Reader comments · Gay Minister Ben Bradshaw tells that Daily Telegraph’s expenses expose was ‘homophobic’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay Minister Ben Bradshaw tells that Daily Telegraph’s expenses expose was ‘homophobic’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Sister Mary Clarence 11 May 2009, 4:33pm

    “I have clearly been singled out because my partner is a man” ….

    Boo-f**king-hoo-hoo. Targeted because he’s gay? Hazel Blears a lesbian then is she? John Prescott a great big homo?


  2. The only pathetic thing around here is Sister Mary Sinister! She/he clearly doesn’t mind the disparity between the implied marital references to Cameron and to Bradshaw. Homophobia is all right with the pathetic soul!

  3. Alan Duncan is gay and so is the Nick Herbert. Should they also come out and say that their exposure is due to homophobia. I do not think so!!!!

  4. Joe Johnston 11 May 2009, 5:14pm

    There is NOTHING homophobic about the Telegraph report. Creep Bradshaw is trying to hide his thieving and fraud just like all the other ‘honourable’ members. He’s a disgrace to Parliament and a disgrace to the gay community too.

  5. If he hadn’t been such a money grabbing creep then he wouldn’t have been singled out. By saying this, he is giving gay men a bad name.

  6. Typical politian, use another issue (e.g. homophobia) to cover up the real issue (e.g. he’s been found out).

    I take it Neville doesn’t mind MPs spending our money for a fabulous lifestyle as long as they’re gay.

  7. Brian Burton 11 May 2009, 6:07pm

    I think ‘Sister Mary Clarence’ should be elected as ‘Keeper Of Gay Morals’ and Neville should chase her naked person with a tickling stick around the nerest mulbery bush. Oops! there she goes again!

  8. Stuart Neyton 11 May 2009, 6:21pm

    This is homophobia. The Telegraph refers to Neal Dalgleish as his “boyfriend”. This is completely disrespectful. Many married MPs have the same set-up. If the Telegraph had the same criticism of those then i’d accept those on here who claim it’s not biased.

  9. Sister Mary Clarence 11 May 2009, 6:32pm

    Pardon me Neville for not being happy about this manipulative little sh*t screwing me out of my taxes. If its the family home of him and his partner/boyfriend he shouldn’t be claiming second home allowance on it.

    He is bleeding us dry like the rest of them – pathetic squirming little sh*t that he is, I’m surprised he’s not claiming that they’re picking on him because he’s black – its about as plausible.

    Trouble is that there are numpties like you who, whatever they do, will see no wrong. He’ll be out on his arse soon enough, so what’s going to happen to his swanky London pad then I wonder – probably start screwing us for housing benefit I expect.

  10. Simon Murphy 11 May 2009, 6:51pm

    It is not right to refer to his partner as his boyfriend when they are legally registered. But he needs to get a grip. He was caught with his snout in the trough. That is worse.

  11. Brian Burton 11 May 2009, 6:53pm

    I say, I say, I say. My dustbin is full of toadstools, how do I know they are toadstools? ‘Cos there’s not mushroom inside!

  12. vulpus_rex 11 May 2009, 6:55pm

    They are like fish on hooks – wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. Twist and turn as they cast around desperately for barely plausible, specious attempts to deflect attention away from their dishonesty.

    Ridiculous as Mr Bradshaw’s claims are, his troughing is as nothing when compared to the ginger chipmunk Blears.

    She will quite rightly go to jail when she is prosecuted for her fraud.

  13. Stuart Neyton, Post 8, is quite right.

  14. Mihangel apYrs 11 May 2009, 7:40pm

    a typical politician muddling unconnected issues.

    Yes, the DT WAS insulting at best to refer to a CP as a boyfriend, but the main point was that he may have behaved improperly, as have so many others. By trying to garner support with this outrage at a peceived insult he hopes we will forgive/overlook the substantive pooint

  15. vulpus_rex 11 May 2009, 7:55pm

    A beacon of honesty and integrity in the Labour Party:

    Kelvin Hopkins, MP for Luton North – claimed hardly a penny.

    Contrast that to his neighbour, Margaret Moran Labour member for Luton South.

    This snouty trougher has claimed her main home is in Luton and that her second home (which we paid for) was in Southampton, I cannot wait to hear how a second home in Southampton helped with her job in London.

    I’d most like to hear her give that explanation from HMP Holloway – troughing witch.

  16. I would not for a minute suggest that seeking to claim for things one shouldn’t is acceptable but boy, oh, boy, just look at some of the vitriol and viciousness in several of the above posts, kicked off by the Sinister Mary Clarence (thanks for that more suitable name for the headstrong gobby nun, Neville – see her extraordinary behaviour at

    The little squeakers above who are behaving like they’ve just been raped in the middle of St. James’ Park in broad daylight would never have the guts or the ability to carry the extraordinary workload and responsibility of an M.P.

    Of course, Bradshaw is absolutely right to point out that his civil partner should be respected as such.

    Any gay or lesbian person who cries outrage after reading material that stems from The Tory Telegraph should hang their heads in shame.

    MPs have been claiming expenses for decades. Only now, because of a Tory mole, have such expenses become the latest feast of a nation that thrives on ripping people to shreds on a weekly basis.

  17. vulpus_rex 11 May 2009, 8:53pm

    Eddy – apologies but I don’t understant your point.

    It could be any of the following:

    1) that because the information comes fromr the Telegraph it should be ignored

    2)that it’s OK to fraudulently claim expenses just because someone else got away with it before

    3) that criticising the behaviour of fraudulent, dishonest Labour MPs makes you sinister

    Whichever one of the above you actually mean, all sound ridiculous.

  18. Eddy: As usual, on your leftie, commie soapbox again? The Telegraph made a totally in-depth report into ALL party politicians, so don’t accuse them of bias. They are one of the few newspapers still not tied down by publishing magnates with their own political agendas. You make out that the “Tory Mole” that blew the whistle was doing something wrong. For once, there may actually be a few honest politicians left in Westminster.

    If Ben Bradshaw was black, he’d probably be screaming the race card by now. These people have been getting away with it for far too long. Vulpus has it in a nutshell: “Just because everyone else was doing it, I thought it was OK.” I remember something like that being said at the Nuremburg trials. The man is yet another scumbag career politician that’s been found out. At least he should have the common decency to admit to a fair cop and stop bleating about irrelevancies.

  19. Tim Roll-Pickering 11 May 2009, 10:08pm

    Bradshaw: “The implication is gay people in civil partnerships are not equal.”

    Has he failed to notice that civil partnerships are not equal to marriage? Gay people in legally recognised relationships will not be equal until marriage is available to all.

  20. Tim Roll-Pickering (Thread 19)

    . . . I could not have said that better myself.

  21. “Senior Conservatives have subsidised their country estates at taxpayers’ expense, with the upkeep of swimming pools, clearance of moats and even the salaries of domestic staff, all claimed on parliamentary expenses.” Direct quote from the Telegraph.

    No surprises there, except what the used the money for. Moats, heli-pads, staff. Shameless!

  22. Hazel Blears, a Labour cabinet minister, deliberately and with careful consideration, lied to avoid paying capital gains tax on £45,000.

    It is absolutley sickening that the party who claim to represent the working class should be represented by someone who should clearly be in prison for tax fraud.

    How anyone can consider voting for these Labour pigs like her amazes me.

  23. Anyone else watching Newsnight?

    Shaun Woodward – another labour party minister, but who quite specially owns 13 properties and is married to a multi-millionaire, is actualy trying to justify the fact that he scammed £100,000 of your money to pay his mortgages.

    Remember – this man owns 13 properties and has a butler.

    Oink, Oink, another new labour pig.

    Oink, Oink.

  24. If he was so worried about what his partner was referred to, then his government should have have called civil partnerships ‘marriage’, not inventing special gay laws. Then the Torygraph would have had to have used husband!

  25. I honestly had no idea that these pages were visited by some very vile Tories who are gay. One cannot be gay AND be a Tory. To be gay and Tory is to lack integrity. The comments from the gay Tories above cannot be considered of much worth. They are akin to the comments of people who believe they can be Gay and Catholic or Gay and Muslim at one and the same time. Oh, yes, you can “manage” it, but it’s a tautology, a rather hideous and sad contortion.

  26. Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much!

  27. Sister Mary Clarence 12 May 2009, 11:37am

    Eddy, surprised that most of us (according to the recent article on Pinknews) have moved out of the ghetto and can vote based on wider political issues thanks to the legislation that Europe have forced on the UK to ensure equality?

    You clearly have an extremely narrow world-view, as indicated by the comment:

    “…. people who believe they can be Gay and Catholic or Gay and Muslim at one and the same time”

    We are not all gay to the exclusion of everything else, to some of us our sexual orientation is a part of what we are not everything. We need jobs, just like straight people, to support ourselves, we need a roof over our heads, just like straight people, and we need just and honest government, just like straight people.

    You managed to piss almost everybody off on the last thread to hijacked and started spewing hatred and you’re at it again on here.

    You also asked me to support a statement I made with facts and upon doing so and asking you to comment on them in relation to your views, you’d completely ignored me and then come up with a posting that I can’t even tell is related to my question or something completely separate.

    You’ve poo-pooed everything I had to say on the subject, part of which was don’t take everything you read at face value and you are the living embodiment of that it appears. You’re passing off biased and partial opinion as fact and laying into anyone and everyone who dares to open their mouth to question. There are a few of us on here who are a bit opinionated (me being one) but not everyone one on here is as stupid as you seem to think. I am now convinced that you didn’t know what you were talking about as when its came down to it you couldn’t substantial your position.

    The world in your head may not actually be the same as the world out here.

    Across the whole country almopst everyone agrees we’ve been screwed rigid by politicians of all parties. We have yet to see an analysis of how long the widescale abuse has been going on though, but its safe to say that the take up has been good from all sides in recent years.

  28. Simon Murphy 12 May 2009, 12:31pm

    It’s funny to watch all the gay tories on here having spasms about how awful Labour are being when of course the Tories are doing the exact same thing. Although considering the fact that the Tory Party MP’s tend to be wealthier on average it makes their theft from the taxpayer even more vile.

  29. Sister Mary Clarence 12 May 2009, 12:54pm

    Simon, I think its fair to say that they’ll all at it, but I would say its a bit of a generalisation to say that the Tories are better off. We aren’t talking about old Labour with their socialist principles and working class backgrounds (who I have to say, I always voted for), but the New Labour champagne socialists, many of whom had small fortunes when they came to office already (and of course haven’t left public office stop them amassing plenty more).

    As one of the gay tories you’re referring too by ‘spasms’ are about all of them – Labour and Conservative (possibly not so much the Lib Dems though – but its a wasted vote however you look at it!!)

  30. Loveable Lefty 12 May 2009, 1:24pm

    I have no particular truck for Nu Labour, always having voted against, but I did smell a rat when I saw Ben singled out for claiming for a house that he only “half owns”, when if he were married to a woman, nobody would bat an eyelid.

    It’s also typical tabloid homophobia to trivialise gay legal partnerships by using casual terms like “boyfriend”.

    Ben may or may not have done something dodgy. There seems little doubt that the Telegraph have.

    There are only “out” Lib Dem MPs at present (plus one Plaid Cymru). Will be interesting to see if the Torygraph singles them out.

  31. Sister Mary Clarence 12 May 2009, 2:32pm

    I think all this business about singling out gay people is a bit of a smoke screen. I’ve just bought the (London) Evening Standard and Alistair Darling is apparently one of six MPs potentially facing a police probe, another is Geoff Hoon and the third they name is Tony McNulty – all of whom I believe are straight. It doesn’t list the others.

    Ben perhaps thinks that he should get a get out of jail free card BECAUSE he’s gay.

    I’m sure though that when he got tossed out of office it was his intention to hand over any profits from the sale of his London flat to the State rather than profiteering off the back of our taxes.

  32. Robert, ex-pat Brit 12 May 2009, 2:53pm

    “The implication is gay people in civil partnerships are not equal.”

    Well, obviously in the eyes of the DT, they are not! The DT among others doesn’t understand what CPs are otherwise it would have referred to his other half as his “civil partner”. Its been four years since these unions were permitted, long enough for any newspaper worth its salt to acknowledge them for what they are. None of the media refer to the partners of straight married couples as boyfriends or girlfriend or raise the issue of their sexual orientation either, I wonder why? Its nothing more than veiled homophobia.

    As for the expenses expose, ALL politicians should be subject to the same crutiny and transparency, no matter which party they belong to and sexual orientation should not be an issue nor is it relevant.

  33. It’s insulting to all of us that people like Bradshaw who STEAL (yes, that’s all it is) then play the gay sympathy card. Put him in jail, Alan Duncan as well, the whole lot of them.

  34. Merseymike 12 May 2009, 4:04pm

    Rather pathetic comments above. Whether Ben Bradshaw did anything wrong or not is a matter of opinion – I would actually say, no , he didn’t.

    The fact that the Telegraph commented in a particular way when discussing gay relationships shouldn’t be something which surprises anyone

  35. Eddy – you are really showing your age love! Being gay and Tory now is hip and cool. You are yesterday’s generation – old lumbering socialist has-beens – dreaming of the ‘good old’ 1970s of class conflict, picket lines and other historical dramas. Its 2009 now, accept the world has changed. Thousands of gay brits will be voting Conservative in 12 months time (or less) and looking forward to a new dawn. get used to it!

  36. Sister Mary Clarence 12 May 2009, 5:24pm

    The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament

    To clauses in the code of conduct stand out here as having been overlooked by Mr Bradshaw.

    “Selflessness – Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.”
    “Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”
    I think if he was going to be worried about the terminology used by the papers when he got caught then perhaps he should have thought twice before swindling the British public for all he could get.

  37. vulpus_rex 12 May 2009, 5:52pm

    It must be absolutely gutting for the new labour lovers to watch.

    David Cameron acts quickly, decisively and with honour.

    Compare that to the prevaricating, weasel words of Brown and Harman.

    Why has Hazel Blears not been arrested for tax evasion yet?

  38. Sister Mary Clarence 12 May 2009, 6:18pm

    Early days yet Vulpus, early days yet!!

  39. vulpus_rex 12 May 2009, 6:32pm

    I might take a walk up the road to Highgate Cemetary tomorrow.

    I’ll look out the last resting place of Karl Marx, press my ear to the ground and if I listen very carefully, I should hear the sound of him spinning in his grave.

  40. Sinister Mary Clarence, the self-hating Tory wrote:
    “You managed to piss almost everybody off on the last thread to hijacked and started spewing hatred and you’re at it again on here.”

    Readers, put no store in what the Sinister nun says but go to the thread in question and see for yourself the behaviour of this individual. (It’s a long thread, over 200 posts, but do read the first and last posts at least.) It’s at:


    “Eddie” in Comment 35 wrote (to me – Eddy with a “y”): “Eddy – you are really showing your age love! Being gay and Tory now is hip and cool. . . Thousands of gay brits will be voting Conservative in 12 months time (or less) and looking forward to a new dawn.”

    Eddie, if you have been sucked in by the Tory’s new branding and the logo, think again! The tip of the Tory iceberg does indeed, as you suggest, LOOK “hip and cool” but the vast MASS of the Tory iceberg is as it ever has been. It most certainly has not changed. That MASS of the Tory iceberg, hidden beneath the “hip and cool” bit of decoration on top (in emulation of New Labour) still consists of the establishment, every level of the Anglican Church, the same privileged public-school “elite”, the same monarchy-lovers crawling and schmoozing their way through life in emulation of the Royal Family and all of its associates via the same network and season of events by which they kept a grip on this country for centuries.

    “Air, hellair, Eugenie dahling!
    Hairve you seen?
    That Rupert’s brought his ‘friend’!
    – they’ll beah snorting coke in the lavvies again, I bet.
    I mean, daddair’s brother was a hoemoesecksual, you know,
    yes, quite a few people were onto it
    – but this is a CHARCH wedding after all.
    I don’t maind as long they keep it praevit.
    The Queen Mum was surrounded by ’em, of course
    – it’s all right if they’re prepared to keep it QUIET.
    But Rupert was parading this “boyfie” of his at Airscit last week,
    and Charlotte said she saw them drooling round the rowers at Henlair!
    It’s sooooo embarrassing.
    It’s just grubbair.
    And the boy’s just nort one of us,
    comes from some place up north, for heaven’s sake!
    Aarftair all these endless debates in parliarmint
    they’ve gort their way, they’ve won all these rights,
    so why can’t they now just be setisfied
    and get orn with it,
    do whatever they want to do in their clubs and things,
    Charlotte sez Rupert told his father he wants a wedding in Canterbree Catheedral, for God’s sake!
    Sed he warnts a marriage or nothing at all!
    It’s just maird, Eugenie.
    I mean, it’s just not playing cricket, is it!
    Hoemoesecksuals are simply nevair satisfied.
    Personally, I rue the day we made them legal.
    Now we’re bundled with buggers.
    Cameron’s frightened he won’t get in unless he’s seen cavorting with them!”

  41. Sister Mary Clarence 12 May 2009, 7:01pm

    What ever Eddy – still not got back to me on that other post – why was there so much variance in the results from the two polls? You’ve made it clear that you’re only interested in believing the results of one of them. So please let me know why that one is so clearly right in your mind and the other quite clearly wrong.

    Why did the first poll fair to encounter and gay Muslims that were prepared to say that they found homosexuality acceptable?

    You were an expert on it all a day or two ago and now you don’t want to know.

    Now you’re taunting Eddie on here. Do you think any us us really care where you disapprove if we vote Tory. I couldn’t give two sh*ts – and I expect there’s a few others that don’t give a toss either.

  42. @Sister Mary

    Your talents are wasted here on Pink News.

    I’ve been trawling through the comments sections that follow on from stories on the Daily Mail website (as part of some academic research for a “civics” lecture I give) and it’s clear that with your depth of argument, intellectual depth and clarity of thought, any contributions you made there would be greatly appreciated by the similarly able readers of that weighty publication.

    Don’t let us hold you back from the bigger stage. One piece of advice though – don’t let them know you’re LGBT.

  43. Bill Perdue 12 May 2009, 8:09pm

    “Thousands of rich self-loathing homosexual twits will be voting Conservative in 12 months time (or less) and looking forward to a new dawn.” Porcine Rex

    Twisted Sister is at it again. When Labour councillor Miranda Grell used homophobic language Twisted Sister announced that western civilization had been dealt a fatal blow and called for the death penalty. But when Tory bigots like Patrick Clark and Peter Willows made foul comments Twisted Sister dismissed it, just as he dismisses “minor” items like section 28.

    SMC/Twisted Sister/Sinister sister, however you describe him is a crude, paid political hack for the Tories. He’s hypocrisy personified.

    Robert is right that politicians of all parties should be equally handled by the law if they break it. The problem is that corruption among politicians is endemic and tolerated by other politicians and judges.

  44. vulpus_rex 12 May 2009, 9:10pm

    “Your talents are wasted here on Pink News.”

    Rather amusing that someone posing as an academic should write such a partisan and dishonest comment – there again given that the current government have destroyed academic standards hardly surprising.

    Ivan – is your lecture on how the Labour party have completely and utterly betrayed the working class?

  45. Well said, Ivan. Well said, Bill!

    If you need any further evidence (and I sense you don’t) that the Sinister Twisted Nun is completely off her trolley go see her behaviour in the Comments at:
    (and do see my final Comment right at the very end of the thread).

  46. Vulpus: I saw that bust of Marx in the cemetery, but he just didn’t look the same without his glasses and cigar.

    “I’ve had a wonderful evening, but this wasn’t it.”

  47. Sister Mary Clarence 13 May 2009, 12:14am

    F*ck me sideways, why is everybody on here an lecturer this week?

    And Eddy, I have to say that siding up with Bill as an ally is going to do nothing for your credibility on here.

    You hating all Muslims and wanting to kill their firstborn and him condemning anyone not in a hijab as an islamophobe should make for any interesting combination. I wish you both well.

    Still not got back to me on the issue we’ve been debating though I notice – no rush, I’ve got …. well, I’ve got forever if that’s how long it takes mate.

  48. Jesus and Mohommed! The Sinister Nun IS completely doo-lalley! The hardwiring’s completely in a tangle. Her logic is completely bust. She states above that she believes I hate all Muslims and I wish to kill their first-born!

    Oh, dear. What a tragic upbringing this poor woman must have had. She needs bunging into a school of rationality and being subjected to rigorous intellectual discipline for the entire duration of a second childhood. At the Gallup/Muslim thread of last week (see she was well and truly exposed for the shallow hysterical simpleton she is . . . and yet she appears not to acknowledge that her name and reputation is now a laughing-stock on these pages. It’s so blinkered it makes one laugh. But then you have to stop and remember that people like this are actually dangerous . . . particularly when they are in OUR midst.

    Reminds you though. You go into a gay bar and you sort of hope that everyone in there will be of a similar understanding . . . but there lurking in the corner, is always some poor individual like the Sinister Nun . . .

  49. @vulpus_rex

    You should not presume to know my politics.

  50. Sister Mary Clarence 13 May 2009, 4:35pm

    So, Eddy, all this prevarication is getting nowhere, you have still not got back to me on the other thread, you badgered and badgered me to prove my point and the first piece of evidence I actually produce to show the poll may not be as sound as you’d like to think and you run off squealing like a three year old about how nasty I am.

    I went to the trouble of finding it as you asked, so please have the couresy to look at it and respond.

  51. Oh, for f–k’s sake shut up and piss off you stupid twat. I have no respect for you.



    EVEN UK-MUSLIMS THEMSELVES HAVE NOT DISPUTED IT. CAN’T YOU GET THAT INTO YOUR BRAINLESS THICK STUBBORN HEAD???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

  52. Sister Mary Clarence 14 May 2009, 12:12am

    “Muslim Americans are a population of great interest to scholars, journalists and policy makers in the U.S. Yet because Muslims make up a very small percentage of the total U.S. public, it is extremely difficult to interview a large enough sample to provide a reliable picture of their views, experiences and demographic characteristics. This week the Muslim West Facts Project, a partnership between Gallup and the Coexist Foundation, released a survey of American Muslims. Like the Pew Research Center’s 2007 survey of Muslims in the U.S., “Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream,” the Gallup study is based on a nationally representative probability sample. But there are important differences in the methodological approach and findings of the two studies.”

    “A principal difference between the studies is how much of the Muslim American population is covered by the study. The Pew Research study includes Muslim Americans who speak English, Arabic, Urdu and Farsi, while the Gallup study covers only those who speak English and Spanish. This difference in approach is critical because about two-thirds of American Muslims are foreign born, and a significant minority of them may not speak English well enough to complete an interview in that language. Based on the languages used in the interviews, Pew Research’s study estimates that at least 17% of Muslim Americans fall into this category. In part because of this difference, the two studies reach significantly different conclusions about the racial composition, educational attainment and employment status of the population. Gallup estimates that more than one-in-three American Muslims (35%) are black, compared with Pew’s estimate of 24%. Gallup estimates that 40% of Muslim Americans have obtained a college degree; Pew estimates that 24% have done so. And Gallup estimates that more Muslims are currently employed than does Pew Research (70% vs. 57%).”

    “On race, education and employment, Muslims interviewed in English by Pew Research are roughly similar to Muslims interviewed by Gallup. Muslims interviewed by Pew Research in Arabic, Urdu or Farsi, by contrast, exhibit very different characteristics than those interviewed in English. For instance, only 8% of Muslims interviewed in these languages describe their race as black, compared with 27% of Muslims interviewed by Pew Research in English and 35% of Muslims interviewed by Gallup. Only 14% of Muslims interviewed in these languages report having graduated from college, about half the number of college graduates among those interviewed by Pew Research in English and about one-third the number of Muslims interviewed by Gallup. And only 25% of those interviewed in Arabic, Urdu or Farsi are currently employed, which is less than half the employment rate seen among Muslims interviewed in English by Pew Research or Gallup.”

    “Additionally, the two studies sought to learn different kinds of things about Muslim Americans and took very different approaches to finding and interviewing them. Pew’ Research’s questionnaire and sampling approach was tailored specifically to this population. In addition to questions about demographic characteristics, economic status and political behavior, the Pew Research interview also included a large number of questions about the experience of Muslims in the U.S. in the post-9/11 period, immigration, religious attitudes and customs specific to Islam, religious conversion, concern about Islamic extremism and attitudes about foreign policy.
    By contrast, the Gallup study is based on responses given by Muslim respondents identified in the course of political, economic and health-tracking surveys of the general public conducted in 2008. Out of more than 319,000 interviews, 946 Muslim respondents were identified. Gallup’s study covered basic demographics, health, employment, economic status, political and civic engagement and community satisfaction, among other topics.”

    “The Pew Research study used two sample sources to reach a broad cross-section of Muslim Americans. One involved re-contacting Muslim respondents identified in previous Pew Research Center interviews; this part of the sample is the most similar to Gallup’s, in that all telephone households had a roughly equal chance of being included in the sample. The second source was a new random-digit dial (RDD) sample divided into five strata. Four of these strata were based on the estimated density of the Muslim population in each county of the United States, with a disproportionate number of interviews conducted in counties estimated to have larger concentrations of Muslims. The fifth stratum consisted of a commercial list of approximately 450,000 households believed to include Muslims, based on an analysis of first and last names common among Muslims. The phone numbers associated with these households were matched against the RDD sample and the duplicate cases removed, which allows the list-based sample to be treated as a random stratum.
    Pew Research offered respondents a modest monetary incentive for completing the interview, while Gallup respondents received no incentive. The incentive was offered largely because the Pew Research survey was very lengthy. The average length was more than 30 minutes, significantly longer than most national political surveys. The use of incentives in lengthy or complex surveys is quite common; among the many well-known studies that employ them are the National Immunization Survey, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the University of Michigan’s Survey of Consumer Attitudes, the California Health Interview Survey and the National Survey of Family Growth.”

    “One strength of the Gallup study is that it included interviews with cell-phone only respondents. The Pew Research study, by contrast, was conducted using landline phones only. This is important since it is likely that many recent immigrants rely only on a cell phone. Of course, some immigrants reached by cell phone may have been unable to complete an interview in English or Spanish. And it is important to note that some Muslim American immigrants speak languages used in neither survey.
    Despite the differences in approach and some divergent findings, both studies share the same strength, namely, that they are each based on nationally representative, probability samples of American Muslims. This means that each study can provide estimates with a known degree of sampling error, which is the key for any sample survey that purports to be representative of some larger population. Because federal government surveys do not ask about religious affiliation or background, there is little information about this population from the Census or other large government studies. Thus both the Gallup and Pew Research studies, like those that are sure to follow, help increase our understanding of the Muslim community in the United States.”

    by Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research, Pew Research Center and Greg Smith, Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
    March 6, 2009

    So you see Eddy, my simple minded little friend, that in actual fact some people somewhere are looking at the results questioningly and identifying why there are variances in the results.

    You will I’m sure have picked up that Scott and Greg picked upon the importance of the differing sampling methods used on the two US polls. You will also notice that in Europe, a totally different and far, far less robust (although good deal cheaper) sampling method was utilised for the project, or part project (the bit that got the headline making results unsurprisingly).

    Just like you spent I don’t know how much time demonising ‘vile’ Muslims based on a poll with some very questionable results, you are now on here demonising ‘vile’ Tories who are gay. You have shown on the poll issue that you have not the slightest clue what you were talking about, you snivelling little simpleton, and politically clearly you’re about as astute. You were out of your depth commenting on social attitudes and you’re out of your depth commenting on politics. Plainly you know nothing about either, so stop laying into people as if you do.

    Apologies to everyone else for hijacking the thread a bit (well, quite a bit), but this little tit has been getting on my nerves for f**king days.

  53. sister mary alrence, i’ve been following this debate between you and eddy for days now and i can only think you’ve got a pride issue or something ‘cos the only person who hasn’t accepted the results of that poll is you. like eddy says even the muslims haven’t refuted it.

  54. Sister Mary Clarence 14 May 2009, 5:46pm

    yeah, pride, either that or the fact that I know he’s talking out of his arse

  55. He wouldn’t have received any coverage if he hadn’t been caught taking the mickey with his expenses – it has nothing to do with his sexuality and everything to do with his dishonesty.

    Congratulations Bradshaw – every time an idiot like you plays the homophobia card to try and muddy the waters of your own frauds, genuine victims of homophobia get taken that little bit less serious.

    People like this idiot make me far more ashamed to be gay than any bigoted homophobe ever could.

  56. Bradshaw is a pathetic loser who has been caught with his hands in the till. Start looking for another job Ben, on second thoughts get ready for serving some time at her majesty’s pleasure, pick up that soap, there’s a dear.

  57. @Sister Mary Clarence

    I think the debate on the “Gallup Poll” is now over.

    When you bring this issue over on to this thread it is very interesting, and unfortunately . . . very telling.

  58. Yep, I think it was over a couple of days ago,but you appear to have just opened it up again for some reason.

  59. Bradshaw is a prick and how surprising that he would jump on the homophobic bandwagon to deflect attention away from his nose being in the trough. A disgusting turd of a man who needs a good horse whipping

  60. while i agree that he may be a turd of a politcal figure with his nose in the trough, it is homophobic of the telegraph to write about his partner as a boyfriend (not that we should confuse the issues here, just that i wouldn’t wipe my bum with that so-called newspaper).

  61. Yeah, right. And he expects us to swallow that, does he? Pathetic that you let him try it.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.