Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Young politician was ‘set up’ over gay porn pics

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. This sounds like no one has actually seen the photos? I did a quick google check and couldn’t find them but maybe I didn’t look long enough. If no one actually has a copy of these images this “young parliament” should be liable no? And even stating that these pictures (if they exist) in any way make this man a danger to children, well isn’t that just out right libel? This man definitely needs to take action of some sort.

  2. Stuart Neyton 17 Dec 2010, 4:52pm

    I don’t understand why such actions should warrant suspension.

  3. Christopher 17 Dec 2010, 5:00pm

    I hope he sues the youth parliament. It’s disgusting they invade their members lives in this way and treat them like political rubbish.

  4. He is clearly very unintelligent if he thinks any University would care about this. Most of the academics probably have obscene pictures of themselves on line.

  5. PumpkinPie 17 Dec 2010, 5:13pm

    Ugh. How ridiculous. Even if he had done nudes, what’s the big deal? He’s an adult now. I don’t see how any of this makes him a danger to children.

  6. he should sue and there should be a criminal investigation….such a cheap nasty trick.

  7. Mihangel apYrs 17 Dec 2010, 5:26pm

    Andy Hamflett is about 38 years old. Someone could comment that he seems a bit old to be runniong a “youyh” parliament; chief exec to advise and gofer, but in charge….

    Hardly a youth parliament

  8. Mihangel apYrs 17 Dec 2010, 5:29pm

    I also agree, hhis private life has no relevence to his public persona, unless we go with the idea that no-one in the public eye has a private life. He hasn’t claimed to be an angel, he hasn’t set himself up as a role model.

  9. Keith Lynwood 17 Dec 2010, 5:43pm

    “mother of a gay child” yeah right. How many mothers do you know who search there sons Gayromeo account and check out the pictures of his online friends . Talk about a stitch up. Lets ask this accuser to show them selves. I have a feeling we will never find the nasty piece of s^^t.

  10. Prima facie, this does seem to be fueled by a fundamental animus towards gay people, playing on the unarticulated fear of us gays somehow ‘preying’ on ‘vulnerable children’ and being an intrinsically corrupting, bad influence.

    I also see no evidence of this being driven by anything other than the media’s vampiric desire to get a juicy, titillating story as it combines salaciousness, youth, undertones of a fall from grace (we British oh so love to drag others down) and he’s damn photogenic.

  11. Yet another sign of humanities stupidity; The suggestion that their sex life’s are in any way related to their ability to perform sexually.

  12. *Politically. I suppose their sex life’s do effect their ability to perform sexually. :-p

  13. So he’s posed for nude pics? So what – he’s an adult. If juveniles click on his pictures then I hold their parents accountible

  14. Let’s see … the Plymouth Herald is a Northcliffe paper … same stable as the Daily Mail. Suggestion for Reace Mcdonnell. A strong letter of complaint to the Press Council. And then get legal advice. What amazed me was that all the Herald mentioned was “a pornographic” website (probably gay social networking site like FitLads/Gaydar etc). The whole report in the Herald is suspect. As for the comments from the Youth Parliament as to why he had been suspended … beyond belief.

  15. This does seem incredibly libelous.

    Even assuming that he had made such photographs available via an adult-oriented Website, being over the age of majority, he would be breaking no law in doing so.

    While he could easily be judged as being politically naive and to have brought an organisation in to disrepute in the event that he had, he has not been suspended on that basis.

    They have, rather, publicly asserted that he has been suspended for the purposes of child protection. That’s libellous. And nobody seems to have even seen these alleged pictures? Where is the substantiation?

    There are unequivocally no grounds to warrant suspension on the basis given.

    It seems to be based on nothing more ‘rational’ than the logical fallacy of equating gays to pedophiles or the idea that there is something fundamentally unsafe and unsavory about them.

    I do hope that he is taking, or takes, legal advice.

  16. Adam Blake 17 Dec 2010, 7:31pm

    “Our primary concern is for the safety of all the young people we work with and we are taking these allegations very seriously.”

    Meaning that they believe that the allegation, if substantiated, would justify the view that Reace does pose a risk to young people.
    (Otherwise, of course, there could be no legitimate concern for their safety.)

    That clearly doesn’t follow logically; child protection concerns are not engendered by nude photographs posted in an adult setting. It’s a demonstrably libellous statement to make therefore…

  17. Is he wearing glossy lipstick?

  18. depending on how bad these pictures are of him on the net, then yes i would say he deserves to be suspended until the full enquiry has been concluded.
    He is representative of the youth parliament so in a sense should be above reproach, as ALL politicians should be and just beacsue this guy is gay, he should be treated no different. If it was a hetrosexual candidate/politician then a lot of you would be screaming from the rooftops for his head, this gusy should be treated no different and if indeed these pictures are of a serious nature, then yes he should be dealt with. In my eyes if he is representing the youth of today, then putting explicit nude photos of yourself on the internet is not good relations, however you look at it

  19. Adam Blake 17 Dec 2010, 9:30pm

    Andy, respectfully, I think you’re missing the point; it’s fine to suspend while you investigate if the guise is potentially ‘bringing in to disrepute’, but to suspend under the guise of ‘protecting children’ is libellous and patently untrue.

  20. Mihangel apYrs 17 Dec 2010, 9:42pm

    Andy
    I wouldn’t be screaming for heads for someone behaving in their privatr life in a way I may disagree with. I would for someone who oppposed something in public while doing it in private, or lying, or beung mendacious.

    For example, I was disgusted with David Laws, not because he was gay (obviously), nor that he hid it, but because he lied about the relationship with his partner to get money, albeit less than he would otherwise have got. He didn’t need the money; if he did he should have been honest. By LYING he lost trust.

    Politics is a job, and we’re naif if ew believe that all politicians meet our personal standards. I just want them to do a good job and not lie; they’re not my role models. This boy isn’t a role model, he is a person with weaknesses, “sins” and goood qualities. Afteral, was Winston (drinking, smoking, moody) a good role model. No, But a good war-time PM

    my thoughts anyway. And I’ll always protect our youngstersunless they stray into criminality or mendacity

  21. The YP has no choice but to suspend him WHILE the investigation takes place. This would have happened to any member of YP that posted sexually provocative images of him/herself on the Internet. This is not a homophobic response; rather, it is the foot-stamping, sulkiness of a juvenile who has been caught with his pants down.

  22. Jim, suggest you read the comments of others, specifically Adam Blake’s…

    Suspension is, of course, a neutral act, but doing so asserting that it is necessary in order to protect children is not neutral in the slightest.

    It implies that there is a genuine ‘thing’ that the children might need protecting from. I challenge what that might be!?

  23. I wouldn’t be screaming for their head. If they were attractive, I’d go looking for the photos. Other than that, I really wouldn’t give a rats ass because it has quite literally nothing to do with their ability to perform politically. Taking a persons sexual history or appetite into account when judging their political worth is as moronic as considering their hair or eye colour in the question.

  24. “The Plymouth Herald quoted an unnamed mother of a gay child who complained that Mr Mcdonnell was a bad role model.”

    Says the child searching a “pornographic” site.

  25. Reace McDonnell 17 Dec 2010, 11:43pm

    And please dont call me a juvenile, i certainly am not.
    the most explicit photos of me which exist are from the weist up with no exceptions, and certainly nothing depicting intercourse.
    My main concern with the original story was that they made a point of declaring not only sexuality, but also my faith, and i felt that was un just, as well as completely uneccesary, and if these statments werent made then im quite posotive that the story would not have been picked up on a european scale.
    Furthermore! No i am not wearing makeup in that photo, it is simply what i look like!

    1. Hi Reace.

      I agree with those here who believe that you’ve likely been the target of a smear attempt. IMO PinkNews should do a follow-up piece to clarify this matter ASAP.

      Thanks to the preponderance of pornographic fare routinely posted on-line by careless young males in general, the premise enabling the plausibility of this ruse is irrevocably well established, and thus I fear will see its continued & convenient use against young political aspirants such as yourself to the detriment of LGBT rights advancement in the near and distant future.

      This tactic must be nipped in the bud by stoutly challenging, thoroughly investigating, and swiftly & decisively disproving any assertions of impropriety whenever they are made.

      Voters expect elected office-holders to stand when challenged, they respect them when they stand tall, and within the context of proven competence, they often reelect them when they prevail.

  26. Makeup or not, Reace, you look hot. Fancy a date?

    Only joking.

    Would that being in the public life meant you could still behave like a regular joe. Gay or not, pictures on a dating site is bad for would be politicians. When you become Prime Minister, you can help change society to be more permissive.

    You’ve not done a moral wrong at all but you’re meant to be “beyond reproach”.

    1. +1. And this goes DOUBLE for any political figure who is LGBT.

      Perception is everything.., especially to the undecided majority of largely middle-aged voters who are leery of queers thanks to their own often anti-gay upbringing, compounded by a relentless schedule of half-truths and outrageous prevarications directed at us by a global cadre of intractable foes whose embrace of hate forms a fidelity worthy of awe exceeded only by its endurance.

      In a world teeming with those who would beat us we mustn’t hand out sticks.

  27. It’s not wrong and should not be problem but many people think it’s bad. This no longer 1950s. All politicians should be nude on internet.

  28. The notion of asking anyone, regardless of their profession, to be ‘beyond reproach’ is ridiculous. Where people get these ideas from, I’ll never know, but it’s expecting people to behave in this ‘beyond reproach’ fashion that causes… Pretty much all the shit we face in modern, developed society.

  29. Reace…sue them if you can. More importantly good luck with your career and education…hope you can change things for the better!

  30. I emailed Andy Hamflett in 2008 about a discrimination issue, but didn’t even get reply from him.

  31. I think that the mother who made the original complaint needs to be named.

    She complained that her child viewed semi-nude pictures of an adult (Reace McDonnell) on the internet.

    I accuse her of being an irresponsible, neglectful parent.

    Why is she allowing her children to access internet sites she considers inappropriate.

    Is she a responsible parent?

    If she is so stupid and neglectful that she allows her children to view inappropriate sites, then perhaps she is an unfit mother.

    Perhaps her children would be better off in fostercare?

    Someone should call social services. She is clearly a neglectful and irresponsible parent.

  32. I think the idea is that people in authority aren’t meant to be nude where they can be seen by kids, the idiot parents then rant at the person instead of the kids for looking – like they did with the school-teacher, what people do in their own life should be their own business but there’s too many prudish idiots about

  33. One word to describe the young ‘politician’, naive.

    You want to go into politics? Don’t have a gaydar/fitlads/recon account. Simple.

  34. I don’t see why the Youth Parliament should give a damn about members over the age of consent posting images on adult sites. Their reaction smacks of not wanting to be disapproved of by older fuddy-duddies, as well as homophobia. Pathetic.

  35. Politics is a dirty cut throat, back stabbing busisness. Try to find something worth while to use your gift.

  36. GayWebHosting 18 Dec 2010, 1:24pm

    If this young man had broken any laws, then I would be the first to say he should have been suspended. This is just another case of the puritanical British ´establishment´ trying to dictate what others should be doing, saying, watching etc etc..

    And to suggest that an adult, appearing in adult photographs (which has not even been proved), is somehow a ´danger to children´ is libelous and wrong!

  37. Has the mother been reported to social services for her negligent parenting? Someone needs to report her?

  38. When ever I have try to contact local representatives from the Youth Parliament the adults who oversee the Parliament always try to block my inquires. I think what Andy Hamflett, chief executive of the UK Youth Parliament, told the Herald (“Our primary concern is for the safety of all the young people”) is homophobia and you should sue them for £50,000 (to get you through university).

  39. Although the comments on this article are very well-meaning, they unfortunately do not reflect the sentiments of the general public, who do not want him to be a part of the Youth Parliament. It would be different if it was in the realm of gay politics. But when you choose the mainstream, different rules apply.

  40. Steve@GayWebHosting 18 Dec 2010, 11:23pm

    “Although the comments on this article are very well-meaning, they unfortunately do not reflect the sentiments of the general public, who do not want him to be a part of the Youth Parliament. It would be different if it was in the realm of gay politics. But when you choose the mainstream, different rules apply.”

    Precisely. This is the whole point. It is nothing to do with his (alleged) adult pictures. Its the usual case of the straight media ´picking on the gay´ again.

    I say again, he has broken no laws and as an adult, should be free to do as he pleases. I´m fed-up with the very idea that the whole of the internet should be censored ´because the little-ones might be looking´ it´s absurd..

    Note to parents: If you dont want your little ones looking at porn, then supervise their internet access…simple.

    Do not try to dictate to ME what I can and cannot look at.. (or if other adults choose to post nude pics of themselves)

    You look after YOUR kids… I don´t have to!

  41. seán óg garland 19 Dec 2010, 5:26am

    It is clear that the youth parliament has issues with queers One wonders would there be such a fuss it he was Hetro I do hope he takes a case against the youth parliament as this is a civil rights issue..

  42. “Although the comments on this article are very well-meaning, they unfortunately do not reflect the sentiments of the general public, who do not want him to be a part of the Youth Parliament.”

    Alan, although I’m sure the general public is well meaning, if their sentiments are based not on fact but on unverified accusations by a scandalizing publication, it unfortunately makes their opinion unfounded, wrong, and largely irrelevant.

  43. Patrick-0-002 19 Dec 2010, 2:36pm

    Is this news?

    Really?

    Probably just some shirtless pictures Reace posted of himself on gaydar which were taken and posted elsewhere on the web for others’ “entertainment”.

    How this is news I don’t know.

  44. Patrick-0-002 19 Dec 2010, 2:37pm

    This Reace fellow doesn’t appear very intelligent

  45. Andre Walker 19 Dec 2010, 3:09pm

    Found out about this because he’s appearing on my mates show on Gaydio tonight. He seems like a good bloke who is being royally screwed. I can’t believe they have suggested he’s a danger to children. This is a new low, even by the Youth Parliaments low standards!

  46. ”THE CHILDREN! IN THE NAME OF THE CHILDREN, WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN? Wahhhh boo hooo”

  47. So, as far as we (and PinkNews) know, the pictures of Reace might only be shirtless photos. That sounds really innocuous. And a ‘gay porn site’, or just a gay dating/networking site?

    But surely PinkNews is exacerbating the problem further with its choice of headline. If they are just shirtless photos on a dating site then that hardly makes them ‘gay porn pics’, the headline here is really misleading. I saw the headline repeatedly, before I clicked on the link to read the details.

    And has the Youth Parliament been just as vocal in announcing that his suspension has been lifted & they’re now treating him as the VICTIM of homophobic bullying, as they were in announcing the original suspension?

    No wonder Reace is upset by this. From the details we have, it seems he has reason to feel aggrieved with the woman originally complaining for making a big deal out of nothing, the Plymouth paper for their descriptions of the photos or the website, the Youth Parliament for hanging him out to dry, and Pink News for its misleading headlines. Reace, if you’re reading, I think google might have a mechanism to allow individuals to ask them to remove libellous or malicious content about themselves from coming up in searches. Good luck with your uni applications!

  48. Reace I see (assuming the newspaper is right) is fool enough to be a practising Catholic. He therefore not only is credulous and stupid enough to believe in imaginary extra-terrestrial beings and silly fairy stories virgin births, wafers turning into dead Palestinians and so on, but, more seriously, also supports an institution that is committed to fight against our rights as gays and considers us “intrinsically disordered”. he deserves what he gets and there is no place in the gay community for such as he.

  49. Richard Farnos 20 Dec 2010, 3:58pm

    Reading the original article in the Plymouth Herald (online) it does seem to me that Reace has been a victim of a shoddy bit of journalism and has been let out to dry by the Youth Parliament. For even Reace was “guilty” of appearing on a “pornographic website”, it is perfectly legal, and he is over 18. Surely in these circumstance whether he should be a member or not should be up to his peers not a Andy Hamflett.

    However I note that not even the panicked mother uses the word “pornographic” and neither does her son. Rather they refer to Reace appearing on an “internet site.” This could be as innocent as a Facebook page. Indeed my suspicions are roused by the fact that while the Herald have evidently been in contact with the website (who say that Reace had been a member of the network for two years) they fail to name it.

    What shocks me is they way that behind all this talk of protecting young people no one has seemed to have thought of Reace himself. The newspaper article not only sensationalises but even tells the reader what school he goes to. The organisers of The Youth Parliament have behaved appallingly. Not only have they allowed their response to be lead by the paper but they seemed to have given Reace no real support.

  50. abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 20 Dec 2010, 4:47pm

    @ Mark. You’re right. There’s no room for him in our gay community. We should put him in the centre of the gay city centre square, and stone him for not being a perfect gay. And if he still admits to being a gay catholic we should push a wall over on him. And if he still wants to be a gay catholic we should make him leave our gay community, and never let him return.

    Where is this gay community anyway?

  51. A lot of rather naive people here. Just having a shirtless photo of yourself on a gay dating site is enough to send plenty of people (yes, ignorant, bigoted wahoos) thrashing into paroxysms of disgust and rage. This is more than enough to have these people jawing on about setting poor role models, blah blah blah. It’s stupid, repugnant, succeeds in being hurtful to the person concerned, which is why it’s probably worth pushing back. As far as it affecting how he’s seen as a prospective student at a university: again, it depends on the person/people evaluating the candidates. There are an awful lot of … um … seriously sociopathic people out there when it comes to homophobia. I hope he succeeds in his efforts.

  52. any parent that allows their child to go to porn sites is a threat to their child. Even if these pictures exist I already know that gay people have gay sex. Why would this surprise a gay child? He would be a bad role model if he claimed he was gay and was having straight sex.

  53. Whoever posted that picture above is LOW, LOW, LOW.

    But that has to be the most digusting trackie top I’ve ever seen.

  54. Ok, now we’re all agreed that he’s done nothing wrong, where can I find these pictures? :op

  55. while the Herald have evidently been in contact with the website (who say that Reace had been a member of the network for two years) they fail to name it.

    So this website readily gives out information about their customers to a newspaper? Best avoided like the plague if thats the case.

  56. the man in question is quite frankly a notorious liar, he would often walk through my old university campus pretending he was a student

  57. Reace has been my best friend since we were 9 years old. He wouldn’t do anything like this, ever, this definately is a set up. Anyway, it’s nothing to do with anyone and even if he did do it, it’s his personal life, What the hell kind of kid visits gay porn sites anyways? One’s with bad parents, that’s who.

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