Too many homosexuals in our parliament

First topic message reminder :


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

Sounds like it does to me, you can't have more or some without less of others and visa versa.


do you think it is ok for too man. of one group to be in parliament or not?

*sigh*

Toms, are you seriously suggesting MPs are prevented from getting on in Parliament if they are heterosexual?

Read the thread.

Tommy Monk wrote:Sounds like it does to me, you can't have more or some without less of others and visa versa.


do you think it is ok  for too man. of one group to be in parliament or not?

That's because you fail to understand anything that isn't a simple blunt assertion more than one sentence long (with an ! mark )

Sorry but your failure to understand the English language is not my problem.

Do you think there should be more of some and less of others or not?

Tommy Monk wrote:Do you think there should be more of some and less of others or not?

Not. MPs should be democratically chosen, simple as that   

Is this still going on, Matti coming out with a load of gobbledegook, with no facts and figures, no proof, no nothing?

Funny lds, I thought you were arguing for more blacks and women, and Sassy was arguing against so many ex public school types.

Tommy Monk wrote:Funny lds, I thought you were arguing for more blacks and women, and Sassy was arguing against so many ex public school types.

Well if you actually learned to read, properly that is, you would see that is exactly what I wasn't saying   

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Funny lds, I thought you were arguing for more blacks and women, and Sassy was arguing against so many ex public school types.

Well if you actually learned to read, properly that is, you would see that is exactly what I wasn't saying   

Doesn't really matter does it Les. It's possible to show the figures for how many MPs went to public school. Matti has produced no proof of how many gays there are in parliament.

I have named a few, already more than the 1%, , shown homosexual activity is rife at one of The bars in parliament, and could easily name a load more.


Now the question is, if you are going to argue that certain groups are over represented in parliament, and that is a bad thing. Then shouldn't that apply to all groups?

Sassy wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Well if you actually learned to read, properly that is, you would see that is exactly what I wasn't saying   

Doesn't really matter does it Les.   It's possible to show the figures for how many MPs went to public school.   Matti has produced no proof of how many gays there are in parliament.  

It's going round in circles to be honest sass; clearly I'm not arguing what matti wants me to be arguing and it is making him look typically stupid   

Not making me look anything, I'm making you leftiep look like the hypocrites you are!

Tommy Monk wrote:Not making me look anything, I'm making you leftiep look like the hypocrites you are!

How can you be making anyone look like anything when you cannot produce the tiniest amount of evidence? You look a total idiot, trying to pull rabbits out of a hat when there isn't one in it.

Tommy Monk wrote:Read the thread.

The thread doesn't clarify this question, hence my asking you now:

Are you saying straight MPs are being held back by their heterosexuality - yes or no?

Sassy, the OP claims there is an over representation.


I have shown evidence to support this by showing ithat strangers bar is a well known hang out of homosexuals and their activity, I have also named more than 1% of gay MPs, while I can easily name loads more.



Clearly showing an unusually large number and over represented compared to the around 1% of general population who might be gay.


You have openly said that another group of MPs, namely ex public school types, should be reduced, because they are over represented.


Along with the general leftie view that the parliamentary demographic needs changing to be more reflective of The electorate, as it is too old/white/male etc, and needs more black/asians and women to achieve this.


But when it is pointed out that gays might be a group who are over represented, you are So eager to firstly deny It? And secondly to support it?




And lovedust, the implications are obvious.

If one particular group are being selected too much, then aren't others not being selected enough?

The optimum word is 'claimed'. You have produced no proof, no fact and figures, just waffle. Put up or shut up.

Tommy Monk wrote:Sassy, the OP claims there is an over representation.


I have shown evidence to support this by showing ithat strangers bar is a well known hang out of homosexuals and their activity, I have also named more than 1% of gay MPs, while I can easily name loads more.



Clearly showing an unusually large number and over represented compared to the around 1% of general population who might be gay.


You have openly said that another group of MPs, namely ex public school types, should be reduced, because they are over represented.


Along with the general leftie view that the parliamentary demographic needs changing to be more reflective of The electorate, as it is too old/white/male etc, and needs more black/asians and women to achieve this.


But when it is pointed out that gays might be a group who are over represented, you are So eager to firstly deny It? And secondly to support it?




And lovedust, the implications are obvious.

If one particular group are being selected too much, then aren't others not being selected enough?

Not quite the question I asked: are you saying otherwise well-qualified candidates are being stopped from becoming MPs because they are heterosexual?

lovedust wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Sassy, the OP claims there is an over representation.


I have shown evidence to support this by showing ithat strangers bar is a well known hang out of homosexuals and their activity, I have also named more than 1% of gay MPs, while I can easily name loads more.



Clearly showing an unusually large number and over represented compared to the around 1% of general population who might be gay.


You have openly said that another group of MPs, namely ex public school types, should be reduced, because they are over represented.


Along with the general leftie view that the parliamentary demographic needs changing to be more reflective of The electorate, as it is too old/white/male etc, and needs more black/asians and women to achieve this.


But when it is pointed out that gays might be a group who are over represented, you are So eager to firstly deny It? And secondly to support it?




And lovedust, the implications are obvious.

If one particular group are being selected too much, then aren't others not being selected enough?

Not quite the question I asked: are you saying otherwise well-qualified candidates are being stopped from becoming MPs because they are heterosexual?

Well in recent years,Gloucestershire police force openly practised positive descrimination by recruiting non white applicants as opposed to white applicants who may have been as well qualified & just as good.

Kind of makes you thinks doesn't it?

Tommy Monk wrote:Sassy, the OP claims there is an over representation.


I have shown evidence to support this by showing ithat strangers bar is a well known hang out of homosexuals and their activity, I have also named more than 1% of gay MPs, while I can easily name loads more.



Clearly showing an unusually large number and over represented compared to the around 1% of general population who might be gay.


You have openly said that another group of MPs, namely ex public school types, should be reduced, because they are over represented.


Along with the general leftie view that the parliamentary demographic needs changing to be more reflective of The electorate, as it is too old/white/male etc, and needs more black/asians and women to achieve this.


But when it is pointed out that gays might be a group who are over represented, you are So eager to firstly deny It? And secondly to support it?




And lovedust, the implications are obvious.

If one particular group are being selected too much, then aren't others not being selected enough?

So I don't know if you are just thick or on a wind up.

It has already been explained clearly that the concern is those groups are sometimes held back; you can't know someone is gay unless you know their partner or have asked them; so the whole discussion is a waste of time.

Holy homos!

Whatever next!   

They will be working together with the enormous amount of homosexuals in The church to push through forced gay marriage in churches.