Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

David Cameron criticised for ‘airbrushing his memory’ over gay adoption

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What do you expect from Mr Bandwagon.

  2. It’s funny, I thought back tracking was supposed to get you out of a hole, not dig it deeper.

    “the ideal adoption is finding a mum and a dad, but there will be occasions when gay couples make very good adoptive parents. So I support gay adoption”.

    I’m really honoured that I could give a child a second-rate upbringing if all the straight couples run out!

  3. Mumbo Jumbo 11 Feb 2010, 7:05pm

    “….the ideal adoption is finding a mum and a dad, but there will be occasions when gay couples make very good adoptive parents.”

    Translation: Gay people are second best but will do when there is nothing better available.

  4. or another translation;

    gay people can adopt the special needs kids that nobody else wants.

  5. Omar Kuddusgayasylum(uk) 11 Feb 2010, 7:53pm

    Come on when has David everated or been pro gay.
    “Tory leader David Cameron has been criticised for denying he had ever voted against allowing gay couples to adopt.” typical of his / The paty normall responce unless he /they feel that it may get him?them a “pink” vote.

  6. BrazilBoysBlog 11 Feb 2010, 8:21pm

    Look guys, he can smell Downing Street so badly that it hurts.. He would do or say anything now to get himself through the door.

    The pity is, as Labour have made such a hash of everything else, he probably will.

    As I said on another thread, thank goodness we have the EU to help us protect hard fought for equal rights!

  7. He is not going to say gays and lesbians are AS GOOD as married straights at raising kids with the party faithful listening. The real issue here is that the guy is an amateur who rewrites his own history and thinks he won’t be found out and then looks like an idiot when he is. He is lightweight fluff who will be devoured by his own party if he gets to no. 10 – and even sooner if he doesn’t.

  8. theotherone 11 Feb 2010, 8:33pm

    did pink news forget this when they published two other seperate stories about the same interview.

    I’m no fan of DC as I’m sure you’ve noticed but THREE SEPARATE STORIES from ONE source? This is blatant electioneering.

    Did Gordo threaten to punch you if you didn’t drag this out? Just call the fvck1ng election already!

  9. theotherone 11 Feb 2010, 8:41pm

    “He says he doesn’t ally himself with people with homophobic views in the European Parliament, but he does. And he says he didn’t vote against gay adoption, but he did. Twice.”

    whereas Labout ally themselves with homophobes, mass murdering IRA bombers, anti-semites, holocaust deniers, sex attackers and former Communist Party officials not to mention that they’re led by a man who had a terrible voting record on Gay Rights until the point he became PM.

    This is not a news story just as the last DC ‘story’ here was not a story. Can we PLEASE get Gay news NOT Labour electioneering?

  10. He won’t be getting my vote..ever. He’s part of the Conservative Party…and they brought in Section 28.
    No self respecting gay person can EVER vote for them EVER.
    They are allies of anti-semites and homophobes, they push the chirstobigot agenda, and will be the worst thing ever to happen to this country if they get in.

    Vote Lib Dem, Vote Green..vote anyone other than Labour or Conservative.

  11. theotherone 11 Feb 2010, 8:54pm

    at least you’re not asking people to vote for labour peter.

    Just as an aside here, and since we’re getting a rabidly pro-labour stance from Pink News:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7023921.ece

  12. Patrick James 12 Feb 2010, 12:42am

    David Cameron has been dishonest over the gay adoption issue. I think he finds telling the truth to be a bit of a struggle.

    He claims that Conservative allies, the Polish Law and Justice party are not homophobic, but former Conservative MEP McMillan-Scott has produced this document entitled Kaminski Uncovered (Microsoft Word document) which reveals that Michal Kaminski, leader of the Law and Justice Party is certainly a homophobe.

    Personally I suspect that the Conservative party central office is now paralysed and riven with internal feuding. I think that David Cameron has told each faction of the Conservative party what they want to hear, just like he does to the electorate. Each faction thought he was going to deliver for them if the Conservatives win the election, but now they’ve worked out that all the factions have been told the same thing.

    This game was fine for David as long as no policies were required but now they have to come up with a manifesto, and, oh dear, how to tell everyone they’re getting what they’ve been promised?

  13. And let’s not forget that in the “Attitude” magazine interview, his grand solution to deal decisively with the disproportionate amount of homophobic bullying in our schools & the rise in homophobic attacks/murders in the UK over the past couple of years…is to condemn rap music (he didn’t have any other ideas in this part of the interview it seems).

    Hardly convincing evidence that the Tories will make any better a government than Labour I think.

  14. theotherone 12 Feb 2010, 1:18am

    perhaps not george but they can hardly do a worse job can they?

    In certain respects they’re already saying sensible things:

    My personal favorite is that they will block the Government’s attempts to close down Recruitment Agencies. The Labour Government want to bring in laws that would make it virtually impossible for these companies to operate which would cause unemployment to sky rocket and the economy to grind to an even worse halt than we have saw under Labour.

    I don’t relish the possibility of a Tory government but I’m less scared of it than I am of another Labour one.

  15. Pumpkin Pie 12 Feb 2010, 1:47am

    David Cameron? Air-brushing? I see what they did there! ;D

    Somebody really needs to grill Cameron on this issue of gays making second-rate parents. A candidate for Prime Minister cannot just say **** like that and expect to get away with it. This isn’t something you can just say “it’s my opinion” about. Not when psychologists have spent decades studying it without coming to that conclusion, not when your “opinion” will have such massive ramifications for so many people, and not when you appoint a religious fundamentalist to be in charge of families. This has got to be the worst thing Cameron’s said so far.

  16. Simon Murphy 12 Feb 2010, 1:50am

    David Cameron used to work in PR.

    He’s been lying (or ‘airbrushing’ as he likes to call it) for years.

    Don’t believe a word. He’s a posh, rich boy who will keep lying.

    ‘Call me Dave’ Cameron is a fake.

  17. BrazilBoysBlog 12 Feb 2010, 6:55am

    @14 “My personal favorite is that they will block the Government’s attempts to close down Recruitment Agencies. The Labour Government want to bring in laws that would make it virtually impossible for these companies to operate which would cause unemployment to sky rocket and the economy to grind to an even worse halt than we have saw under Labour.”

    I actually have a problem with some of these ´recruitment agencies´.

    A few years ago, I was unlucky enough to experience a period of unemployment. I registered as unemployed and was told that I must also register (and seek work with) some of these recruitment agencies.

    I took various temping jobs with a few agencies during my period between (real) full time employment. During that time, I found out that I was actually getting an hourly rate far below those working alongside me at the companies I was sent to. (although the companies were paying these agencies an astronomical rate).

    These companies are only interested in you as long as you are saying ´yes´ to whatever job they want to send you on. The first time you say no, you are persona non-grata. They want to charge companies huge premiums if they want to take you on full-time, Then, you find that they have often screwed-up your tax and contribution records. (leaving you with the mess to sort out) … and the worst part of all this?

    The blo-dy government forces you to register with them and relies on them to do the job that the employment agency should be doing. I don´t know of many other private sector companies who enjoy such support from the government? They force the unemployed to register with these (largely) rubbish agencies so they can negate their own responsibilities.

    So, personally speaking, whilst I do not know the exact measures the government propose bringing in, I think if they are going to do something about these agencies, then that´s not a bad thing. Instead of filling their offices with cheap labour, they want to be regulating their practices a bit better.

  18. This story is factually wrong.

    On 4th November 2002 in the most important element of the adoption bill being passed David Cameron did effectively abstain. He was absent for the vote on Suitability of Adopters, despite a three line whip.

    Here is his voting record:

    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=David_Cameron&mpc=Witney&house=commons&dmp=826

    Yes in May 2002 he went with his party and voted against but by November that year he had changed his mind and stayed away despite party pressure.

    Gordon Brown didn’t vote for the measure either. He was absent too when he might have been expected to turn up and vote for it. Just like he was absent from every other gay rights vote up to 1997:

    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1997&dmp=826

    It is shocking to me that Johann Hari, Chris Bryant and Pink News are misrepresenting the facts so blatantly. Yes Cameron did vote against in May 2002 but he abstained 6 months later. A sign of a change of belief.

    The greater evidence of that change is that by October 2004 David Cameron voted FOR Civil Partnership yet Gordon Brown was absent again from the Commons vote.

    The first time Gordon Brown voted for any major gay rights reform was three months before his election as leader and PM. He was absent from the Commons for every age of consent vote, for the repeal of Section 28, and Civil Partnership. He turned up more for the ban on fox hunting and the Iraq war than votes for gay rights. According to the Public Whip site Cameron scores 61.3% on gay rights voting and Brown scores a measly .6% more with 61.9%.

    Cameron has genuinely changed his views. Brown is a diehard Labour refusenik on gay reform. Brown hated Blair and Mandelson’s emphasis on the gay law changes.

    I wish Johann Hari and Chris Bryant would not present a biased picture based on half a story.

  19. @ David

    The absences need to be explained in a house of commons context. We have this ridiculous system where MP’s pair off with a member or members in some cases from the other parties. So if GB is away from the house then DC will stay away from votes as they are paired together.

  20. Sister Mary clarence 12 Feb 2010, 11:23am

    So in effect what you’re saying then Dave is that the sorry is factually incorrect and therefore all these people who have sounded off have done so because the story fitted with their stereotypical Tory=bad view and therefore were more than happy to suck in a bit of negative news about then.

    no doubt in weeks to come a few will still be trotting this out as an example that Cameron eats babies or whatever.

  21. Sister Mary clarence 12 Feb 2010, 11:23am

    oops, ‘the story’ not ‘the sorry’

  22. Simon Murphy 12 Feb 2010, 11:31am

    “no doubt in weeks to come a few will still be trotting this out as an example that Cameron eats babies or whatever.”

    I am 100% certain that if ‘Call Me Dave’ thought admitting to eating babies woild gain him a few votes then he’d be doing that.

    He is a man without policy or integrity. What else can you expect from a professional liar (ooops I mean PR person)

  23. Sister Mary clarence 12 Feb 2010, 11:44am

    Dah-dah, I rest my case Mr Murphy

  24. Pumpkin Pie 12 Feb 2010, 12:10pm

    SMC:

    Of course, that doesn’t apply to Cameron’s slur on same-sex parents being second choice.

  25. Voting Conservative at the next election will do nothing for the future happiness of LGBT people in this country. Cameron himself is clear that under a Conservative government there would be no new legislation on LGBT rights and is content to resort to lazy racism, blaming rap music i.e. Black people for the epidemic of homophobic bullying in our schools. Well, excuse me Dave, but how about Section 28, the homophobia of the last Conservative government that allowed so many gay men to die of AIDS throughout the 1980s and 1990s and your party’s failure to propose any policies that would protect and support LGBT people from discrimination and violence? I am no fan of New Labour and their neo-conservative policies, but they have brought in unprecedented changes in legislation for LGBT people – see:
    http://lgbtlabour.org.uk/therecord
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/16/gay-rights-conservatives-voted-against
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jan/29/information-beautiful-gay-rights

    As a party the Tories have always hated gay rights, continue to vote against equality legislation, are working with very right wing parties in Europe who call gay men “faggots” and “paedophiles” and are throwing guilt-ridden gays who want to vote Tory crumbs from the table to buy them off before the election. We deserve concrete policies, underpinned by funding, that will bring real improvements to our everyday lives and tackle the key issues we face e.g. cracking down on homophobic bullying in schools, violence on the street, workplace discrimination and providing support for same-sex victims of domestic violence and sexual assault/rape. The Tory Party have not and would not deliver anything for LGBT people; they want to deliver a sugar-coated, cut-cut-and-cut again Thatcherite agenda. To believe anything else is denial.

  26. theotherone 12 Feb 2010, 1:31pm

    the tories are to blame for AIDS now? And probably that coffee you got out of the machine in work tasting bad too.

    J-e-s-u-s! Gordon Brown hates Queers more than DC and we all know that: everyone who has looked at the voting records knows Brown only voted for Queer Rights when he had to, callmedave seemed to do so when he felt it was correct to do so – not a small difference in my view.

    ASs to Labor’s allies in Europe: they use Homophobia as a tool in Electioneering just like Labour use Anti-Semitism.

    Anyway to another point…Brazilboysblog: there’s bad agencies out there and there’s good ones. Anyone who stuffs you over contributions has broken the law and should face the consequences of it. As to the pay scales between Agency and Permanent workers – sometimes the do differ, sometimes they don’t but I would point out that it’s a hell of allot easier to get an Agency job if your a Queer than to get a foot in the door with a company. Between returning to the workplace and securing my present position (with a recruitment agency) I could only get temporary jobs and without Agencies i and allot of Queers I know would never work.

    The planned legislation would mean that:

    1. Employment Agencies would have to pay out more holidays than Permanent Employers

    2. Recruitment Agencies would be forced to pay the wages of people employed by other bodies if they are the partner of a person employed by their agency and they wanted to claim extended maternity/ paternity leave.

    3. Recruitment Agencies would have to pay the full wages of anyone who falls pregnant in the workplace from the point that the employer says they don’t want them to work any longer (the government sets no limit on this so effectively women will be sacked from the workplace as soon as they fall pregnant if they are on Agency books but the Agency must continue to pay them.)

    4. Recruitment Agencies have to pay the same wages as Permanent Employees get BUT are not allowed to ask the Labour User (the company taking the people on) what they pay their workers. If they don’t pay the same (even though they are not allowed to ask what the pay scales are) then their company can be sued even though there is no way they knew they where breaking the law.

    It is worth pointing out that the Civil Service are the largest user of Employment Agencies in the UK and have a r-e-a-l-y bad name: they sack people without notice (i.e. stay to the end of your shift but don’t come back tomorrow) and pay wages to Agency Employees which are, in some cases, £3,000 to £5,000 bellow those of permanent employers.

  27. theotherone 12 Feb 2010, 1:32pm

    and James: Labour have only given us what Europe told us they had to no more and, in some cases, allot less.

  28. Sister Mary clarence 12 Feb 2010, 1:33pm

    I’ll give you that Pumpkin …. bit of a blunder there

  29. Sister Mary clarence 12 Feb 2010, 1:37pm

    “Cameron himself is clear that under a Conservative government there would be no new legislation on LGBT rights”

    James, hate to burst your bubble but LGBT rights are, and have been for some time, imposed on member states of the EU centrally, rather, and not the product of a benevolent national government.

  30. Sister Mary clarence 12 Feb 2010, 1:41pm

    “…. nd is content to resort to lazy racism, blaming rap music i.e. Black people for the epidemic of homophobic bullying in our schools”

    Again James, rap kind of moved out of the ghetto some years ago now, and has crossed the race divide – you been living in a bubble for the last 15 years by any chance?

  31. Sister Mary clarence 12 Feb 2010, 1:49pm

    “….. the homophobia of the last Conservative government that allowed so many gay men to die of AIDS throughout the 1980s and 1990s ….”

    That’s actually quite an interesting one James, bringing me on nicely to one of my pet hates. How many people are dying or facing crippling and/or life threatening illnesses and life-long disability as a result of this governments rationing of HIV meds? A third of people with HIV do not go onto meds until they have a life threatening illness, and not all because, as they would have us believe, these people have not been tested. This government almost daily pushes the limits further and further to deny those living with HIV medications until the last possibly point they can give them, at huge risk, in order to cut costs. In the 80s we didn’t have an effective way of managing the disease, for most people now we do, and yet that medication is withheld in order to say the NHS a few hundred pounds.

    They know only too well the risks they are forcing largely uninformed patients to take.

  32. Well, I for one will be voting Tories just to get this current lot out. I’d rather rights stayed put and have a better chance of not having the country going further into bankrupcy. It’s not going to be the last election. There will be another in at least 5 years then I’ll see what I think then.

    I am soooo bored of hearing about section 28, it was years ago. Get over it and stop living in the past. Despite your whinging about it under Labour we have the biggest homophobic abuse rise from teenagers, those of which section 28was Already repealled so that can’t be used as an excuse.

    May I also point out that Labour have deliberately encouraged mass immigration, 3 million in 10 years, to boost what they think, will be people voting Labour. May I remind you that most of those coming here are extremely homophobic believing it should be against the law. Thats a Labour government.

    It’s all very well going on about who Dude Dave sides with in Europe when Labour invite thoses very people into the country.

    So for those who rant

    “No self respecting gay person can EVER vote for them EVER.”

    It’s my choice and I choice not having a weak hypocritical government driving the country into the ground. I will give Dude Dave a chance and If I don’t like it then I will vote against them next time.

    Stop being a bunch of drama queens and stop tell us all that we shouldn’t vote for whoever You don’t like. That’s your choice but don’t force it on me!

  33. section 28 still has it’s consequences unfortunately Squidgy

  34. theotherone 12 Feb 2010, 5:11pm

    yes clause 28 still has it’s consequences: it’s used as the Reductio ad Hitlerum of the Labour Loving Gay Man.

    What has greater consequences is Labors (deliberately?) poorly drafter laws on Homophobic bullying, Religious Tolerance Laws and the growth of Fundamentalist Christianity in the classroom – all under Labor’s watch.

  35. The Lib Dems are the only party that have consistently supported and promoted LGBT rights. Take the equality bill, the only people who stood up in support of LGBT rights where the Lib Dem MP’s. While conservative MP’s where seeking to strengthen the rights or the church. While Labours epic fail on the equality bill is plain for all to see as Harriet Harman sold us out.

    Why people continue to support the two half’s of the same coin that is labour and the conservatives astounds me. Its time for a real change not the same old same old labour conservative con trick.

  36. @theotherone
    sorry dear, who r u talking about, cameron or christ?

  37. F. all of the blood sucking LIB-LAB-CON cheating liars.

    I’m going UKIP or BNP.

  38. theotherone 12 Feb 2010, 10:28pm

    not jesus andy – that would offend Labour as he was a Jew ;-)

    You know that the two words I had to type for this post to go up where ‘he bummed’ funny, in a childish way.

  39. theotherone 12 Feb 2010, 10:29pm

    I hope you’re joking rab, I truly hope you’re joking.

  40. That says so much about you Rab!

  41. theotherone 12 Feb 2010, 10:53pm

    you know I can’t see why people are screaming that the BNP are somehow an alternative to ‘normal’ politics. Wherever a BNP man (let’s face it, they don’t put women up for seats) gets elected they sit on their fat (they’re always fat and usually slightly strange looking) and does nothing.

    If you feel disenfranchised by Politics then get involved in politics – organise, campaign, get out with bin bags and clear up your neighborhood, get together and discuss your needs and concerns with others don’t vote for Fascist fvcks who will take your community away from you. The only people Fascists serve is themselves.

  42. The big lie of the BNP is they are the party of England and the voice of the English people. That’s not true the are the party of the puritans and Cromwell and the oppressive environment that created and the English people rejected.

  43. theotherone 12 Feb 2010, 11:13pm

    I think they’re the voice of a windy backside myself abi, a windy backside in a crowded underground train on a summers day.

  44. Aha,

    I provoked a response.

    I have no intention to vote fore those BNP idiots.

    However see how simple it is to produce a thought and an angst.

    That’s how politics and the media works.

    I’m voting for my dearly departed dead dog, as at least
    she lived in her own humility / love and she denounced nothing.

    Unlike these self serving bar stewards.

  45. Don’t be surprised if the BNP do well come this election. Oh and they have put women up for seats and believe me they are even worse than the men!

  46. “However see how simple it is to produce a thought and an angst.”

    You’re overselling your abilities there, sunshine. The response to your rabid statement was fairly measured, you’re not exactly proving anything here, sorry.

    Mr. Cameron is a proven liar. That’s it in brass tacks. All other argument about what other parties did and didn’t do is irrelevant here:- vote for Cameron’s party, you vote for blatant lairs.

    The electoral alternatives are another discussion.

  47. Sister Mary clarence 13 Feb 2010, 3:55pm

    “Mr. Cameron is a proven liar”

    Actually Terry, is is widely accepted that this Labour government has been the most dishonest government in many decades – twat statements like that are only going to result in a hail of postings pointing out what a bunch of thieving, lying, hypocritical, holier than though, robbing, crooks we have had governing us for over a decade.

  48. “Actually Terry, is is widely accepted that this Labour government has been the most dishonest government in many decades”

    Didn’t I just say that’s all irrelevant to this instance? The fact that the Labour Party is a liar, or anyone else for that matter, does not negate or lessen that fact that Cameron is a lair. A proven one. So, maybe “twat” statements like yours are nothing more than a red herring fallacy, and again, I say are utterly irrelevant in this situation. Make a logical defence of the case at hand, but don’t personally attack me because you are incapable of doing so.

  49. Terry, you have to ignore SMC, (s)he tends to use this site for near maniacal religious defence of the Tory party. You are quite right of course, just because person X is also a liar, does not diminish the wrong doing when person Y is proven to be one too. But this is typical deflection tactics of SMC in here, alas. Not one for logical or calm argument is the dear Sister, bless her.

  50. theotherone 13 Feb 2010, 6:36pm

    god terry how typical of the Hard Left twats I used to have to deal with in my Activist days, no wonder I got disillusioned and left it behind.

    I think it is germain to the argument about how callmedave acts to ask how others act too: if callmedave is a lier and Gordo’s a lier then they’re both liars and need to be named and shamed as such only thing is…it’s been shown here that callmedave was ‘being selective with the truth’ and did infact abstain but only after voting against Gay Rights therefore we may just be able to call you a lier too as you wish to paint the reality of this situation as something it is not.

    Politicians are liars and santa isn’t real. We learn these things when we grow up.

  51. “We learn these things when we grow up.”

    If you’re trying to make an argument, by all means do. That last comment was just nonsense – “if everyone’s a lair, then its okay for the head of the Tory Party to lie too” – a fools philosophy, of course, relinquishing responsibility for ones actions to another’s.

    Oh, and to make a statement that Cameron is a proven liar, does not make me a “hard left twat”, it means I’m not the blind, self deluding fool you are, nor do I stoop to silly insults to make a point.

  52. Martin Aldershot 13 Feb 2010, 9:21pm

    I love this site: ‘Sister Mary the Demented Freak’ with the “otherone” (literally…!!!) with their usual brand of vote-Tory -or-your-a-fool rubbish. Thankfully there is democracy and free speech in this country to save us from your two muppets insisting how we should vote. If either of you have a point to make without the lunatic insults, then please, I want to hear it. But all I see so far is feverish bullying to defence of your choice of voting. Terry actually makes a good point. You two, make me less inclined to EVER vote Tory if this is the sum intellect of their average supporter, thank you. Twist it anyway you want, Mr. Cameron IS a liar, and this is not up for dispute.

  53. Sister Mary clarence 13 Feb 2010, 10:22pm

    Forgive me folks but I thought it had already been established some time ago on this thread that the story is factually incorrect and that he did abstain (comment 18).

    I can only presume you are therefore talking about another lie he has hold elsewhere in which case you may what to share what you’re actually talking about with us, so we can blow holes in that too.

    As for your comments Martin, which the value you place on democracy and free speech clearly you’re not a Labour Party supporter, as they are two ideals they jettisoned years ago

  54. theotherone 14 Feb 2010, 12:31am

    firstly:

    I never said callmedave was not a lier but he’s not ‘lying’ as such about this, that’s the difference.

    Now if I’m not dealing with a Hard Left Twat then why did you get all aggressive and posturing when someone disagreed with you? You’re like the ‘Anarchists’ who took over every Activist meeting, shouted down every other speaker, spoke over any female speaker and screamed about how we had to riot m-a-n. I may be incorrect but that’s how you come across to me.

    Secondly:

    Martin. If you wish to know my voting intentions then I’ll be spoiling my ballot paper as I have done since I was 18. I don’t vote Tory or even support them. My post here are Anti-Labour not Pro-Tory but then when there are so manny real bullies here threatening people who don’t sing the praises of a party under who’s rule British Manufacturing has diminished at a greater rate than under thedreadedevilThatcher, where lie detectors are used on Benefits claimants, where the tax burden on the lowest paid workers has DOUBLED to pay for a tax break for the Middle Classes, where policy is defined by religion and where Creationism is taught in schools. It is not I who is the fool for not supporting Labour, it is yourself and the other rabid Brown supporters on this board who are the fools – fools sleepwalking into a Theocratic Police State.

    Vote for Labour and you vote for ID Cards, a DNA Database, Creationism in schools, 48 days detention, military hardware used against British citizens, economic ruin and the army on the streets. you vote to make photographing buildings illegal, the deployment of Riot Police to break up a party, the growth of a ‘Health and Safety’ culture which promotes the complete and utter abdication of responsibility, you vote for a lack of social mobility, you vote for the highest Unemployment levels in 17 years, you vote for a party that wants 9-5 jobs kept for Heterosexuals, you vote for torture and ‘extrodenary rendition.’ You vote for Labour.

  55. theotherone 14 Feb 2010, 12:54am

    oh and Terry: you’re not a Twat because you said something nasty about callmedave but because you reached straight for ‘the bog book of aggression’ when you responded to SMC.

    I quote:

    You’re overselling your abilities there, sunshine.

  56. Sister Mary clarence 14 Feb 2010, 7:39am

    oops – spotted a typo … ‘which the value’ should read ‘with the value’

  57. “oh and Terry: you’re not a Twat because you said something nasty about callmedave but because you reached straight for ‘the bog book of aggression’ when you responded to SMC. I quote: You’re overselling your abilities there, sunshine.”

    Then clearly you are as illiterate as your are offensive. That comment was directed at Rab for his puerile effort to generate a reaction. Try reading the comments before making a complete fool out of yourself in public.

    And SMC, forgive me if I don’t accept your twisted maniacal view of the Tory party which is more akin to a cult following than unbiased logic. I suggest you look at the issue at hand. Everything you and “the other one” said is irrelevant to the article and the facts. And irrelevance is the tactic of those who like to talk about their own agenda.

  58. theotherone 14 Feb 2010, 3:58pm

    odd how I aND smc are ‘rabid’ but you resort to insults and name calling.

    Now if we’re talking about ‘irrelevancies’ then can you indeed confirm that this story is factually incorrect? If it is (and it is) then, by your own illogic, you can’t discuss anything but the accusations against callmedave in this story – accusations that are false.

  59. theotherone 14 Feb 2010, 4:07pm

    and may I also say that though I had indeed misread your post your bullying, offensive response proves my point anyway.

    BTW: what’s so offensive about me?

  60. Sister Mary clarence 14 Feb 2010, 4:11pm

    “I suggest you look at the issue at hand. Everything you and “the other one” said is irrelevant to the article and the facts.”

    Terry – I think the relevant comment about the article being untrue when you actually check the voting records was posted by someone other than me or theotherone.

    So I might be misunderstanding, but you appear to be blaming us for something someone else pointed out.

    You also appear to having a dig at us because we’re not supporting a story that it has been pointed out is factually incorrect.

    I’m not really understanding your point.

    Are you wanting us to be outraged by the ‘fictitious’ bad behavior of David Cameron, or what?

    Personally I think we’re on firmer ground if we stick to what he has or has not done, rather than debate a load of made up nonsense

  61. theotherone 14 Feb 2010, 4:21pm

    sister: don’t you think it’s convenient that the only thing that is relevant is what is self contained within the story? Not that Labour lie, not that the story is factually incorrect.

    This reminds me of the hour long argument i had about Logic that had me walking out of a Philosophy class at University: a perfect Logic statement only refers to the statement itself and has no relevance to anything existing outwith the statement. An example is ‘all the blue ganoos are blue.’ Yea but what does that say about the price of fish? Likewise ‘within the confines of this story callmedave is a lier therefore callmedave is a lier’ is a perfect Logic statement within the confines of this story however…

    ‘Blue’ i.e not only the colour but the concept of blue wavelengths of light are a cultural phenomena not shared by all Humans therefore I argued that ‘all the blue ganoos are blue’ is a worthless statement. Think how loaded the term ‘lier’ is…

  62. “Now if we’re talking about ‘irrelevancies’ then can you indeed confirm that this story is factually incorrect?”

    I believe the onus is on you to do that. Again, you both stir this discussion with your irrelevancies. Believe what you want, I will take this article at face value until I see some real facts, not aggressive rants on a gay comment forum. And the facts so far as I seem them point to the Tory part being anti-gay. Sad, yes, but true alas. I couldn’t care less about both of your and your odious bulling tactics and the nebulous points you’re trying to make, so, good day to you both.

  63. Sister Mary clarence 14 Feb 2010, 11:15pm

    Terry – the link to the House of Commons voting record has been added further up the thread (#18), check it out (and I’m afraid the onus is on your to do that).

    I’d like to think once you have, you’d have the good grace to apologise but I’m not hopefully to be honest.

    As for ‘aggressive rants on a gay comment forum’, I wonder if you’re actually read back anything you’ve written

  64. theotherone 14 Feb 2010, 11:45pm

    Let’s recap some of the points here:

    1. that the story is incorrect is an irrelevancy

    2. that callmedave did infact abstain is irrelevant

    3. any disagreement with you is bullying.

    Have I got it about right then?

    Idiot.

    Oh and: why was I offensive? And when did I bully you?

    I don’t expect a response as there have been several threads like this recently where sweeping statements have been made and when they’re proven untrue the statement makers throw the dummy out of the pram and story off calling any reasonable person involved dirty names.

    Oh and: ‘nebulas points’ what like that the story is incorrect? I’d have thought that was pretty plain really.

  65. theotherone 14 Feb 2010, 11:46pm

    sorry – that should have been ‘storm off’

  66. And again. Another sad example of how certain individuals on this site gang up on others who’s only offence was to voice an opinion. This is a comment room last time I checked, not the private domain of certain individuals. This site brings out the worst of the ill-mannered, and these “individuals” should be ignored.

  67. I agree Ian – some people here are so rude and its usually the same people. Sometimes we seem to forget on this site we’re all on the same side.

  68. theotherone 15 Feb 2010, 10:42am

    yes it is disgusting that people use vile abuse as a way of stopping people when they disagree with them.

    Terry overstepped the mark didn’t he?

  69. Tim Clarke 15 Feb 2010, 1:22pm

    Quite facetious of your to say so theotherone, you seem unable to acknowledge your own aggressive behaviour.

    Ian & Kukala, unfortunately this site is, for the most part, left unmoderated, so people like these pair of dictatorial obsessives can abuse who they want. But there are a few well mannered and nice people on this site, don’t be soured by this pair of boors.

  70. Sister Mary clarence 15 Feb 2010, 1:58pm

    I think some people hear what they want to hear to be honest. We have a completely hoax story here and not one of the Labour trolls has has the decency to admit that they have jumped in with both feet, and as ever have merely closed ranks.

  71. theotherone 15 Feb 2010, 2:25pm

    well mannered? After being attacked on this thread?

    Can you point out where I was offensive? Please?

  72. theotherone 15 Feb 2010, 2:30pm

    anyway as to terry:

    ‘And the facts so far as I seem them point to the Tory part being anti-gay.’

    Wait a minute; I and SMC are told that anything other than what is contained within this story (even Hansard) is irrelevant and they you bring in an equal irrelevance.

  73. theotherone 15 Feb 2010, 2:32pm

    sorry that should read ‘and then.’

    and please don’t make claims that I and SMC are the same person. SMC is a Black Gay Man, I am a White Lesbian Transwoman. You can follow the link at the bottom of my posts if you don’t believe me.

  74. Actually you’ll find that this is typical of the Labour party and their supporters and why we so desperately need a change. When anybody disagrees with the Labour Party or their supporter they don’t debate they bully and get personal. It’s a typical communist trait, do what I say, how dare you disagree. When the party has been in too long the attitude spreads and we’re left with a deeply unpleasant society of me, me, me people. This from a party that used to be for the workers but only now in it for themselves and nothing else. It’s not hard to see where the me, me, me attitude comes from.

  75. “When anybody disagrees with the Labour Party or their supporter they don’t debate they bully and get personal.”

    Actually, neither Terry nor myself ever said we were Labour supporters. What you want to hear, rather then the facts, I’m afraid.

    That seems to be your tactic, if you disagree with he Tory Party, then your a – how this someone here put it with such a learned expression, ah, yes – a “Hard Left twat”

    Indeed. How informed and “inoffensive”

  76. “and please don’t make claims that I and SMC are the same person. SMC is a Black Gay Man, I am a White Lesbian Transwoman. You can follow the link at the bottom of my posts if you don’t believe me.”

    I never said you were. Again, extrapolating what doesn’t exist. I personally couldn’t care less. I just find both of you rather offensive and insulting to debate. Couldn’t care less if you don’t agree with that either, it won’t diminish the truth of it. Seems I’m not the only one either who thinks that if some of the other comments are anything to go by, so if the shoe fits sweetie….

    Anyway, this is truly tiresome. I’m sure you think you’ve won a hard earned victory for the Tory Party. Frankly, I think you need to validate your own choices by this kind of behaviour, and more pity to you. You’re an angry little person shouting on an internet site, so as Terry said before me, “good day to you both!”

    Tah-ra!

  77. theotherone 15 Feb 2010, 3:41pm

    wow, my posts are not going up again. Odd…

    storming off…

    I explained my language relating to the quote you pulled out and – shockingly – apologised.

    Now as to my voting intensions: I thought I’d made those clear but, ofcorse, ‘truth’ is a meaningless statement here isn’t it?

    Now as to my ‘offensiveness’ – was it just the one statement? Are there others? Will there be a response to this post or do you need to pop off to A&E after Gordo knocked out your teeth for loosing an argument on here?

  78. Actually Tim it seems you are the one who seems to be getting something out of nothing and taking it personally. My comment was a general one, remarking on how this current party being in too long and how it effects society. I don’t like either they all seem to lie but I personally couldn’t take another 5 years of this current lot. You and you alone seem to have taken it upon yourself to think it is aimed at you, typically making yourself the victim. A typical flaw of the sensitve gay people to make victims/martyr’s of themselves by thinking everyone must be talking about them. tut-tut There that was aimed at you, happy now?!

  79. theotherone 15 Feb 2010, 8:36pm

    ‘I’m sure you think you’ve won a hard earned victory for the Tory Party.’

    The Tory Party can go fvck itself for all I care. What I do care about is truth and neither the author of this article, the editorial team who allowed it to be published or the screaming hordes of Labour apologists who came to this thread to scream abuse at any one who disagreed with them care about this often discussed but little seen commodity.

    You, my friends, are bullies who, after beating up the little kid in the playground because they’re not in ‘your gang’ stand over their prone body hurling abuse at them because you skinned your knuckles on their teeth.

    You are disgusting little creeps who would willingly adopt the coat of a Kapo if you where asked to by Labour.

  80. Sister Mary clarence 15 Feb 2010, 10:48pm

    So, after all that then Tim, are you accepting the story is factually incorrect?

  81. theotherone 15 Feb 2010, 11:25pm

    don’t get him started again sister.

    please don’t get him started.

  82. “You are disgusting little creeps who would willingly adopt the coat of a Kapo if you where asked to by Labour.”

    Again with the Labour-centric view. If you disagree, you’re a Labour supporter. I am not a Labour supporter. Never said I was. What utter nonsense for you to say so. And you might want to look in the mirror for the bully, sweetie.

    If THIS is your response, you’re a bigger fool than I gave you credit for.

    I was right first time, you’re not worth the effort.

  83. theotherone 16 Feb 2010, 11:15am

    ‘No I don’t support Labour at all. Yes I know I have a fanatical devotion to defending them and a pathological need to scream about The Evil Of The Tory Party’ whenever I can but oh no I’m not a Labour supporter. I may look like one but I’m not.’

    Thing is…the statement you quoted? It didn’t say you where a Labour supporter, it said you where a bully and would ‘adopt the coat of a Kapo if you where asked to by Labour.’ As Labour are increasingly Totalitarian and in power I was imagining Camps set up by them – you know like the ones for ‘Illegal Immigrants?’ I’d suggest you read a little more carefully, sweetie (if you’re able to read that is.)

    A role call of shame (name calling):

    self deluding fool

    ‘Sister Mary the Demented Freak’ with the “otherone” (literally…!!!)

    two muppets

    Then clearly you are as illiterate as your are offensive

    aggressive rants

    your odious bulling tactics

    your own aggressive behaviour.

    these pair of dictatorial obsessives can abuse who they want

    this pair of boors.

    find both of you rather offensive and insulting to debate

    so if the shoe fits sweetie

    You’re an angry little person shouting on an internet site

    you might want to look in the mirror for the bully, sweetie.

    —and with all that directed against I and ‘the sister’ it is US who are the bullies? As I said ‘You, my friends, are bullies who, after beating up the little kid in the playground because they’re not in ‘your gang’ stand over their prone body hurling abuse at them because you skinned your knuckles on their teeth.’

  84. That last comment is garbled rubbish.

    Really, its bordering on some kind of maniacal gibberish, you don’t even seem to know what your saying from one point to another, its quite disturbing to read your angry rants. And your obsession with everyone being some kind of diabolical Labour supporters, or should I say a supporter of a party who is “increasingly Totalitarian and in power you were imagining Camps set up by them”, is quite disturbing. You would tell me if you’re drunk, or suffering form a stroke, wouldn’t you?

    I do apologise, we all thought we were discussing with someone rational, but I can clearly see now that you’re not. You should try medication. Seriously.

  85. theotherone 16 Feb 2010, 11:41am

    more insults, more attempts to drag this discussion from the point that has been made ie. that the story is untrue.

    Now could you please accept this rather than continue your bullying, hectoring, abusive rants?

  86. theotherone 16 Feb 2010, 11:44am

    oh and lets add to the insult list:

    maniacal gibberish

    You would tell me if you’re drunk, or suffering form a stroke, wouldn’t you?

    You should try medication

    —again you scream abuse at me but I’m a bully.

  87. “again you scream abuse at me but I’m a bully.”

    No, I now know there’s something wrong with you. Not an insult, just an accurate observation. Again, I apologise, I am not in the custom of debating or insulting those people with mental health issues.

  88. theotherone 16 Feb 2010, 12:59pm

    another insult to add to the list:

    I am not in the custom of debating or insulting those people with mental health issues.

  89. theotherone 16 Feb 2010, 1:02pm

    comments not going up again. How strange…

    oh and you’re proving my point about your diversion tactics. Will you please admit that this story is incorrect?

  90. “Will you please admit that this story is incorrect?”

    Why? To validate your maniacal rant about Kapo jackets, and totalitarian Labour governments with death camps?

    Please.

    You know the validity of this story is irrelevant to you. I have already apologised for engaging with someone who has some mental health issues, its not my style to insult those with difficulties, but your are becoming tiresome in your OCD-like fixations.

    Move. On.

    Let. It . Go.

    I am serious that some medications may help you in this area, but I’m guessing you are already aware of this.

  91. theotherone 16 Feb 2010, 1:32pm

    more insults:

    your maniacal rant

    engaging with someone who has some mental health issues

    ts not my style to insult those with difficulties

    your OCD-like fixations

    some medications may help you

    —anything but answer the question I asked you. Why would it be so bad if you admitted that the story is incorrect? I know Gordo would punch you but a little trip to A&E would break the monotony wouldn’t it?

    I’ll ask again: will you admit that this story is incorrect?

  92. theotherone 16 Feb 2010, 1:41pm

    self deluding fool ‘Sister Mary the Demented Freak’ with the “otherone” (literally…!!!) two muppets Then clearly you are as illiterate as your are offensive aggressive rants your odious bulling tactics your own aggressive behaviour. these pair of dictatorial obsessives can abuse who they want this pair of boors. find both of you rather offensive and insulting to debate so if the shoe fits sweetie You’re an angry little person shouting on an internet site you might want to look in the mirror for the bully, sweetie.maniacal gibberish You would tell me if you’re drunk, or suffering form a stroke, wouldn’t you? You should try medication I am not in the custom of debating or insulting those people with mental health issues. your maniacal rant
    engaging with someone who has some mental health issues its not my style to insult those with difficulties your OCD-like fixations some medications may help you

    -another breakdown of the insults that the good, just people of this board have screamed at i and SMC.

  93. Of course there is a possibility the story is incorrect. I say possibility, as I have serious misgivings about someone with obvious difficulties telling me in such absolute terms that its not.

    Is it relevant any more? No. You just seek obsessive validation for some imagined threat from the omnipresent “Labour hard left twat supporters”

    The line “I know Gordo would punch you but a little trip to A&E would break the monotony wouldn’t it?” goes back AGAIN to your fixation issues.

    You know the symptoms of schizophrenia?

    1) Delusions: e.g. paranoid belief in totalitarian governments out to “get you” with “death camps”
    2) Fixation: the Labour Party thing.
    3) Grossly disorganized behaviour – such as your rant that make no sense.

    You really should get seen to, I’m no doctor, so I’m not saying its schizophrenia, but you clearly need SOME kind of help.

  94. Sister Mary clarence 16 Feb 2010, 7:45pm

    “Of course there is a possibility the story is incorrect. I say possibility, as I have serious misgivings about someone with obvious difficulties telling me in such absolute terms that its not.”

    Putting aside your misgivings about someone with obvious difficulties and so forth, are you able to verify the details of Cameron’s voting records from the link provided at comment 18?

    This is statement of record, not my opinion or someone else.

  95. theotherone 16 Feb 2010, 9:26pm

    thank you for admitting that the story is incorrect.

    I’ve got nothing really left to say now.

    Now that wasn’t hard was it?

    Thank you.

  96. “Now that wasn’t hard was it?”

    It seem you have the harder battle ahead of you.

    I wish you well with it, hopefully you decide to go for some kind of treatment, and hope you get whatever condition you have sorted.

  97. theotherone 18 Feb 2010, 1:49pm

    you know tim ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of the desperate.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all