Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Man responsible for anti-gay stickers convicted of painting burkas over women in Lynx adverts

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 12:27pm

    Bets on how long it will take for the next time we hear about this jerk?!
    -
    I hope the judge reminded these people of which country they live in and that in this country we have Freedoms.
    -
    That means Freedoms for them to restrict themselves any way they wish but they do Not have the right to dictate and restrict others.
    -
    If they don’t like British and indeed Western laws and cultures it’s simple… don’t be here, go somewhere where you feel better suited.

    1. Whats the difference between these guys painting burka over the billboard and brits drinking alcohol on the beach in Dubai

      1. I don’t know, what’s the difference? (I’m assuming that’s a joke and you have the punchline)

      2. What’s the difference between a rotwieler and a poodle?

        If a rotwieler starts humping your leg you let it finish.

      3. What is the difference between Michael Jackson and a grocery bag?

        One is made of plastic and is dangerous for children to play with, the other is used to carry groceries.

        1. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 3:22pm

          @uhoh….
          …….your scandalous slur on Michael Jackson was proven in several courts of law to be false. If you knew different why did you not proffer yourself as a witness for the prosecution during the several trials.
          You are, if you are a GLB person a disgrace to ourf community and wshould withdraw your false accusation asap.

          1. Calm down Paddy, I like MJ as much as the next guy but its a joke chill out not everyone’s such a big fan

          2. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 3:43pm

            @Hamish…
            ….it is not a joke, just a scandalous slur on someone who, because the’re dead cannot defend themselves.
            Would you like to be the butt of paedophilic jokes when you are dead? I think not and BTW my tag is Paddyswurds. Use it or don’t address me atall as you seem only capable of racist slur.

          3. Paddy is also a shortening for the name Patrick which I have said before calm down and stop jumping down peoples throats and as for MJ I like his music and I think what he created was great however there is alot of discrepencies about his case and as it was never resolved to the satisfaction of everyone it will still be talked about much like OJ Simpson or do you think thats a closed book aswell

          4. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 4:12pm

            @Hamish……
            …..Paddy used in the way you do is racist especially as you are assuming my name is Patrick. Paddyswurds is my tag and i will not accept racist slurs in lieu.
            Why then don’t you make slurs against Simpson. he is still alive and able to answere them should he wish. The law exonerated Michael Jackson to his own satisfaction and that is good enough for me. There is no comparison withe Simpsons case as he did not even agree with the verdict that WAS reached.
            BTW as you are Scots should we shorten your name to Jock for expediancy….Thought not.

          5. No because my name is clearly stated as hamish you could call me Hamo. Me using paddy was not in a racist way if you don’t want to be called why do you call yourself paddyswurds is it because your Irish because if so then your being racist or is it because your called Patrick, and as for jock I don’t even find it that offensive as most people don’t have anything against the Scottish or Irish so I assume they don’t mean it in a racist way

          6. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 5:17pm

            @Hamish….
            ….my tag is Paddyswurds because that is what I want to use as my tag and that is how I want to be addressed on this site until such time as i change my tag if ever. . Like i said if you don’t want to use my tag, ignore my comments. They are fairly easy to see as my avatar is quite bright and distinct.

          7. @Paddyswurds

            I like some of MJs music, but at what point did he become a demi-god?
            There have been plenty of cases not proven which does not mean the defendant is not guilty. There are plenty of rumours about interference with witnesses in this and other cases.
            Now, I dont know the facts and accept MJ is entitled to be presumed innocent as he was not proven guilty but nonetheless that does not mean he is free from disucssion or innuendo – that comes with the remit of celebrity in this day and age – and he often puthimself inridiculous scenarioswhere (whether legitimate or not) he was open to speculation and criticism.
            He was a great musician but a bizarre character and deserves no special protection

          8. @Paddyswurds

            You sound manic and extreme in your retorts today in a way that sounds unbalanced

          9. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 5:40pm

            @Stu…
            …..so now you are a doctor on top of all your other experiences. I suppose you reply will be that yes you have worked as a Doctoor in some capacity or other.
            perhaps you could tell me where i was meing manic? If i don’t want to be referred to as Paddy that is my right. otherwise my comments are justified under the circumstances of this thread.

          10. @Paddyswurds

            No, I havent been a doctor … I do work in a walk in centre as part of my role as a paramedic practitioner – so am perhaps exposed to more than the average paramedic

            I didnt say you were manic – merely that you appeared to be judging by your extreme reactions and double standards

            If you do not want people to change your handle then here are two pieces of advice – i) Don’t change other peoples handles without permission? Thankfully you havent done that to be before, but there are a number of occasions you have with others – so your petulent claims of racism by people referring to you as Paddy (a legitimate shortening of Paddyswurds to many I presume) appears at best hypocritical
            ii) Don’t change handles yourself – which a number of us have noticed you doing.

          11. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 6:18pm

            @Stu….
            ……the only time I ever shorten others Tags is when they have done it to me first eg Jock S Trap to mention one, sometimes shortened to JST but rarely if ever others.My usual means of demonstrating displeasure is @…… without any name. Anyway butt out, it’s not your argument.

          12. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 6:35pm

            errata…
            @……**.
            This numbers thing is really getting annoying and PN doesnt seem to be doing anything about it.

          13. @Paddyswurds

            Whether you like it or not, this is a public forum in which you have posted and therefopre you should expect responses from others, whether or not you are directly debating with them.

            When I have made errors I apologise, as you well know – but your shortening is not simple things like Jock S Trap to JST and includes other offensive shortening – again as you should well know

            There are things about PN that bug me too – but they are neither the responisbility of me or you – we can contact PN to seek resolution, but that is the limit of the situation – so I fail to see the logic for the link in complaining about my comments to PN generally …

            Grow up

          14. @Paddyswurds

            Whether you like it or not, this is a public forum in which you have posted and therefopre you should expect responses from others, whether or not you are directly debating with them.

            When I have made errors I apologise, as you well know – but your shortening is not simple things like Jock S Trap to JST and includes other offensive shortening – again as you should well know

            There are things about PN that bug me too – but they are neither the responisbility of me or you – we can contact PN to seek resolution, but that is the limit of the situation

          15. Glad it wasn’t just me who was thinking paddyswurds was being a bit hysterical

          16. glad its not just me who’d thinking PW is seeming a bit mental today.

          17. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:26am

            Oh my… and all over a joke! :)

          18. Whether you like it or not, this is a public forum in which you have posted and therefopre you should expect responses from others, whether or not you are directly debating with them.

            I other words, do as I say not as I do. Yet Stu you bitch, whine and complain when others who do not agree with post on this public forum and “intervene” in the discussion.

            Bluff.

          19. @Pepa

            I have absolutely no problem in being held to account by reasoned and evidenced argument or reasonable opinion – where I do have a problem is in name calling and allegation making and ridicule which you throw.

            If someone feels I am either wrong in what I say or that I have not made myself clear, I am more than willing to engage and discuss and debate. There are some things where I have a line of what I believe in – and I will stick to my point with intransigence, and that too has a role in debate.

            I am not surprised that I have to explain this to you, as you seem to feel that everytime someone challenges you that this is not part of a debate because you seem to feel that your views are ALWAYS right and never open to scrutiny or challenge – forget it mister,all views including mine are open to challenge and I reserve the right to reply.

            This is a site for debate, if you participate and not be ridiculed then learn how to.

        2. lol

        3. Laughed out loud to that joke. Chill out if you’re offended.

        4. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 7:09pm

          @stu…
          …..”so I fail to see the logic for the link in complaining about my comments to PN generally” What are you gibbering about. Have you taken something too strong. Where did I complain to PN about you …since when was “errata” addressed to you? Get over yourself FFS

          1. @Paddyswurds

            Gibbering on about … nice erminology …

            There are two posts above from me, one slightly different to the other. The first one was deleted before I got to the posting point, so not sure how it appeared on here, but I had realised the wording was not quite as I wished and thus the second posting should make more sense

          2. Rashid Karapiet 2 Aug 2011, 1:38pm

            Thought this was meant to be about Muslim teenagers defacing billboards – is there a connection I’m missing?

      4. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 1:57pm

        The difference is in Dubai you get arrested, charged, sentenced, deported and usually banned from returning for not following their laws.
        -
        Here you get a light slap on the wrist with a there, there attitude.
        -
        Time we had a similar attitude to Dubai with regards those that disrespect our laws.

        1. Here Here! I agree 100%. They don’t follow our laws and don’t want to be part of our culture send them back to where they can live under the laws and culture and the god they love.

      5. they damaged puplic property, the brits just damaged their liver without inflicting their view on others.

      6. de Villiers 1 Aug 2011, 3:14pm

        The difference is that drinking on the beach on Dubai is stupid, insensitive and done without thought. These males painting burkas over billboards is a deliberate and intended attack on the values of liberal expression and liberal democracy.

    2. They want the law to reflect that, of their growing dominance in political demographics. Within 15-20 years , these areas will be predominantly muslim, which will mean muslim councillors/mps etc who reflect the increasing militant views of islam especially amongst the young british muslim population. So the view in the near future maybe if you do not like islamic law , “don’t be here”

      1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 2:01pm

        Not necessarily rapture. Since the 17th century East London was predominately filled with Jewish settlers yet where are they now?
        -
        The East End seems to be the place to put certain groups of the world and I have no doubt it will change but they still are under British laws and have to abide by it, regardless of how superior they may feel.
        -
        The government needs to stop being scared to making sure people know what this country is about and stood their/our ground.

        1. Ben Foster 1 Aug 2011, 4:08pm

          it doesn’t matter how many muslims live in the area. It’s still in the UK and is subject to UK law. Anyone with a problem with that law can leave the country any time they please.

          1. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 5:21pm

            …..the creep Powell, from Wolverhampton who said some years ago that they should all be repatriated may have been on to something after all…..

          2. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:30am

            Indeed Ben, that is the beauti of this country.. They have the freedom to be here and be part of it like so many do or they have the Freedom to remove themselves and enjoy another country that suits their agenda.

          3. I wholeheartedly agree that the freedoms in the UK are to be grasped with both hands by those who wish to reside here. That does not mean forgetting or neglecting their culture (from where they originate) and there are some good examples of integration into UK society whilst maintaining respect for their heritage. However, if you live, holiday, work or travel in the UK you are subject to UK law. In the same way I expect to be subject to Ghanain law in Ghana, Japanese law in Japan etc etc

          4. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 10:56am

            Those that come here because they want to and be part of our culture include there into ours which it the beauti of our Freedom and the beauti of culture and identitiy.
            -
            Take for example the Nottinghill Carnival. No-one suggests people should loose their identity and in most part added culture adds richness of that which is already.
            -
            However that does not mean that they can pick and choose their laws to go with it.
            -
            It you go to Pakistan you abide by Pakistan laws, same with India, China, America. United Kingdom etc, etc, etc.

          5. @Jock S Trap

            Absolutely

            I kind of see the cultural identity issue as being similar to that where an adopted child is from a different culture to the adoptive parents and there is encouragement to ensure the child is aware of both the culture they are brought up in and their heritage. I appreciate there are differences but things such as Notting Hill Carnival, the Mela etc etc demonstrate that integration and respect for culture and tradition can occur simultaneously

          6. Rashid Karapiet 2 Aug 2011, 1:49pm

            I’ve recently read a book on Islam for the RNIB Talking Books service. Fascinating to discover the huge difference between Q’uranic and populist versions of things like ‘sharia’, ‘jihad’ and ‘fatwa’. It’s like Christanity’s fundamentalists and liberals. The mosques have an educational mission which they’re neglecting. Having said which I’m inclined to agree with covering up billboards of semi-naked women on aesthetic grounds…

          7. @Rashid

            I entirely agree that there are difference branches of Islam and that the more moderate elements are in neglect of their responsibility to educate and counter the insidious nature of some of the more extreme and virulent Islamic teaching

            That said, I do not agree with your thoughts on censorship of advertising – provided it meets common standards of decency as accepted by general society then further censorship should not occu – in my opinion,.

        2. I like your comments, but the – makes them ever so hard to read and a bit weird to look at.

          1. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 8:01pm

            @Rain….
            ….the …… are meant to infer a continuing conversation, if in fact it is me you are referring to. if so Thank you….

          2. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:32am

            Thanks Rain. I do the – to make points I guess, though personally I find it ok to read, myself. However if others feel the same do let me know and I will change.

          3. Paddyswurds 2 Aug 2011, 12:36pm

            @Rain…
            ….oops sorry, I wrongly assumed your comment was for me as you didn’t address it to anyone in particular. Again apologies.

        3. Yes muslim infestation is good.

          Christians are bad.

          Muslims kill gay people… so what?

          This is the attitude of the gay left. Shameful.

          1. Who’s said that at all most people on here are saying they should be deported!! Hardly like we love all Muslims.

          2. @Pepa

            Where is a Muslim is good comment on this thread?

            Trying to stir things up and be controversial … if you’re going to – be factual in what you allege rather than lie

          3. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 10:57am

            Hamish
            -
            No-one says that apart from pepa.
            -
            Need we say more?

          4. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 10:58am

            “if you’re going to – be factual”
            -
            Yeah Stu, I think we Both, in fact All know, that ain’t gonna happen.

          5. @Jock S Trap

            Yeah pepa never lets facts get in the way of stating his purile rhetoric

          6. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 11:35am

            It would be a miracle if he actually had any facts instead of supersititions, conspiracy theories and made up rhetoric.

    3. This is the SECOND this moron as been caught – what do you have to do in this country to receive a jail sentence?

      Why does he not go and live in country more suited to his requirements?

      Gaav

      1. Dan Filson 1 Aug 2011, 2:49pm

        Are you seriously suggesting jail for a second offence of defacing a poster?

        1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 2:55pm

          I suggest three strikes and your out.
          -
          They clearly at happy in a free democracy if they want to dictate, dictatorship.
          -
          If they ain’t happy why be here?
          -
          Let’s leave to the Muslims who do want to be here, contribute and be a part of our culture because it’s these people that get caught up with the intolerate ones and dragged through it.

          1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 2:56pm

            Sorry ‘clearly aren’t happy in a free…’

          2. its graffiti I know plenty of people who graffiti things why as a citizen of the UK should they be given a stricter sentence because they did there’s based on a religion

          3. Ben Foster 1 Aug 2011, 4:12pm

            “why as a citizen of the UK should they be given a stricter sentence because they did there’s based on a religion”

            How about these people don’t seem to want to be citizems of the UK and this isn’t just graffiti, its an extremist hate crime. They hate women choosing how to dress for themselves. Maybe jail isn’t the right place for them, but some kind of de-brain-washing camp might be in order.

          4. They’ve not actually told someone this is how you should dress they have merely graffitied on a poster they don’t like for there own reasons, selfish and inconsiderate yes but if we deported everyone who was inconsiderate and selfish there would be very little of Britain left

          5. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 4:59pm

            @Hamish….
            ….sounds like you are afraid of being deported back to Scotland…….

          6. @Paddyswurds

            Whois being racist now … referring to a potential Scottish heritage – perceptions – seems you have a level of hypocracy

          7. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 6:41pm

            @Stu….
            …if you are going to get involved in others convos then at least read the commentsso you can get the context. My comment would have been understood by Hamish, given what we were talking about previously , where he referred to being Scots. BTW don’t you mean Scots heritage?. Scottish refers to inanimate objects or culture such as Scottish dancing or Scottish shortbread..

          8. @Paddyswurds

            Again the issue of a public forum – your comments were open to interpretation and I made one, which your lack of clarity permitted me to make.

            As for descriptor with animate and inanimate objects – given that the Scottish Parliament in their literature and website include the phrase “Our proud Scottish heritage, a Scottish heritage of the people whichs speaks of its people …”, I presumed that the Scottish parliament staff were fundamentally aware of the correct terminology – obviously they didn’t run it past you first …

          9. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 7:15pm

            @Stu…..
            …..well actually they are wrong. It should be Scots heritage, and just because I know that does no make it necessary for them to run it by me first or indeed for you to cast aspertions on the fact that i know that it i wrong. Look it up.

          10. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 7:18pm

            ActuallY on second thoughts they are correct, as they are not directly referring to the person in which case it would certainly be Scots. It is you who is wrong in using it to incorrectly make your point.

          11. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 7:20pm

            cont…
            …the point you are missing is the “ish”

          12. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 7:23pm

            cont…
            ..it’s like referring to someone as gayish, if you see what I mean. They are not ish anything they are fully Scots.

          13. I disagree

            I also think your point on this (whether or not either of us is correct) is very similar to Dan’s comments on another thread about typo’s and becoming all superior about it. It doesnt matter about the ish (although I contend it is correct and evidenced by those who would know) but it matters not regardless, the message portrayed is clear.

          14. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 8:13pm

            @Stu….
            …”although I contend it is correct and evidenced by those who would know)”…. which infers I wouldn’t know. Not that i would expect you and Englishman to know, the Scots are an Irish tribe from North Eastern Ireland, who migrated to Caledonia in or around 550 CE and so I claim to possibly know more on the subject that you would, unless that is you have been a history teacher as well as everything else.
            My final post on this matter is to say that the correct way to refer to thye people of Scotland is that the are Scots not Scottish. One can have as i said scottish dancing or scottish shortbread and so on but the people are Scots. If that is they are the same people as migrated from Ireland. Enough Already.

          15. @Paddyswurds

            That is your interpretation of what I said … I never said you wouldnt know – although I think it is highly likely that the Scottish Parliament would know how to address Scottish descriptors …

            Buyt, to use (what I perceive) to be your type of interpretation – you infer that Englishmen could know nothing of Ireland, Scottish or other Celtic tradition and history (not that this issue had any semblance of culture involvement) … how wrong you are …

            The chip on your shoulder seems to be the size of the harvest of Jersey’s potatoes on an annual basis

            Two other points … I havehad a wide and varied experience of both careers and life experiences, you can choose to sound cynical or patronising about it should you so wish – but given the veracity of your comments that is of no concern to me. Secondly, I will decide when I have finished making comments – not you – so your “Enough already” is not a command I will easily obey

          16. Actually those Scots were invaders but they ended up living in an area of Scotland but the Native Scottish People still lived in the same country. And as for me being deported I was born here its my parents that are Scottish.

          17. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:35am

            Personally Hamish I think sentences should be tougher for all for things like graffiti. The sentence has to fit the crime and it doesn’t need to be jail.

          18. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:43am

            Trouble is Hamish we have people actually telling others to abide by the Muslim code and Shaira laws in the East End of London as well as other parts of the country when many of those being told don’t want to be a part of that strict culture they want to be free in Our culture.
            -
            It’s coming to light that women who aren’t Muslims have been threatened because they are not being dress to Muslim tradition but may work for a Muslim boss. A Pharmacist in Whitechapel was threatened for not wearing a burka and her boss and business threatened.
            -
            It’s one thing to question Freedoms of democracy but it’s another to be in a democracy with Freedoms when certainly people wish to remove such Freedoms against the will of others.
            -
            To you this poster might be nothing more than graffiti but to many, probably mostly Muslims who came here to be free and have the Freedoms, it’s fear and to be threatened into a dictatorship form of life from which most have escaped.

          19. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:48am

            Who bloody cares how people spell things or the correct grammar. So long as it’s readable, makes a point that others understand who bloody hell cares about how an ‘ish’ makes the difference.
            -
            This is a news comment page not a teaching lesson.
            -
            Paddys…. your Xenophobia has been long documented, we get it you don’t have a sense of humour and you don’t like any other country other than Ireland esp anything else to do with the UK.
            -
            Get over it.

          20. I agree noone should have to follow sharia law if they don’t want to but at work you respect the wishes of your boss aslong as it isn’t affecting you outside of work (like a uniform) it could be to protect the customers who may be mainly muslim from feeling offended.

          21. Paddyswurds 2 Aug 2011, 12:41pm

            @Stu…
            …probably as you always childishly seem to have to have the last word, no matter how purile.

          22. @Paddysurds

            I was expecting an infantile retort like that – was surprised it took you so many hours to concoct it

          23. Paddyswurds 2 Aug 2011, 7:40pm

            @Hamish…
            ….”Actually those Scots were invaders but they ended up living in an area of Scotland but the Native Scottish People still lived in the same country. ”
            Wrong .Those Scots are the Scots of what is now Scotland The origional inhabitants of Caledonia as it was then were the Picts, sometimes known as the Blue Picts from their penchant for painting their bodies in blue woad when going to war and were all but annihillated by the Irish invaders except in small pockets east of the Highlands and some of the northern Isles. The Scots migration from NE Ireland was the foundation of Scotland as it is today. I suggest you check the history of the country you claim as your ancestoral homeland. A good start would be the Annals of Ireland which can be downloaded from Google Books free.

          24. Paddyswurds 2 Aug 2011, 7:48pm

            @Stu..
            … meh!

          25. Regardless of wether or not Scottish people originally came from Ireland or not it does not mean you know everything about scottish culture at one point scotland and england were combined by having the same monarch so surely an englishmen would know just the same as you.

            Your arrogance is astounding PW.

          26. @Hamish

            Paddyswurds should be in the Oxford English Dictionary as an antonym for arrogance

          27. Paddyswurds 5 Aug 2011, 11:52pm

            @Stu…
            …thats rich coming form you Stu, who claims to be an expert on just about everything. I doubt if there is a job you haven’t claimed to have done and been an expert at or a country you haven’t brought your expertise to. Now you are Lord Protector of the Scots..

      2. I think that gays in London should be more worried about the increasing Islamafication which if left unchecked would one day lead to gay people’s heads rolling down the streets of east london.

        Stickers are stickers, murder is very serious.

        1. There are plenty of concerns about extreme forms of Islam in the UK as you well know and these are being tackled in various ways by various groups …

          I don’t think we need a lesson in either tolerance, acceptance or bigotry from an Arizonan red neck

          1. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 11:00am

            Here! Here! Stu. Shame the sand storms didn’t do more damage on one particular place…

    4. Kelly Brooks as an angel forced to wear burka? Isn’t that attack on Catholic church? Send in the Jews and we have our own Bethnalhem paradise.

    5. “Both Ram Jam and Izzadeen are able-bodied and in the prime of their lives but they live on benefits. Izzadeen even boasts that his weekly stipend from the state is his ‘jihad-seekers’ allowance’.

      Ha, bloody, ha.

      More:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2021309/Kelly-Brook-jihad-seekers-allowance.html#ixzz1TsYdhmSl

      1. Grrrr

        Anyone know if they have UK citizenship?

        Not my normal style of politics but if not – UKBA please deport them

  2. Can someone please put up some gay love posters?

    1. dave wainwright 1 Aug 2011, 4:15pm

      cant do that it would be seen as a HATE CRIME , provocation to the moslem residents of tower hamlets and would probably attract a huge fine and imprisonment to set an example

      1. Come on can you imagine the stonewall rioters taking that rubbish? Gay rights have move from the working class who were willing to fight for their rights and hikjacked by the middle class and capitalists who don’t want to rock.

        We fight or we die I know a lot of queens who are moving out of London because of idiots like these 2

        1. There has always been quite a strong middle class section of the gay rights movement, however the capitalists have taken it over and are now trying to sell us off

    2. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 5:00pm

      @James!…
      …..and you can’t because?……….

    3. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:51am

      Thing is if someone graffitied a cartoon Mohammod onto these posters we all know what would happen, yet those posters alone are just as offensive to Our Rights, Freedoms and Democracy.

  3. martyn notman 1 Aug 2011, 1:33pm

    i hear house prices in iran are quite reasonable, im sure they would find things more to their liking over there..If they are so keen on sharia law, lets have eye for an eye shall we- put them in bikinis and let paintballers loose on the little gits.

    1. D. McCabe 1 Aug 2011, 2:47pm

      They would not go to Iran or somewhere similar as the council would not provide them with a house and all benefits!

      1. Dan Filson 1 Aug 2011, 2:50pm

        Stereotyping remark

        1. Ben Foster 1 Aug 2011, 4:14pm

          maybe it is, but on the other hand, perhaps its true.

        2. Yes and dangerous to maintain stereotypes although often they are grounded in some truth

          1. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 5:57pm

            @Stu ….
            …in what way is stereotyping dangerous? Surely a little overdramatic, don’t you think?

          2. @Paddyswurds

            It is dangerous to reinforce stereotypes because there are many that then presume they will always be accurate and this leads to opinions being formed which illegitimately damage the responsible elements of certain groups which do not fulfill the expectations of the requisite stereotype

            Here are a few articles for you to peruse which identify the risk factors:

            http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0726/1224301384339.html

            http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/encouraging_hatred/0018679

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-rightwing-columnists-in-killers-manifesto-2325918.html

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.450/abstract

            http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LSCf0j5lNeYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR4&dq=danger+of+stereotyping&ots=qHsUBeJmdM&sig=_SyDdDgQQsZ8guJ6W0ie7ODY19M#v=onepage&q=danger%20of%20stereotyping&f=false

            Some pieces more obvious than others …

          3. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 8:14pm

            @Stu…
            …if you say so……

          4. @Paddyswurds

            I do

          5. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:52am

            Agreed, Stu!

          6. It is dangerous to reinforce stereotypes because there are many that then presume they will always be accurate and this leads to opinions being formed which illegitimately damage the responsible elements of certain groups which do not fulfill the expectations of the requisite stereotype

            So then would you denounce the following stereotypes:

            A) Gays who disagree with the gay left are self loathing and are crazy right wingers who support the republican party…

            B) Christians hate gay people and want to kill us all.

            C) Marriage equality means gay marriage, they are both the same and exact thing.

            I think personally stereotypes are necessary. For instance, a muslim or mainly black country would more likely be homophobic with anti-gay laws than say white or hispanic countries that have a christian heritage (like Europe, Argentina, Mexico, Canada, US, etc)…

          7. @Pepa

            To address the issues that you describe as stereotypes (and could, I accept, beviewed as such)

            A) Not all gay people will support the so called gay left. Not all those who disagree will be republican (partly because the world extends significantly beyond the small nation and economy of the USA). Some who disagree will be right wing (and some crazy). Self Loathing is not a phrase I would say is owned by any political ideology but can apply to some gay people. To set hard and fast rules of character traits and types to disagreement or disenfranchisement from certain viewpoints is dangerous, albeit in some ways an understandably lazy form of communication that we all (some of us reluctantly) fall into the trap of from time to time. I try to remember to judge people on what they say and do and not on extending that further unless seeking clarification.

            B) There will be a small number of Christians who want to kill people – it certainly isnt a stereotype. There are a …

          8. … number of Christians (although I would contend not a majority although I do not believe there is or can be statistical evidence to substantiate a clear answer either way regarding there being a majority or not) who either hate gay people or are anti-gay. That certainly does not mean they all want to kill gay people – and the number of Christians wanting to kill that also want to kill gay people will be be a reduced number. Your premise that this is a stereotype is bizarre and sounds unbalanced.

            C) Your point at C is in not way a stereotype because you can only stereotype people not situations such as marriage.
            However, to give clarity to your statement marriage equality should mean equal access to marriage for all who fulfill the legal requirements of marriage i.e. no polygamy, consensual etc. Not all marriages will be the same, all civil marriages should be similar and equal.

            You seem to be believe that equal means the same as. It does not. It means to have the same value

          9. As for your comment about Muslim or black countries, I can see why this stereotype would be formed. I can also see that in some of those countries it would be an accurate portrayal. However, two things – firstly one country that springs immediately to mind is Mozambique which is a black country with a superb LGBT rights record. The second thing is that even in the most appalling of regimes to LGBT people are good experiences amongst many bad for some gay people. It is the regime and attitude and culture that needs reviewing and renewing.

          10. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 11:04am

            Stu
            -
            Actually all he does done in his comment is show he knows absolutely nothing about the UK, it’s laws and it’s joys and well as lows.
            -
            There are several comments on this thread in which he shows he is out of his depth and clearly knows nothing about this story to add anything nor does he know about life in London nor the UK.

          11. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 11:05am

            Sorry
            -
            meant ‘All he does do in his comments..’

          12. @Jock S Trap

            His ignorance, stereotyping and presumptions about the UK (often trying to ally them in some way to a US experience) are at best simplistic and at worst racist

          13. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 11:39am

            Exactly.
            -
            It might be ok if he knew how to debate but he simply doesn’t. He seems to have problems even trying to grasp the basics, let alone the name calling and slanderous remarks when he’s having a tantrum….still thank Gaga for the name change function that makes it so easy for him.
            -
            Trouble is he may change the name but the bullsh!t stays the same.

          14. Wow Pepa managed to show yourself up there didn’t you first you show your lack of understanding about stereotypes then you show your own belief that everyone generalises as much as you. Well done with arguments like yours who needs to have rhetorics

  4. Ali Wearing 1 Aug 2011, 1:35pm

    I also object to the Lynx adverts. They objectify women in a way I find very distasteful.
    And, just because I’m lesbian doesn’t make me a feminist;
    if it wasn’t necessary, I wouldn’t be one.

    1. Get over yourself. Go and have a wank.

      1. spot the woman hating gay!

    2. Staircase2 1 Aug 2011, 2:57pm

      I agree – these type of billboard ads do objectify women – but these two boys would be better off doing something by way of a campaign rather than what appears to be a knee-jerk ‘this must not be allowed’.

      Maybe its time they signed up to the feminist cause…lol

      1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 3:10pm

        But equally there are women to like being photographed and be part of such an ad campaign, who are we to say it’s objectifying?
        -
        Just as you might think it’s objectifying there will be plenty of women who think it’s not.
        -
        It’s not for anyone, Muslim, Lesbian, Gay guy, feminist, whatever to say it shouldn’t happen.
        -
        Lets not forget that men are just as much a part in advertising but it’s not as sexualised nowadays as it once may have been.
        -
        Lets not also forget that some Muslims think all men should be covered up too, only not quite in the same sexually discriminating way.

        1. Ben Foster 1 Aug 2011, 4:16pm

          So what does wearing a burka do for women? At least the woman in the advert got well paid to wear her bikini. she isn’t the ‘chattel’ of a man.

          1. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:54am

            Oppress, thats what it does to women. Lets not forget that they aren’t allowed to wear underwear either. To wear such a garment, apparently, make them ‘loose women’ and many get publically flogged in public for doing so.

      2. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 3:48pm

        I have said it before and it bears repeating, anyone not in third level education and under the age of twenty should be in the Army.

        1. Why so you can be used as a tool by the corporate giants there the ones that really are in control of our armies

          1. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 4:15pm

            Frankly, yes as it would also teach these young layabouts some manners and responsibility, which seem to be missing from their upbringing these days.

          2. But the army has been proven to reduce the creativity of the people who go into it to pretty much zilch, something people of religion generally need to build on to be able to think for themselves.

          3. And isn’t that the problem here not that they don’t have any discipline but that they have to much, so much so that they feel they have to enforce there discipline onto others

          4. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 5:03pm

            @Hamish….
            ….yea, like wandering the streets spraying grafitti and gurning at LGB people is sooo creative…..!!

          5. It’s not (well arguably the graffiti may have been) but if we wish them to be able to think for themselves and therefore create your own ideas (which usually then turns into rejecting faith) is.

          6. Just realised that last comment didn’t make much sense. Sorry what I meant was

            It’s not (well arguably the graffiti may have been) but if we wish them to be able to think for themselves and therefore create your own ideas (which usually then turns into rejecting faith) we need to help them build there creativity and therefore learn to think for themselves.

        2. Ben Foster 1 Aug 2011, 4:17pm

          you thinik teaching these crackpots to use weapons would be a good idea then?

          1. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 5:28pm

            @Ben Foster……..
            ……theres plenty they could do in the Army without being taught to kill. There could be units set up specifically for teenagers and use them to do lots of jobs that the Armed men are now doing, Catering, construction, medical core, (keep them away from the drugs…lol) Famine relief, Disaster relief recon, etc, etc.
            Any politicos reading this take note. This could be a vote winner and a great way of reducing the dole queues.

        3. Most of them are here because our army invaded their countries and fractions of all sorts fled.

        4. Everyone without exception, girls as well as boyss, whether they are suited to military service or not? Ridiculous!

          1. Paddyswurds 2 Aug 2011, 12:47pm

            @Rick…
            …if you reread my comment I said they needn’t be trained to kill but fill jobs armed men are doing now. Do keep up.

    3. de Villiers 1 Aug 2011, 3:16pm

      There are things to which we can all object – but we restrain ourselves from destroying them.

      1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 3:25pm

        Very True!

      2. Actually I did see a sunday sport poster defaced and a few ads for the tories and that infamous ad for opium perfume. I thought they were all justified so I guess I have to accept these guys can do that to the lynx ad but the anti gay posters are too much

        1. de Villiers 1 Aug 2011, 5:40pm

          James, all you have done is to introduce a justification to the destruction of property that is not yours – leaving the individuals here able to assert your moral defence. The express right that others not destroy our property is one of a number of express rights that protects the revealed right to liberal speech and advertising.

    4. I hate those aussiebum ads. They look so guache

      1. Not all of them – although some do

        Many of them very entertaining and appealling though lol

        1. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 6:00pm

          @………….
          …………..I really do like the Fosters ads on telly. I think they are quite funny and i always get a laugh from tthem.

        2. I also like the Fosters ad’s

          But I guess thats a stereotype laughing At stereotyping … in a good way

          1. Paddyswurds 2 Aug 2011, 12:50pm

            @………..
            ………especially the one about the budgie smugglers. It is brilliant as it makes fun of the stereotypical straight male.

          2. Particularly the stereotypical Aussie straight male … but for me what the ad is doing in a very humerous way is laughing at the ridiculous nature of sterotypes

          3. Paddyswurds 2 Aug 2011, 7:27pm

            I really hate ads that seek to make fun of men, like the one where the young gut thinks a tampon is sugar or the one wher some bint pulls the handle on a sofa and the bloke flies out the window and ends up dead in a tree. if these ads were the other way round we would be accused of misogyny.

          4. Not seen those ad’s – must look out for them

  5. These people are a poor reflection on and the worst representation of the good people around them. The damaged done to them by religious conditioning is truly tragic; they suffer every form of castration- physically, spiritually, psychologically, socially and emotionally – that makes them controlled drones, no longer healthy of mind although functionally neurotic. When one suffers castration in everyway possible, the only foundation left to step off and walk on is anger, frustration and judgment to feel like you have some power and sense of existence. Fully-castrated people wallow in projection, attack and psychological cowardice to avoid the painful journey through their internal neurosis that is required to become a better loving person. They believe, this especially used by religious people, that if you join me in my neurotic beliefs, I will feel better about myself or somewhat normal. It is a kind of safety in numbers.

  6. Underneath, images indicate that smoking, alcohol and music are banned.
    .
    I’ve never thought seriously about taking up smoking before …

  7. Wait for pervert Rich (original) to read this. So predictable.

    If these muslims native or foreign born don’t like our freedoms, then they should go live in the middle east and take their disgusting, perverted religion with them.

    1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 2:41pm

      Well said Robert.
      -
      As for you know who, yes, awaiting the predictable.

    2. Staircase2 1 Aug 2011, 3:00pm

      Well I dont think its the religion itself thats ‘perverted’ or ‘disgusting’.

      Thats the big mistake I think all you knee-jerkers on here are making: Religions don’t exist by themselves – they are effectively a ‘work-in-progress’, decided by the very people who make up their ‘congregation’.

      Its the people who are responsible for what they do – not the ‘religion’.

      Although generally speaking, ‘Religion’ doesnt do itself any favours when it constantly behaves in an un-God like manner.

  8. Jason Brown 1 Aug 2011, 2:42pm

    Why’s music considered bad?

    1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 2:48pm

      It is just considered anti-Islamic, I have to stress though that this is only for some sects of Muslims not all.

      1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 2:49pm

        I will also stress that it’s the same sect that thinks that if a women doesn’t dress properly she will cause earthquakes….
        -
        Nuff said I thinks!!

      2. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 6:05pm

        ….some sects of fundi xtians frown on music and even dancing. Ian Paislys Free Presbetariens (doubtful spelling) frown on music and dancing and alcohol. Paisly calls Guiness “devils buttermilk”

    2. Dionysian 1 Aug 2011, 3:54pm

      Jason, good point. How is me listening to some good quality music any different to them listening to the sung calls to prayer?

      Yes, I can appreciate some modern music full of profanity and advocating violence, such as Buju Banton et al, may be considered offensive and could be ‘considered bad’, but many songs are about peace, love and overcoming personal barriers and suffering. How is that ‘bad’?

  9. martyn notman, exactly right! We ought to do what France has done, ban the burka in public to piss them off even more, make them so frustrated they’ll have to leave the country altogether. None too soon, good riddance to islamic trash who contribute NOTHING to society except hate and intolerance and disrespect for British laws and our way of life. I’m all for shutting down their mosques, ban them all and let them l leave for a “better” life in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Dubai or the UAE. They’d be a lot happier and so would we.

    1. Dan Filson 1 Aug 2011, 2:53pm

      Women who wear burkas are imprisoning themselves, and do themselves no favours. A lot of trust comes from seeing the facial expression of the person you speak to, and if you can only see the eyes there can be no trust. I certainly agree with the MP who was reluctant to see constituents so dressed at his surgeries.

      1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 2:59pm

        Yes, Jack Straw he was right about this too.
        -
        Seeing facial expressions is part of British culture and indeed Western culture.

      2. Paddyswurds 2 Aug 2011, 12:54pm

        @Dan Filson…
        ….I don’t think those that wear this tent thing have a choice really. Are they not required to by their husbands; and if not feel compelled by the heavily patriarchical society that is the Muslim world and life?.

    2. de Villiers 1 Aug 2011, 3:17pm

      France has not banned the burka. It has banned all religious symbols and coverings in public buildings. It is done to protect the secularity of the Republic.

      1. de Villiers 1 Aug 2011, 3:18pm

        - banned the wearing of religious symbols and coverings…

    3. Then we would have to pay fair price for petrol. Billions of profit only at BP. Oops!

      1. Well that’s why we ruined there countries in the first place.

  10. darkmoonman 1 Aug 2011, 2:48pm

    ” … so we were just trying to do good.”

    By ramming their religion down everyone else’s throat and removing everyone else’s rights.

    1. If that is what ‘good’ is in their eyes… i dread to think how they will tell their children about things that shouldn’t be done…. Great role models for society too! Wonder how many more are going to idolise them.

  11. Staircase2 1 Aug 2011, 2:52pm

    Bless em – they’re not too bright are they….

  12. Jack Holroyde 1 Aug 2011, 2:58pm

    That mans a nutter!
    OI! NUTTER!

    1. Staircase2 1 Aug 2011, 3:14pm

      ‘Oi Nutter!’………?!? lol

      Well yeah – you’re right – that’ll definitely teach him a lesson! lol

      …..He’ll think twice now before he messes with the ‘oi nutter’ brigade! (Come to think of it – why didnt we use that during the war?! Far cheaper than tanks….lol)

  13. Raymond A. Weaver 1 Aug 2011, 3:06pm

    Religious laws do not, and should not, trump the civil law of a host coountry. If you do not agree, perhaps you should look elsewhere to nest.

    1. Jock S. Trap 1 Aug 2011, 3:11pm

      Totally agree there Raymond.

    2. Staircase2 1 Aug 2011, 3:16pm

      In principle thats very sound Raymond- but the problem is that English law IS based on religious law…

      PS Is that THE Ray Weaver? :O)

    3. Exactly, Britan is a Christian country, however Christian law can not be followed where it clashes with civil law so why would Islamic law trump civil law? A good example is the fact that Gay people can not be banned from a church as it is considered ‘public property’ and therefore only antisocial acts can have you banned. These people are fanatics, similar to those in the IRA who were committing terrorist acts not so long ago. They do not in fact represent the views or beliefs of the majority of British Muslims who are happy with our culture and their right to express their religion in a tolerant society that allows for individuality

      1. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 5:31pm

        @Tami….
        …….Actually Britain is largly atheist or certainly secular these days. Do try to keep up.

        1. You are right Paddyswurds

          Although still a majority of nominal Christians

      2. How in any way are we a Christian country. Christians are a minority we used to be a Christian country not any more thank god!!

        1. @Hamish

          I agree we are not a Christian country other than either by heritage or nominal association

          But nonetheless many non Christians still profess to be Christian – a process I find bizarre

        2. Paddyswurds 2 Aug 2011, 7:19pm

          @Hamish…
          …….ironic that you should on the one hand extoll the virtues of there being a lack of xtians and on the other “thank god” I guess old habits die hard, eh?

          1. It was supposed to be ironic

    4. In 1953 we and Yanks killed Iranian democracy so now is payback time I’m afraid.

  14. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 3:35pm

    ers why, if their homeland was such a paradise of learning and Islamic chastity, these people cxame here in the first instance. I suggest if they don’t like it they should all fcuk off back to what ever hell hole of ignorance they came from, where they can resume trudging about all day in their rage and bare feet, choking in dust and starving with hunger and lets see what Islam will provide for them.!!

  15. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 3:38pm

    ………….???
    ………One wonders why, if their homeland was such a paradise of learning and Islamic chastity, these people came here in the first instance. I suggest if they don’t like it they should all fcuk off back to whatever hell hole of ignorance they came from, where they can resume trudging about all day in their rags and bare feet, choking in dust and starving with hunger and lets see what Islam will provide for them.!!

    1. You do realise that many people of all religions and ethnicity are born in the UK. I don’t agree with these lads graffitting a poster for those reasons but people will do these things and choose a reason for it. You can’t tell people to f off back home in such a general all-encompassing way like that, beause you have no idea as to why certain people are here, how long ‘they’ have been here or anything. The UK is a mongrel nation. We have celt blood, viking blood, roman blood, and much more. Throughout history we have been invaded and been used as sanctuary many times. I believe the majority of Brits are a combination of the best of these and that one reason why many people the world over come to the UK is not just for the benefits. It’s for the freedom of choice and life. Yes people abuse what is given, but that goes for people whose families have been here for generations too.

  16. Poor guys! 18 years old and they spend their young years putting up anti-gay posters and defacing pictures of attractive woman. God help the people they marry and the kids they produce. Talk about brain washing!

  17. I actualy find the whole idea of painting Burkas on these adverts quite funny. It’s akin to drawing glasses on people when you’re younger, or bored which probably tells us much more about these guys then anything else.

    I know what it means to people. “How dare they trample on British values” and “Sharia law is a threat to our nation”. I know it is perhaps indicative of a very real danger but honestly some of the comments have generated unwarranted anger in my opinion.

    Is burka right? I’m not sure. I thought it was Haqib? Not that I know that much about Islamic dress.

    The kid clearly has a learning diability of some kind.

    1. de Villiers 1 Aug 2011, 5:42pm

      It is a deliberate challenge to the liberal state and secular public culture.

      1. You could say the very same about the House of Lords. What makes this so different?

  18. Vile things. Send them back to 7th century Arabia.

  19. Idiots. If they feel the advert is “objectifying” then they could always contact Lynx like anyone else and have their opinion expressed. They’d probably be told that it’s a tongue in cheek mockery of male pre-occupation. Or something. But they wouldn’t understand that. And then they’d smash something or deface something or some other “why won’t anyone listen to ME” response. They need to learn that until their stone-age views are the majority, and they’ve managed to stamp out such things as women’s rights to pose for photographs dressed however the hell they like, or irony, or humour, or self deprecation, they’ll have to put up with looking at the horrifying sight of attractive women who have fully chosen to ‘expose themselves’ and aren’t the slightest bit concerned about being seen. Petulant, self righteous muppets.

    1. Paddyswurds 1 Aug 2011, 5:08pm

      Ironic that such people who hate women so much should also be homophobic, or is it all a charade to cover what really goes on when they get in their back bedroom with their mates. I did think there seemed to be a lot of middle Eastern men on Lubeyourtube.com…..lol

  20. de Villiers, if France hasn’t banned the burka but the veil, then there isn’t much difference as far as I’m concerned. The burka covers the entire body including the face.

    1. de Villiers 1 Aug 2011, 5:44pm

      It has banned the wearing of all religious symbols in public buildings. That includes large Christian crosses or crucifixes, Jewish head-covering caps and Islamic veils and head coverings.

    2. Out of interest does anyone know if there have been any deliberate protests from any groups other than Muslims re the French laws? eg Jews and skull caps, large crucifixes etc

  21. It has been interesting to read the comments and reactions to this matter once again. I recently watched the 3 hour special that the BBC presenter Rageh Omar made on Islam. It is clear that these kids are being taught interpretations of Sharia and the Qu’ran based on modern fundamental and political interpretation. He interviewed a number of interesting educated Muslims and we learnt that Sharia principles were established by Muhammad but that they were developed after he had died and were adjusted to fit the politics of the Islamic state for several hundred years after that. The basis for most faiths seem to be peaceful and respectful of others no matter opinion, race, country or creed.
    For the record I have no axe to grind as I am humanist, but thought the programme was interesting and worth watching to understand what is happening in the Islamic society today.

  22. Why don’t this stupid useless come back for his country?

    1. Why don’t this stupid useless come back to his country?

  23. If it’s a ‘sin in Islam for a male to look twice at a woman who is not covered’ then these men simply shouldn’t have looked.
    Typical trying to blame women rather than themselves for being tempted to gawp at the female body.

    1. Rich (original) 1 Aug 2011, 11:50pm

      No. Those females are unbelievers, like prostitutes, degenerates. Like yourself!… :)

      1. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 9:00am

        Ah, deluding yourself again I see… oh well, makes a change from you playing with yourself.

      2. took a while for you to comment on this story we were beginning to think you weren’t coming ….. what a shame :(

        1. yes, but in his absence we could alwways have written his erudite comment for him, couldn’t we? ;) “Rant rant… *racism*… degenerate… froth froth… *anti-women* …..foam foam…*advocates genocide*…..blah blah *homophobia*….”
          I like to think of him as a kind of troll-bot.

          1. but not as cuddly as Metal Mickey or C3PO

          2. Very true! :D

  24. Rich (original) 1 Aug 2011, 11:45pm

    I will pray for you, my Muslim Brothers! Get well and recover from the unjustice of idiotic U.K. governmental persecution!

    1. Ben Foster 1 Aug 2011, 11:51pm

      well, that’s so sweet of you, Rich, to be thinking of them. But will they see your message of support here on a website for gay people? Surely not unless they are as hypocritical and twisted as you!

      1. Rich (original) 2 Aug 2011, 2:24am

        Ben, I am honest and not hypocritical. I telling the truth. You are mistaken. I am here for making the opposition to gay politics, criticize them. That’s all.

        1. Ben Foster 2 Aug 2011, 7:44am

          no you’re not, you’re a ridiculous troll who likes to make trouble. And so are these brainwashed boys in Tower Hamlets.

        2. Ben Foster 2 Aug 2011, 7:45am

          And by the way, that’s Mr Foster to you. Only my friends call me Ben.

          1. Rich (original) 2 Aug 2011, 3:22pm

            You will go to Hell anyway, so I don’t care about your idiotic comments anymore :)

          2. Ooh, I’m sure he’s gutted! :p

          3. @Ben

            Hopefully, if he doesnt care about your comments – he will go away ….

            Somehow, I think this obsessive will not …

        3. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:59am

          You are anything BUT honest and Always hypocritcal. You lie, you cheat, your cheap…. Never mind at least you know the LGBTQ community are peaceful and loving, something you could never achieve.

        4. @ Rich (original)

          You are completely dishonest and ignorant in almost all you say on here

          You may believe you are honest (although I dont believe you are the caricature that you purport to be) but you are far from honest

          Ben (if I am allowed to call him that), Jock S Trap and others are correct in confronting your idiocy and dangerous rhetoric

          1. I think it shocking that Rich is allowed to post such hatred all over this site. Pink news should be ashamed, there must be money in it.

            Editors can you explain?

        5. Rich (original) : “I am here for making the opposition to gay politics, criticize them. That’s all”
          ……………………………………………………………..
          Uh huh, and I’m the Queen of Sheba. Now off you go to perv at lots of gay porn sites – Oh, I’m sorry, I mean RESEARCH them, of course ; )

    2. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 8:57am

      LOL – Predictable as Ever – Hilarious to the last.

    3. Rich (original) 2 Aug 2011, 3:31pm

      Degenerated homosexual likes to pretend to be judges, men of law, while being degenerates…. Its really comical to see these idiots posing to be serious and smart, being infantile and stupid…. O well, you all going to Hell soon anyway, so I don’t care about your opinions anymore!… You are shame for your parents and all your relatives. You, being filthy, excrement and urine licking creatures, disgracing the heritage of Great Britain. That’s for sure!

      1. Infantile and stupid? Funny, those are the exact adjectives we’d use to describe YOU. I’d also add ‘repressed’ and ‘self-hating’.
        You’re transparent, Rich. We do pity you.

      2. licking creatures? LOL. Rich’s piss and scat fetish is coming out of the closet.

      3. If you don’t care … and to be frank I don’t care a jot whether you care or not, then just f@ck off

      4. Jock S. Trap 3 Aug 2011, 2:58pm

        Oh my, what a tantrum!

  25. Simple soluition just throw pig bones at his home then this guy will feel the heat

  26. In England if people spend too much time out of the sunlight, they risk a severe vitamin D deficiency.

    1. er … and?

      1. I think he’s reffering to the health risks of wearing a burka.

        1. Jock S. Trap 3 Aug 2011, 2:59pm

          I was wondering!! lol

  27. not that i condone this blokes intollerance but he doesn’t even make up 1% of british muslims. its unfair to project his ideology on so many people. claiming what ‘they’ do and what ‘they’ think. this report is about one man and you need the word ‘him’.

  28. After reading the ‘joke’ subthread I actually had to remind myself of the news story.

    I wish my religious education classes covered the full covering of face clothing. I saw one for the first time at work and I thought it was a hold up. I’m not joking either.

    1. Lol! “We’re here for you money and your gays…..”

  29. Their religion isn’t evil, but what they’re doing with it is. I honestly hope they can either come to terms with their brainwashing, or move to a country where they can at least not do very much more damage.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 2 Aug 2011, 9:07pm

      The 3 Abrahamic religious sects, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all more or less branches of the same cult.

      They are basically all derived from the old Hebrew Testament with their own “twist” on what allegedly happened after.

      The Jewish more or less claim ownership to the old testament, then a nasty upstart called Christ allegedly came on the scene with silly ways, so he was eliminated and so began the Christian branch of the nutters ball.

      Next, 570 years after said JC showed up, Mohammed founded Islam and 1441 years later we have Rich ( Original ). and all 3 branches of these loonies still whining on about their God(s).

      In the meantime the less important 30,000 other religions and “their” Gods, just get on with it and do not bother anyone else.

      And unfortunately, you must remember that NONE of these religions are indigenous to these Isles.

      These were Pagan Isles, destroyed by the monotheistic super-naturalists that came here.

  30. No, Alice, these religions ARE evil if they command the death sentence to gay people amongst other harsh laws. What are you talking about?

  31. Well past time to cut off their thumbs…

  32. £100 and then just £283? I think that fines are definitely too low.

    1. They should be each fined £500, ordered to sort out the damage, work on an LGBT helpdesk/charity/event/group. I do wonder if something sinister told them to do it, rather than what they thought was a good thing to do?

  33. oldfooxbob 8 Aug 2011, 3:03pm

    If they do not like it here, then they are free to move the heck out of here and go to Iran where they are not allowed to do anything. Recind their citizenship and kick them out.

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