
There are far more than that, the article says over a hundred!
No wonder the gay marriage went through!
A minority group having such an over representation in parliament is surely not good for ECHR and impartial voting.

Really, how is it too many, when we do not know the true number of Gay people when many do not express they are or ready to come out?
Using poor stats again Matti, and again why is it wrong if there is more, what difference does that make when they still would be a minority and where is this evidence there is a hundred MP's that have stated they are homosexual?

by Andy Fri May 02, 2014 2:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There are too many for the house of commons to be a true democratic representation of the people.
There are only less than 1%, probably less than 0.5% of people who are homosexual, that should equate to perhaps 3-6 homosexual MPs.
There are far more than that, the article says over a hundred!
No wonder the gay marriage went through!
A minority group having such an over representation in parliament is surely not good for fair and impartial voting.

A guess at the figures, or do you have evidence?
If you do have that evidence, please share the link.

by Andy Fri May 02, 2014 2:35 pm

It wasn't difficult, Tommy.
2011
The Integrated Household Survey,[23] produced by the Office of National Statistics, gives the following figures for the period April 2011 to March 2012:

1.1 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 545,000 adults, identified themselves as Gay or Lesbian.
0.4 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 220,000 adults, identified themselves as Bisexual.
0.3 per cent identified themselves as ‘Other’.
3.6 per cent of adults stated ‘Don’t know’ or refused to answer the question.
0.6 per cent of respondents provided ‘No response’ to the question.
2.7 per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds in the UK identified themselves as Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual compared with 0.4 per cent of 65-year-olds and over.

Ostensibly, less than 2%.
HOWEVER, the incidence has increased to 2.7% for under 24 year olds, suggesting less fear of recrimination in younger people nowadays. I expect the figure to rise when being gay , bi or lesbian becomes universally accepted.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 2:39 pm

Hey UKIP scum....

The Commons voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a full day's debate on the bill.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 2:49 pm

From the article.....

Last month Dr Gasper wrote on her blog: "Thank goodness we still have some newspapers that are prepared to expose the rot inside our Parliament and the extent of the corruption. There are far too many homosexuals in Parliament."
She added: "They are only 1.5% of the population, a proportion that justifies about 10 MPs in total, yet there seem to be hundreds of them, all in important positions and giving each other favours. That is a violation of democracy."

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 2:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:From the article.....

Last month Dr Gasper wrote on her blog: "Thank goodness we still have some newspapers that are prepared to expose the rot inside our Parliament and the extent of the corruption. There are far too many homosexuals in Parliament."
She added: "They are only 1.5% of the population, a proportion that justifies about 10 MPs in total, yet there seem to be hundreds of them, all in important positions and giving each other favours. That is a violation of democracy."

That is called hearsay, seem is not evidence, so evidence please?

Not that it matters a hoot to anything anyway, but in the interest of the forum, back up your claim?
You must be able to show all MP's that have come forward to say they are homosexual.

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 3:27 pm

Many are secret homosexuals, some even married.....

Would be interesting to see exactly how many.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 3:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Many are secret homosexuals, some even married.....

Would be interesting to see exactly how many.

More hearsay, evidence please?

Not more babble

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 3:53 pm

From the article.....

English Democrats spokesman and MEP candidate Steve Uncles said Gasper was "factually correct".

There was a greater proportion of homosexuals in the House of Commons, he claimed.

There definately seem to be a lot more than we 'officially' know about......

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9122631/the-commons-touch/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10732427/Tory-MP-Mark-Menzies-quits-as-ministerial-aide-over-gay-sex-claims.html

http://www.gayleeds.com/interviews/article/_stuart-andrew-mp-interview-gay-leeds/

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/01/iain-duncan-smith-calls-chris-bryant-pantomime-dame/

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/18/gay-tory-crispin-blunt-defeats-campaign-deselect

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nigel-evans-sex-abuse-trial-court-hears-mp-used-powerful-influence-to-sexually-assault-young-men-9182243.html

I can think of a few more off the top of my head.....

Seems to be an awful lot of them about in parliament.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 3:55 pm

Handy Andy wrote:It wasn't difficult, Tommy.
2011
The Integrated Household Survey,[23] produced by the Office of National Statistics, gives the following figures for the period April 2011 to March 2012:

1.1 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 545,000 adults, identified themselves as Gay or Lesbian.
0.4 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 220,000 adults, identified themselves as Bisexual.
0.3 per cent identified themselves as ‘Other’.
3.6 per cent of adults stated ‘Don’t know’ or refused to answer the question.
0.6 per cent of respondents provided ‘No response’ to the question.
2.7 per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds in the UK identified themselves as Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual compared with 0.4 per cent of 65-year-olds and over.

Ostensibly, less than 2%.
HOWEVER, the incidence has increased to 2.7% for under 24 year olds, suggesting less fear of recrimination in younger people nowadays. I expect the figure to rise when being gay , bi or lesbian becomes universally accepted.

So it's true - there are too many gays in the Houses of Parliament.

I would like to see job adverts along the lines of:

"We would especially like to hear from candidates who are heterosexual"

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 4:00 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:It wasn't difficult, Tommy.
2011
The Integrated Household Survey,[23] produced by the Office of National Statistics, gives the following figures for the period April 2011 to March 2012:

1.1 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 545,000 adults, identified themselves as Gay or Lesbian.
0.4 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 220,000 adults, identified themselves as Bisexual.
0.3 per cent identified themselves as ‘Other’.
3.6 per cent of adults stated ‘Don’t know’ or refused to answer the question.
0.6 per cent of respondents provided ‘No response’ to the question.
2.7 per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds in the UK identified themselves as Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual compared with 0.4 per cent of 65-year-olds and over.

Ostensibly, less than 2%.
HOWEVER, the incidence has increased to 2.7% for under 24 year olds, suggesting less fear of recrimination in younger people nowadays. I expect the figure to rise when being gay , bi or lesbian becomes universally accepted.

So it's true - there are too many gays in the Houses of Parliament.

I would like to see job adverts along the lines of:

"We would especially like to hear from candidates who are heterosexual"

Oh my, lets have an interlude of something Big Andy can relate too:

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 4:13 pm

Can't see how it makes any difference tbh. How many Acts of Parliament relate to gay issues in the great scheme of things? Not a lot. The majority of bills relate to the economy and other non-gay related stuff, so being gay doesn't affect them does it? What's the problem?

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 4:15 pm

Tesstacious wrote:Can't see how it makes any difference tbh. How many Acts of Parliament relate to gay issues in the great scheme of things? Not a lot. The majority of bills relate to the economy and other non-gay related stuff, so being gay doesn't affect them does it? What's the problem?

Go Tess, best post of the day.

Catch you later

by Fluffyx Fri May 02, 2014 4:16 pm

There isn't a problem.Does anyone say there is too many heterosexuals in parliament?

Someone's sexual orientation is irrelevant to their ability to do their job.

Non story.

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 4:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There are too many for the house of commons to be a true democratic representation of the people.
There are only less than 1%, probably less than 0.5% of people who are homosexual, that should equate to perhaps 3-6 homosexual MPs.
There are far more than that, the article says over a hundred!
No wonder the gay marriage went through!
A minority group having such an over representation in parliament is surely not good for fair and impartial voting.

Are you a total tool?

What has being gay got to do with being a politician- there are probably a disproportionate number of men and rich people in parliament as well- it doesn't matter.

It is entirely democratic; in case you failed to notice all our MPs are democratically elected by their constituents. You don't judge a democratic house 'undemocratic' because one aspect of a person appears more times proportionally than it does in the public at large.

Do you think people should not vote a candidate based on sexuality?

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 4:28 pm

Tesstacious wrote:Can't see how it makes any difference tbh. How many Acts of Parliament relate to gay issues in the great scheme of things? Not a lot. The majority of bills relate to the economy and other non-gay related stuff, so being gay doesn't affect them does it? What's the problem?

Well said Tess! This is exactly my point; it has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps parliament is also disproportionately male; Oxbridge educated; Etonian etc etc.

It makes no difference whatsoever.

And the key point; people vote for their preferred candidate; it couldn't be more democratic on that basis. Unless on thinks being gay is a reason not to vote for someone.

by Fluffyx Fri May 02, 2014 4:33 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tesstacious wrote:Can't see how it makes any difference tbh. How many Acts of Parliament relate to gay issues in the great scheme of things? Not a lot. The majority of bills relate to the economy and other non-gay related stuff, so being gay doesn't affect them does it? What's the problem?

Well said Tess! This is exactly my point; it has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps parliament is also disproportionately male; Oxbridge educated; Etonian etc etc.

It makes no difference whatsoever.

.

I disagree here.
I don't care about people's sexuality,it has nothing to do with their ability to be an MP.

However I think it DOES matter that there are not enough women MP'S and certainly the fact the MP's are all boarding school upper class is doing this country a dis service.We need more MP's from a working class background to represent the community more accurately.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 4:34 pm

FluffyBunny wrote:There isn't a problem.Does anyone say there is too many heterosexuals in parliament?

Someone's sexual orientation is irrelevant to their ability to do their job.

Non story.

That sounds wonderful Fluffy.

But for years the left have said the complete opposite, have they not?

"we need more blacks, more foreigners, more queers, more women" - the complete opposite of your common-sense approach.

Well, have they? Yes.

edit: are you sure you're left wing Fluff?

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 4:41 pm

FluffyBunny wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Well said Tess! This is exactly my point; it has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps parliament is also disproportionately male; Oxbridge educated; Etonian etc etc.

It makes no difference whatsoever.

.

I disagree here.
I don't care about people's sexuality,it has nothing to do with their ability to be an MP.

However I think it DOES matter that there are not enough women MP'S and certainly the fact the MP's are all boarding school upper class is doing this country a dis service.We need more MP's from a working class background to represent the community more accurately.

I said sexuality has nothing to do with; the rest were just pointing out other things that parliament probably represents disproportionately that the 'English Democrats' aren't complaining about Wink

Though that this is coming from the EDs is a nice reminder of how Nationalist politics often remains steeped in other prejudices than the usual xenophobia and racism Smile

by Fluffyx Fri May 02, 2014 4:49 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
FluffyBunny wrote:There isn't a problem.Does anyone say there is too many heterosexuals in parliament?

Someone's sexual orientation is irrelevant to their ability to do their job.

Non story.

That sounds wonderful Fluffy.

But for years the left have said the complete opposite, have they not?

"we need more blacks, more foreigners, more queers, more women" - the complete opposite of your common-sense approach.

Well, have they? Yes.

edit: are you sure you're left wing Fluff?

I thought I was left wing but I don't like to stereotype people and put them in boxes.If RW people were of sound mind lol!

I would have no problem with them,I don't expect everyone to agree with my views.

And yes Andy I do think we need more women and working class people in parliament as I explained to Eilzel.

Also I find the term q*eer offensive,why do you use it?

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 4:58 pm

There has been quite an aggressive pro gay agenda in recent years, as well as bringing into question the govt funding of groups like stonewall...

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 5:00 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There has been quite an aggressive pro gay agenda in recent years, as well as bringing into question the govt funding of groups like stonewall...

Why don't you answer the point about MPs being democratically elected. You can't get around that fact. And it shows the whole waffle in the OP up for the rubbish that it is.

Should people not vote a person because they are gay?

by Ben Reilly Fri May 02, 2014 5:02 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
FluffyBunny wrote:There isn't a problem.Does anyone say there is too many heterosexuals in parliament?

Someone's sexual orientation is irrelevant to their ability to do their job.

Non story.

That sounds wonderful Fluffy.

But for years the left have said the complete opposite, have they not?

"we need more blacks, more foreigners, more queers, more women" - the complete opposite of your common-sense approach.

Well, have they? Yes.

edit: are you sure you're left wing Fluff?

Stop using homophobic slurs, Andy.

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 5:14 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:There has been quite an aggressive pro gay agenda in recent years, as well as bringing into question the govt funding of groups like stonewall...
Why don't you answer the point about MPs being democratically elected. You can't get around that fact. And it shows the whole waffle in the OP up for the rubbish that it is.
Should people not vote a person because they are gay?

Democratically elected after being selected to stand by.....???

The question is, shouldn't we have a earliamdmt that more accurately reflects the people it purports to represent?

Looks like while women are under represented, gays are vastly over represented. At the same time the aggressive pro gay agenda has been in full effect!

by Andy Fri May 02, 2014 5:16 pm

Tesstacious wrote:Can't see how it makes any difference tbh. How many Acts of Parliament relate to gay issues in the great scheme of things? Not a lot. The majority of bills relate to the economy and other non-gay related stuff, so being gay doesn't affect them does it? What's the problem?

Good shout Tess. 100% in agreement.
There is no problem; apart from the homophobes who have a hatred of gays and lesbians.
But those people have hate inbuilt into their brains, so they are against society in general.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:20 pm

FluffyBunny wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

That sounds wonderful Fluffy.

But for years the left have said the complete opposite, have they not?

"we need more blacks, more foreigners, more queers, more women" - the complete opposite of your common-sense approach.

Well, have they? Yes.

edit: are you sure you're left wing Fluff?

I thought I was left wing but I don't like to stereotype people and put them in boxes.If RW people were of sound mind I would have no problem with them,I don't expect everyone to agree with my views.

And yes Andy I do think we need more women and working class people in parliament as I explained to Eilzel.

Also I find the term q*eer offensive,why do you use it?

I find it no more offensive than any other term for people who have sex with the same sex.

It's what was always used when i was growing up - queer, puff, puffter.

What's offensive is that we're having this conversation, that people must have a certain percentage of people doing this, doing that.

That people must have a special section here, a special parade there.

That there are special pubs for them, special swim days for those.

Don't you agree?

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:20 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Why don't you answer the point about MPs being democratically elected. You can't get around that fact. And it shows the whole waffle in the OP up for the rubbish that it is.
Should people not vote a person because they are gay?

Democratically elected after being selected to stand by.....???

The question is, shouldn't we have a earliamdmt that more accurately reflects the people it purports to represent?

Looks like while women are under represented, gays are vastly over represented. At the same time the aggressive pro gay agenda has been in full effect!

Sorry this deserves the full treatment

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

People still vote democratically for a choice of candidates, thus it matters little because those voting still decide who they want to win, thus it is down to voters to change any person in office.

Yes more women should in Parliament, completely agree many more should, but people have to vote for them or actually stand to be elected

by Ben Reilly Fri May 02, 2014 5:31 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
FluffyBunny wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

That sounds wonderful Fluffy.

But for years the left have said the complete opposite, have they not?

"we need more blacks, more foreigners, more queers, more women" - the complete opposite of your common-sense approach.

Well, have they? Yes.

edit: are you sure you're left wing Fluff?

I thought I was left wing but I don't like to stereotype people and put them in boxes.If RW people were of sound mind I would have no problem with them,I don't expect everyone to agree with my views.

And yes Andy I do think we need more women and working class people in parliament as I explained to Eilzel.

Also I find the term q*eer offensive,why do you use it?

I find it no more offensive than any other term for people who have sex with the same sex.

It's what was always used when i was growing up - queer, puff, puffter.

What's offensive is that we're having this conversation, that people must have a certain percentage of people doing this, doing that.

That people must have a special section here, a special parade there.

That there are special pubs for them, special swim days for those.

Don't you agree?

No, I disagree. What you need to try to do is use words for groups of people that they don't take offense to. For example, if you're talking about black people, you should say "black people" or maybe "people of black African heritage." If you're talking about gay people, "gay people" or "homosexuals" or "lesbians" should suffice. Not restricting your freedom of speech, nor is it pushing this board toward being the sort of place where bigoted slurs are tolerated.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 02, 2014 5:35 pm

Now, seeing as I'm six hours behind you guys -- it's 11:33 a.m. here -- I have actual productive work to do. And I'm going to view behavior that flaunts the rules here as an attempt to distract me from my paying job and waste my limited time with bullshit, and I'm going to get pretty upset about that -- I might even cry.

You want to make me cry and lose my job? Keep up the naughty behavior. You want me to be happy and able to afford my tacos, which make me big and strong? Then it's time to put on your big-boy pants.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:36 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

I find it no more offensive than any other term for people who have sex with the same sex.

It's what was always used when i was growing up - queer, puff, puffter.

What's offensive is that we're having this conversation, that people must have a certain percentage of people doing this, doing that.

That people must have a special section here, a special parade there.

That there are special pubs for them, special swim days for those.

Don't you agree?

No, I disagree. What you need to try to do is use words for groups of people that they don't take offense to. For example, if you're talking about black people, you should say "black people" or maybe "people of black African heritage." If you're talking about gay people, "gay people" or "homosexuals" or "lesbians" should suffice. Not restricting your freedom of speech, nor is it pushing this board toward being the sort of place where bigoted slurs are tolerated.

Hello Benji - how do you know what is acceptable and isn't to all of those people?

How dare you class a group of people "people of black African heritage" without asking them if that is true?

Do all homosexuals wish to be labelled that, or do they want no label whatsoever?

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:40 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

No, I disagree. What you need to try to do is use words for groups of people that they don't take offense to. For example, if you're talking about black people, you should say "black people" or maybe "people of black African heritage." If you're talking about gay people, "gay people" or "homosexuals" or "lesbians" should suffice. Not restricting your freedom of speech, nor is it pushing this board toward being the sort of place where bigoted slurs are tolerated.

Hello Benji - how do you know what is acceptable and isn't to all of those people?

How dare you class a group of people "people of black African heritage" without asking them if that is true?

Do all homosexuals wish to be labelled that, or do they want no label whatsoever?

Yes he does know because he has set the bench mark being as it is his forum, where you either respect the rules or you do not and face the consequences.
I am sure you have taught it is wrong to do certain things to your children and there is consequences, why do you now reverses this when you are being told of rules yourself?

His forum, his rules, thus all he needs to know is what he finds unacceptable as well as the other mods and there is no reason for you to be derogatory, as you were definitely being to discuss points on a debate

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:42 pm

Didge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Hello Benji - how do you know what is acceptable and isn't to all of those people?

How dare you class a group of people "people of black African heritage" without asking them if that is true?

Do all homosexuals wish to be labelled that, or do they want no label whatsoever?

Yes he does know because he has set the bench mark being as it is his forum, where you either respect the rules or you do not and face the consequences.
I am sure you have taught it is wrong to do certain things to your children and there is consequences, why do you now reverses this when you are being told of rules yourself?

His forum, his rules, thus all he needs to know is what he finds unacceptable as well as the other mods and there is no reason for you to be derogatory, as you were definitely being to discuss points on a debate

Hello didge - sorry, i'm not really talking about the forum - if Benji gives rules of course i'll follow them the best i can.

I'm kind of talking about the wider picture - maybe i'll start a thread...

edit: i've just noticed - i did say "all of those people"

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:42 pm

No different to clegg saying his party was too pale and too male

Racist and sexist in a oner

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 5:43 pm

Don't talk rubbish dodge, people who want to vote Tory/labour/lib etc will vote for the Tory/labour/lib candidate who has been selected, so the question is, why are gays so over represented in parliament, and in selection process generally?
Surely we need more women and less gays to have a more reflective balance?

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:44 pm

Catman wrote:Hey UKIP scum....

The Commons voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a full day's debate on the bill.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220

Hey BNP scum.Please stop using such language.

And while you're there,please don't wish me dead again on a public forum or Ben might have to do something about it.......one day.....maybe.......maybe in 10 years time.......This century?......If I'm lucky.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:44 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Didge wrote:

Yes he does know because he has set the bench mark being as it is his forum, where you either respect the rules or you do not and face the consequences.
I am sure you have taught it is wrong to do certain things to your children and there is consequences, why do you now reverses this when you are being told of rules yourself?

His forum, his rules, thus all he needs to know is what he finds unacceptable as well as the other mods and there is no reason for you to be derogatory, as you were definitely being to discuss points on a debate

Hello didge - sorry, i'm not really talking about the forum - if Benji gives rules of course i'll follow them the best i can.

I'm kind of talking about the wider picture - maybe i'll start a thread...

edit: i've just noticed - i did say "all of those people"

Then he gave you a rule, you did not follow it and still argue the point my sweety.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:46 pm

[quote="Tommy Monk"]Don't talk rubbish dodge, people who want to vote Tory/labour/lib etc will vote for the Tory/labour/lib candidate who has been selected, so the question is, why are gays so over represented in parliament, and in selection process generally?
Surely we need more women and less gays to have a more reflective balance?
[/quote

And why aren't there any Russians in our government? That would be brilliant wouldn't it? Putin like MPs who would actually do something good for our country.Not like left wing Cameron & his left wing cronies.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:50 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Don't talk rubbish dodge, people who want to vote Tory/labour/lib etc will vote for the Tory/labour/lib candidate who has been selected, so the question is, why are gays so over represented in parliament, and in selection process generally?
Surely we need more women and less gays to have a more reflective balance?

Hilarious again, they vote for the best candidate and people change which party they vote for making your view point even more utterly dim.
We need more women to come forward and stand for Parliament, you might want to start there, but the point on women is on women and men ration, not what sexuality they are, so you are basing yet again a very idiotic view point, because to have more women is to balance a male female ratio, not heterosexual, homosexual ratio.
I mean your absurd view point could in fact advocate that getting in more women brings in all lesbian women. That would thus negate your whole view point, you advocate getting women in over too many homosexuals but could bring in even more with women.
Seriously please think before you post, I really have to try to contain myself from your poor clueless answers.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:51 pm

Shady wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Don't talk rubbish dodge, people who want to vote Tory/labour/lib etc will vote for the Tory/labour/lib candidate who has been selected, so the question is, why are gays so over represented in parliament, and in selection process generally?
Surely we need more women and less gays to have a more reflective balance?
[/quote

And why aren't there any Russians in our government? That would be brilliant wouldn't it? Putin like MPs who would actually do something good for our country.Not like left wing Cameron & his left wing cronies.

People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland

DOH

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:51 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Don't talk rubbish dodge, people who want to vote Tory/labour/lib etc will vote for the Tory/labour/lib candidate who has been selected, so the question is, why are gays so over represented in parliament, and in selection process generally?
Surely we need more women and less gays to have a more reflective balance?

Hilarious again, they vote for the best candidate and people change which party they vote for making your view point even more utterly dim.
We need more women to come forward and stand for Parliament, you might want to start there, but the point on women is on women and men ration, not what sexuality they are, so you are basing yet again a very idiotic view point, because to have more women is to balance a male female ratio, not heterosexual, homosexual ratio.
I mean your absurd view point could in fact advocate that getting in more women brings in all lesbian women. That would thus negate your whole view point, you advocate getting women in over too many homosexuals but could bring in even more with women.
Seriously please think before you post, I really have to try to contain myself from your poor clueless answers.

Contain yourself from what?

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:52 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Didge wrote:

Hilarious again, they vote for the best candidate and people change which party they vote for making your view point even more utterly dim.
We need more women to come forward and stand for Parliament, you might want to start there, but the point on women is on women and men ration, not what sexuality they are, so you are basing yet again a very idiotic view point, because to have more women is to balance a male female ratio, not heterosexual, homosexual ratio.
I mean your absurd view point could in fact advocate that getting in more women brings in all lesbian women. That would thus negate your whole view point, you advocate getting women in over too many homosexuals but could bring in even more with women.
Seriously please think before you post, I really have to try to contain myself from your poor clueless answers.

Contain yourself from what?

Giving myself a hernia from laughing so much

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:53 pm

Didge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Contain yourself from what?

Giving myself a hernia from laughing so much

Oh, right.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:54 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Didge wrote:

Giving myself a hernia from laughing so much

Oh, right.

Vote UKIP............................AND NOT BNP.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:57 pm

Shady wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Oh, right.

Vote UKIP............................AND NOT BNP.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 6:25 pm

Shady wrote:
Catman wrote:Hey UKIP scum....

The Commons voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a full day's debate on the bill.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220

Hey BNP scum.Please stop using such language.

And while you're there,please don't wish me dead again on a public forum or Ben might have to do something about it.......one day.....maybe.......maybe in 10 years time.......This century?......If I'm lucky.

Are you talking about Nay balls Ben??

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 6:28 pm

Tesstacious wrote:Can't see how it makes any difference tbh. How many Acts of Parliament relate to gay issues in the great scheme of things? Not a lot. The majority of bills relate to the economy and other non-gay related stuff, so being gay doesn't affect them does it? What's the problem?

Absolutely agree with you on this one Tess alien