Reader comments · David Cameron makes hijab joke to gay magazine · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


David Cameron makes hijab joke to gay magazine

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Straw didn’t ask women to remove hijabs, he asked them to remove niqabs, the full-face veil. The hijab covers the hair.

  2. Thanks for clarifying that Jack/OldNewLabour flunky….. lol!

  3. Should we care what ‘call me bandwagon’ said yesterday or today? After all he will of changed his position and bandwagon by Wednesday.

  4. Omar Kuddus Gayasylum (uk) 9 Feb 2010, 2:05pm

    “Sorry, I shouldn’t say that, I’ll get into trouble.” Does he ever say anything that does not get him into trouble,esp re Religion or LGBTs.

  5. ChutneyBear 9 Feb 2010, 2:07pm

    Again over reaction as usual from the masses….its a joke, he didnt directly insult anyone…..ffs

  6. “I think the church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through – sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom line full essential.”

    So, Cameron believes in FULL equality? I doubt it. If that’s the case, let him exert some real leadership and prove his support by becoming pro-active in allowing those of us who so desire,to marry. He would get my vote and many more of us, but its obvious he believes in legal segregation under a different name just like his Labour counterparts. Its disengenuous of him to say full equality is a bottom line full essential without any evidence to back it up. Lets hear it from you Mr. Cameron.

  7. I don’t care what they call them; I call them masks. You are not allowed to wear masks in this country! There is nothing in the Koran to make them wear masks. Make them illegal like the Italians and the French have done then there would be no reason to take back a “joke”……

  8. Tend to agree with ChutneyBear, an over reaction and just a joke.
    What a sad world it’ll be when we have to think twice about trying to make others smile.

  9. Previous comments show little understanding of the Muslim community in Britain or the political context into which David Cameron felt he could make this ‘joke’ i.e. a global trend of attacking Muslim communities and Islam, especially what Muslim women choose to wear.

    For a far more helpful analysis read this article:

    Also, underlying this debate is some blatant, old-fashioned sexism. Try to imagine political debates igniting over whether men wear trousers, shorts or baseball caps in public places. Yet, once again our politicians feel perfectly happy judging women on what they wear, even though these women are choosing to wear the hijab and niqab: so much for the importance of freedom of choice and individual freedom.

    Interesting that as the white-washing Iraq War Inquiry crawls on, David Cameron – who supported the genocide in Iraq, which has directly and indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims – finds time to joke about and judge Muslim women’s dress sense. No mention of the real issues that affect the lives of Muslim women in the UK: poor housing, poverty, racism and discrimination. Not so funny, I guess, eh Dave even if you do not care about their votes?

  10. Simon Murphy 9 Feb 2010, 4:41pm

    That’s not a huge mistake by Cameron.

    Far more sinister is his refusal to condemn his fascist Polish allies as homophobic.

    Cameron says that he would never enter an alliance with any group whose views he found ‘unacceptable’

    Michal Kamiski refers to gay people as faggots; Polish gay rights groups state that the Law and Justice Party is by far the most homophobic and a senior Law and Justice Party MP has stated (without a shred of evidence) that gay people make up 1% of the population yet account for 43% of paedophile offences.

    David Cameron will not be in alliance with groups whose views he finds unacceptable.

    He therefore thinks that dangerous, homophobic libel linking homosexuality to paedophilia is acceptable.

    That Attitude interview showed Cameron up to be exactly what we have long suspected – a fake, a man without any policy or substance, who’d gladly sell his granny if he thought it would win him a few votes.

    He’s a repellant opportunist and liar.

  11. Sister Mary clarence 9 Feb 2010, 5:29pm

    “He’s a repellant (sic) opportunist and liar” – a lot of that about Simon isn’t there?

    Do you have any comment to make about Labour’s allies in Europe. you went deathly quiet when asked about them before.

  12. Sister Mary clarence 9 Feb 2010, 5:30pm

    “especially what Muslim women choose to wear.”

    James – can you define ‘choose’? Clearly it means something very different in your understanding to mine.

  13. Sister Mary clarence 9 Feb 2010, 6:02pm

    Yes James is makes the point I think that many Muslims living in the West have views that are entirely out of keeping with those in their countries of origin.

    They appear to have become detached from the beliefs of those in their native countries, having to some extend embraced the freedoms that the West provides, but channeling them into maintaining a distance from non-Muslim communities.

    I have a number of Muslim friends both from Africa and the Middle East who are extremely scathing about the behaviour of many Western Muslims who in remaining ‘true to their faith’ have completely bastardised the religion to an extend that would not be tolerated in a Muslim country.

  14. Yet more back-biting over some misconstrued comment. Anyone in a public position these days must be walking on f_cking eggshells in case they accidentally blurt out something that could be spun against them. It’s not them that are the problem though, it’s the tittle-tattling people around them that run off like some attention-seeking six year old that has to tell Mummy her little brother just said “Poo.” It’s pathetic.

  15. well said simon – every lgbt person considering voting tory should read this interview – Cameron says there is no need for new equality legislation for LGBT people (no thanks to him!) and instead says homophobia is merely cultural – this is total rubbish as he advocates tax breaks for married couples which will blatantly discriminate against Lesbian and gay relationships – but what it also shows, is that those who attack one minority also disregard others – so it is to our folly to allow Cameron to get away with attacking the choice to wear the veil, as it fuels a general climate of bigotry against ethnic minorities, which will eventually impact on sexual minorities – the proof is Cameron’s alliance with far right parties who call gay people “faggots” – and he says this man is not homophobic! Whatever the failings of the labour government – you are about to get the full blast of a full on thatcherite and it aint going to be pleasant for anyone – Im just shocked that Pink news has not made a big deal out Cameron’s disgusting alliance with far right homophobes in eastern europe? surely this is important information to communicate to the LGBT community in the run in to the general election? why prettify the tories?

  16. Pumpkin Pie 9 Feb 2010, 9:47pm

    “Sorry, I shouldn’t say that, I’ll get into trouble.”

    Jesus Christ, the man’s hopeless. Thanks for confirming exactly what I’ve always believed about you in one swift sentence, Cameron. Contrary to RobN’s predictable hissy-fit above, what really counts is how people react to the things they’ve said, how they respond to their mistakes. Any normal, decent person would apologise for any offense, even if they hadn’t meant it. Come on, I learned that in ****ing nursery school, along with saying “please” and “thank you”, washing my hands after using the toilet, and not chewing with my mouth open. It’s not hard. A populist politician like Cameron, however, betrays his true colours with a remark that amounts to “oops, I hope that doesn’t hurt my ratings”. Once again showing a total lack of understanding of why what he said is bad, only that it might damage his image. I expected this from the lower ranks in his party, but this is a pretty big gaffe for such an experienced salesman.


    Thanks for that link. That whole burqa affair was such a fiasco. The whole point of being a free country is not to ram it down people’s throats. This hasn’t solved anything. You really think getting this absolutely minute number of women to unveil themselves will magically change their lives? Of course it bloody won’t. It’ll just put their problems out sight and out of mind. As usual, the touchy xenophobes fight back against anything that makes them feel bad or uncomfortable with no thought for other people. So long as it doesn’t bother them anymore, it’s all good. This is not the way things are supposed to work. If you think these women are abused, show them support and understanding. Educate them and lead them to the light. Forcing them to change their dress code is seen as totalitarian, and it will make them turn against you, back to whoever it is that’s supposed to be abusing them. Honestly, any dime store psychologist could have told the French government that. But then, they were only trying to help non-Muslims, weren’t they?

    Also this whole thing about such and such article of clothing meaning such and such reveals more about the people who make these claims. When I see someone in formal religious attire, I don’t see an attack on my liberties, I don’t see them ramming it down my throat and trying to seperate themselves from us. I just see someone who’s into their religion and wants to belong to a group. People like goths and punks wear fancier outfits and everyone’s (quite rightly) fine with them. Hey, are balaclavas banned in France, too? Did it save hikers from their abusive relationship to walking around in cold weather? Boy, I bet they feel free now!

    I once read an interview with an academic (wow, a university chick – real oppressed!) who wears a burqa. She liked it. Of course, the nay-sayers can just denounce any opinion they don’t like as an example of some poor little woman being forced to say something against their will. So, here’s the important bit – her reason for liking it. She said that oyung women are so sexualised in Western culture, so expected to be these waxed, slimmed, styled, make-up wearing bits of eye-candy that wearing the burqa stops people trying to impose these values on her. When she wears it, people (except xenophobes, obviously) treat her not as a young woman, but just as a person. They interact with her mind and not her body (typical academic, eh?).

    I’m not naive, I know that the oppression of women is a big problem in many religions, foremost in Islam. And, even more importantly, despite what certain militant atheists believe, in the cultures of the countries that some of these women come from. But, as I said before, enforcing dress codes only makes things worse. These people aren’t going to see this as something that’s good for them. The only way to help them is to help them understand why you’re saying it’s bad. And grow some thicker skin, will you? This whole thing about wearing such outfits being divisive only comes from people who can’t tolerate those who are different from them. The same sort of prattle that comes from people who say we’re ramming our sexuality down their throats when we walk down the street hand in hand.

    As for the hijab, what the heck are you jokers smoking? It’s a ****ing headscarf. I’ve got white atheist friends who wear headscarves. If they ban hijabs, then they’d have to ban kippahs (Jewish skull caps), too. And stop Hare Krishnas shaving their heads. And force goths to wear bright colours. Oh, and don’t even think about wearing baseball caps, either.

    Gawd bless the freedom of the West! The freedom to tell prospective comrades how they should dress! All hail!

  17. Sister Mary clarence 10 Feb 2010, 1:50am

    “he advocates tax breaks for married couples which will blatantly discriminate against Lesbian and gay relationships”

    How so when the same tax breaks will apply to civil partnerships?

  18. Sister Mary clarence 10 Feb 2010, 1:57am

    “She said that oyung women are so sexualised in Western culture, so expected to be these waxed, slimmed, styled, make-up wearing bits of eye-candy that wearing the burqa stops people trying to impose these values on her.”

    Flapjack – make your way to Oxford Street on a Saturday afternoon to a few of the better shops … Selfridges at around 3 o’clock for example. Check the restaurant out and count to Gucci hijabs and the ones with the ornate, and incredibly expense, gold and precious stones embroidered into them. Choke of the perfume they perpetually spray on themselves throughout the meal, check out the quality of the manicures and the pedicures, and lastly check out the gold hanging off their wrists, fingers, ankles, toes and necks.

    Their status is there for all to see, and no expense is spared on every part of their body visible to ensure that it exquisitely presented.

    Kind of blows the dowdy old academic’s arguments out of the window I’m afraid.

  19. That was a funny joke, and true.

  20. Pumpkin Pie 10 Feb 2010, 5:48am

    Kind of blows the dowdy old academic’s arguments out of the window I’m afraid.

    Yeah, you got me mixed up with flapjack. Anyway, you missed the point. That point being that not everyone wears a burqa for the same reasons.

    But hold on, you didn’t say burqa, you said hijab. If you were indeed talking about hijabs, a) that has nothing to with the part of my post you quoted (hijabs and burqas are entirely different kettles of fish) and b) why are you acting like this is something that should surprise anyone? I’ll say it again: a hijab is a ****ing headscarf. Even atheists wear those. I can understand the issues people have with burqas, which is why I wrote that long post rudely trying to argue about that whole mess. But a hijab? Seriously? How could anybody have a problem with a bloody headscarf? I can understand why people would be upset that someone feels the need to cover their face, but…covering their hair? That’s a problem for people?

    Oh, I don’t even want to play along anymore. What ridiculous ethnocentrism. African tribeswomen would be appalled that women in our societies are expected to cover their breasts while the men are allowed to be topless. And why is it that any time a female celeb wears one of those low-cut dresses that exposes her back, the paparazzi are all over it? That’s because women’s backs are sexualised in our culture. How ridiculous is that? About as ridiculous as their hair being sexualised, I reckon.

  21. I think the point is being lost here. Headscarfs? Fine not a problem. Face masks/veils/burquas wotsoever you call them are not acceptable in this country for security reasons alone! We know one or two of those copy cat 7 7 guys fled the country in such a disguise! You can’t wear your moror bike helmet in a bank so why allow in someone in a face mask????

  22. Nice 1 Dave, so he’s human after all!

    Well sorry you ‘Labour-lovies’ but I’m voting Tory just to get this current useless lot out! I’d rather have the rights stay where they are and hope for economic recovery than being gay in a bankrupt country. Lets face it we can vote them out again in at least 5 years time. It’s just ashame real politics is long dead.

  23. What will be Dave’s position on this be today?

    Do you really want a Schizophrenic prime minister with no idea what his or his parties policy is on anything from day to day Squidgy?

  24. Sister Mary clarence 10 Feb 2010, 11:12am

    Apologies Pumpkin – I did confuse you and flapjack (apologies flapjack too).

    To correct you slightly a hijab is generally considered to be a headscarf (head covering) but can also be used to refer to more complete covering (which is the origin of the word)

    It is used to maintain a woman’s modesty supposedly, and however you want to word it, some Muslim cultures have indoctrinated women into believing that myth, and to be a ‘choice’ made as a direct result of indoctrination isn’t really a choice in the truest sense.

    It is to be expected that a child taught from birth that covering herself up is all about what’s best for her will believe it. It takes a very strong will to question what you have always been brought up to believe – we are in a same situation with the gay=bad argument.

    Much is being made of the ban in France, but Turkey and Tunisia both have bans and Morocco (a Muslim country) discriminates against women who cover themselves. The Bangladesh national air carrier bans its cabin crew from covering, and yet in this country the Bangladeshi community appears to be very pro hijab/burqa.

    Covering is more about the politicising of Islam in the West. It is making a statement about not integrating, about being different. It is about saying ‘I am different and I want to be treated differently’. That can have both positive and negative effects, and people need to understand that. The negative element is compounded by those within the Muslim community promoting fundamentalist views that non-Muslims are inferior, and those in the West who are dismissive of any values other than those considered important by the West.

    If you took away all the early learning and said to a young woman at the age of 14 in this country these are the pros and these are the cons – would you like to cover your hair up, your face up, your whole body up we would see far less Muslim women walking around feeling apprehensive and awkward if a man catches a glimpse of them.

    The days of women’s servitude is long passed in this country – thankfully.

  25. theotherone 10 Feb 2010, 12:15pm

    sorry but I find no problem in what callmedave said. I’m by no means his greatest fan (he’s the slightly chuby face of ‘Compassionate Conseritivism’) but…well as Sister points out there are allot of things you’re told are positive, you’re told will help you, you’re told are your birth right which will leave you unable and/ or unwilling to take part in wider society.

    Before we even begin to discuss Muslim head scarfs, face coverings or even full body coverings let’s look at examples from closer to home. Having been brought up in a Catholic family that identified closely with Ireland and all things (deemed) Irish I was made believe from a young age that Irish people had been brought over to this country as cheap labour and that I should refuse to take part in this and limit my ambitions to getting a council house and a life on Disability Allowance. In addition I was taught that the only way to relax was to get pissed, that you gave large sums of your available money to the church and that violence against a Partner was acceptable. These beliefs are not uncommon in areas where there is a high concentration of people who have came from this background and such views, just as Separatist practices such as wearing hair/ face/ full body coverings, limit the ability of the individual to integrate or even contribute in any meaningful way to the wider society. We (the children of minority populations) do not choose the chains that bind us but we can be made free.

    Let’s blow ‘the hijab off them.’

  26. Abi1975:- as opposed to what we got now? would we know the difference. If Labour remain I hate to think where the country as a whole will be. None of them are really vote worth but the country is going to be lot messier under the current lot.

    Like I said when the Tories get in and we don’t like them, then there will be another election you know. It’s not as if elections are suddenly gonna stop. This country is in desperate need of change. Personally I think it will do us All good.

  27. I’m all for them being banned full stop! Women died to get equal rights for all women. Agree there still is work to be done but I get annoyed with some who feel they want to show that being surpressed if fine. It’s an insult

  28. Pumpkin Pie 10 Feb 2010, 1:22pm

    Covering is more about the politicising of Islam in the West. It is making a statement about not integrating, about being different. It is about saying ‘I am different and I want to be treated differently’.

    I totally disagree with this. Do you seriously believe that these women are using these veils to make a protest? I think it’s far more likely that it’s because that’s how they were brought up. They do it because it’s their cultural heritage. It’s about belonging, not about making statements. It’s just like any religious person who wears religious clothing. Am I to take it that you see Hasidic Jews the same way? You know, the ones who wear those swanky outfits.

    If you took away all the early learning and said to a young woman at the age of 14 in this country these are the pros and these are the cons – would you like to cover your hair up, your face up, your whole body up we would see far less Muslim women walking around feeling apprehensive and awkward if a man catches a glimpse of them.

    Agreed. But banning women who have already been brought up this way from wearing it just makes things worse for them. That’s what my problem is. You’ve got to help people to choose by themselves. Forcing it upon them does nothing. In fact, worse than nothing. They still have the same attitude that made them want to wear it in the first place, only now they feel betrayed and alienated, which is where you get cultural tensions and extremism brewing.

    I do think that face coverings should be banned in particular circumstances (security purposes, teaching, etc.), but otherwise it would be better for everyone if we helped these women ban the burqa themselves. Anything less results in a problem merely becoming invisible, which makes things worse.

  29. Sister Mary clarence 10 Feb 2010, 2:27pm

    “Do you seriously believe that these women are using these veils to make a protest?”

    Pumpkin, no, no, no, of course I don’t but I think their husbands, fathers and brothers are!!!!

    I do to some extend take your point that people have to choose for themselves, but everyone on all sides has to do that. we can unilaterally say to Muslim women living in Britain, wear them if you wish, and similarly don’t wear them if you don’t want to BUT if others in their communities are not taking the same position, nothing changes.

  30. theotherone 10 Feb 2010, 3:24pm

    we are confusing religion and culture yet again:

    Hasidic Jews = Jewish subgroup.

    ‘Muslim hair/ face/ full body covers = Cultural norm.

    Now if we’re allowing ourselves, as good Liberals, to become the Police who enforce hideously misogynistic cultural norms then we should enforce Heterosexuality as that too is a cultural norm.

  31. Again, please read this article, it is insightful:

    At this point in time and history Muslim people, and Muslim women especially – have become scapegoats and discriminated against while the real issues about David Cameron and Tory attitudes to the LGBT community get sidelined. So, on here, people are discussing the in and outs of what Muslim women should wear and what we think this means (with no input from Muslim women themselves) rather than fighting against the real Tory agenda:
    • Their alliance with fascist sympathisers in Europe who call gay men “faggots” and paedophiles
    • A planned Thatcherite agenda of brutal cuts that will affect the poorest in society with attacks on public sector workers (yet we, the public, have paid billions to bail out the banks, and are now being asked to pay again through cuts in spending, wages and pensions while the banks whinge that they are being attacked while still taking huge bonuses).
    • Cameron says no new legislation is needed to support LGBT people and he has no ideas for tackling the epidemic of homophobic bullying in our schools. And as we know, the Conservatives can only boast of a history of criminalising LGBT people in Government and resisting any equalities legislation in opposition. Compare Section 28 with Labour’s record
    • And nobody should be fooled by Cameron’s desire to extend tax incentives to same-sex couples who have a civil partnership as well as married people. This old Tory idea – that that marriage and the nuclear family are the solution to our ‘broken society’, saving us from everything from paedophilia to gun crime – is complete nonsense and is really a smokescreen for policies that would redistribute wealth from single, divorced and unmarried people (who are more likely to be from poorer backgrounds) to richer married people and as such is shameless theft.

    The Tories want our votes while promising us less then nothing.

  32. theotherone 10 Feb 2010, 3:55pm

    no James the problem here is that you are trying to use this thread to spread propaganda for Labour.

    Let me wast time however deconstructing your points:

    1. Labour is allied to Homophobes, Anti Semites, Holocaust Deniers, former IRA Bombers and former Communist Part officials. Please don’t trade insults regarding who is allied with who as it’s already been discussed in-depth on this board.

    2. The poorest in Society? Don’t make me laugh: Labour doubled the Tax burden on the poorest in society, worsened their chances of getting off the bottom rung of the ladder, preceded over the worse Depression seen since World War 2 and limited access to Benefits. Labour sure have a good record. As to bailing out the banks: that was Labour not the Tories just as it was Labour who changed legislation to allow the banks to act in the way they have, just as it is Labour who now control the same banks.

    3. I’m no Tory supporter but neither am I a supporter of Labour who have presided over a huge rise in Homophobia and the rise of the Far Right due to their lack of control over the economy and some sorely misguided policies. Why do you insist we look towards the publications of political Parties to see their records? Spin, all spin.

    4. Wither family is the way to help young people or not is a mute point what we’re discussing, or should be discussing, here is that official Conservative policy recognizes Queer families AS families.

    Now isn’t it time you went on your tea break? I mean Gordon Brown might come along and punch you if he realises you’ve wasted Labour Party resources on such a stupid post.

  33. Sister Mary clarence 10 Feb 2010, 4:00pm

    Beautifully put theotherone – clear and succinct, despite falling on deaf ears I suspect.

  34. I second that Sister!!

    Very Well put theotherone.

  35. Initially brought up by nuns who, prior to Vatican II, wore ‘veils’ which only showed their eyes, noses, and, just about, their mouths.

    Amazingly, neither here in Ireland, nor in France, did anyone say they were some form of subversives.

  36. @ theotherone (33):
    You blame Labour for a rise in homophobia? Eh? When in their first few years in power Labour did more to advance the case for LGBT rights than any other party since 1967 (when Labour was in power under Wilson)? They haven’t done enough for sure, but if you want to blame a party for propagating homophobia, take a look at the one that introduced Section 28 and then voted against its abolition.

  37. theotherone 10 Feb 2010, 8:47pm

    didn’t Labour only bring in the changes Europe insisted they had to?

    My point was that Labour have fvcked the Economy just as they did in the 70’s and just as they did in the 70’s we’ve seen a resurgance in the far right.

    I would also draw your attention to their Immigration policies which, it has recently been leaked, where not so much policies as opening the doors in the belief that they could radically remake British society. The result? A resurgence of the Far Right.

    Let’s pause for a moment and ask why there has been an increase in Hate Crime against Queer People. Is it something in the water?

    Clause 28 was, even the Tory Party have admitted, a bad thing but please let’s remember that it wasn’t fought by Labour and while callmedave has apologized for the Tory record on Queer rights Gordo hasn’t explained why he abstained on every piece of Queer Rights legislation until he became Prime Minister. Callmedave has voted FOR more Queer rights than Gordo has.

    Now that’s over and done with can we get back to the actual discussion? If you want to discuss these topics may I suggest that the story regarding the Polish Law and Justice Party is a better place? You’ll find it in the ‘most commented’ section.

  38. theotherone 10 Feb 2010, 8:52pm

    Could I also ask two questions:

    1. What has this story got to do with Gay Rights


    2. Why did it take you a few days to realise that there was a story when you already published a story based on this interview several days ago?

    With this ridiculous level of electioneering and the increased level of policing I’ve seen recently I’m assuming that the election will be called soon?

  39. It’s worth mentioning to all you Labour lovies that Labour have deliberately encouraged mass immigration in the belief that those people are more likely to vote Labour. 3 million in 10 years!

    Most of those that come in are also extremely homophobic and believe homosexuality should be against the law. Surely the more people that back that the more like it will happen. Multi-culturalism only works if they accept what is British law and indeed British culture. That includes the right to be openly gay.

    That my friends is UNDER a Labour government!You could say if the Tories do win they kinda handed bigotted behaviour to them on a plate. I very much doubt we will lose any rights but it does give ya sometime to think about with your precious Labour party.

  40. theotherone 11 Feb 2010, 2:37pm

    off topic but anyone interested in my email coropsondence regarding the equality bill may enjoy this…

    Dear Ms ——

    As my colleague explained, this matter was debated at some length in the House of Lords and the Government respects the decision of the House of Lords and will not seek to reverse that decision.

    Yours sincerely

  41. theotherone 11 Feb 2010, 2:46pm

    and my response:

    Dear Ms

    Thankyou for your response to my enquiry but, with the greatest respect, you have not answered my question.

    I asked why the Government is ‘respecting’ the decision of the Upper House in this matter when they are willing to debate with The Upper House in other matters. In issues such as the legislation around ID cards and the periods that Terrorist suspects are allowed to be detained you where willing to challenge The Lords but not on this issue.

    I would again suggest that this looks rather like at attempt to placate Religious groups in the run up to a General Election. I would sincerely hope this is not the case.


  42. David Cameron is like one of those embarassing dads who tries to be down with the kids. It’s cringeworthy.

    “ooh I shouldn’t have said that, don’t tell mum I said that. But notice how edgy and with it I am!”

  43. theotherone 11 Feb 2010, 8:35pm

    what a horrible image – callmedave as Trendy Dad.


  44. Dude Dave!!

  45. “1. What has this story got to do with Gay Rights”

    Nothing. Nothing at all.

    It does however have everything to do with the moronic, sheep like mentality of the editorial position of pink news, i.e. labour at any cost so lets smear the tories at any opportunity, no matter how shallow and desperate.

    Try reading the following and then reach into the darkest place of your heart and wonder how effing stupid/insane/moronic you would have to be to vote for more of it:

  46. Sister Mary clarence 13 Feb 2010, 4:04pm

    Laughed as I was reading it Vulpus, then it dawned on my how much I’ve just been screwed

  47. theotherone 14 Feb 2010, 1:01am

    jesus that’s depressing.

    Let us not forget that the Unemployment figures quoted where a severe underestimate as Labour have fiddled with the figures so much that there is no real comparison to be made.


  48. hijab joke?????

    sounds like a bomb joke to me

    what is he gonna do about :

    “None of the ******* claimed for break the MPs expenses rules as MPs are allowed to bill for ******* “

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.