Too many homosexuals in our parliament

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

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

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 6:43 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!

Pro-gay agenda is a ridiculous concept so I'll ignore the drivel.

The fact is parliament is filled with MPs who people voted for. There is nothing more to it that that. You may say there aren't enough blacks MPs, not enough women MPs, too many MPs from Eton and Oxbridge- but you don't; you focus only on a disproportionate number of gay MPS, WHY????

And I ask again, should people not vote for an MP because they are gay?

All you are doing is exposing the homophobia of the far Right English Democrats.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 02, 2014 6:46 pm

Well, I for one think it's time people who don't support gay marriage take a stand, and refuse to get married to a gay person.

Smile

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 6:47 pm

In my view, there are too many public schoolboys in Parliament.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 6:47 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, I for one think it's time people who don't support gay marriage take a stand, and refuse to get married to a gay person.

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 6:47 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?

Perhaps you should start a campaign 'don't vote for this candidate he is gay and there are too many gays in parliament' should go down a treat eh?

You clearly know nothing of how a democracy works- the fact a man or woman is gay is irrelevant to their work as an MP. That you think it is the only thing that matters says more about your prejudiced attitude.

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 6:48 pm

So it's ok to say there's too many white men, old men, not enough women/blacks/Asians/muslems in parliament, and how that doesn't reflect the voting public, but not ok to say too many homosexuals?

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 6:50 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, I for one think it's time people who don't support gay marriage take a stand, and refuse to get married to a gay person.

::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead::

by Ben Reilly Fri May 02, 2014 7:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:So it's ok to say there's too many white men, old men, not enough women/blacks/Asians/muslems in parliament, and how that doesn't reflect the voting public, but not ok to say too many homosexuals?

It's OK to say either, Tommy! And accept that people are going to respond to what you say; that's how freedom of speech works! FFS

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 7:15 pm

Eilzel 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?
Perhaps you should start a campaign 'don't vote for this candidate he is gay and there are too many gays in parliament' should go down a treat eh?
You clearly know nothing of how a democracy works- the fact a man or woman is gay is irrelevant to their work as an MP. That you think it is the only thing that matters says more about your prejudiced attitude.

Well yes it does matter if they are collectively pushing their own interests through parliament, the aggressive pro gay agenda, and into schools etc. It also matters if groups like stonewall are getting govt money from them too!

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 7:32 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Perhaps you should start a campaign 'don't vote for this candidate he is gay and there are too many gays in parliament' should go down a treat eh?
You clearly know nothing of how a democracy works- the fact a man or woman is gay is irrelevant to their work as an MP. That you think it is the only thing that matters says more about your prejudiced attitude.

Well yes it does matter if they are collectively pushing their own interests through parliament, the aggressive pro gay agenda, and into schools etc. It also matters if groups like stonewall are getting govt money from them too!

And how many 'gay' interests have been pushed through parliament since 2010? I can't think of many, and again it hasn't been to the detriment of the country in any way whatsoever, at least no more than has been caused by any other politicians, and in case you failed to notice what with your terminal pessimism, the economy is on the up.

by Irn Bru Fri May 02, 2014 7:43 pm

If the constituents that voted for a candidate that was gay and were quite happy to do so then why would anyone else have a problem with it?

He/she is their MP so it's got nowt to do with someone who has never been elected and with the views I've seen on here then I doubt she ever will.

Mind their own business I say

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 7:44 pm

I love this point from Mati:

Well yes it does matter if they are collectively pushing their own interests through parliament

Pleas show me an MP that does not?

Seriously, does this boy have a brain, because every MP pushes their own interest into becoming an MP in the first place.

by Irn Bru Fri May 02, 2014 7:49 pm

Britain's secret sex survey

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4293978.stm

And that was a few years ago. Smile

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 7:56 pm

Personal interests dodge.....

They are supposed to be pushing the electorates interests!

Not their own personal sexual deviance....

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 7:59 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Well yes it does matter if they are collectively pushing their own interests through parliament, the aggressive pro gay agenda, and into schools etc. It also matters if groups like stonewall are getting govt money from them too!
And how many 'gay' interests have been pushed through parliament since 2010? I can't think of many, and again it hasn't been to the detriment of the country in any way whatsoever, at least no more than has been caused by any other politicians, and in case you failed to notice what with your terminal pessimism, the economy is on the up.

The aggressive 'progressive' pro gay agenda has been being pushed in parliament for a lot longer than since 2010. And I'll bet there have been massive over representation of homosexuals in parliament for a long time too!

Coincidence?

I think not!

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 8:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Personal interests dodge.....

They are supposed to be pushing the electorates interests!

Not their own personal sexual deviance....

So they do not have their own views they promote through their own interest?

Sorry what was the article about and was it not a personal interest?

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

Fuck me this wally walks into them every time

by Ben Reilly Fri May 02, 2014 8:12 pm

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

Racist and sexist in a oner

The reason organizations exist throughout the world that represent the interests of women and minorities is that it's a response to the many predominantly white and male organizations which excluded women and minorities.

Clegg's not saying it's bad to be white and male, he's saying the party remains too exclusionary.

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 8:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
And how many 'gay' interests have been pushed through parliament since 2010? I can't think of many, and again it hasn't been to the detriment of the country in any way whatsoever, at least no more than has been caused by any other politicians, and in case you failed to notice what with your terminal pessimism, the economy is on the up.

The aggressive 'progressive' pro gay agenda has been being pushed in parliament for a lot longer than since 2010. And I'll bet there have been massive over representation of homosexuals in parliament for a long time too!

Coincidence?

I think not!

And how has this so-called agenda been aggressively pushed? How has it been detrimental to the governing of the country? Why have these 'aggressive' gay MPs been voted in time after time if their 'agenda' is so horrifying?

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 8:20 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Personal interests dodge.....

They are supposed to be pushing the electorates interests!

Not their own personal sexual deviance....

Their constituents obviously feel they are pushing their interests just fine- since they keep voting them back in.

No one is pushing anything onto parliament- that is unsubstantiated BS.

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 8:32 pm

David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....

"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."

Look what happened there.....!

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 8:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....

"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."

Look what happened there.....!

Yes looked what happened, equality, is it not great?

by Irn Bru Fri May 02, 2014 8:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....

"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."

Look what happened there.....!

And that would be because he realised that it would cost his party votes due to the majority of the country disagreeing with him.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 02, 2014 8:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....

"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."

Look what happened there.....!

And now you're going to be forced to marry a man.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 8:41 pm

MORE women MP'S.....yah gotta be jokeing....you are aren't you???

I mean look at the unmitigated disaster that occured the LATS TIME one of em made PM..... affraid

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 8:42 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....

"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."

Look what happened there.....!

And now you're going to be forced to marry a man.

Now that WOULD be funny!!!! Laughing

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 8:42 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:MORE women MP'S.....yah gotta be jokeing....you are aren't you???

I mean look at the unmitigated disaster that occured the LATS TIME one of em made PM.....

Nah, she was a man in drag.

by Fluffyx Fri May 02, 2014 9:00 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....

"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."

Look what happened there.....!

And that would be because he realised that it would cost his party votes due to the majority of the country disagreeing with him.

The majority of the country yes..but not the Tory party

They have never forgiven him Wink

by Andy Fri May 02, 2014 9:21 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....

"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."

Look what happened there.....!

Cameron also said that he had no plans to increase VAT, and look what happened there.
That is what happens when. you elect a millionaire Eton educated Bullingdon toff who happens to be a serial liar

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 9:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....

"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."

Look what happened there.....!

So, this is all about that one issue- you should have thrown them sour grapes away by now lol!

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 9:42 pm

Handy Andy wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....

"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."

Look what happened there.....!
Cameron also said that he had no plans to increase VAT, and look what happened there.
That is what happens when. you elect a millionaire Eton educated Bullingdon toff who happens to be a serial liar

True; but to Twonky Monk the ONLY thing that matters in the whole world is that the evil ministry of gays with our aggressive militant agenda are trying to take over the world by getting married and starting families affraid

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 9:47 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....
"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."
Look what happened there.....!
And that would be because he realised that it would cost his party votes due to the majority of the country disagreeing with him.

The majority of the country were against gay marriage?
Ok, so how does a policy that is against the wishes of the majority of people of the country get through the HOC when all the MPs are supposedly there representing the views of the people of the country?
???

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 9:48 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:David Cameron stated quite clearly just before 2010 election that gay marriage would not be happening.....
"....three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer
Adam Boulton that he had "no plans" to change the law defining marriage..."
Look what happened there.....!
And that would be because he realised that it would cost his party votes due to the majority of the country disagreeing with him.

The majority of the country were against gay marriage?
Ok, so how does a policy that is against the wishes of the majority of people of the country get through the HOC when all the MPs are supposedly there representing the views of the people of the country?
???

by Eilzel Fri May 02, 2014 9:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
And that would be because he realised that it would cost his party votes due to the majority of the country disagreeing with him.
The majority of the country were against gay marriage?
Ok, so how does a policy that is against the wishes of the majority of people of the country get through the HOC when all the MPs are supposedly there representing the views of the people of the country?
???

In nearly every single poll on this matter the majority of people approve of gay marriage; I think only Comres every produced a contrary answer- build a bridge ffs Smile

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 10:34 pm

Too many homosexuals in our parliament - Page 2 Gasper5

Yet more from this bigot.

An MEP candidate for South East England has criticised World AIDS Day, claiming it “congratulates” people for “spreading this disease.”

Julia Gasper, formerly a UKIP chair and failed Oxford city council candidate, is now standing with the English Democrats as an MEP candidate.

As well as calling for Grindr to be banned, and saying Daniel Radcliffe and a “queer mafia” were responsible for “victimising” former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich into stepping down, she claims world AIDS day “celebrates” those who “spread” HIV.

“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.

“Rising infections, more deaths and vast profits for the pharmaceutical industry are all good news. The NHS spends £1 billion per year on anti-retro-viral drugs that fool patients they are not really ill, and keep them fit enough to carry on with the same behaviour that caused this great blessing in the first place. This is a good way of getting rid of surplus money nobody needed or wanted.”

She goes on: “The medical profession does all it can to ensure that everybody now has an EQUAL CHANCE of catching this illness and a FAIR opportunity to spread it to other people. But according to official statements issued by the UK’s Public Health Chief, Professor Kevin Fenton, and by the American Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, 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.”

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

Dr Gasper’s Facebook page supporting her campaign currently has 166 likes.

She previously wrote that gay people needed to stop “complaining about persecution” and start expressing “gratitude” to straight people, on whom they are reliant to be born.

According to Dr Gasper, PinkNews readers should be sectioned under the Mental Health Act, and used the UKIP forum to brand the gay rights movement a “lunatics charter”.

She claimed gays account for 3 percent of the population and half of child abuse, and last year failed in her second bid to win public office.

At the end of last year, she wrote a paper questioning whether gay people sent to death camps during the Holocaust were only sent there because they were also Jewish.

The English Democrats campaign for Britain to leave the EU and for an English parliament to be established.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/02/mep-candidate-world-aids-day-congratulates-people-for-spreading-the-disease/

.....Some comments..

Rovex • 15 hours ago

This woman is mentally ill. Someone tell her that this is the UK, we have free healthcare here, she doesnt have to suffer like American bigots do.

16
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Paula Thomas • 12 hours ago

Pink News: Please stop reporting what this attention seeker says. She has no chance of getting elected

13
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Rehan Paula Thomas • 12 hours ago

I agree, I think this, the third recent article on Gasper, is giving the poor woman a good deal more attention than she deserves, indeed possibly more attention than she's getting anywhere else.
9
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
J. Rehan • 11 hours ago

I just hope there isn't anyone who has suicidal thoughts and is reading PN, especially when we are being barraged with Gasper's rants. It feels that we're being inundated with articles about her and it could be easy for any of us continually reading about homophobia on here to lose the will to live!
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jazatw Paula Thomas • 12 hours ago

I could not agree more. You are feeding her sense of self-importance. She is irrelevant.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
BlokeToys.co.uk • 10 hours ago

Also, just to add...

She's a "Dr" of Philosophy with studies in historical English Literature. She's written several failed books, and given seminar papers and lectures all of which were also generally ignored even by those in the relevant fields.

She's supported by Stormfront, which really shows just how radical and extreme her opinions are. For those who don't know, Stormfront is basically the last vestige of the UK neo-Nazis. It's a violent hate group previously associated to the BNP and EDL.

Like I said, she's an extremist with no support in this country, she'll never hold any real influence or power.

In a way, I feel sorry for her. Imagine wasting your life in the way she has. What will she be remembered for when she's finally dead? Being a hateful old hag with few friends and few achievements. It's quite depressing to see someone waste their short time here and leaving nothing positive behind.

9
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
J. BlokeToys.co.uk • 10 hours ago

Thanks for the information about her. It is reassuring that she really is out on the verges with no following worth being concerned about.

As for life after her demise, imagine being descended from her and, whilst doing family research, discovering her contribution to the world.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Dave G • 10 hours ago

She lives near me, apparently. She was bottom of the poll time and again when she stood for UKIP in various previous national and local elections. She is a public nuisance. This is a quiet leafy liberal area populated by academics and NHS workers. People like her use and abuse the tolerance of others whilst showing no tolerance whatsoever. Presumably even the English Democrats will eventually expel her for being too extreme and a walking PR disaster like UKIP did - where will she go after that? The Sieg Heil Fruitcake party?

7
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
J. Dave G • 10 hours ago

Are there no psychiatrists and psychiatric hospitals nearby?
As others have said, she needs to be sectioned for her own good and for the safety and sanity of the rest of us. Some of the things she says are bordering on what the local police force might consider looking at. Does she distribute her hate-speech locally or bother local newspapers with letters? Anything that will get her locked-up one way or another?
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Psychologist J. • 8 hours ago

Yes J. - you're quite right ! She would keep me busy administering psychotherapy for over a year ! I've had MUCH less damaged clients than this !
Could this woman get any more crazy ? She seems obsessed with homosexuality - I wonder why ? Smile

2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
RaisedEyebrow Psychologist • 6 hours ago

None of the psychologists I know use the phrase 'damaged', nor would they say "could this woman get any more crazy" ... they tend to be a little more sensitive to these terms.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Psychologist RaisedEyebrow • 6 hours ago

You said - "none of the psychologists you know" ... REALLY ... ???? How many psychologists do you know, and WHY ?

I wonder WHY you are so familiar with "apparently" SO MANY psychologists ... ? Got some mental problems have we ?

I'm not here to administer therapy, where I would be empathic to sensitive client's issues. I'm here to make my comments, just as you and everyone else here, from MY perspective of life.
Also you're WRONG .... many of my colleagues DO indeed refer to someone's issues as having caused "DAMAGE" - it's actually very commonly used in psychotherapy.
Though we NEVER refer to anyone as being CRAZY - but as I said, I'm not your therapist, nor the therapist of this woman either! So my personal opinion (not as her therapist) is that she is a CRAZY woman !
And having spend many years seeing through people's "hidden agendas and issues" - you are NOT what you appear to be either ... you don't fool me that easily. !!!

Also, given that you seem to attack me, by implication, you defend her ? So, my question is .... Are YOU crazy too ?

DISTRACTION is the defence mechanism you're trying to deploy here, by attempting to discredit me, in order to defend this woman's stupidity and clear homophobic bigotry. You are probably this crazy woman "Julia Gasper" in disguise !

Instead of trying to use very transparent tactics to attempt to discredit me, why don't you make comments on here as everyone else does, to say what YOU feel about this woman's (maybe YOUR own - Julia Gasper) views ?
"Nail your TRUE colours to the mast" !
Then allow others on here to tell you what they think of YOUR comments !

see more
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
J. Psychologist • 7 hours ago

I think you know the answer to that!!
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Psychologist J. • 7 hours ago

Yes J. I do ! Smile

•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Derek Northcote • 8 hours ago

When looking at that photo, why am I expecting a long tongue to flick out and pluck a fly from the air?

5
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
BlokeToys.co.uk • 10 hours ago

I do think repeating her lunatic rantings is a little pointless. She's very clearly disturbed, and she's clearly going into such rants for the attention.

She's a powerless buffoon, inconsequential and irrelevant. She's a failed politician desperate for anyone to recognize that she even exists. Nothing she says actually has any influence, she holds no power, she'll never be elected because she's a fringe radical and everyone can see this.

Repeating her rantings is really no different to repeating the rantings of a random old racist down the pub. These people are good for laughing at, but nothing else.

5
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
ragged clown • 11 hours ago

Are the English Democrats the party to join if you're too crazy even for UKIP?

4
•
Reply
•
Share ›

........Thing is she panders to racists and homophobes, but her photo would suggest that she is part of a minority herself.....So what is all that about. :\\:[: :\\:[: :\\:[:

by Ben Reilly Fri May 02, 2014 11:01 pm

You know, before NewsFix I used to think most of the crazy people were concentrated in the U.S., mainly in the South. Now I see you're at least as cursed by them in the U.K.

I don't really know how I feel about it -- in a way, it was a comfort to think that most of the world had far fewer bigots than we do ...

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 11:02 pm

http://www.academia.edu/5559022/The_Myth_of_the_Homocaust

Hmmmm....

Twisted Evil

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 11:03 pm

So she is a Hindu, so her hatred of Muslims might be due to the partition of India?

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 11:44 pm

Sassy wrote:In my view, there are too many public schoolboys in Parliament.

Why do you say that?
Is it because they don't reflect the electorate at large?
Is it because many of them might be homosexual?
Or because the huge number of homosexuals in parliament don't reflect the electorate at large...???
Laughing

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 11:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Sassy wrote:In my view, there are too many public schoolboys in Parliament.
Why do you say that?
Is it because they don't reflect the electorate at large?
Is it because many of them might be homosexual?
Or because the huge number of homosexuals in parliament don't reflect the electorate at large...???

No, because they are a load of rich tosspots only concerned with making money for more rich tosspots and don't give a crap about the population as a whole.

by Irn Bru Sat May 03, 2014 12:20 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Sassy wrote:In my view, there are too many public schoolboys in Parliament.
Why do you say that?
Is it because they don't reflect the electorate at large?
Is it because many of them might be homosexual?
Or because the huge number of homosexuals in parliament don't reflect the electorate at large...???

MPs in parliament reflect who the voters decided to vote for. Are you going to deny the voters the right to choose who they want to represent them and who is eligible to stand as a candidate in elections?

by Tommy Monk Sat May 03, 2014 12:27 am

So what about if a hugely disproportionate amount of MPs are homosexual and only really care about pushing the aggressive pro gay agenda.....?
And only pay lip service to the regular demands of the electorate to establish/retain their position to be able to pursue their real aggressive pro gay agenda???

by Irn Bru Sat May 03, 2014 12:35 am

Tommy Monk wrote:So what about if a hugely disproportionate amount of MPs are homosexual and only really care about pushing the aggressive pro gay agenda.....?
And only pay lip service to the regular demands of the electorate to establish/retain their position to be able to pursue their real aggressive pro gay agenda???

There aren't enough homosexuals in parliament to push through legislation on their own. There must be enough MPs who are nor homosexuals who support the changes to make that happen.

So, are you denying voters the right to elect the candidate that they want and who can stand as a candidate?

Do you think that the British public support you views?

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 12:40 am

I can only assume this thread was started as some sort of strange parody.

by Irn Bru Sat May 03, 2014 12:46 am

lovedust wrote:
I can only assume this thread was started as some sort of strange parody.

It's a strange one right enough LD and Tommy wants proportional representation based on the demographics of the population of this country.

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 1:09 am

So an MP much respected by his constituents might suddenly face a by-election on the basis he was making Parliament "too gay"?

confused

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 1:12 am

lovedust wrote:

So an MP much respected by his constituents might suddenly face a by-election on the basis he was making Parliament "too gay"?

by Irn Bru Sat May 03, 2014 1:13 am

lovedust wrote:

So an MP much respected by his constituents might suddenly face a by-election on the basis he was making Parliament "too gay"?

You're right LD. And it's wider than that because if someone suddenly becomes disabled because of an accident then they may have to face a by election because the number of disabled MPs is already fully subscribed.

Tommy's world eh?

by Irn Bru Sat May 03, 2014 1:15 am

Sassy wrote:
lovedust wrote:

So an MP much respected by his constituents might suddenly face a by-election on the basis he was making Parliament "too gay"?

Or even not proportionately‎ not gay enough based on the demographic population Laughing

by Tommy Monk Sat May 03, 2014 2:32 pm

You lefties are all in favour of quotas and targets, quick to say too many white men, not enough black/asian etc, not enough women, how we need ud have parliament being a more accurate reflection of the people it represents.

So why is it ok for the gay group to be So hugely over represented when it is so unreflective of the voting public?

More hypocrisy from the left.....!

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 2:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:You lefties are all in favour of quotas and targets, quick to say too many white men, not enough black/asian etc, not enough women, how we need ud have parliament being a more accurate reflection of the people it represents.

So why is it ok for the gay group to be So hugely over represented when it is so unreflective of the voting public?

More hypocrisy from the left.....!

Where is your evidence there is many homosexuals as MP's?

You have none

DOH

Again people vote fo who they want, thus negating your view point, thus clearly if people vote for someone they are not concerned if they are homosexual, the problem is when they are under represented and again even if we were to believe your bullshit claim, they are still a minority

DOH