Don’t make me laugh. I’m going to a funeral.

Will you cut that out, MONKEYCHOPS.

We all know who you are, an ex-gay, homophomobic, alcoholic, schizophrenic, cybersapce shapeshifter (E.G.H.A.S.C.S. for short) whose only fun in life is disrupting the threads on PinkNews.

You don’t really care about anything except grabbing the spotlight and keeping it as long as you can, eh honey.

If you really want to be noticed, why don’t you try gathering up all the copies of the Wolfenden Report in the UK and making a great big bonfire with them at Charring Cross? Bring fireworks and a vodka martini, or two, or three. Prefer gin, do we? Well, OK.

Excuse me but you do ‘seem’ to have a problem with Peter Thatchell.
The only thing you don’t “seem to have” a problem with is how to make your stupid remarks as ambiguious as possible, you twit.

Aren’t you the guy who believed that the footage of the American Moon Landing in ’69 was genuine – on the EastEnders’ thread?

You left there so fast after I plugged you up that I didn’t get a chance to tell you that my father was smarter than your father cos the best part of you ran down your father’s leg.

You did have a father, right.

You know everything, Monkeychops, so tell me this:

Does Peter Thatchell “seem to have” a legitimate complaint or doesn’t he?

A “yes” or a “no” will do, although you “seem to be” prepared to be as ambiguous as possible to disrupt yet another thread and hold onto the brilliance of the spotlight, eh sweetie.

Just don’t look directly in the light, that’s a good cybersapce shapeshifter scizophrenic – cruel little s.o.b.

But I ain’t bitter. Please don’t take this the wrong way!

Is that correct? My eyes are boggling reading that.

It’s all a pointless exercise anyway, If I “hate” someone for whatever reason, no amount of legislation is going to change my views. All it can do is prevent me from voicing it.

1. Fighting homophobia is a political issue, so every gay rights activist comes to this with a political perspective. Gay rights activists are not civil servants – although civil servants definitely operate according to their own political agendas, regardless of the government in power.

2. ‘Gay cause’ falls foul of the same one-nation-under-a-blanket homogenisation as ‘gay community’. As the debates on this site prove, there are vast differences of opinion between non-straight people. No one person can represent the ‘gay cause’ because there is no singular ‘gay cause’. Hence:

3. The more people devote their time to combating homophobia from across the political spectrum, the better. But everyone would still come to this with their own axe to grind, because wanting to tackle homophobia is itself an ‘axe to grind’. Homophobia (and, I would argue, everything else) is a political issue.

Now I’m puzzled here: if they consider us a “lifestyle choice” and, therefore, do not deem us significant enough to be afforded legal protection under their new soopa-doopa, all-singing, all-dancing oooh-sooo-*radical* Equality Bill, then why, by contrast, do they afford the legal protection of freedom of religion?

After all, since the government is a guarantor of freedom of religion then doesn’t this mean that they’ve automatically made religion a “lifestyle choice” and, therefore, likewise have to exclude it in order to maintain the authenticity of the ‘Equality’ bit in the title of their Bill?

1. Tell that to all the civil servants. By their very nature they HAVE to remain unbiased. And there are thousands of them.

2. I use the term “gay cause” as an alternative to the oxymoron “Gay community”, because there is no such thing.

3. Just because I propose a concept does not mean I wish to even go near that can of worms. I’m sure there are many out there that would though, without trying to grind their own personal axes.

I can only conclude that she is referring to the questioning of Ben Summerskill by the Commons Committee…Lynne Featherstone MP was on the panel and asked Ben whether LGBT people need protection from harassment…Ben said there was no evidence that such protection would be helpful and that Stonewall only asks for things that are really necessary. Thanks Ben.

1. No one is politically unbiased.

2. There is no (singular) ‘gay cause’.

2. If you feel so unrepresented, why not do this yourself?

I generally regard Peter as a necessary extremist who makes it easier for the rest of us to negotiate the third way; but on this occasion I think he is bang on the money.

Now, we have heard what your many alter ego’s have got to say on the matter; but what do YOU think – or had you, in your haste to abuse others, forgotten that your rabid ‘Jean-Paul Bentham’ persona hadn’t yet expressed his views?

Ta. Yawn.

Stick around; you ain’t seen nothing yet!

And what is your opinion on Peter Thatchell’s complaint against the way the Equality Bill is formulated?

Will you cut that out, MONKEYCHOPS.

We all know who you are, an ex-gay alcoholic schizophrenic cybersapce shapeshifter (E.G.A.S.C.S. for short) whose only fun in life is disrupting the threads on PinkNews.

You don’t really care about anything except grabbing the spotlight and keeping it as long as you can, eh honey.

If you really want to be noticed, why don’t you try gathering up all the copies of the Wolfenden Report in the UK and making a great big bonfire with them at Charring Cross? Bring fireworks and a vodka martini, or two, or three. Prefer gin, do we? Well, OK.

Excuse me but you do ‘seem’ to have a problem with Peter Thatchell.
The only thing you don’t “seem to have” a problem with is how to make your stupid remarks as ambivalent as possible, you twit.

Aren’t you the guy who believed that the footage of the American Moon Landing in ’69 was genuine – on the EastEnders’ thread?

You left there so fast after I plugged you up that I didn’t get a chance to tell you that my father was smarter than your father cos the best part of you ran down your father’s leg.

You did have a father, right.

You know everything, Monkeychops, so tell me this: Does Peter Thatchell “seem to have” a legitimate complaint or doesn’t he? A “yes” or a “no” will do, although you “seem to be” prepared to disrupt yet another thread to hold onto the brilliance of the spotlight, eh sweetie. Just don’t look directly in the light, that’s a good cybersapce shapeshifter scizophrenic cruel little s.o.b.

But I ain’t bitter. Please don’t take this the wrong way!