Reader comments · Three anti-gay leaflet defendants guilty · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Three anti-gay leaflet defendants guilty

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Where to begin with the dumb line of defence?
    “You can think of it as a little vigilante thing.”
    Yep, the “we’re just harmless vigilantes” defence always impresses the judges.
    Can you imagine them endorsing “a little vigilante thing” if the perpetrators were from the BNP?

    “We are living in a society and if we don’t stop it, something like a tsunami will happen here, something on that scale.”
    And a total ignorance of elementary plate tectonics. I suppose the entire Pacific rim is just a hotbed of seismic gay activity. Maybe it’s all those gay dolphins. On that ‘evidence’ Canal Street should be shaking with constant volcanic eruptions.

    “A teacher at Derby College was also gay. He was one of my favourite teachers.”

    Yep, I know how that can be, that favourite teacher you had at school, the one you always used to fantasise about stringing from the nearest lampost.
    The stupid… it burns.

  2. Oh brilliant – comments enabled! Bring on all the anti-muslim, racist comments…. bet by tea time the board will be full of them :(

    1. Stupidity and ignorance has more to do with cowardice and social fear within psychologically damaged individuals that like to form collectives, and that has nothing to do with race even though it seems to be. Granted there is the greatest fear and ignorance alined with religous systems, where men and women become psychologically, intellectually, intimately, verbally and socially castrated. A sad present reality.

    2. I would prefer to concentrate on the good news that the investiagtion by the police and the prosecution by CPS has led to a clear conviction and demonstrated that inciting hatred on grounds of homophobia will not be tolerated … rather than presume insidious and ingnorant individuals may choose to rant and rave in a racist and Islamophobic manner; if we do then many of us will condemn them – but for now lets remember the positive outcome of this court case … hopefully the sentence will also reflect justice being done …

    3. “anti-muslim, racist comments”

      There’s no need. Muslims aren’t a ‘race’, so unless someone has a swipe at South Asians, then there won’t be any racism.

      As for anti-Muslim, I’m not. Nor am I anti-Islam. However if you violate the Public Order Act and use your religion to justify it, then I’m afraid your religion should expect to come under scrutiny – just like any other political or religious ideology which doesn’t receive the same level of defence from some people.

      1. Public Order Act maybe soon be modified, which is excellent.

        1. Even if section 5 of the public order act is modified in any way (which I seriously doubt) … it would not have changed the law in this matter …

          Inciting hatred is risible, dangerous and subversive and must NEVER be tolerated

      2. Spanner1960 20 Jan 2012, 11:11pm

        “As for anti-Muslim, I’m not. Nor am I anti-Islam.”
        Oh I am. I don’t know about you but they scare the crap out me.

    4. Sal, with Muslims in the news for being the first to be found guilty of sexual hate crime, and actively protecting peadophiles among their ranks who sexually and physically abuse non-Muslim schoolgirls en mass, now may isn’t the time to start screaming and shouting “racist” at those merely speaking the truth and pointing out that there are problems endemic to the Muslim community in the UK, and I daresay globally, that your elders are failing to bring to heel. For that reason you are facing consequences in the eyes of British law.

      Stop playing the eternal victim, for pity’s sake, and take responsibility for the fact that you/your forefathers chose to come to another continent and that some of your number failed to adopt to its cultures or respect its laws.

      The Koran, when its words are not warped and twisted to suit radical extremists, is a great book that preaches moral values, respect and responsibility, does it not?

      Then ensure UK Muslim children are brought up by its example.

      1. Certainly there are some Muslims whether first, second or third generation etc have chosen to disregard the culture and law of the UK, choosing instead to believe they can pick and choose which laws they choose to abide by ..

        Whilst it is also true that there is an element in all racial, religious and other strands of UK society who also wish to pick and choose the laws they wish to adhere to – its noticeable within certain people who are Islamic due to the vocal nature of some of their actions …

        Categorically it is not all Muslims in the UK – and many do comply with UK law and many have condemned the actions of these men in Derby …

        1. Ooh, hush my mouth once again for speaking the truth and pointing out a few simple facts within Stu’s range of vision.

          Your eternal PC sermonising is getting beyond a joke now, Stu.

          Why do statements of truth scare you so? Why are you forever comparing apples to oranges to deflect the truth?

          Shining too brightly for you, perhaps, hence the shades?

          1. @Samuel B

            Odd … My last comments agreed with yours and you still choose to use vindictive and aggressive language towards me …

            You are clearly just intent on confrontation and not interested in the comments anyone else made

            If you had bothered to read my comments, rather than just launching into lambasting them – you would see largely I was agreeing with you … not entirelty but predominantly …

            Now, either you are just out for confrontation, think that the ridicule you try (unsuccessfully) to use towards me also applies to yourself or are very confused …

          2. @Samuel B

            As many of us on PN have said before …

            You lose the argument when you resort to insult …

            Too bright … boring, old school … yawn …

            Perhaps you need to up date your insults or better still learn to engage in facts rather than spite …

            Even better … read the comments you condemn first (particularly if they agree with the ones you have just made …

          3. OK, hands up, I jumped the gun, I apologise.

            But isn’t that rather the point? That I expect you to always pull every point I make apart by applying left wing PC “logic” to my argument that I don’t notice the odd occasion when you do endorse something I say?

        2. @Samuel B

          Thank you for your apology.

          Perhaps rather than trying to deflect the blame for you not reading my comments onto me, you might pay more attention to what is written in future rather than continuing on a bandwagon of throwing out insults based on presumption rather than bothering to read what is said …

          If you have done this once, how many more times have you done it (I wonder) …

          Again, Thank you for the apology

        3. Nobody is for one minute saying it is all Muslims behaving the same way, but I think the reason why that is is because that is obvious on an experiential and intuitive level and does not need emphasising in black and white.

          I don’t think anyone is so gullible or naive to either believe or want to believe that is the case, unless of course they are inherently racist in which case nothing you say or emphasise will change their mind.

          I do question your need for doing this in near enough every debate, Stu, as though there is a perceived need to reinforce the PC line on every topic of discussion. Please note this is an observation, nothing more.

          1. Where have I suggested that anyone is saying all Muslims are doing this?

            Where I have urged caution about steroetyping, I too am only making observations …

          2. “Categorically it is not all Muslims in the UK – and many do comply with UK law and many have condemned the actions of these men in Derby …”

            “Where have I suggested that anyone is saying all Muslims are doing this?”

            Stu, you made the top statement several posts ago by reinforcing this standard PC rhetoric unnecessarily because it is self-evident on an experiential level.

            Most PN readers will have Muslims as friends (if they don’t then you should because they are extraordinarily friendly, loving, and yes, extremely humorous people), or count The Maood family as one of EastEnders’ triumphs.

            So why on earth make this blatant, categoric PS statement when nobody for one minute doubts that most Muslims in the UK do obey and follow the UK’s laws and respect its traditions?

            By doing so you are, once again, implying some people on here DO believe the contrary and are therefore inherently racist.

            Please, leave out the PC sermonising, it has become so patronising and boring.

          3. @Samuel B

            I am making an observation not accusing anyone …

            It seems a tad defensive that you find the quote troubling …

            Surely you can agree with the comment that many UK Muslims have condemned those in this case?

            It merely sets some context to my comments and observations.

            If its true, why do you have a problem with me saying it?

            You seem to suggest that I am using it because others are jumping to an alternate view – not at all, merely setting my view in context …

            How is that wrong?

          4. You demanded to know “Where have I suggested that anyone is saying all Muslims are doing this?”

            I answered.

            End of.

          5. @Smauel B

            I note you choose not to answer how contextualising my observations is a bad thing …

            Or why you would seek to restrict what I can say and not what you can say …

          6. Note away, Stu. I’m not duty bound to rise to every challenge you set, nor jump through hoops for you. I prefer to debate and not be challeneged and ensnared all the time by PC’ers who are on here to stymie anyone who challenges their status quo.

            Yes, that’s right. You may or not be part of a larger agenda, but the fact is – and others are constantly pointing this out – you have set yourself up as unofficial PC moderator on these boards, and your responses and challenges to anyone who questions PC orthodoxy have become predictable and stale.

            Time to move on? I noted yesterday you were the No.1 contributor to the boards these past 7 days (congratulation!), which means you posted on average 57 posts a day, or, assuming you’re glued to this site 12 hours a day, that’s nigh on ONE POST EVERY 12 MINUTES EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!

            You may deny it but your unreasonable possession of PN’s boads is unduly influencing opinion and incessantly challenging anyone who dares question your rigid PC…

          7. stance on just about every topic covered by PN.

            Tell me, Stu? How can your hogging of these boards and your incessant PC sermonising be considered either healthy or desirable in debates where a multitude of different opinions should be heard to get a fairer balance of what people think?

            How can it be aceptable for one person to hog these boards to the extent that you do so that your PC vision of the world has become the dominant voice?

            Perhaps I will ask PN if I may headline a feature myself, warning of the danger of people either harbour delusions of grandeur and seriously believe people want to be blitzed by their verbiage and hang off their every word, or, more likely, are trying to influence – I call it contaminate – these boards to adopt the PC belief system whilst stymying all other points of view.

            My proposal would be three postings per contributor per thread, then move on. And if you can’t say all you need to say in three posts, take a crash course in Twitter instead.

          8. @ Samuel

            “You may or not be part of a larger agenda, but the fact is – and others are constantly pointing this out” – where are these others that are agreeing with your views Samuel??? Maybe one or two, but there is hardly an appetite for your very odd worldview!

            And let us not forget that where you need to you do assume the occasional “guest contributer”, that always appears late on in the day, makes one or two comments which are always in your favour, and then disappear never to be seen again. I did note that you became a little more sophisticated with “Paul” as you attempted to make “his comments” balanced, but still less favourable towards Stu. You might be able to fool yourself by these tactics but your writing style is very distinct, and it is difficult to mask – but you are getting slightly better at it I must admit.

          9. Let us also not forget the red & greens you are so very fond of manipulating – where heated debates occur with you Samuel the voting patterns change dramatically, many many additional votes are cast, with the balance of voting always in your favour, yet if you look at the topics where there has been reasonable debate then voting parrtens are generally very constant – again you will deny this, but I do recall you accusing me of logging onto multiple computers in order to increase my voting numbers – this is not something I would have even thought about, but evidently it works for you!
            You have used the lack of security to launch sustained scathing personal attacks on myself and Stu, who next do you have in your sites. You are all for freedom of expression but now you are suggesting this should be curtailed significantly to 3 postings per comment – I fear you would feel very constrained, which may not be a bad idea

          10. @Samuel B

            If you feel the need to run such an article and you can demonstrate journalistic integrity to PN, then I am sure they would consider your case for publication …

            Make it a relevant and appropriate article and I am sure many people will read it with interest and consdieration …

            Might be useful to understand the relevance of evidence and facts before you produce a piece – as you will note from my article, the generating of debate often occurs on here and authors are held to account for their content.

            I thought you believed in free speech, Samuel … but now you seek to restrict it? or is it just my speech you seek to restrict?

            The fact that you continue to make your views known on here, is evidence that I in no way seek (or even if I did) succeed in limiting the opinion of others, no matter how truculent I find their approach or style

          11. @Samuel

            Again you stereotype my views as PC …

            Strange, my immigration and deportation views were those you entirely agreed with (were they PC?) …

            I wonder how many other views you and I share …

            Yet, you presume that I hold views which you can not be sure of (evidenced by your surprise at my views on deportations etc) (that gut feeling again, eh?) …

            I have explained my being online, yet you wish to deprive me of my voice … I am more than happy to debate constructively where people use evidence and fact (and regularly do so) …. you prefer to assume, speculate, presume, rely on gut feeling … which oh so often lets you down …

            You talk about my postings on here (I think you may find on several threads you dominate more than any other person) …

          12. @Samuel

            I am very familiar with twitter …

            I don’t need any guidance on its use …

            In that platform I tend to use succinct, factual messages (whether serious or light hearted)

            The platform here is somewhat different … one adapts oneself to the platform that exists …

      2. Well said, so refreshing to read a comment from someone with a sincere, concise view on this, rather than some of the fence sitting phoney sentiment pc brigade.

    5. Islam is not a ‘race’, it is a set of theological and religious ideas and being thus it should not be immune from legitimate criticism and frank and honest debate.

  3. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Jan 2012, 3:29pm

    Can’t wait to see the “right to religious freedom” goons start crowing….

    1. @Dr Guthrie

      Whilst I fully endorse religious freedom … as with all freedoms it should be exercised with responsibility … something these fools chose not to do … They have rightly been convicted and I hope the court imposes a sentence that is both appropriate and a deterrent when sentencing occurs next month.

      Whilst I would fight to uphold freedoms, I would also fight to demonstrate that responsibility is the key part to freedom.

      Homophobia of any sort is wrong, unjust and ignorant. Seeking to incite hatred is pure evil and should never be tolerated.

      Its fantastic to see Derbyshire Constabulary and the CPS taking decisive and strong action to ensure this horrendous hate crime was fully investigated and robustly prosecuted.

      Well done Derbyshire Constabulary and CPS …

      Interesting that special crime and counter terrorism are seen to go together – but I can perceive why they are linked …

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Jan 2012, 4:03pm

        Interestingly enough, I thought they would get off.

        I’m curious to see what the actual sentence will be.

        1. @Dr Guthrie

          I had a gut feeling they would be convicted (or at least some of them!)

          I am hopeful for sentences that will be a real deterrent, but nervously so … Its a hard one for the judge to call effectively given that it is the first case of its kind …

      2. Christine Beckett 21 Jan 2012, 9:34am

        “Interesting that special crime and counter terrorism are seen to go together – but I can perceive why they are linked …”

        They were linked because there was much more to this case than the leaflets. Sadly much of the press has ignored a lot of the evidence that was revealed about these guys and their other actions and links..


        1. Christine Beckett 21 Jan 2012, 9:42am

          Or to offer an analogy, think Capone and Tax Evasion.

        2. @Christine

          Interesting …

          I am presuming you have more significant access to information on this case than I do …

          Do you know if the Derby press covered the detail of the evidence in any more detail?

          I suspect you perceive there is a more sinister threat from these men than that already revealed in this case … does that make you confident that a deterrent or protective custodial sentence may be imposed?

    2. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 21 Jan 2012, 1:04pm

      Well I can’t see the christian institute crowing, these men were NOT one of theirs!

  4. If someone from the LGBT community were to traipse round Derby, or any city, handing out leaflets calling for the hanging of religious nutjobs or those from ethnic minorities, that person would be arrested with five minutes! Speaks volumes this does… but happy that three have been convicted… Wonder what penalty they will get???

    1. Also notice the BBC website where it’s a small piece on the front page, despite it being the second most read article! If it was a race-related conviction, it would be at the top of the page!

      1. Don’t be such a victim, where it’s not warranted.

        1. Merely pointing out the double standards @AN

      2. @Alex

        I imagine the BBC was more than a little embarrassed by the trial

        1. Be interesting to see how it is covered on the 6 and 10 (or Newsnight)

            I was pleasantly surprised that they didn’t bury the story, though some of the vox pops they got with it were depressingly predictable.
            They asked a muslim guy who I would’ve put in his late teens/ early 20s what he thought about the leaflets, and he said something along the lines of “Well if the gays don’t like it, that’s life innit”!
            I look forward to hearing his views on free speech when BNP activists pamphlet his door, I’m assuming they’ll be consistant.

          2. @Flapjack

            I was disappointed with coverage on the 6 … Just mere lip service that the jury had reached a verdict …

            The Newsnight was a little better but still disappointing …

          3. @ Stu – I think it was the BBC 6 o’clock news I saw, and I think they did go into some detail, including vox pops with members of the public outside a mosque, a gay man who had one of the leaflets posted and images of the offending leaflet etc. though it wasn’t a lead item. Maybe we saw different bulletins?
            Or maybe I was watching Ch4 news?

    2. Can we campaign for corporal punishment, say 100 lashes?

      1. Don’t jest , the campaigns for sharia law in the uk are gaining momentum.

        1. Spanner1960 21 Jan 2012, 12:27pm

          Who’s jesting? Maybe a bit of corporal punishment in this country might whip a few more yobs into shape.

          1. As long as sharia punishments are applied to the muslim gangs that want it soo much only, hell yay i’ll even go to be spectater at that stoning.

        2. 5% of the population are not going to get their desired laws established in this country – never gonna happen – but lets remember that all these hate filled immigrants were welcomed here with open arms – Focus blame on the authorities who allowed it –

          1. That 5% is expected to be 15% plus by 2020, which is quite realistic, considering the higher birth rate, so could very much happen in the near future.

          2. so your estimate is a growth of 37.5% every year for the next 8 years, to call it a scaremongering would be very kind

          3. @Kane


            Not sure the birth rate in any section of the population added to the immigration figures is anything near 37.5%!

  5. Boris Rheinhart 20 Jan 2012, 3:54pm

    The law is the wrong way round. Personally I don’t care what people think or say of me or my beliefs or life style; I’m right and they are wrong. Consequently I am not offended by anything anyone says – I just argue back their stupidity. However wrong these men are, they have every right to campaign for a society where homosexuality is punishable by death; it’s no different from the Green Party campaigning for plastic bags to be outlawed. Nobody has the right in life to be not offended. If the statements from these men incited a violent reaction then it is the people who react violently who are breaking the law. To punish someone for saying something that might encourage somebody else to break the law is the wrong way round. BNP marches are often banned because the police are worried about the reaction of anti-fascists. They may be assholes but to ban their right to free speech on the grounds that others would unlawfully react to their right to free speech is surely wrong

    1. To an extent, I agree Boris. But in this case, the leaflets were provably “threatening” – calling for gays to be hanged. Different league to your typical “Repent your sins” preacher.

    2. You may want to check out John Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’ in relation to that…
      In “On Liberty” (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that “…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”[

    3. this was never about people being offended, in fact part of the trial was proving it went beyond offending to threatening, inciting hatred/violence is different to offending or insulting people, the latter is a whole different issue and doesnt necessarily mean anyone would be physically hurt however the former is potentially threatening peoples lives and safety which is rightly illegal and morally wrong, people are free to believe what ever they want and in most cases to express that in a none threatening way however what your not allowed to do is encourage hatred and potentially violence towards people.

    4. Perhaps you didn’t read the article. They were not prosecuted for holding insulting views, they were prosecuted because their actions were “threatening”. If you are surrounded by a group of people threatening to string you up because they perceive you to be gay, it doesn’t help to say “I’m right and they are wrong”. Also, the case was about sexual orientation, not about “life style”.

    5. GingerlyColors 21 Jan 2012, 7:18am

      Leaflets by the Green Party calling for plastic bags to be banned are hardly threatening. Plastic bags do cause a mess, litter and damage to the enviorment. They take years to decompose and have been ingested by animals.

    6. People also have the right to feel safe and the right to live.

  6. It’s good to know these laws are there and starting to be used against extremists. Maybe someone should see if some of the more extreme articles in the Daily Mail have broken the law.

    1. GingerlyColors 21 Jan 2012, 7:16am

      Are you refering to that newspaper that campaigned for justice for Stephen Lawrence who was murdered by those racist thugs? I don’t thing the Daily Mail is all that bad. They recently published some photographs from Sir Elton John and David Furnish’s album showing the progress of their son. When I started posting comments here I used the name: ‘Gay Daily Mail Reader’ before using my current online name which is an anagram of my real name – work it out.

      1. Yes the Lawrence article was a brave and fantastic piece of journalism by the Mail ..

        Yes there have been other (rare) examples of decent journalism in the paper

        Predominantly they are jingoistic and twist stories illegitimately to portray a slant on a story that is rarely sustained by the facts, preferring to concentrate of rhetoric and propaganda than factual journalism …

        Btw … so first name Colin?

        1. Regular reader of The Mail then, Stu? Funny, that’s what you accused me of being yesterday.

          I would have had you down as a devout Grauniad subscriber, at worse the Indy.

          Oh well, just goes to show I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be, on every subject like some people on here…

          1. As I have stood my ground with you Samuel, and taken steps that I should have done along time ago, I see you have now moved in to attack another commentator. Keep going and hopefully PN will eventually block you completly (we can only hope).

            Given my research yesterday it seems you do have a reputation within the various oganisations I contacted, and guess what it is not a particularly favourable one! Fame at last but for all the wrong reasons, internet troll sums up the consensus opinion I got yesterday.

            As they say give someone enough rope…………….

          2. @Samuel B

            At no point that I can recall have I suggested you are a Daily Mail reader, but if you were it would not surprise me …

            I have already answered your comment on this elsewhere and pointed out that whilst I do read the Guardian (not a bad thing, although you seem to suggest it is … odd! I think being well read and rounded is a sign of a person willing to accept a wide range of viewpoints), I also read a wide selection of other media from across the globe and political spectrum …

            I certainly have never claimed to know everything and do not comment on every story (because either I am not interested or have little useful to contribute – and I recognise my own limitations). What I do have is opinion, and I am prepared to share it and debate it – with reinforcement of evidence and facts (unfortunately some people on here – thinking of you in particular) seem to resort to abuse and attack when facts and evidence are given to them rather than back up their own claims …

          3. “Fame at last but for all the wrong reasons, internet troll sums up the consensus opinion I got yesterday.”

            Pot? Kettle? Black?

            We may have known you would be lurking in the shadows ready to pop up at any time ready to prop up Stu. The only surprise here is, what the heck took you so long????!

          4. @Samuel

            With lightweights (on evidence) like you I don’t need “propping” up …

            It is nice to have reasonable company though, w6

          5. I would agree with you Stu, evidence is not something Samuel is often able to provide, just speculation and where he does provide any evidence it tends to be out of date and cherry picked to fit the argument at the time.

            I think you have been very restrained on a number of occasions where you have been attacked by Samuel, I have always found that you are fair and reasonable.

          6. “I do read the Guardian (not a bad thing, although you seem to suggest it is … odd! I think being well read and rounded is a sign of a person willing to accept a wide range of viewpoints),”

            No, not odd at all. At least no more odder than a right-wing, non-PC person reading The Daily Fail.

            No, rest assurred you most certainly have Guardian reader written all over you (and you thought you would never get a compliment from me)…

          7. @Samuel

            Was that a compliment?

          8. @Samuel

            I have located the thread where you clearly believe I allege that you read the Daily Mail …

            Firstly, whilst that would not be a surprise, I have no idea which paper (if any) you read …

            Secondly, the choice of paper is not of significance …

            Thirdly, the comment relates to you raising the issue of health and safety and rescue services (an area I am very familiar with). I make a comment on it and that we all carry out dynamic risk assessments every single day at work or home and that H&S should largely be common sense and then make reference to the Daily Mail having us bellieve something else. That was a general comment about the Daily Mail and their reporting of H&S and not intended to suggest whether or not you personally read that paper.

            Furthermore, it was the same article where I mentioned some rescues, not specific incidents I had been but hypothetical examples, I could go to which were relevant in the context of the comment about rescue services and H&S

          9. “At no point that I can recall have I suggested you are a Daily Mail reader, but if you were it would not surprise me …”

            FYI Stu, I read no newspapers because I prefer to maintain an open mind on current affairs and not be indoctrinated by bias opinions or have my mind unduly influenced, shaped or formed.

            This the The Guardian sets out to achieve every bit as efficiently as The Daily Mail, which the PC militia of course delights in demonising so.

            Given the choice, The Daily Mail would get my vote for exposing the insanity of PC’s pervasive influence on the every day lives of British people.

            It may be good for nothing else, frankly, but at least it’s opening people’s eyes to this insanity that blights our lives – the complete opposite, incidentally, of what the PC luvvies’ journal of choice, The Grauniad, stands for.

            No surprise to find you singing the latter’s praises, then…

          10. @Samuel

            I prefer to keep informed and that is why I read a range of newspapers … that (yes do include The Guardian – and I particularly respect them for their dogged determination in exposing of the illegality of News International), but they are not the only paper I read … I am aware that would have potential to cause bias …

            So for example today I have read The Independent, BBC website, Daily Mail, New Zealand Herald, Reuters, El Pais and The Irish Times …

            I do not particualrly sing the praise of The Guardian more than any other paper (and I recognise its weaknesses) … I also recognise the occasional strengths of the Mail (but also its hysteria and inaccuracy of much of its reporting) ….

            In any event, what you read or do not read – and what I read or do not read is largely irrelevant – but you seemed fixated on my being a Guardian reader (which I am, but not in isolation) …. for some obtuse and inconceivable reason …

          11. Which just proves that all you read goes through a selective filter as I was JOKING ALONG with your reference to The Fail, not against you, hence my reference to The Grauniad.

            Lighten up Stu! One of the most liberating feelings is to be able to laugh at oneself and be self-deprecating from time to time.

            The list of perceived “insults” you list elsewhere were mostly anything but; just attempts to lighten this debate with a little, wait for it, HUMOUR.

            You reference the “sectioning” comment I made in reaction to a largely incomprehensible rambling post W6 made about, um, nothing much really.

            Well, “W6_Dalek” has made 30+ contributions to this thread, none of which relate to the topic being discussed. No, 30+ attempts to deflect debate, assassinate my characater and weaken and destroy my credibility, as is the role of the PC shill.

            The only credibility W6 has tarnished is your own, as he’s now seen as your stooge and your liability.

            My “sectioning” jest was a long time coming.

          12. @Samuel

            Frankly …

            With your last comment and attempt to mitigate against your bullying (calling it humour) and bizarre attempts to justify your conduct … you reveal yourself to any open minded person to be the nasty, pernicious and vindictive bully that you are …

            Unwilling to consider evidence – gut feeling is enough …

            Seeking to prevent others making observations but demanding to have their own heard …

            The only person who has lost any integrity in this debate is you by your callous and unpleasant attitude and double standards …

            I thought you were unfair before this thread and debate … I hadnt realised how unpleasant you are until now.

            Devious, irresponsible, unwilling to consider evidence, truculent and obtuse …

          13. Can I take it that on the evidence of your last post, you agree that you have lost the argument? After all, as you frequenty preach, when the oppostion resorts to gratuitous insults, you know they have lost the debate.

            As I have said elsewhere, if that were not the case then WHY HAS NO ONE ELSE except, ahem, W6_Dalek sprung to your defence in this rather long debate?

            I have received only support from some unlikely veterans of these boards, and to be honest with you, yes, I am bloody amazed, because I had assumed that PC shilling had festered on these boards for so long now that it had seeped into the collective subconscious of PN’s contributors.

            I am totally overjoyed that this is not the case – a true celebration for common sense over insanity.

            So if I am really in the wrong here in all that I have said, you must be implying most who have visited this thread and thumbed me up must be wrong also.


          14. @Samuel

            Firstly, winning a debate is not about numbers – whether that be thumbs up, thumbs down or people who vocally agree with you … winning an argument is about what is morally right, evidence and honour … not sure you understand those principles given the evidence on here

            So, no I dont see myself as losing the argument …

            Also, there has been support from others – both on here and elsewhere (from w6 and others) … more than happy with that …

          15. “…winning an argument is about what is morally right…”

            Now I really have heard it all!!

            Morally right? What would you know about morals?! The reason PC was allowed to creep into our lives was for the sole purpose of destroying all moral boundaries that once made our society a sane, civilised and pleasurable environment.

            Please don’t talk to me about morals when you spend nine tenths of your time on here PC eulogising. You are even employed in a profession – the emergency services – that is fast losing, if it hasn’t already completely lost, its grip on its own moral standards and code of ethics, as we have discussed elsewhere.

            Or is doublespeak your second language now, and really what you are saying is “what is immorally right…” cos that would make a whole lot more sense!

            Wasn’t it W6_Dalek who brought conspiracy theories into this debate a day or so ago? Interesting to see him practising what he preaches seemingly oblivious to his rank, nay, fetid hypocrisy!!

          16. @Samuel B

            I am perfectly comfortable with my morals, in particular in my argument on this thread – and I have no need to have your approval of them.

            As for conspiracy theory … no, it wasn’t W6 (who you continue to use childish insults against – big man!) …. it was you who first mentioned conspiracy theories … he picked up on your comment …

            Its not a difficult one to perceive given your suggestions of collusion, lying in ambush etc etc

            I thought you said you were dont in this debate (sorry argument … you dont really manage to debate very well without evidence – which you dont value)

          17. @Samuel B

            We have never discussed a moral code of emergency services – enlighten me as to why you feel able to malign all police officers, paramedics, fire crew and coastguards … intrigued as to how we are morally respulsive … do tell …

            Your evidence?

          18. I entered conspiracy theory into the debate as the one thing in the PC artillery of attack that you had not yet smeared me with. W6_Dalek then blew up that one, oblique mention into something all-encompassing.


            Let’s see now. Police officers who are rarely accountable for their actions, including asasults and killings, because they police themselves in the guise of the IPCC…

            Rescue services who stand by filling in risk assessment forms while people drown and burn…

            Police who prefer the safety and warmth of the local station to patrolling the beat…

            Police who write off a third of reported crimes such as burglaries, rape and violent offences and leave therm off official crime figures…

            12 per cent of crimes that aren’t written off being “wrongly closed” at the outset before an investigation has even taken place (ditto)…

            Emergency services personnel who take off inordinate amounts of time on full pay to recover from “trauma”…

            Need I go on?

          19. @Samuel

            Strange how you can choose to mention conspiracy but when someone else comments on it, thats not acceptable … strange values …

            I don’t smear you – I merely comment (any smearing is done by your own conduct which is clear for anyone to see) …

            Some of us are prepared to be responsible for our actions (and big enough to both apologise and accept apologies where given – not grudingly) – some are not; just like some do not like to be held to scrutiny or afford others the right to reply …

            What do you do professionally Samuel?

            Do you have bad apples in your profession? I suspect you do …

            The IPCC does not have any police staff whatsoever – so you are factually incorrect in your allegations there.

            If anyone stands back filling in forms when there is a risk to life then they deserve not only to be sacked but also criminally charged – the risk assessments carried out at incidents by 999 personnel in the UK are generally dynamic and quick – and only made to paper…

          20. … after the rescue has been performed and any time critical elements have been resolved.

            Of course, there are some incidents where we hold back – for example when I have worked in control I would not send a paramedic to an incident where a violent assault is ongoing UNTIL I know police are on scene and the violence is controlled. I will send them near by so they can respond quickly. They may well attend while the violent person is still on scene. But if I send them before the police and they get stabbed – they are no use to the patient.

            Emergency workers in the UK daily put their lives on the line.

            I hope you never have to encounter the work when they do … because if you do then you are in a horrific situation. I suspect you would show no gratuitude if we are as morally repulsive as you seem to believe. It doesnt matter, we would still rescue you and support you regardless of whatever antagonism you showed to us (we get sworn at, spat at and assaulted often enough – …

          21. …your belligerence would not be of any significant to the professonal and deidcated 999 services we have in the UK).

            Trauma often is not psychological (which I think you tend to suggest – although please correct me if I am wrong) but physical … police officers and paramedics assaulted (sometimes seriously), fore officers burned in fires, falls during rescues – legitimate occupational hazards of the work we do – for you the public – would you rather be rescued by a fire fighter who could not help you as effectively because they had not been allowed to fully recover from an injury sustained on duty?

            Where is your evidence that police stay on station – if you had said fire staff I might have agreed – but not police …

            You like throwing mud, please back up what you say with evidence …

            Please explain how some bad apples mean all emergency services are corrupt – as you suggested …

          22. Samuel your latest comments attacking the Energency Servicesare truly disgusting and I am shocked how low you get. Totally unbelievable.

            Your comments about NHS treatment are also offensive, and you have again chosen to provide the most unfortunate yet extreme example of what can go wrong, and seem to suggest this is the norm.

            Also you seem to stigmatise those on sick leave or claiming disability benefits – do you have any compassion or empathy for others?

            You have painted a picture of yourself that is cold, heartless and selfish, I really pity you. Your life must be blighted by your irrational worldview. Very sad individual!

          23. Erm, W6_Dalek has the AUDACITY to suggest that I am rigging the thumbs up/down voting system when three posts by Stu in the last several hours have each managed to rack up FIVE thumbs up (well, I knocked one down in rage!!!).

            So, if W6_Dalek is to be believed, I somehow found the time when this debate was live to hunt down multiple computers and distort the voting system? How do you propose I did that, W6_Dalek, with a full-time career and social life?

            Now, if I may be so bold to point out, a) Stu has set up residency on these boards and has no other life outside of moderating them in line with his PC training, and b) no one else apart from he and his usual suspects are following this debate anymore, so how the heck does he ratchet up five thumbs-up?

            If ever there were evidence these boards are being manipulated then this is it, and I fully intend reporting this abuse of the system. It is completely unacceptable behaviour, and I can produce PDFs of each day’s debate to prove it!

          24. Stu, it was in all the main papers just this pass week that police are now spending more time at the station filling in forms than they are on the beat:- yes, that’s right, more form filling and box ticking, which is the way you PC types like it, no?

            Lots of written down evidence-based information from which feasibility studies can be developed and more non-jobs created to develop ever more useless and costly layers of bureacracy with which to throttle this once proud nation.

            Now please don’t get me wrong. I have every respect for anyone who chooses to enter the emergency services because they do so with good intent, as indeed I have no doubt you did also.

            It is not their fault that their roles have been subverted to impede and effect the work they want to do. Ask any police officer or any other emergency worker today what is wrong and they will tell you that it is needless, endless form filling, and the strangulating effect PC inflicts on their performance.

            THAT is a tragedy.

          25. @Samuel B

            Yes the police do have a lot of form filling (some of it appropriate – although most (not all) could be better managed) …

            The fact the system is not as efficient as it could or should be – does not mean “Police who prefer the safety and warmth of the local station to patrolling the beat…” or other measures of corruption which you have alluded to …

            A number of forces have tackled this in part by increasing support of back room function to release officers onto the street (the back room functions the government are cutting back on) ande giving officers laptops etc to be able to do the paperwork in cars (not on station) wherever possible …

            I don’t need to canvass emergency service workers, I am one, I have many friends in all 3 services and I am acutely aware of the problem of forms (some of them are essential eg would you like the paramedic to provide a medical report to the hospital when they hand you over (maybe unconscious) to ensure there are no errors in drugs?

          26. @Samuel

            Not that the greens and reds matter …. but its striking that when mine go down and yours up with great velocity – thats perfectly acceptable to you … but when others decide to vote in my favour then you see it as a conspiracy … double standards?

          27. Yes, of course it is a conspiracy and a scam. What else do you call it when this thread is no longer live, Stu? Not rocket science exactly.

            And when it WAS live, criticisms from onlookers were directed at you, not me. Oh, couldn’t that have something to do with the respective apportioning of red and green arrows, could it? Again, not rocket science.

            Thank you for acknowledging that form-filling is a problem in that it hinders the emergency services from doing the jobs those who signed up want to do (ie:- save lives!!).

            But, oh dear, in your daily perusal of the newspapers, you can’t have failed to miss this story, which The Indy led on its front page headlined:


            You don’t need me to tell you what this sorry tale is all about, but you honestly expect people to have faith and trust in the police when stories like this appear a dime a dozen these days?

            Oh how far we have strayed from the days of good old reliable Dixon of Dock Green…

          28. @Samuel

            The very fact that you and I and others can contribute suggests to me this thread is very much alive …

            Just as I can not prove you were not manipulating arrows up and down at the start of this thread (although suspect you were) … you can not demonstrate that anyone else is (and for the record I am not and couldnt care a less about the thumbs up and down)

            So, are you going to answer my question about bad apples in your profession or are you all squeaky clean?

            in over 100000 police officers I would expect some errors to be made every year

            I did see the story you referred to, but how that relates to rescue or health and saferty or malign all 999 workers is beyond me …

            Because it doesnt … most police and other 999 workers are dedicated to serving the public – whether the public support them or not …

            Shame you do not have the same regard for those who would save your life

          29. Very good, Stu, I think you know what I mean by live. The fact that this debate is no longer on the main page of PN and that only your hired thugs know that we are still here debating, or what passes for debate at least.

            The rest of the world appears tp have moved on. Shame you can’t resist always getting the last word in, but then that is all part of the PC training, isn’t it:- NEVER let the opposition have the last word come what may just in case it can be interpreted as a concession that they were right all along…

          30. @Samuel

            You continue with your name calling … “PC” bile …

            So much for never letting anyone else have the last word

            Is that why despite saying you were finished with this thread, you continue to come back to “try and have the last word” …

            Is that why you have used phrases such as “End of” …

            It seems your agenda is all that matters, anything anyone else adds is irrelevant if it doesnt fit with your world view …

            Sorry, if you don’t like it but I am never bullied by people like you into withholding my opinion, making observations or holding others to scrutiny …

            Equally, am more than prepared to be held to scrutiny (or shown I am wrong – as the evidence demonstrates) … but where there is evidence – not gut feeling or speculation or rhetoric …

          31. “in over 100000 police officers I would expect some errors to be made every year”

            “in over 100000 police officers I would expect some errors to be made every year”

            Some? SOME??!

            Today’s BBC web site:

            “Operation Elveden: Four held in police payment probe”

            Another day, another headline. Oh dear, Stu, once again your words bounce back to bite you on the proverbial.

            And Stu, for clarity’s sake, this debate is continuing in part in other people’s original postings (this particular posting was actually deleted from view it was so unpopular).

            So it is only you, me and your henchmen who know we are still here playing ping poing, and only you and your henchmen who can be manipulating the thumbs up/down votes.

            At least I got all my thumbs up when this debate was on the main page. How typical of W6 to try to judge me by his own standards, including the inference that I create false aliases, of which he is the Supreme Dalek, sorry, grand master at.

          32. @Samuel

            What are you talking about deleted from view? Please explain ….

            I’m not sure what you are saying has been deleted …

            Yes there has been one police officer arrested today and 3 people with no connection to the police service in Operation Elveden … I do not count him or the retired South Wales officers you mentioned yesterday as representative of the vast majoirty of decent police officers. In the same way I do not count the department store retail assistants and managers I arrested as representative of retail … perhaps you see if differently …

          33. @Samuel

            I have woken up now and realised what you mean about deleted from view …

            Well clearly some people chose to open the comments and then agreed and thumbed them up instead …

            I suspect you manipulated the threads in the early days and have no reason to suspect them of being so manipulated now …

            You would know about postings deleted from view – it is something that has happened to a myriad of your postings in the past …

          34. “I suspect you manipulated the threads in the early days and have no reason to suspect them of being so manipulated now …

            You would know about postings deleted from view – it is something that has happened to a myriad of your postings in the past …”

            Erm, evidence??!

          35. @Smauel

            In terms of your comments being hidden from view …

            I can think of several debates on a another subject where many of your comments were over the 10 red thumbs …

            But nonetheless …

            In terms of you manipulating the threads on here … I have no evidence, nor could I have any – in the same way you can not have categorical evidence that anyone has manipulated them in another way …

            Its supposition and speculation on both our parts … the reality is one, both or neither of us could be right …

            As for the thumbs – as I keep saying they are an irrelevance (although you seem pretty interested in them ………)

          36. The thumbs are a barometer, and an effective one of that, of the collective consensus opinion of visitors to each comment.

            When this debate was raging a week ago it clearly attracted new visitors, and I was heartened to see I touched a nerve that people mostly agreed with.

            When you began challenging me every which way, people clearly took my side hence the thumbs went my way and I attracted vocal support, whereas you had none.

            If I could impact the votes in any way, why, as you claim, have I stood by while many of my previous contributions have been deleted for being unpopular?

            Again today I see someone has been busy manipulating the thumbs. Hmmm, who could that be with so much time on their hands, and whose welfare and health I am supporting with my taxes?

            Someone who would, ahem, “volunteer” to be so petty and swim in the gutter as they have nowhere else to go?

            Sweetie, no one’s checking in here anymore but you, Stu and I, so the moment’s long passed.

            Case made!!

          37. Well there were comments by someone entirely new last night, so you might be trying to draw a line under your argument, but others don’t necessarily feel your call as to when debate should end is necessary to comply with …

          38. Stu, do you honestly expect me to believe that a cassual PN visitor happened to trawl through the archive and stumbled this article, then waded all of the way through the comments and then all the replies to the replies to post their comment?

            Please, I wasn’t born yesterday!

            All I will say is it is a little bit late in the day to indulge in damage limitation, and the techniques being employed are below the belt and oh so obvious.

          39. Samuel

            Not that I am using tactics …

            However, if you are suspecting me of them – I suspect that is because you have utilised such tools previously …

            I prefer to keep it simple, and be me and rarely use the thumbs up or down

          40. Samuel B. 3 Feb 2012, 8:49am

            And how do you suggest I “indulge” in such tactics. Oh please!!!

            All you need to do is rally the PC troops together to flag you up or, as I suggested to W6 a while back when the arrows suddenly and inexplicably went his way in the space of just a few hours, that he clearly had enough time on his hands to gallavant around the cybercafes of London in a pathetic display of oneupmanship!

            It is all I can do to find the time to post on here with the hectic and full life I lead, let alone manipulate the thumbs up/down scoring system, which is why I only post selectively in response to certain articles or debates I feel particularly strongly about rather than spread myself too thin and risk boring others with my opinions about life, the universe and everything, as some are inclined to do.

            It is a case of knowing how to apportion your time properly so that you get to experience as many of the infinite delights life has to offer and living a full, fulfilling and varied life.

          41. @Samuel

            Arent you fortunate to have the health to lead such a fulfilling life … AND find the time to bleat on about it

        2. @Samuel

          Interesting that you seem to have issue with my use of the terminology Daily Fail for the Daily Mail whereas its acceptable for you to use the phrase “The Grauniad” for the Guardian …

          Double Standards?

      2. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 22 Jan 2012, 4:47pm

        Gregory Collins… do I win a prize for outing you!?

  7. Helen Wilson 20 Jan 2012, 4:30pm

    If I did what these men did aimed against a religion I would be guilty of insighting of religious hatred and would go to jail.

    Yes people have the right to think or say anything…but…you need to stand behind those words and be accountable for what you have said.

    1. David Wainwright 20 Jan 2012, 7:15pm

      The judge has indicated that the accused will receive prison terms for their crime.

    2. Keith Simpson 20 Jan 2012, 7:44pm

      ‘inciting’ dear heart….’inciting’.
      Mwa mwa mwa.


  8. What about the other two brainwashed idiots? Why did they get away with it? Anyhow, with the inept british judiciary , the convicted will probably just get the usual slap on the wrist suspended sentence etc.

    1. Hopefully the judge will give a sentence that has a deterrent value, although I am nervous about this …

      As there is no precedent for an inciting homophobic hatred sentence, this being the first prosecution of this piece of legislation … I looked up sentences under inciting religious hatred legisaltion … and all of those I have managed to locate are reasonably robust …. One would hope the courts would have a similar approach to homophobic hatred being incited …

      A recent example (although not directly comparable due to the difference in the offences) was of a number of people convicted of arson with intent to endanger life aggravated by religious hatred – where a mosque was set on fire … Each of those convicted received sentences of 3 years imprisonment …

  9. George Broadhead 20 Jan 2012, 5:16pm

    It is encouraging that these Islamic thugs have got their comeuppance.

    I wonder if all the moderate Muslims one hears so much about will welcome this.

    1. Probably because scat practises exist in both the homosexual and heterosexual communities – oh and scat is not a protected characteristic under human rights laws. btw the way if you want to consensually engage in scat then that is your right and I would defend your right to do it even if I cannot see the fun in it.

      1. Keith (aka what ever silly name he picks) is so full of excrement, he needs to advertise that fact.

  10. Ketih Simpson 20 Jan 2012, 6:06pm

    Is too much to hope for a ‘stretch’ followed by deportation to a place where their sentiments might be more ‘in tune’ with their beliefs…?

    Thought not.


    1. Might be possible depending on the immigration status … if however, they are full Uk citizens as they were born here or naturalised – unlikely …

    2. David Wainwright 20 Jan 2012, 7:16pm

      The judge indicated to the guilty they will receive prison sentences for their crime.

      1. @David

        I didnt mean custody was unlikely – I hope that will happen …

        I meant that deportation was unlikely (unless they are not naturalised UK citizens or born here)

      2. Yes, but for how long?, they are already planning an appeal based on their human rights to practice their religion and inflict it across the UK, and that anyone who disagrees with their practices is racist etc. etc usual pathetic racist card , islamophobe card rubbish. So maybe some do gooder (non) human rights lawyer is gonna get em off with minimal time spent , followed by compensation of course . Basically i’ll be shocked if they get a sentence that is a deterrant and if they serve it.

        1. Well, at the moment that is speculation …

          I hope the sentence will have a deterrent effect and the judge has made the right sort of comments to suggest this may occur … I am not confident this will be the case, however …

        2. nobody in court argued that they cannot practise their faith, they can but not in a manner that incites public disorder

          1. Their idea of practising their faith is to inflict it on others and convert the gullible , so any preventative measures of that , they view as islamophobic. You shopuld go on some boards on muslim sites , to enlighten yourself .

          2. @rapture

            You are indeed correct that the very aims of the people involved in this particular case were to subvert democracy and to impose an extreme form of Islamist rule (whether that be on the entire UK or just the concept of a state within a state) …

            The evidence from other Muslims and community leaders (Muslim and non Muslim) is that these men and their associates (some of whom are – or have been, involved in organisations banned in the UK under terrorism laws) sought to intimidate, victimise and abuse non Muslims and liberal Muslims alike.

            We need to take great care to both robustly deal with the likes of these men and not use it as a simple excuse to stereotype ALL muslims as being the same.

            We need to be proactive and strong in tackling groups such as this, and this should not be an isolated showcase that then leaves excuses to not investigate other concerns (because we have already dealt with an issue) …

            Being fair to all, means tackling this …

        3. Could they not argue that homophobia is enshrined in the tenets of their religion and therefore it is their human right to practise it, just as we demand to be able to express our sexuality without fear of verbal or physical attack?


          Muslim culture is incompatible with the Western lifestyle, and devout Musims are not going to water down their beliefs and will push harder and harder until areas of the country they have colonised practise Sharia law.

          This is a tinderbox of our successive governments’ making. For them to pretend they didn’t see this coming is a blatant lie. Multiculturalism means only one thing:- endless conflicts among different ethnicities and, in some cases, sexualities.

          1. @Samuel

            I disagree to an extent ….

            There are many good examples of Muslim individuals and communities who integrate within western culture …

            There are also many examples of subversive and extreme elements of Muslim individuals and organisations that do not integrate and seek to damage the fabric of British culture …

            Its the latter that are the challenge not the former …

            There are extremist Christian organisations that are are also subversive and damaging to the wellbeing of British people and culture, and extreme right wing organisations and extreme socialist organisations etc etc

            We should not focus on just one aspect of extreme organisation, we should seek to confront them all …

            By condemning all right wing people as extreme because of Combat 18, or all Christians because of the Christian Institute … is like condemning all Muslims because of Al-Qaeda and Anjem Choudray …

            Its simplistic, ineffective and damaging …

          2. Quite correct, Stu, I should have worded it thus:-

            Multiculturalism means only one thing:- endless conflicts between the more extreme elements of different ethnicities and, in some cases, sexualities.

            It was not the intention to generalise at all.

  11. This sort of thing always makes me wonder how Muslim yobs would actually like to live under a Caliph like Haroun-al-Rashid (so many of them long for the return of the caliphate!). His methods for dealing with people inciting violence were summary in the extreme.

  12. Diesel Balaam 20 Jan 2012, 7:11pm

    These revolting Muslims may have been born here but they are certainly not British – a dog can be born in a stable, that doesn’t mean it’s a racehorse. I’ve nothing against law abiding Muslims who live here and just get on with it, but religious extremists like this, who we can’t deport, need to be stripped of their citizenship and then made to earn it back through a 10 year probation period during which they must make reparations for their crime and be educated about what living in a liberal democracy actually means.

    1. Shows a distinct lack of knowledge of UK and International citizenship laws …

      Your metaphor is laughable and risible… being born English or being born Latvian does not make us different animals – it makes the place of our birth different – not our species different ….

      I hope they are not British citizens because I would like to see them deported on completion of their sentence (when imposed) … but if they are British citizens then that is not a legitimate option open to us …

      It also helps us focus on the far more important task of how we tackle extremism … we can not deport everyone whose actions are bigoted – there would be some people I would seek to deport if I could such as Nick Griffin or Stephen Lennon (as their presence in the UK is arguably inconducive to the public good) … unfortunately they were born in Britain (they do not deserve the label British) and that is not an option … We have to expose their insidious nature and hope they are imprisoned

      1. Spanner1960 20 Jan 2012, 11:21pm

        Stu: “Your metaphor is laughable and risible… being born English or being born Latvian does not make us different animals”

        I beg to differ. One’s surroundings, upbringing, traditions, customs, belief structure, political ideology, education, religious indoctrination, wealth, food and resources can have a massive bearing on who you eventually become.

        Countries vary massively across the globe. Compare a German, a Japanese and a Nigerian and tell me they are all the same. OK, so some shallow people may consider that a racist statement, and I would say it segregates races, but is not derogatory or places one above or below another. It is about time people recognised there are differences though and instead of using it as a weapon, accept it for what it is and relish and exploit all those differences to everyone’s advantage.

        1. @Spanner1960

          Oh I hadnt realised that my words could be misinterpreted that way … sorry

          When I said animal – thats what I meant …

          We are all human beings … and in that sense entitled to human rights and thus the birth place is irrelevant to those human rights …

          How those rights are either interpreted or implemented is often very different in varying nations

          1. That was why I used the word species in my original post – I thought that would make it clear ..

        2. “Oh I hadnt realised that my words could be misinterpreted that way…”

          Deja vu! He did really, he just hoped you wouldn’t notice!

          Mind you, with one posting to be made on average every 12 minutes and a pile of newspapers to wade through every day, oversights like these are par for the course, I supopose…

          1. You really are getting desperate now Samuel, you are referring to coments made 4 days ago, I take it you intend to have the last word as you always do………..

            Just like a spoilt child – you keep going you are doing yourself no favours, and just showing yourself up big time!

          2. @Samuel B

            So you can read my thoughts from 4 days ago?

            I did not not realise my words would be misinterpreted …

            You feel thats not true and call me a liar …

            Thats your right …

            Anyone doing so with any courage or moral fibre would produce evidence to sustain their point …

            Please feel free to demonstrate your point and explain how you know I am lying …

            Going to be interesting to see this one, since I am telling the truth …

          3. How funny to think of you and W6 scuttling like fury from thread to thread and every nook and cranny where you have pitched your thoughts to counter and riposte all comments opposing your revisionist PC worldview.

            That displays a good deal of dexterity for someone supposedly on sick leave. The irony being that it is my taxation that is indirectly paying for you to act as PN’s unofficial, self-appointed moderator/shill.

            Beggars belief! No, really, it does!

          4. @Samuel B

            Before you rush to gut feeling and judgement … check your facts …

            Unpaid sick leave, which was a choice to ensure that I get better …

            So your tax (which I also pay!) isnt paying for my sick leave …

            Surely if you need me, you would prefer me fully functioning and meeting your emergency needs?

          5. In which case I made the wrong assumption and apologise for doing so. So technically you are unemployed at the moment, although the door is open for you to return?

            Sorry, very confused here. You are off sick and yet refusing sick pay, and more or less on these boards full time? I hope you can appreciate why I made the assumption I did. It is not a conventional situation to be in, after all.

            I trust you are making good progress in your recovery.

          6. That’s what happens when you make assumptions and speculate – you clearly get things wrong and create false impressions. Stu clearly explained his situation, but again as is your way you never read things properly, which again adds to the poor level of argument you put forward.

            Your analysis of any given situation is often inaccurate, yet only when it as been pointed out several times that you actually admit to making an error. Sees you don’t learn from your mistakes.

            You once stated to me that dong the same thing over and over again is madness – why are you constantly making the same mistakes?

          7. @Samuel B

            No not unemployed – unpaid leave (with no definite return date – currently an extended absence but may become a career break to meet HR needs if the next blood results are not as good as hoped) …

            Its not conventional, I do concede …

            There were a number of reasons for declining sick pay after 4 months which are not really relevant to this discussion … fortunately (at the moment) I am in a position to recover and then hopefully return fully to work, without the need for sick pay (provided it does not take too much longer)

          8. ……….it comes to something when commentators have to explain “unconventional” sick leave arrangements in order to satisfy the prying mind of Samuel B. Not that I am sure Stu minds, but where is this relevant other than to counter your rediculous assumptions and gut feelings Samuel.

            Samuel is a master of asking questions but will never answerr any himself, and he certainly keeps his cards close to his chest! Lets ask some basic stuff:

            Why do you hide your face and not have an avatar Samuel?
            What are you employed as Samuel?
            What is your HIV status?
            Have you ever had an HIV test?

            All questions Samuel have asked others, so how about answering some of your own!

          9. W6: “You once stated to me that dong the same thing over and over again is madness…”

            Reasurring to know you have at least learned something for all the mud-slinging!

            Stu: “No not unemployed – unpaid leave (with no definite return date – currently an extended absence but may become a career break to meet HR needs if the next blood results are not as good as hoped)…”

            I do hope your health improves, Stu, and I hope you know I am sincere when I say that.

            But roughly interpreted does this not mean that until you are well enough to return to your trained role as a medic, you have unofficially assumed a full-time position moderating these boards to ensure that the tone conforms to the ideologies and doctrines as learned in the PC training you underwent?

            It is pretty self-evident, but just so that we can hear it direct from you, does this roughly sum up your modus operandi on these forums.

            Yes or no?

          10. Why do you hide your face and not have an avatar?
            When was it ever a requirement to use these boards to post pics of oneself? If I wanted to do that I would open a Gaydar profile and throw my jangly bits in for free. Are you seriously telling me that smudge at the top and to the left of each of your postings is, er, you? Blimey!

            What are you employed as?
            I am employed by one of the well-known department stores in central London. And do you really think I am going to tell you which one and in which department when thugs like you, Rob and Will are allowed to roam the streets unmuzzled?!

            What is your HIV status?
            Negative, master!

            Have you ever had an HIV test?
            Yesiree, and guess what? Every one tested negative. That’s right, without exception! But then I have never taken reckless risks and always checked everything was applied correctly to prevent, erm, “accidents” because I always took responsibility. It’s really quite easy when you put your mind to it (cue endless victim tirade…)

          11. Wow Samuel actually can answer direct questions – but there again perhaps someone has hijacked his name……….as he has no avatar we will never know!

            The job just sums it up really, some nasty little West End queen who thinks he is better than he is………retail is hardly a sector one woud aspire to be employed in, dress it up all you like its quite a menial position.

            No wonder you are so bitter, all that hard work just feeding the corporate world you hate Samuel, and providing the directors with their fat cat saleries – I have to admit, I expected better of you Samuel! Selfridges or John Lewis must be desperate taking on any old riff raf – I really shouldn’t speculate I could be wrong!

            I bet having sex with you is real fun, it sounds very clinical and cold….each to their own I guess.

          12. @Samuel B

            Again, thanks for your good wishes … I like to think you genuinely mean them – but sometimes the strength and ferrocity of your attacks towards me does leave me curious as to whether there is a level of sarcasm to your wishes. On balance, I take them on face value and appreciate them.

            To answer you question … No …

            I do many things with my time … Some days I am on here a lot, but for example yesterday I spent in total no more than 90 mins on PN and some days I may not do anything other than scan the boards …

            I am currently in the 9th chapter of the book I have started to try and write as a creative outlet whilst my health is not as good as I would like it …

            I’m not well enough to return to work – but thats partly to protect me from being infected from my patients and partly to protect them as I am not as physically strong as I should be to (for example) lift them if they are unconscious etc…..

          13. @Samuel B

            Retail can be menial as W6 suggests (but so can any form of employment) … Retail can also carry with it responsibility, creativity etc.

            Its good for you (and any potential partners) that you have been negative at your tests (like myself).

            I suspect your description of “checking” sounds more clinical and something of a passion killer – more than the reality, but hey thats something for you and partner(s) to contend with …

            Interesting that you feel able condemn 999 workers as corrupt on the basis of some bad apples that are made highly public.

            I can remember arresting a number of department store staff for theft by employee or deception on the basis of cloning customer credit cards … now whilst I am sure you would never accuse me of impropriety as a rescuer, and nor would I accuse you of impropriety in retail – one has to accept impropriety occurs everywhere and it would be stereotyping and judgemental to try and suggest and entire sector behaved similarly.

          14. “The job just sums it up really, some nasty little West End queen who thinks he is better than he is………retail is hardly a sector one woud aspire to be employed in, dress it up all you like its quite a menial position…No wonder you are so bitter …I bet having sex with you is real fun, it sounds very clinical and cold…”

            You have made a hostile attack on my professional career that bears no relation to this debate. Stu, how do you justify aligning yourself with such a destructive force?

            Actually, W6, I manage a major concession in a leading department store and get to travel and see a lot of the world, and am wiser for it.

            How much of the world do YOU get to see, apart from the trip between your computer and the kitchen and loo?

            No, really, that was quite uncalled for and scales new lows in this debate. I would hope for an apology at least. Please note my comments about you have been in jest based on what you have written, not what you.

            Care to enlighten us as to what you do?

          15. “Again, thanks for your good wishes … I like to think you genuinely mean them…”

            As a humanitarian, Stu, I trust you’ll accept my wishes are sincere. At the end of the day, beneath the chatter of our egos that separates us as human beings and creates the boundaries that prevent us working together as one to improve our world, we are all the same.

            The greatest of enemies find this to be so when one is on their death bed, the moment approaching, and they have no choice other than to let go of their ego and forgive their antagonist. The New Year episode of EastEnders demonstrated this beautifully.

            Thank you for more about your background. I trust you understood my concern at the 400+ postings you made last week (heck, your fingers must be blistered!!). I hope you can appreciate how it can seem on occasion that one person is hogging and influencing the debate.

            I do wish you well, and not JUST because we’ll see much less of you on here. We need you out there saving ever more lives! :)

          16. I was taking a leaf out of your book Samuel making assumptions without any evidence in relation to your employment…….if you are gonna dish it out then learn to see how it is on the other side.

            I am not as forgiving as Stu you crossed a line with me way back, so frankly anything you say here is likely to be manipulative and just playing to the gallery.

            I am not employed but fill my time with plenty of voluntary work (expects to now be labelled as a scrounger).

            Shame all your travelling has not had the effect to act like an adult when you are challenged. Would hate to be your Area Manager or customer wanting a refund given your behaviour on here.

          17. To suggest you have been “jesting” with your comments is ridiculous, you have treated me very badly almost since my arrival here. You are a nasty piece of work.

            Rather like your overblown headlines it seems to me you are probably “bigging up” your job role, as you have to emphasise the word “major”. You are full of yourself and one day life might bring you down to size – none of us know what is around the corner, we are after all mere mortals!

            Anyway I will let you make your piece with Stu but don’t expect me to change my view of you, it ain’t gonna happen. I will not be bullied by some nasty little queen.

          18. I also suggest that to prevent a re- occurrence of this and other comments threads being disrupted by our dislike for each other ( or my dislike of you, because that’s what you will claim), you keep out of my way and I will keep out of you way.

            Hopefully others may then have a chance of contributing to future threads where we both may make contributions.

            This is what happens when there is an ideology that seems to have no boundaries based in reality, science or evidence – wonder how you square text ideology with retail, given it is all about sales targets, earnings per meter, sales volumes and margins, must be a real drag to be constrained by such factual information.

            You are full of contradictions and have no moral compass or shame – disgraceful end of!

          19. “I am not employed but fill my time with plenty of voluntary work…”

            Why keep reminding people what a martyr you are? A little boring by now, non? At least I HAVE a job and contribute and am not dependent on the state for all I need.

            “This is what happens when there is an ideology that seems to have no boundaries based in reality, science or evidence.”

            A simple question: are you at all creative? Just because your left brain has dominance over the right and you can only measure things scientifically and theoretically, don’t rubbish those whose left/right brains are in balance allowing them to be rational but also intuitive in equal measure enabling them to arrive at logical conclusions more quickly.

            The right brain also yields compassion and empathy, and sees how forgiveness provides closure and a clearing from which a fresh canvas emerges on which to create anew. Stay stuck in the same old same old, W6, and you’ll always get what you always got. Sh@t in, sh@t out, as they say…

        3. @Samuel

          Thanks again for your good wishes …

          Whilst I share some of W6’s views, I would no more align myself with him than I would with you … I am my own person with my own views (which are open minded enough to be changed or persuaded) … I also, share some views that you hold (not all) …

          1. Please note the green thumbs up is from me! :)

          2. And the red thumbs down is from me!

          3. Well that’s no loss to Stu, in fact it’s a positive net gain times ten to not have someone like you sycophantically hanging, limpet-like, off his every word!!!

          4. As if I would thumb Stu down………………………I thumbed you down fool! You are the only person I take issue with on this site.

          5. Just got my own back at you! Ya boo sucks!!!

      2. “Shows a distinct lack of knowledge of UK and International citizenship laws …

        Your metaphor is laughable and risible… ”

        As someone said on another thread a day or so ago. “It’s not all about you, dear.”

        Since your article on PN on freedom of speech, Stu, you seem to have adopted a lofty, pious tone on these boards and positioned yourself as the voice of authority on all manner of subjects, citing your career in the emergency services as some form of credential.

        You also are resorting to snide put downs on others’ straightforward opinions “derisory”, “laughable”, etc. which frankly isn’t nice and is the catalyst for an endless bout of mud-slinging, as you have witnessed in the schoolyard bitchfights I have endured elsewhere with W6.

        Step back a little, Stu, and also down a rung or two, and please start showing a little more respect and decorum on here.

        Thank you.

        1. @Samuel

          So, you havent attacked the content of my post … the issues of UK and international citizenship laws that I refer to is factually correct …

          Instead you choose to imply that there is something wrong in the tone of my posting (which to be frank is a subjective viewpoint and difficult to establish in written prose) …

          You completely misunderstand my posting, I suspect deliberately given the condescending and arrogant nature of your postings in reply to mine over recent days …

          As you say, it is not all about you, dear … the debate should be more about the subject matter not any spat you are choosing in an infantile manner to have with me …

          I will continue (as I did prior to my article – which frankly is irrelevant to this comment and can only be a petulent attempt to annoy me – it doesnt work!) to use the language that I see appropriate to describe my interpretation of others comments – that is what debate is about … by all means come back – but please …

        2. …try and make it about the subject matter of the debate or the words used rather than personal attacks, thats after all the manner of mature debate …

          I find it amazing and complete hypocracy that you of all people choose to lecture others on schoolyard commentary because a) I have merely described comments as I see them – for example the lack of understanding of immigration was laughable, some of the arrogant and bigoted comemntary on here has been risible (thats my opinion and prove me wrong, if you are able to – I would be very interested to see if you can, but dont condemn for having an opinion) b) Your sanctimonious and offensive commentary to W6 on my article (in some of your comments) was more child like than anything on here. You were both as bad as each other.

          I won’t take a lecture from you on how to debate.

          1. “I find it amazing and complete hypocracy that you of all people choose to lecture others on schoolyard commentary…”

            Perrhaps it’s because I see through you, Stu, and what you are trying to do on here; seemingly lying in wait and trying to impose “groupthink” on visitors to these forums who try to get across beliefs and views that do not conform to what you have been told to believe:- note, not what you intrinsically BELIEVE to be true, but have been told is true (major difference).

            You proclaim to embrace diversity in society, yet when it comes down to diversity of thought being expressed on these forums it is “my way or the highway” and you are down on people you do not agree with like a ton of bricks. Hypocrite, much?

            The purpose of political correctness of course is to stamp out individual thought and to promote a “group think” mentality that promotes one way as the only way, no matter how pervasive, counterproductive or downright damaging…

          2. it feels at a gut level.

            As a government-employed worked you will inevitably have undergone PC training as part of your general indoctrination into the mergency services, which is now standard practise.

            Please understand that I do not make you wrong for this, as this is something you could not have avoided as it appears to be mandatory procedure nowadays, and unfortunately people invariably in your position would sooner choose to follow the herd than retain freedom of thought and diversity of opinion to avoid standing out in a crowd or being considered “strange” for daring to express an individual – ie:- opposing – viewpoint.

            What I DO object to is the way the likes of you and W6 seemingly lie in wait to ambush people like myself who do refuse to be assimilated into this PC cult and dare to question some of the absurd situations that have arisen since society became riddled and crippled with this pernicious doctrine.

            No, you may not have called me “racist” outright, Stu, but…

          3. the implcation is clearly there, as surely as though the word was embedded through a stick of Brighton rock.

            That is a classic stock in trade tool of the PC shill – as was your cheap dig in suggesting what “solution” what I put forward to deal with Muslims – whose numbers are always to be found on politically sensitive sites such as PN, and who always lie in wait ready to deliver the “group concensus” line (ie:- a collectivised mental position set in stone and which is never to be questioned).

            Call them mind manipulation techniques, NLP programming, whatever. Just know that more and more people are waking up – not just on PN but everywhere, every day – and deciding not to follow the herd anymore like mindless sheep and WILL question conflicting things that they didn’t before and WILL provide opposing viewpoints to what, to an open and free-thinking mind, appear abstract and absurd.

            Whether you like it or not.

          4. @Samuel B

            Very paranoid

            No, I say what I honestly believe and I find it offensive that you (again) suggest that I lie …

            It is my right to be offended – but it demonstrates that you have lost the argument when you resort to insult …

            I genuinely believe in fairness – if you do not, then thats your call … but I prefer decency and honour than the vindictiveness that you display …

            No matter how much you crow at me, I will not change my view (and I suspect you will not change your vindictive view) … but I will uphold my right to speech with responsibility … whether you choose to exercise responsibility or not is a choice you must make …

            I never preach, I never tell people what to think … I do tell them what I think – if you personally feel threatened by that, perhaps it is more telling of your issues than mine …

          5. @Samuel B

            I say to you again, I have my views – but I am always open to being persuaded that I am wrong (and several times in the past 48 hours I have stood up and accepted evidence that my understanding is wrong – based on evidence other contributors have given) …

            You tell me I am wrong, I give you my evidence which suggests I am right, you say I am wrong but offer no further evidence … forgive me, if I then do not accept your word for it but stick to my own evidence based position …

          6. @Stu
            By calling SamB paranoid when he actually makes some very valid points was not the brightest of responses but playing Devil’s Advocate here:
            SamB: I have been enjoying – and sometimes seething – your quirky, out of the box observations that serve to brighten up these boards and certainly make us think. But if you perceive you are being provoked and harassed by Stu and others, then don’t rise to the bait! Simple.
            Stu: With your recent article you put your neck on the line and should be practising what you preach and not using antagonistic language to set your opinion above those of others, as if you are some revered deity whose word is final. That is potentially incendiary on boards like these where all voices have a right to be aired, and people should feel they are able to without insensive putdowns. Just a polite “I disagree with your opinion” and explain why would suffice.
            Guys, deep breath, and let’s entertain all opinions except those that set out to offend and hate.

          7. @Paul

            Thank you for your feedback.

            I am alarmed and disturbed that you feel that I use insensitive putdowns.

            I do not comment on an individual in my comments but seek to criticise comments which I believe are unfair, wrong or unjust. I do not perceive them to be insensitive putdowns. Perhaps you can elucidate further as to where I have been insensitive as I am at a complete loss to know what you mean.

            Whereas there are insensitive putdowns that are used against me are personal and vindictive (notably from Samuel in the last 48 hours).

            I did put my neck on the line and I stick by enitrely what I said in my article. It opened up some incrediblly well handled debate – until Samuel and W6 dragged the debate down … unfortunately … There appears to be a pattern, as this debate has veered off course after Samuels intervention …

            Perhaps the use of the word paranoid could have been better thought out, but given that he has delusions about my working from PN … well …

          8. @Paul

            Furthermore, I have been at pains to repeatedly point out that my opinions on PN are that – opinion …

            Others may have a different one, which may well be entirely valid …

            I am fully aware of my strengths and my weaknesses and thus I am open to engaging in debate and being shown to be wrong or not fully aware on any issue – provided it is based on reason and evidence … thats a reasonable approach to take …

            You seem to be taking a similar tactic to Samuel, engaging in attacking my character, personality and style rather than dealing in facts …

          9. PS: As a form of insurance in the event that Stu is in the position of getting this board “removed”, since he clearly has some influence at PN, I have photocopied and PDF’ed this entire discussion board up to this posting.

            And if anyone can find one example of an abuse or offense I have committed on these forums of a degree that could legitimitely get me banned, as W6 is claiming and is shilling for, please present your evidence.

            I hope those who have been following this discussion will similarly feel inclined to take whatever action is appropriate under such, presumably, unlikely circumstances.

            Thank you.

          10. @Samuel B

            If only I had the influence you seem to believe that I have …

            Despite having dicussions with the publisher and editor, I can in no way see that I have any influence over their independence … I find it quite bizarre that you do …

            Not quite sure what the point of you keeping a copy of the discussion forum and what function that would serve – but so far as I am concerned, feel free …


          11. Unbelievable. If I have an hour to waste I will go through all recent threads and dig out the post in which you clearly inferred I read the Daily “Fail”.

            But then, once proven you would completely gloss over it just as you have done with the evidence I have submitted to prove that you have indeed been filling us in on details of your professional work.

            Please at least try to be consistent!

          12. @Samuel

            You’re right, it is unbelieveable …

            That instead of dealing with the facts you choose to deflect and find irrelevant factors on which to try and paint me in a poor light …

            It doesnt matter which paper you or I read or which paper you or I say the other might read …

            it doesnt matter if I give slight accounts of one or two incidents at work or in my life to illustrate some of my experiences and evidence some of my understanding …

            Where does any of that matter when determining how to handle incitement to hatred?

          13. That is not the point, Stu. They prove that you either have a selective memory/filter, a seriously short term memory, or deliberately plant things like the aforementioned and then try to confuse me by inisting you never said them when indeed you did.

            You know, I once worked with someone who did this to me on a near daily basis, claiming he or I said something that didn’t really occur and maintaining it happened.

            He was so convincing that eventually I thought I was going out of my mind, until others opened up and revealed he did exactly the same thing to them.

            It’s sleights of hand like this that enable one person to be able to influence – and in effect control – the minds of others.

            I am not saying for one minute you do it deliberately, but if not then it is occurring on a sub-conscious level and you need to be aware you are doing it, especially as I have pointed out two references that you have outright denied saying.

          14. @Samuel B

            Astonishing that you continue to deliberately be provocative and claim that I seek to “deliberately plant things”, “ambush” people etc etc

            I do not …

            I merely express my views and my observations …. you seem to think I wish to stop or interfere with yours – i don’t in the slightest wish to stop you expressing your opinion or observations – but nor should you be seeking to prevent me from doing so.

            I have dealt with the issue on this thread where you claimed I was “forgetting” things. You interpretation of what I said is at variance with what I actually did say. Perhaps that variance is a misunderstanding, perhaps its a deliberate misunderstanding on your part …

            Please do not judge me by the standards of one of your ex-colleagues …

            I am straight forward in my appraoch and all I offer is opinion and observation – there is nothing subversive or hidden, and I find it arrogant and offensive that you suggest (without knowing me) that you know better than me, my …

          15. … motivation (by your suggestion that there is something subconscious going on dictating the words that I use which “ambush” and “delliberately planting” things …)

            I may have a lot fo time on my hands, but I have would not lower myself to the subversive motivations that you suggest that I engage in.

          16. “It doesnt matter which paper you or I read or which paper you or I say the other might read …

            it doesn’t matter if I give slight accounts of one or two incidents at work or in my life to illustrate some of my experiences and evidence some of my understanding …”

            So it’s OK for you to be inconsistent even on such trivial matters as the above, yet you accuse me of the same and worse without providing any examples to back up your attempts to denigrate my style in the hope that people will ignore me and expect me to just take it?

            You also keep repeating that you keep demanding this and that from me and I consistently refuse to answer your questions, notwithstanding that I spent a good two hours compiling an extensive explanation towards the end of this thread as you kept demanding what my “solution” to the “Muslim Problem” would entail.

            A lot of this I consider to be baiting, and even though I may have wobbled a little here and there, the fact is that only you and W6 have…

          17. criticised and cajoled me throughout this thread, no one else, whilst others have come out in support, including PN veterans like Spanner1960 et al.

            Indeed the support people have shown me throughout this debate is borne out by the votes my views have attracted, which I will confess I never expected.

            In fact I was expecting a barracking and to call it a day early on this topic, as I (wrongly) assumed that PN’s forums had been taken over by PC militants and I would come across as the proverbial lone voice in the wilderness.

            I hope this shows that gay people are not gullible enough – just because they are the beneficiaries of some PC rulings that do enhance their lives – to believe therefore means PC in and of itself spreads joy and happiness wherever its pernicious tentacles touch, such as its devastating impact on HIV prevention.

            Oops, now I really AM outta here before I get struck by W6_Dalek’s death ray!

          18. @Samuel B

            Yet again bluster and insults are all you have to offer

            Your ad hominem attacks demonstrate that you lose the argument …

            If you can not stick to facts and have to resort to insult or diversion – you lose (no matter how many thumbs up or thumbs down there are – they are of little relevance either …)

          19. “Likewise Samuel what goes around comes around, so given the way you have treated me then you have a lot of bad karma coming you’re way!”

            Yes, and I’m trying to think back to the horriblest, nastiest thing I ever did and the negative vibrations I must have triggered to magnetise you into my PN experience.

            “Stu is very forgiving I am not so forgiving”

            Oh, you don’t need to explain yourself, W6.

            Forgiveness requires a compassion, spiritual backbone and certain level of intellect to see how to not forgive only chains you down and holds you back in the past, giving rise to negative energy that festers in every cell leading to disease.

            That’s why I forgave you long ago, W6, and do not despise you any more than I love you as the beautiful soul you really are beneath all that hubris, bluster and ego.

            Simply put I haven’t had so much fun bantering with anyone and laughing out loud as I have with you in years. You’ve been a real tonic and helped me through a rough patch.

            Thank you! xx

          20. @Samuel

            My sneaking suspicion appears to be right … aha …

        3. It is evident that you are constantly looking for “schoolyard bitchfights” and it is about time you were well and truely slapped down once and for all Samuel.

          Don’t claim freedom of speach must be upheld for you, because as I have said with any freedom comes responsibility, and you are totally irresponsible with the laungage and combative approach you take with other commentators.

          You need to take a big step back and examine why you get yourself into “bitchfights”. Your pattern of hyjacking most threads you comment on is at best boring to say the least. After your show in this thread it is time PN acted in the appropriate manner and blocked you from contributing!

          1. @W6 bloke

            Thanks for your support

            I personally wouldnt ban Samuel … his level of debate is usually easy to defend …

            Its obvious that what he mainly seeks to do is agitate and has little interest in constuctive contribution to debate …

            That said, he started off fairly well in one thread before hijacking it …

          2. So that is your answer to those who try to express opinions contrary to your own, W6: to ban them?

            I have countered all of your arguments elsewhere to the point where you have nothing left with which to throw at me. I provide counter-arguments and evidence on your demand, and still you don’t concede.

            To give Stu credit, he at least can see some virtue in both our stances in our ‘other’ debate, but you are in rigid denial of anything that threatens your world view. Do you know how that makes you look? Bloody scary from where I’m standing, taht’s for sure!

            Does truth really scare you that much that you would seek to censor it completely; or, as you seem to infer in the unfettered language you use, to crush it beneath your foot with a jackboot?

            George Orwell wasn’t far wrong, was he?

          3. @Samuel

            Thats rich, talking about truth

            I have challenged you on another thread to produce evidence to substantiate your position and you are either unable or unwilling to do so …

            If truth is so important to you then dealing in facts shouldnt be a problem …

            Shame its facts (and manners) where you fall short …

          4. The reason you should be prevented from commentating is not because of your opinions, but because of the wild inaccuracies that you post, particularly when they pertain to health related topics.

            What is concerning is that you have no idea about how these inaccuracies impact on individuals reading your postings, and that is because you are selfish and lack the knowledge to understand this.

            At least today you have confirmed to me and other commentators that you are here just to be combative, agitate and to make a nuisence of yourself.

            You are not able to enter into debate without making wild accusations and when challenged deflect the debate and resort to insult and bullying tactics.

            You should be ashamed of your behaviour, which many contributors have often commented on.

          5. You are correct to say that Stu has been very balanced in our “other discussions” but I would point out that I apologised and acknowledged to Stu that you are as bad as each other when it comes to gettin the last word in.

            I make no apology in your case because I have had to contend with ignorance and stigma for at least 3 years, and no one should be allowed to get away with it.

            Your undertones towards me because of my status are nothing short of disgusting and vile, and demonstrate your ever present fear of people with the same health condition I have.

            You have no shame or compassion and have an agenda to discredit individuals, professionals and experts alike.

          6. Really, Stu, with “support” like that, I would despair quite frankly.

            So it’s rally the troops time is it? Gang up and crush all dissent? Bully, intimidate and harrass the perpetrator until he/she gives up and disappears?

            They use such tactics in groupspeak sessions, don’t you know; laying into any person in the group who dares to question the official – ie:- politically correct – line on any given subject, even when most in the group know it intrinsically to be inherently wrong.

            I am only surprised you haven’t used the “conspiracy theorist” card yet to try to discredit me, gentlemen, or is that your your next weapon with which to besmirch and antagonise me?

            So once again let me suggest an armistice; that we respect each others’ opinions. I will debate intelligently and in a restrained manner from this point on – as I have always set out to do – and put my worldview across, and you both will stop baiting and character assassinating me if you disagree and agree to differ.


          7. @Samuel

            I will continue to debate as appropriate …

            I tend to engage in a mature and reasonable manner

            I do not tell lies about what others say …

            I say what I honestly believe …

            I am open to be challenged by evidence, and will back down where someone either proves I am wrong (and there is an example in this very discussion of that) or where I need to go away and think because someone makes me see a different perspective I had not considered …

            I will not stop challenging what I see to be unfair … if my criticism is wrong demonstrate that this is so …

            I see no reason for anything in this debate to change from my perspective, as you have been the aggressor throughout …

          8. You have tried this tactic before Samuel, but as far as I am concerned a leopard never changes his spots – so on that basis I will not agree to your so called armistice.

            I am sure if you put forward reasonable well thought out argument then you will get the respect you are due; you have crossed a line with me Samuel and to be quite frank you have today confirmed to me that conversing with you is pointless. You carry on with your combative style and I will rely on science and experience to counter your inaccurate and out of date, cherry picked sound bytes.

            As you jibed to me recently “if you can’t stand the heat then get out”.

            No doubt you will use this posting to “prove” you are the injured party. As I have often said I’m not here to make friends, but to provide balance when information is factually wrong and speculative.

          9. Spanner1960 22 Jan 2012, 10:14am

            That really just reiterates what Samuel just said:
            There seems to be this left-wing, politically correct bunch of people that apparently represent the common opinions of the “LGBT Community” (an oxymoron if ever I heard one), and then accuse anybody else of either being homophobic if they are straight, or ‘self-loathing’ if they are gay, simply because they don’t follow the “gay party line”.

            Well you are the ones always hypocritically spouting diversity, so get used to it sunshine, we ain’t all like you.

          10. @Spanner1960

            Where have I ever said that people can not hold another opinion to me …

            I have always said that I am open to having my opinion changed by evidence …

            I also have never ever used the words (or intimated the words) self loathing …

            When you debate, people are going to tell you that they disagree with you (whether that be you or Samuel or me or whoever participates) and if you don’t like that then don’t debate …

            I am more than happy to be confronted and told I am wrong, provided the person saying so can explain why and give evidence to support their preposition … If I can counter with other evidence then they should respect that …

            The reason I am responding to you is that Samuel has kicked off this debate (initially with me) and all I have done is disagree with him, and ask for evidence of his position – which he either refuses or is unable to give … Thus, I am not going to change my opinion when it is just a glib set of phrases that I am wrong …

          11. @ Spanner – there are some topics that rely a great deal on knowledge rather than opinion. Health reated topics are an area where is it damaging to speculate and discredit well researched studies that back up scientific theory.

            I guess there are those who have the opinion that science and medical knowledge should be challenged, which is thier right when they are able to back up the argument with up to date research and proven science.

            There is often a clear lack of credible evidence provided by Samuel B, and most recently he has posted erroneous information that could cause anxiety and confusion. This is irresponsible particularly where the subject relates to health. A little knowledge can be very dangerous, and must be challenged by robust proven arguments.

            I am unsure what you mean by the “gay party line” but whatever you mean I do not have an agenda other than to counter factually incorrect information.

          12. It seems to me that there are individuals who wish to agitate by making counter arguments that are factually incorrect, amd then go down the road of bringing into question well researched and proven facts.

            When the argument unravels these agitators then seek to discredit sound arument and engage in verbal abuse and deflection tactics.

            As I have said several times freedom of opinion and speech should not be constrained, but with any freedom comes a level of responsibility – there are commentators who are irresponsible and I see no problem in countering such irresponsible argument with clear, factual scientific evidence.

          13. Reading further down this board and the antagonising postings verging on hysteria from W6 I have to say I am in agreement with spanner1960. These boards are seriously going to lose all credibility if seen to be guiding opinion and debate if a left wing, politically correct bent is being instilled at some level when these boards should be free and open. To see a gay man today call for another gay man to be censured because his valid viewpoints do not tally with the perceived concensus, frankly, is frightening.

          14. I totally agree that these boards should remain free, but there is such a thing as being responsible with such a freedom. When individuals post totally erroneous information & then try to pass it off as some kind of “boozy night out discussion” is totally disingenuous.

            I have called for the particular postings to be removed, & prior to doing so I obtained opinions from others as to the validitiy of my charge against said comments. Also freedom to develop debate must be upheld, but there are individuals who hyjack many important debates to take issue with organisations rather than the subject matter. This is stiffling the opinions of others & people just switch off when it becomes a pissing contest. I beleive PN should have some form of moderation to prevent this

            I will admit to being head strong, but I have the right to defend myself from the many erroneous statements that have been made about me, which are based on speculation & assumption.

          15. Let me make something perfectly clear (in terms of my view- others can choose to disagree (for clarities sake!)) …

            I do not think that anyone should be banned from freely posting on these threads unless they incite hatred or are otherwise illegal, libellous etc …

            You seem to perceive me as left wing – and thats certainly not where my politics predominantly lie – but even if people on here post comments that are left wing biased, then those who disagree should put the opposing case rather than ridicule the person making them …

            Samuel may claim I am antagonising him … well thats more to do with how he perceives things than with any intent on my part. His suggestions that I lie in wait, seek to ambush and that I covertly work for PN are bizarre and frankly ludicrous … I perceive that Samuel seeks to antagonise me and others …

            The adult approach is to debate and not resort to personality assassinations such as those engaged in by Samuel ….

          16. @ Paul
            I should also like to point out that Stu has stated that he does not agree with my opinion in relation to Samuel B being censured – he is very clear about this. It is right and proper that he has made this clear. Do you see me making highly personal & speculative remarks about Stu or vice versa? NO is the answer. This is the basis of good debate, not making making personal attacks on individuals. I have previously said to Samuel B that he should attack the point not the person making the point. I have politely asked him not to get personal & hyjack comments threads but he cannot resist.

            I find it very interesting that as I have stood up to Samuel he has now chosen to go and bully someone else.

            This situation is now getting ridiculous so I will leave it to PN to get back to me on the particular point I have raised with them, which was to have some erroneous comments removed as they are highly misleading to other readers.

          17. Stu, I think it is time we had a little transparentcy with regard to the nature of your affiliation with W6.

            As surely as Abbot has Costello, W6 is never far behind to prop you up when the going gets tough (you at least being the one who engages his brain before he speaks, well, most of the time).

            It is quite clear that, as Spanner1960 reasons, you are here to influence debate and ensure a left-wing, PC bias to PN forums, and to scare off dissenters.

            That is a stock in trade of shills on similar discussion boards the world over: to corner the debate in order to subvert and shape public opinion.

            The language and terms you use, alone, give you away, not to mention the amount of time you seem to spend on here while reminding us ad nausem of the number people you safe from fires and pull out of mangled cars. Really? However do you find time?

            To top it off, you have the audacity to write a piece for the very same web site questioning whether offensive people should be banned…

          18. from PN. How do you define “offensive”, exactly. Someone who describes all gay men as vermin today, agreed. But anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint tomorrow? Drip, drip…

            I’m not suggesting you are in cahoots with PN as you infer (unless this board suddenly dissapears, of course!). Conspiracy theorist is one insult you and W6 have, at least thus far, refrained from labelling me.

            What I AM suggesting is that you have entered these boards not with a free and open spirit but with the intention to subvert them; to ensure that the debate embraces only left-wing, PC bias using the same old tricks to intimidate, provoke and, yes, smear the opposition.

            You will of course abjectly deny anything of the sort, which of course you must do to try to maintain your cover, but I have seen it all before elsewhere, only done a lot better.

            Sure enough one day, when the heat gets too much, “Stu” will fade away and there will be another PC-indoctrinated/brainwashed aggressor to take your place.

          19. @Sanuel B
            You call for some transparency about me and W6_bloke …
            Well, to be frank, my knowledge of w6_bloke is identical to my knowledge of you, Iris, Pavlos, Spanner, Jock or any of the other regular contributors on PN – I have never met any of you – I do not know any of your real identities (whereas you all know mine from picture and name etc in the article I wrote) …
            What connection do you perceive that I have with W6_bloke? Do you fear he works for PN too? Do you think there is some huge conspiracy against you Samuel? Do people sit and wait to ambush you and form alliances with other PN readers specifically to target you? Thats the logical progression of your bizarre speculation … I have better things to do than target someone I do not know and have no emotional contact with …
            You accuse me of being left wing, not particularly overall although maybe in some areas (my politics varies dependent on the issue and on some issues I am particularly right wing) … But …

          20. … even if I was predominantly left wing, why should that be a problem in expressing my opinion on a public debate forum … if you disagree come back with an argument reinforced by evidence …
            You seem to think I am part of some global conspiracy to dominate the world in terms of some concentration of a particular world view … well firstly, the world view you allude to is not mine … secondly, I came across PN by accident and I have only made connections on here by debating – there is no conspiracy with anyone else regarding my content or message … My views (right or wrong) are very much mine alone …
            I have explained repeatedly the reason for my having a lot of time, and believe me I would much rather be completely well again and be able to work full time, as it is part of my time (on the sick) is spent on here, partly writing a book and partly trying to get better from the serious illness I have had. Now if you have a problem with my spending time occupying my mind in a …

          21. … creative and stimulating way – then thats your problem, not mine …
            You mention that I have talked about pulling people out of mangled cars – no I haven’t … I have mentioned my prior profession as a police officer and that I am employed as a paramedic – I have not and will not discuss the details of any case, that would be unprofessional … the reason I have time is because I have been seriously ill and still am unable to return to work …
            I did not say that people should be banned from PN – my article never once mentions the idea of banning people. It asks the question whether measures to control offensive language might be necessary. It specifically points out that inciting hatred is the area where I had and continue to have concerns. You are fully aware (and have concurred with some of my concerns – whilst disagreeing with some of the options that I have discussed (these options are not necessarily answers). You are being disingenuous when you claim that I seek to …

          22. … ban people who disagree with me – I have repeatedly said that people will disagree with me, and that I am open to having my opinion changed with reasoned and evidenced arguments. I have also said on this very thread that I do not agree with w6 when he suggests you are banned – and yet you continue to suggest I believe the opposite. Please do not lie about what I have said.
            I have no intention of fading away … your aggression and attempts to malign me and reluctance to engage with reasoned debate with evidence are the telling factors … and your conspiracy theorist suggestion, well if the cap fits … and it seems to fit with much of what you have suggested …
            I once thought you were just a decent person with strong opinions (like myself) however your conduct towards me over the past 48 hours has shown you for what you are, vindictive, uncaring, intolerant, offensive, and full of erroneous information that you are keen to use regardless of whether it is relevant, true or …

          23. … honest …

          24. You are hard to take seriously when you don’t remember accusations you make against people (ie:- inferring I read “The Daily Fail”), and claim never to mention specific cases of your emergency work when just the other day you spoke of once arresting two Muslims for inciting-hatred and rescuing people from fires.

            And you have a knack of inverting my words to make it seem like I am suggesting one thing when I am doing nothing of the kind (is that a form of “doublespeak”?).

            For example you claim that I have stated you want to ban me by me alluding to your article a couple of weeks ago.

            I did nothing of the kind!

            I merely suggested that were some form of censor imposed on people posting hateful remarks today, who is to say that further down the line that ruling may not be stretched to censoring people whose views you simply disagree with?

            Please stop selectively filtering everything I post here and turning my words upside down to invalidate my opinions. It isn’t particularly clever.

          25. Posted yesterday by he who never pulls rank and talks about his professional cases:

            “In terms of arresting muslims – I was the first officer in my division when I was in the polcie to arrest 2 Asian Muslims for racially aggravated public order against a white couple … don’t see that publicised …”

            Oh more, please!!!!

          26. @Samuel
            You accuse me of being difficult to take seriously, you should try reading some of the bile you write …
            I’m sorry I don’t recall referring to you as a Daily Fail reader – I may well have done, it seems to fit perfectly with some of your positions – as for calling it the Daily Fail, it seems to me to sum up perfectly its journalistic ability (with noticeable exceptions that make the rule work) …
            You said that I had mentioned pulling people out of car wrecks, that would be a paramedic case which I wouldn’t discuss (and to be frank its very rare I drag anyone out of car wrecks as its a much more controlled and professional operation than dragging – if the situation allows). I did mention arrests I have made. I don’t recall mentioning a house on fire. I find nothing incompatible in mentioning these things with my comments to you – and feel you are only using them in an attempt to either deflect from criticism I reasonably have of you or to try and antagonise me or upset …

          27. … me (not working!) or both …
            “And you have a knack of inverting my words to make it seem like I am suggesting one thing when I am doing nothing of the kind” – Strange, you have a remarkable talent for doing exactly the same thing to me …
            Well you clearly left room for confusion and lacked clarity by suggesting that I do seek top censor and bar people (not something within my power – even if I wanted to) … The only sort of censoring that I would support (for probably the 20th time in the last 48 hours that I have said this, and you continue to ignore this, is for those that incite hatred or make messages of other forms that are illegal or libellous in some way).
            “Please stop selectively filtering everything I post here and turning my words upside down to invalidate my opinions. It isn’t particularly clever.”. Strange not only is this exactly what you are doing to me, but you are also lying repeatedly about what I say …

          28. Unbelievable. If I have an hour to waste I will go through all recent threads and dig out the post in which you clearly inferred I read the Daily “Fail”.

            But then, once proven you would completely gloss over it just as you have done with the evidence I have submitted to prove that you have indeed been filling us in on details of your professional work.

            Please at least try to be consistent!

          29. If there is one thing I am it is consistent, about thinbgs that matter …

            Whether I called you a Daily Mail reader really is irrelevant …

            Whether I happen to have mentioned minor details from a small number of incidents I have dealt with professionally in the past (or not) is hardly significant …

            Particularly when the topic is nothing to do with you or me, until you hijacked the thread …

          30. “I’m sorry I don’t recall referring to you as a Daily Fail reader”

            I can’t provide a clearer cut example than this quote of yours, Stu. Now please show me where I have, even once, accused you of referring to me as a Daily Fail reader? No, you can’t because I haven’t.

            What I have maintained consistently is that the inference is there. I have only ever stated you have inferred I read The Daily Mail. When did refer and infer ever mean the same thing?

            Just as there been inferences elsewhere, such as racism (the classic gambit of the PC evangelist) to deflect any debate of immigrants and immigration, and several other subtle digs that you know were put downs, although you maintain they were made in all innocence.

            And W6, to date you have made near enough 30 contributions to this particular thread, all an attempt to blatantly put me down yet not one I can see that actually contributes anything to the actual topic in hand.

            I am tempted to dig up the “shrill shill”…

          31. @Samuel B

            And I quote …

            “Regular reader of The Mail then, Stu? Funny, that’s what you accused me of being yesterday.”

            strange – maybe your forget things, happens to the best of us …

          32. You have made this “topic” all about you and your bullying. I was reading the comments and came across your postings, and saw that you were giving Stu the exact same treatment you have dished out to me.

            Whilst Stu does not need support in countering your comments, I am of the opinion that other commentators should be aware of how you conduct yourself – I wonder how any other individuals have been given your bullying treatment.

            Now if you can provide examples where I have used to bully you please do, I ave challenged you on this before but it was rebuffed.

            I know the derogatory terms I have used and they are nowhere near the terms you have used in your comments to Stu & myself.

            Man up and admit your mistakes!

          33. tag but I’ll refrian from doing so.

            But isn’t that a record you have created. To be able to make multiple postings to a thread that bears no relation to the thread’s theme whatsoever will surely take some beating…

          34. @Samuel B

            You are certainly having a very good attempt at it …

          35. More deflection from you Samuel – I am sure if you wanted to prove that you are the injured party here you would. You are more than aware that you have been the aggressor and continue to be.

            Provide the evidence to clear your name or just simply clear off!

          36. Stu, I am told if you aim for the eyepiece that renders a Dalek inoperable and they self-destruct.

            Really, you have to do SOMETHING about that nasty, unfeeling, metallic echo of yours!!!!

          37. Keep going with your insults Samuel – hopefully you will give yourself enough rope to hang yourself with. Pink News are watching you as they have taken my complaint seriously. It is time for you to be responsible in your postings and not contsantly insult and be the aggressor!

          38. Please stop judging people by your own standards, W6. Do you really think PN are not going to take seriously your heinous assault on my profession and your lurid and ill-placed allegations about my sex life??!

            I think you will find it works both ways, and PN will be looking for the agent provocateur in all of this.

            Both in the debate following Stu’s article and this, you have waded in all guns blazing and launched an all-out assault on my person, carrying over baggage from another debate from which everyone else had moved on from eons ago.

            Do be careful W6. You will reap what you sew, believe me:- that’s how karma and the law of attraction works. What you put out you get back, in droves.

            Oh, I can just hear your responses:

            “Evidence. Where’s your evidence! I prefer to rely on science for my facts,” ad nauseum…

          39. Likewise Samuel what goes around comes around, so given the way you have treated me then you have a lot of bad karma coming you’re way!

            You can play to the gallery all you like, if I were Stu I woud be very wary of your obvious attempts to ingratiate yourself with him……leopards and spots.

            Stu is very forgiving I am not so forgiving – you are a bully and that is one thing that to me crosses a line. All in all you have made my experience of commenting on PN an unpleasant experience, but I will not be deterred – I will always stand up to the bullies they are weak and selfish in my book, and that just sums you up totally.

            Now thats it from me you pompous little git, stick to the facts before you in future, saves all this agro you stir up!

    2. Now now – if they were white English people you wouldn’t be applying that logic.

      Homophobia is homophobia is homophobia.

      Over new year I got beat up by white chavs hurling homophobic abuse at me. Thankfully I could run faster than they could. However, as much as I would have liked to boot them off this island, I’d much rather they were dealt the justice they deserve. Sadly, as they ran off and as there was no CCTV, none of that happened in my case.

      1. Well said, Alex …

        Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry – of whatever type – and it is wrong …

        It will be perpetrated by people of all races, all nationalities, all orientations, all religions, all sexes, all ages, all abilities, all genders, etc etc …. NONE of it is right

        We can not deport people who are British … as much as we might like to get rid of some of them …

        1. We used to, hence Australia and Virginia. There’s still the Falklands…

          1. There’s also the English Channel! :p

          2. GingerlyColors 21 Jan 2012, 7:11am

            Do you think we’ve upset the Argentinians enough? At least they got gay marriages whereas we have to make do with civil unions!

          3. @GingerlyColors

            Sorry hit the wrong button meant to thumb up your comment, but thumbed down in error

          4. This guy speaks common sense of course, but cue the PC zealots waiting in the wings ready to denounce him.


        2. fedupwiththis 21 Jan 2012, 2:37pm

          The difference is of course that homophobic teachings are par for the course for all Muslims.
          However much secular Brits may oppose homosexuality, there are few who would see you hung for it. However much Christians might disagree with homosexuality, they generally tolerate it. They are taught that homophobia is wrong and generally it works. Now go to a Muslim forum and see what they think of the three perpetrators in this article. Who is there to teach tolerance of homosexuality among Muslims, especially with more and more private Islamic schools opening?
          The reason for me posting this, is the number of times I have seen gays jump to the defence of Muslims on account of their minority status..
          Personally, I hope they never get to be more than a small minority, but that looks less and less likely.

          1. This guy speaks common sense of course, but cue the PC zealots waiting in the wings ready to denounce him.


        3. How anyone can mark down a comment decrying bigotry amazes me …

      2. Spanner1960 21 Jan 2012, 12:34pm

        Interesting you use the term ‘chavs’.
        it seems we can no longer pick on anyone for their colour, country of origin, gender, age, ability or mental health without somebody hurling some politically correct brickbat at you, but somehow the feral Essex lager lout is still fair game.

        Personally, I think it’s all ginger people that are responsible. ;)

        1. Well said Spanner1960.

          So ironic. I have been arguing elsewhere with Stu how easy it is to drip-feed into society change on a level that is so subliminal that nobody notices it until it is too late, to counter his insistence that more severe freedom of speech laws implemented now to protect gay people could not be gradually manipulated and abused to clampdown on all manner of innocuous “thought crimes” in years to come.

          Yet he hoists himself by his own petard by his extreme level of political correctness, which did not exist 20 years ago when we were able to make statements without being attacked for speaking the truth.

          And where did PC come from? It has been filtered into public consciousness on such a subliminal level that no one noticed.

          Today our culture is riddled with PC to the point where it is costing lives, ie:- Muslims spout hate and bile and sexually abuse kids because the police are too scared to act for fear of being dubbed racist, ad nauseum…

          1. @Samuel B

            So, its not about the subject matter its just find as many ways as you can to abuse Stu …

            On the debate which yo are referring to (which I shall go back to shortly as no doubt doubt you have added something – be interesting to see if you respond to my comments) you continually evade responding to the issues that I raise

            I will not progress them here because that is not the subject matter of this thread, despite the fact you seem fit to hijack other threads for your own aprticular agendas.

            I find it laughable (yes thats right, I find it laughable) that you regard my attitudes as extreme PC … fairness is what I am about matey – which you wouldnt know if it smacked you in the fact with a piece of non-dyed smoked haddock and said “hello, I’m mister fairness”

            In terms of arresting muslims – I was the first officer in my division when I was in the polcie to arrest 2 Asian Muslims for racially aggravated public order against a white couple … don’t see that publicised …

          2. … often unfortunately, but many officers do take action regardless of race and tackle these issues fairly …

            So tell me Samuel, what is your solution to the “Muslim problem” you clearly beleve we have …

          3. “The manipulated citizen is living in a state of permanent doublethink. At a certain level of his consciousness he knows things which he must not admit at another level. He is living in a state of cognitive dissonance; to reduce this dissonance he has to struggle against one of the two components of his worldview, either against the learned and internalized or against the actually perceived.

            To the ruling ideology, this cognitive dissonance means a latent danger: The citizen will be persuaded not to trust his eyes and to prefer to adhere to political correctness only as long as the PC social monopoly of morality is not challenged.”

            Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

          4. @Aslam

            Interesting theory …

            Not how I see the world …

            I see the world as being a universe of individuals who observe and respond to scenarios based on learning established in their past and applying knowledge and understanding to situations …

            Moral judgement is individual and whilst influenced by societal factors is ersonally and subjectively applied judgements …

            Political correctness as a theory is in itself erroneous

          5. Stu wrote (above):

            “So tell me Samuel, what is your solution to the “Muslim problem” you clearly beleve we have …”

            No, I can’t quite believe I read such an insensitive and downright offensive sentence on a gay news web site forum, either, and from someone who only a week earlier put the argument forward that those who cause offence to others in online forums should be banned.

            You couldn’t make this stuff up, really you couldn’t…

            And he dared to infer I am racist????!

          6. @Samuel

            With the greatest of respect ,… my use of words may have been clumsy and for that I am more than willing to apologise to you and anyone else who was offended …

            That said, you were the one who had been repeatedly talking about problems with Muslims in Britain – and I ask you again how you would solve the problem you perceive …

            You have attempted to deflect from answering the question by criticising how I asked it …

            I have apologised for my clumsy wording – perhaps you could now show some good manners and answer a simple question …

          7. “…you were the one who had been repeatedly talking about problems with Muslims in Britain…”

            Do you keep misrepresenting what I say deliberately in order to provoke me further, or do you simply not bother properly assimilating what I say?

            Please tell me where I have suggested there is a problem with in generel Britain. Only you have suggested there is from where I am sitting.

          8. @Samuel B

            You can not cover up the fact that you repeatedly mislead about things I have said by alleging (maliciously and bogusly) that I am misrepresenting you … I am doing nothing of the sort …

            I am telling it exactly as I see it …

          9. @Samuel

            To use your phrase “I shall waste an hour of my time” locating your phrases which led me to my comment – I’m off to bed soon so you will have to wait till the morning to get that response …

        2. Meant no offence. Personally I refer to louts and lowlifes of all ethnicities as chavs. In my case, they just happened to be white.

          1. I didnt think you meant to be offensive, Alex

            I think one of the commentators just likes to stir things a little and provoke response … the other is just being arrogant and sanctimonious …

            You were making an observation … of course not every lowlife is a chav – but some are …

      3. Well said Stu, Alex et al, and the rest of us, of course, are racists.

        Even those of us with friends and intermarriage relatives of off colours and creeds.

        I rest my case, m’lud.

        1. @Samuel B

          Paranoid … much?

          Who have I called racist? … Where?

        2. Agains, Samuel B

          You seem to not understand simple English …

          I totally endorsed two of Alex’s comments and yet you feel I accused Alex of being racist …

          I suggest you either seek some education because a) I have not accused anyone of being racist and b) agreeing with someone entirely would not correlate with calling them racist …

          1. @Samuel

            Challenge me with facts – thats what adults do when they disagree with each other …

            Please do not lie about me …

          2. As I said above, the implication of racism is there, even if you do not spell it out letter for letter.

            I note that my post answering your racism challenge where I cited your cruel use of the word “Solution” for its implied meaning and its connotation with one set of great grand parents was swiftly removed from this thread.

            Are we therefore to assume you have a hotline to the publisher, and authority such that you can request postings that expose a side of you that you would prefer people on here did not see, censored in an instant?

            I think we should be told what your seemingly full time residency on these pages is really all about, Stu.

            Indeed, whenever do you get the time to arrest hate-spewing Muslims and innocents from raging fires that you always seem to be preening about?

          3. @Samuel

            You are seeing things in my words that I do not intend …

            Perhaps you would like to spell out where this implication is and I can enlighten you as to what my meaning is ..

            Or maybe you are just continuing to try and heighten aggravation and have no interest in balanced, level headed debate …

          4. @Samuel

            If only I was employed by PN or had the power to make comments disappear – as you seem to allude to …

            Your paranoia seems to be growing in intensity …

            I would happily vet comments (but whilst I have discussed forums with PN management, I am a mere reader, and have contributed one article).

            As for the comment you mention, I haven’t seen anything like the one you mention – so either it was vetted by someone in PN as offensive (which is unusual because it is very much reactive vetting on here – that being something I have discussed at length with PN) or you used a word which the software picked up as inappropriate, or there was a software glitch …

            How many things are you going to accuse me of – your impression of my influence is quite impressive … I wish it was the case … and wrong …

            I suggest you calm down, walk away for a short while and think about how irrational you sound ..

          5. Your paranoia is becoming more and more evident in your ridiculous assertions Samuel – you have speculated incorrectly that I am employed in various sectors, and now you state Stu is employed by PN.

            There are patterns developing here Samuel which are not healthy – take the advice you have often given me and tate a break away, it seems that you very much need it

          6. Stu wrote (above):

            “So tell me Samuel, what is your solution to the “Muslim problem” you clearly beleve we have …”

            No, I can’t quite believe I read such an insensitive and downright offensive sentence on a gay news web site forum, either, and from someone who only a week earlier put the argument forward that those who cause offence to others in online forums should be banned.

            You couldn’t make this stuff up, really you couldn’t…

            And he dared to infer I am racist????!

          7. PS: Why is it whenever I see the latest squawking, sorry, post from W6 and try to imagine what he must look like, the image of a cold, black, metallic Dalek also looms sharply to mind…

          8. @Samuel B

            I refer you and anyone who has been offended by my clumsy and unfortunate choice of words to my apology above …

            I can not blame anyone but myself for the choice of words and I regret offending people – that undoubtedly was my fault …

            Nonetheless you still continue to fail to engage with the issues and seek to mud sling rather than either deal in facts and evidence or answer questions that are posed of you … weak!

          9. I wondered how long it would take you to make a comment about my avatar…….at least I can now say back to you that you are the one hiding, I have no reason to hide away from you Samuel.

            It provides me with a bit of security, because as we know there are individuals that will stop at nothing to be devious and deceitful……..

          10. “I totally endorsed two of Alex’s comments and yet you feel I accused Alex of being racist …”

            Maybe I’ve been asleep, but I didn’t notice anyone calling me a ‘racist’. If they did then IT’S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAAAAAAD!

            *Throws chair out window*

          11. @Alex

            Well, I was accused of calling you (and others) racist …

            I didnt and I dont think that …

            I thought you comments were sensible and measured …

            I can only speculate why others would think I called you (or others) racist when it clearly is not the case that I either did or think that.

  13. Keith Simpson 20 Jan 2012, 7:42pm

    Different ball-park I know but it’s all religion and sky-fairies.
    I am still scratching my bonce as to why no-one has yet brought Pope Benedict XVI to book for saying that I …and you…are “intrinsically morally disordered and that our proclivity “…is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”.
    Does that not give ammo to our very own Christian fudge-heads and legitimise their ‘pot-shots’ at us ‘sinners deserving of Hell’…
    Any answers would be welcome since I am at a loss and am bringing on premature baldness.


    1. I suspect one of the reasons is the Vatican state is a country in its own right so deporting hiim to the UK (for example) is impossible as he is head of state and unlikely to authorise his own deportation

      1. Do you mean extradite?

        If countries banned him from stepping foot on their soil it might be better than seeking to prosecute him… but probably it would just make people listen to him more.

        It would be best if we could all ignore the silly twerp or give him enough rope to hang himself, if he keeps harbouring and protecting paedophiles then he’ll do just that.

        1. @Joss

          Yes I mean extradite – I’m a little tired, and wrong word slipped in – you knew what I meant thankfully ;-)

          1. Well I originally wrote expedite so I know how you feel…

      2. I wish our chaps would get around to withdrawing their ambassador, like the Irish did.

        1. The only problem with that is that the Irish had a separate ambassador to the Vatican … ours is both Ambassador to Italy and the Vatican … i may be wrong, but it would not be as simple as recalling a representative to the Vatican – it would leave our representation in Rome and Italian affairs depleted …

          I am sure we could find some imaginative way of imposing some diplomatic sanction … not quite sure what … but our chaps are usually inventive when they want to be …

          1. Stu, we have an embassy to the holy see, separate from the embassy to Italy in Rome. We could withdraw from the vatican without affecting our embassy to Italy.

          2. @Dave G

            I stand corrected …

            It certainly is feasible and certainly as merit …

            Although technically not relevant to the matter of the Asians in Derby to be fair …

    2. It’s all about the difference between being offensive and being threatening isn’t it? Mr Pope’s opinion is vile, but will concern you only if you believe in his version of.hell. The men recently convicted left gay guys in their neighbourhood in fear of their lives – and the prosecution had to prove that.they felt threatened.

      Free speech is worth having. See Voltaire etc. Threats, not so.much.

    3. @ Keith –

      Ben16 is just repeating something he read in patristics 101.

      It’s not as if he has to think for himself.

  14. Pink news must be proud of the intellectual debate.on this.story. I have spent enough time here.

    1. Then fuk off and stop telling everyone how much you hate pink news. No one cares.

  15. Let’s hope that 10 February 2012 brings a proportionate sentence.

  16. If the Koran states that homosexuality is wrong… are the authorities going to stop people reading the Koran?….after all the leaflets distributed seem to be based on the Koran……If the koran (or the bible) state that homosexuality is wrong… an abonormation ..what can done?…Ban the Koran? or ban the bible.?..If the govt. start to dictate what a religion should be …the govt will be on very dificult ground.

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 20 Jan 2012, 10:15pm

      As far as I can recall neither the Koran nor the Bible even refer to ‘homosexuality’, a word that wasn’t in use at the times of their writing.

      There are various references to types of sexual conduct involving two (or more) men, but similarly there are many references to the sexual conduct of a man and woman (or more) together, although the later hasn’t resulted in heterosexuality being regarding in quite the same way as homosexuality.

      1. Mike Organ 21 Jan 2012, 5:22am

        There are many passages that discuss and proscribe against this issue but there are also many rules and laws that if we applied strictly would result in many executions annually and a whole lot of suffering. The Bible or any other religious book is no more relevant when making law than Alice in Wonderland. Sharia Law as I have pointed out to Muslims is savage and primitive and if it where even slightly relevant how come the vast majority of Muslim states do not apply it and strive to avoid it at all costs. Even those who apply it tone down some of its more savage elements. Why is it that Muslims living in a Christian country are trying to push Sharia Law when their countries of origin want nothing to do with it. I will leave the conclusion up to you.

      2. GingerlyColors 21 Jan 2012, 7:07am

        The word ‘homosexual’ was devised in 1869 by Karl-Maria Kartbeny, well after even the King James I authorised edition of the Bible. I believe the Bible refers to ‘beasts’ in the Book of Genesis, prior to the Great Flood. These beasts could be dinosaurs. The world ‘Dinosaur’ meaning a fearsome lizard was devised in 1842, again well after the Bible was written. Creationists believe that the dinosaurs died out because they did not make it onto the Ark. I am an agnostic and while I do not believe that story I am still open to suggestion.

    2. The government cannot dictate what a religion should be but it can say that you cannot stir up hatred against another group based on religious belief. Have whatever beliefs you like but start demeaning or inciting hate against another group based on belief and you will get slapped.

      1. Exactly. Context is key.

      2. Agreed.

        It’s not a question of banning the Koran, the Bible or any other religious book.

        It’s a question of Universal Human Rights.

    3. Mike Organ 21 Jan 2012, 5:14am

      Maybe the government should make sure that those who believe in fairy stories, are not allowed to threaten others because of those beliefs. Homosexualtiy has done little wrong in the world but Religion on the other hand has bloody hands that will never be clean. And I am not Gay and do not judge people on their personal preferences so long as those people do not use those preferences to harm or threaten others.

  17. Spanner1960 20 Jan 2012, 11:22pm

    Keep at it Keith.
    Nobody’s listening.

    1. Although his obvious anger at this court ruling is utterly delightful – its sweet music.

      1. @Will

        A court ruling that he said would never happen …

        1. I know, isn’t his dementia at this news just adorable? Its like a child you tell was not only wrong, but can’t have any sweet – LOL!

          He should up his alcohol intake.

        2. @Will

          Its great to see people, like Keith, whose sound bites are based on spite and vitriol being shown up for their inadequacies …

  18. there is no such thing as a ‘scat’ community. Don’t talk nonsense

    1. ***DNFTT***

  19. GingerlyColors 21 Jan 2012, 6:57am

    Can anybody explain this one? One of the defendents stated that: ‘We are living in a society and if we don’t stop it, something like a tsunami will happen here’. When was the last time Britain got hit by a tsunami (tidal wave caused by an earthquake). Indonesia which is the largest Muslim country in the world is often hit by tsunami. The part of Indonesia which always gets hit is Aceh Provence on the northern end of Sumatra, the only part of Indonesia where homosexuality is illegal (for Muslims but not non-Muslims).

    1. A very interesting point …

      I found this interesting information of tsunamis hitting the UK …

      (I think the 2011 alleged tsunami was a bit of a damp squib!)

      If tsunami’s are the result of homosexuality (love to know the science of that!), then it would appear that the Pacific/Indian Ocean area is of particular LGBT prevalence … lol

      1. It may be that the neurosis caused by the suppression of their natural (gay) sexual instinct has caused these guys to become paranoid.

        They obviously think of God as a vengeful deity…. right out of the 13th century.

      2. Well, we also got the blame for the earthquake in Christchurch, NZ. I’d dearly love to meet the persons who make up all this tosh!

        1. GingerlyColors 23 Jan 2012, 12:56am

          They had earthquakes in New Zealand long before they legalized homosexuality in 1985.

    2. Christine Beckett 21 Jan 2012, 9:37am

      I don’t think it was meant literally. My guess is that he was being poetic, and was meant to point out that his God ,in retribution, would bring down a disaster on the country, albeit probably man-made by people acting in his name.


    3. 1953 if I am correct – a large tidal wave came down the east coast of England.
      A lot of people were killed but actual figures and the scale of the devastation were hushed up. The government at the time thought that a country bruised and battered by war had seen enough bad news.
      You could go back to the 1600s when several tidal waves and earthquakes happened; large areas of Kent now inland were under water previously. The town of Shoreham in Sussex was all but obliterated at about the same time.
      Whether or not this was anything to do with homosexuals offending what is written in a book is highly dubious ;)

      1. GingerlyColors 23 Jan 2012, 1:02am

        All this happened before the 1967 Sex Offences Act! As for 1953, this was caused by a storm surge where a low pressure settles over the North Sea and coincides with a high spring tide.

    4. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 21 Jan 2012, 12:45pm

      Erm… tsunamis are naturally occurring events and nothing to do with a supposed god. Either by tectonic plates or land mass falling into a body of water, ie. the one that will strike the Americas when an entire side of La Palma slides into the sea. You do know this, don’t you?! Religions will say anything to discourage those from pursuing their own lives without a supposed god, it’s super-superstition gone demented.

    5. More importantly, is he saying we should stop living in a society? (as it says in the report also). I mean I’m all for anarchy, but there are limits…

    6. Errol Semple 25 Jan 2012, 5:42pm

      Excellent comment by GingerlyColors. Fact and not fiction.

  20. Fantastic news! I’ve been following this case from here in Oz. It’s scary to think of such people living near to yourself. I hope they all get serious jail time. The Only downside is, they’ll undoubtedly spread their corrupting influence in jail as well. Pity they couldn’t be locked up together, seperate from everyone else, for their whole sentence. I live in a pluralist western democracy. I don’t want its basic social principals corrupted by violent religious nutjobs.

  21. Christine Beckett 21 Jan 2012, 9:26am

    It appears that there was an awful lot more that came out about this group as evidence, ie threats to moderate Muslim community leaders and imams, attempts to intimidate voters, expressions of support for terrorism, etc… and yet few papers have given coverage to these other areas.

    But that additional evidence is important for the public to be made aware of, because it shows that the actions of this group, and others like it, are NOT just expressions of religious belief, but are a serious attempt to subvert our democracy using whatever means available, legal or otherwise.


    1. How could I get a copy of the evidence? Is it genberally posted publically ?

      1. Spanner1960 21 Jan 2012, 12:38pm

        I’ve already tried to find it.
        Unfortunately, I suspect posting it would make you liable and in breach of the laws these people have been convicted of, so it’s highly unlikely anybody is going to risk it.
        That said, if anybody has got copies, I would be interested.

        1. I will try and dig out the website (I can’t think of it from memory) … there is a website that publishes editted versions of significant court case transcripts in England & Wales …

          I would suspect this would be viewed as a significant court case …

        2. I’m not usually a Daily Mail fan … but interesting commentary 3 hours ago in Mail online:

          “Yesterday as they were found guilty at Derby Crown Court, residents spoke of how the three fundamentalists wanted to transform their small area of Derby into a ‘medieval state’ under Sharia law.

          Anyone who dared to question their extreme agenda was branded an ‘M15 agent’ or a ‘sell-out,’ they said

          Last night it emerged that:

          * Muslim fanatic and hate preacher Anjem Choudary was secretly invited by the group’s ringleader, Ihjaz Ali, for a series of meetings in Derby;
          * The group had links with the extremist organisation Al-Muhajiroun, which is banned under UK anti-terror laws;
          * Moderate Muslim leaders who spoke out against the group’s activities were targeted in a hate campaign in which their faces were printed on ‘wanted’ posters;
          * Police were called during local elections because the group’ s supporters were standing guard at polling stations, ordering Muslims not to vote

        3. “… During the trial, the court heard how the group’s activities intimidated residents and left gay people frightened to walk on the streets.

          The first, entitled ‘Death penalty?’ proclaimed that ‘Allah permits the destruction’ of gay people and that ‘the only question is how it should be carried out’.

          The second, entitled ‘Turn or Burn’, featured a burning figure in a blazing lake of fire and warned that the decriminalisation of homosexuality was ‘the root of all problems’.

          A third, entitled ‘GAY – God Abhors You’, warned of ‘severe punishment’ for homosexuals.

          A fourth leaflet linked to the group, which was never distributed, described homosexuality as a ‘vile, ugly, cancerous disease’. It referred to ‘queer sinners’ and ‘faggots’ and posed the question ‘Gay Today, Paedophile Tomorrow?’. a video emerged which shows Ali at a meeting with notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary. Ali booked the room in a local community centre on ‘several occasions’ for secret meetings with …

        4. … the notorious fanatic.

          Choudary has frequently praised the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks and called for all gays to be stoned to death.

          Ali, a taxi driver, had told community centre staff he wanted the room for an ‘Islamic discussion group’. But police were called in when they realised Choudary was attending the meetings.

          On the video, taken in 2009, bearded Ali can be seen remonstrating with police officers as they order Choudary out, telling him he is ‘not welcome’ in Derby.

          Holding a letter the police have handed him, Ali can be heard saying: ‘You say to me according to this letter…(that I)… support violent extremism.’ The policeman replies: ‘Of course you do.’

          Labour councillor Fareed Hussain said the footage of Ali with Choudary was ‘not surprising.’

          He said that Ali was ‘openly associated’ with Al-Muhajiroun – a group headed by Choudary and banned under British law because of its suspected links to international terrorism.

          Ali, he said, had ‘openly …

        5. … distributed literature’ in the name of Al-Muhajiroun from a stand on the Normanton high street. And he would ‘subject younger Muslims to pressure’ to take part in his fundamentalist campaigns.

          ‘I think it is extremely likely Ali and his associates are still linked to Al-Muhajiroun,’ the councillor added. ‘I don’t for a minute believe these five who distributed the leaflets were operating in isolation.’

          One resident, who did not want to be named for fear of being targeted, said the extremist group led by Ali ‘wanted to turn the clock back to a medieval state’ under Islamic law.

          Another, Oweyss Lal, 18, a sales consultant, said: ‘They target teenagers who are not very educated. Anyone who speaks out against them is labelled an MI5 agent or a sell-out.’

          Mr Hussein said although they ‘did not represent a majority at all,’ Ali and his accomplices were ‘very aggressive, vocal and intimidating’.

          During local elections in 2006, a group of Muslim men gathered at the polling …

        6. … station in Normanton to intimidate voters. ‘They told people that voting was forbidden by Islam and any government is illegitimate unless it is an Islamic caliphate,’ he said.

          ‘I had to call the police – they were scaring people.’

          Mr Hussein said he was then singled out himself in a frightening poster campaign. In the same week the ‘death penalty’ leaflets were distributed, hundreds of ‘wanted’ posters appeared in Derby accusing Mr Hussein and other Muslim community leaders of ‘selling out’ to a western agenda.

          ‘The alleged crime was encouraging Muslims to be part of wider society,’ he said. ‘I was shocked – the posters were very intimidating.’”

          It is very interesting commentary and worrying … and suggests that whilst the gay leaflets issue was important and its crucial it was handled appropriately … there are far more serious community tension issues and potential public safety issues linked to the men tried in Derby on these matters.

          1. Just adding to the thanks for posting this, Stu

        7. Interesting to note from internet activity today that Anjem Choudary (the extremist Islamic preacher linked to the Derby Muslims who have been convicted – also linked to a rposcribed terrorist organisation or two) has been tweeting that the meetings referred to by the Mail online took place all over the country … he does not make any acknowledgement of whether he had any links to these men or whether he supported or supports them … perhaps this could be taken to mean that there are more similar cells across the UK

          1. Given Mr Choudary’s views in the past:


            … if he makes a similar public statement again, I hope the requisite police and CPS take note and prosecute him for similar offences, and that his position in the public eye in some sectors of the community and his links to proscribed organisations would be taken as aggravating factors in terms of determining of penalities …

    2. Interesting commentary from 2004 in the Derby Evening Telegraph:

      Muslim leaders in Derby are desperate to stop the extremist group that had links with terrorist Omar Sharif operating in the city – but the police have admitted they are powerless.

      During the last months of his life, before his attempted attack on civilians in a Tel Aviv bar on April 30 last year, Sharif was linked with Al-Muhajiroun – which has openly advocated violence to support other Muslims in “jihad”, or holy war.

      The group has been operating in the city for about five years, and in October 2000 staged a protest march in Derby to support “brothers in Palestine”, with one placard saying “The final hour will not come until the Muslims kill the Jews”.

      In 2001, it encouraged Derby Muslims to travel to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban.

      Founder of the group Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed has confirmed that Sharif attended his weekly Monday night sessions at St James’ Centre in Malcolm Street, Derby, just before …

    3. … he left for Israel, though he denies that the group recruited him, saying it was against “Islamic law”.

      “He would have been told what to do out there, by people who were joining him in the act and not here in Britain,” he told the Evening Telegraph.

      A police source at the anti-terrorist branch said: “There must have been a point of facilitation somewhere, but how he got from the extremist views of Al-Muhajiroun to Tel Aviv is a grey area.”

      Al-Muhajiroun also has links with fanatical London cleric Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri, who is facing deportation on U.S. terror charges and has openly supported the September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda. The group arranged for Abu Hamza to come to speak in Derby in March 2000.

      A note from Sharif asking someone to check his essay on jihad was also found at a London address associated with Abu Hamza three months before Sharif tried to blow himself up in Israel.

      Fifteen months since the attack by one of their members, Al-Muhajiroun is still …

    4. … operating in the city – much to the dismay of mainstream Muslims.

      The group now meets on Wednesdays in a location in Pear Tree Road and continues to leaflet in the Normanton area, setting up stall on a Saturday afternoon in Normanton Road to try to find recruits for their cause. Members have also tried to leaflet outside mosques.

      But Muslim leaders of mosques in Derby have told the Evening Telegraph that they have tried to get the police to stop the group acting in the city. Officers, however, say the group’s actions are not illegal.

      The mosques have resorted to asking members of the 1,000-or-so congregation to ignore them or to stop them from praying there.

      Abdul Rehman, a city councillor and member of the city’s biggest mosque in Rose Hill Street, said: “We’ve not had a 100 per cent success rate, but we are trying.”

      “There’s nothing we can do to stop them outside. It’s very frustrating.”

      “We’re worried that they’re trying to brainwash impressionable young people. Every …

    5. … Muslim in Derby is desperate to get rid of them

      “We have explained the trouble to the police but they haven’t listened – the police need to pay them more attention to stop them.”

      No evidence has come to light of the police ever trying to stop this group in the past five years. Although the anti-semitic banner that was displayed during the march in 2001 were clearly racially inflammatory – a criminal offence – the police said they could not take action because CCTV could not reveal what was written on the banner.

      They also did not regard recruiting of people to join the Taliban as an arrestable offence, even though at the time a retired senior police officer told the Evening Telegraph it was treason.

      Inspector Gary Parkin, section inspector for Pear Tree, said that the current activities of Al-Muhajiroun were not illegal.

      He said: “Al-Muhajiroun is a legal political organisation and we’re aware some of our community have an association with that organisation.

      “They have a …

    6. … stall sometimes in Normanton Road when they hand out literature. These leaflets have been checked by us and they do not contravene any public order or terrorist laws. They are simply expressing their political views.

      “We work with the mosque to ensure people can go about their business and at times we attend the mosque on a monitoring basis to make sure they can.”

      Clearly, they did continue to look at the leaflets – and they did notice criminal offences they were acted upon …

      It seems that Christine is very right that the background to these people is much mroe worrying and subversive though … could more have been done earlier?

    7. What is a great shame is that the focus of the debate on this thread COULD have been the terrorist links and subversiveness of those convicted in Derby … however, Samuel chose to concentrate on his incorrect perceptions that I seek to dilute his ability to comment – nothing could be further from the truth …

      I think the links to terrorist organisations and attempts to subvert democracy are far more serious issues than any action I could ever make …

  22. These brainwashed parasites on our society who claim to speak for Allah can certainly expect plenty of bum fun where they’re going whether they like it or not

    And I suspect, being the latently repressed gay boys that they really are beneath all of the Moslem shame and guiult, they’ll get to like it A LOT!!!!

    1. Further grown up and mature argument from Samuel ….

      1. Sense of humour bypass, presumably.

        Get over yourself, mate.

        1. After the aggressive comments and insults I have had from you … one thing is sure, you are not my “mate”

        2. My friends have a better standard of manners and higher level of debate than you

      2. As for sense of humour …

        I hardly think the areas of inciting homophobic hatred, terrorism, sharia law, allegations of racism, debate on community cohesion and its merits and demerits, public safety etc are issues for light hearted banter and repartee …

        1. On issues such as this I find humour dilutes the seriousness of the issue …

          Now that you have said you were just being humerous, Samuel it makes me wonder if you meant anything at all that you said – or maybe you were just stirring up commentary and being provocative …

          Its difficult to know what you do and do not believe in, when you feel that issues of crucial importance have no higher value than that to seek (weakly) to ridicule others or poke jokes at …

          Perhaps thats what you do with all your comments … hard to take you seriously when its all a joke …

          1. Stu, please come clean and tell people what your modus operandi is on these boards? Or at least answer this straightforward question:

            Have you or have you not received PC/PC media training?

            In the interests of maintaining the impartiality and credibility of PN’s forums and to ensure that it is not being unduly influenced or dominated by PC’s doctrines and ideologies, if you have an interest or agenda to declare in hogging these boards 24/7 – as is without question as you have more or less been doing, and acting as both moderator and judge, jury and executioner for some time now – then declare it and let’s be done.

            Any quotation you provide will be included in a report I am currently compiling that provides evidence of your virtual hijacking of the PN forums and examples of the “tricks” you employ to “pull into line” those who disagree with your views, notwithstanding the usual bully boy suspects who jump to your defence each time as if on cue to heckle and harass.

            Thank you.

          2. @Samuel B

            I have not had any media training …

            My modus operandi on these boards (you choice of words makes it sound subversive and calculated) …. whilst the opposite is very much the truth. I come on here to read stories and debate. Full stop. I have opinions and am not afraid to both share them and when entering debate discover that I am right, wrong (or a combination depending on the circumstances) – thats one of the joys of debate, I find …

            If I don’t agree, don’t understand a point etc then I will challenge, comment or question … Where I feel that I want to ….

            If I strongly agree then I will endorse the other person encouraging them …. I value being encouraged too …

            There is nothing more to it than that …

          3. @Samuel B

            I do not consider myself to be a moderator … merely a commentator …

            If you feel my comments appear as those of a moderator, it has (perhaps) less to do with my intention and more to do with a guilt complex?

            Judge, jury and executioner …. hmmm … not really – questioner, challenger … but never suggesting punishment (except for Keith) or banning (in fact encouraging some such as you to continue on PN) … Given my willingness to back down when given evidence – that would show your perception to be false …

            If you don’t agree with my views, comment and produce evidence and I will agree or disagree depending on the veracity of your argument …

            Likewise, you claim to wish to engage in debate – you should be open to well founded criticism and responding with reasonableness and evidence …

            Why do you see a problem with this?

            Perhaps because you trust gut feeling (which has been shown to be unreliable many times on this thread alone) …

          4. @Samuel B

            Perpare a dossier and report all you like ….

            I have nothing to be afraid of from the truth and honest evidence …

          5. “I do not consider myself to be a moderator … merely a commentator …”

            That may well be, but can you not see that by overwhelming the forums with your comments (ie:- often by beginning “I endorse…” this or that or “I disagree…” with that), your familiarity will lend you a certain gravitas above others who perhaps make a couple of postings a day?

            On a sub conscious level, some will begin to assume you are a leading authority whose word is worth more than the next person’s merely by the regularity with which you post.

            In another post I just responded to you state you intend to cut back, but can you see how – as an open forum that does not require any form of registration and which does not appear to be too closely scrutinised by management – these boards can easily be infiltrated by those with their own agendas, be it far-right reprobates who often get to spew a lot of bile before being deleted, but equally by left wing PC militia who have their own aims?

            It cuts both ways…

          6. @Samuel B

            I agree an open forum could be infilitrated as you say …

            Accusing me of doing so or being one of those elements is unfair and without substance …

            I am merely myself …

            If I say something is my opinion – its because its my opinion (and that does not necessarily mean I think that anyone who disagrees is wrong) … if others choose to manpulate my words and find meaning in them that is not there, that is really their issue and not mine …

      3. Stu, I was pointing out the irony of these guys’ situation now they
        face jail time – as well as venting some anger at our aggressors. Why are you defending them?

        “allegations of racism, debate on community cohesion and its merits and demerits, public safety etc”

        Oh please!!! Yet again you drone on and on, verbatim, the stasi-like tenets of PC in language that only someone who has been PC media trained would know. Fess up!!

        As I requested earlier, reveal your true hand here and explain how and when you actually have time to nip outside and RESCUE PEOPLE, as you seem to speand every waking minute monitoring/policing and vetting these boards!

        Let we, the gay community, get a bit of heat out of our systems if we want to and vent a little bile back at our aggressors, or will you be at the front of the line to defend their Human Rights and to demand their cells be fitted with 28 inch plasma screens and M&S bed linen?

        You have your opinion, but let us have freedom to also express ours!

        1. …I should add, without your constant sniping and put downs!

          1. @Samuel B

            Where have I sniped at you ….

            You are the one making the put downs …

            I have never once defended the men convicted in this case, so please do not lie and suggest that I do … There actions are despicable, evil and deserve every condemnation …

            You complain about not having the freedom to express your opinion, while expressing your opinion … strange …

            Your complain about not having the freedom to express your opinion, and seek to prevent me from expressing mine – how does that work?

            I have answered your questions previously in another answer – but to clarify – I am a paramedic on long term sickness after serious illness which I am recovering from …

            The language I use is the my own … if I am well read and find a phrase that others use appropriate to something I have an opinion on – I may borrow that language, if you don’t like my language fine – but thats your taste at question not my argument …

            Come back to me when you want to deal in facts

          2. Sorry to hear of your sickness Stu. I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone reading these boards in wishing you a speedy recovery.

            When can you hope to be back at work full time?

          3. @Samuel B

            Thank you for your best wishes …

            If my next blood results are ok then hopefully I can start planning a return to work scheme shortly after, although it will be gradual with front line work taking some time to get back to … the bloods are next due to be tested mid to late Feburary, fingers crossed please!

            I am not a stooge from PN, I am not a member of any subversive group, I am not conspiring with anyone – I have never heard of the phrase groupspeak that you use (I shall look it up), so I fail to see how I can be engaging in something I have never heard of … I am just me – someone who has a lot of time on his hands unfortunately, and unable to do a lot because of the risk to my health.

            I am not particularly left wing, indeed on immigration I am reasonably right wing. On some aspects of law I am right wing. So, please do not mislead on who I am, when you dont know me. You didnt know I have been seriously ill for example …

          4. Good luck in you recovery, and I sincerely mean that. Whatever conflict we have in our opinions is only that, a conflict of opinions. I wish you well.

          5. If that is what you say then I accept that and apologies for suggesting there may be a hidden agenda at play.

            There is the feeling, though, that some on here are grounded in PC training (gay people do form a high percentage of people in the civil service and public sector, after all).

            Conflicts such as these, therefore, will inevitably emerge because PC does not tolerate the expression of diverse opinion or any ideas that conflict with the “official” PC line.

            This conflct will only deepen the more people wake up and question how and why PC has been used to subvert and change society from within, as I myself only cottoned on to fairly recently.

            Others I know are also sporadically waking from their “comas” and questioning what has gone wrong with the direction society has taken in the past 20 years.

            I realise PC was only a part of your training, but can you see how and why I and others on here feel a lynch mob is waiting, ready to pounce, each time a dissenting opinion is aired.

          6. @Samuel B

            Again thanks for your best wishes

            There is no malice in my beliefs or views of the world …

            They are my views and some may be right, some may be wrong …

            Can you not see that when you suggest there is something sinister in my comments it appears you are trying to censor me?

          7. Well, perhaps not so many snipings as the relentless put-downs, not just of my own potings, obviously.

            If you disagree with something simply explain why without resort to words like “laughable”, “risible”, to name just two.

            Do you honestly not see how antagonistic and incendiary words like these can be in a debate where we are all hiding behind monikers, and how this be perceived to be flippant put downs?

            The day cannot come too soon when the technology exists for discussion forums to be able to register its contributors’ real names, offering complete transparency.

            There is a lot of flying off the cuff – myself included – that would be avoided with such a system in place.

            It would just make people, myself included, approach these discussions more considerately and thoughtfully.

          8. Sorry, last post may apear out of context when read after the previous one, but just responding to Stu wanting to know earlier where he has sniped and dismissively put others’ posts down.

            Seems some air clearing is going on and we are all a lot more chilled today. Long may it continue, chaps! :)

          9. @Samuel B
            So, you don’t like my use of the word risible and laughable …
            I don’t like your use of the word sniping …
            I use risible and laughable because I believe that is what the opinions I relate those adjectives to are. I don’t think that of the person making them (generally).
            In terms of other language that you use such as “sermonising”, “hoists himself by his own petard”.
            Or the bizarre suggestions of subversiveness “lurking in the shadows”, “lying in wait”, “trying to impose”, “lie in wait to ambush”, “has influence at PN”, “Cue the PC zealots… one … two … three …” [not quite sure what we are waiting for there], your suggestion of a hotline to the publisher to PN to remove a post I have not even seen (did it exist in the first place?).
            Or insults you use “wearing shades because its too bright for you”, “you being one who engages his brain … well at least most of the time”, “I have seen it all before only done a lot better”, “cold, black, metallic Dalek”, “the …

          10. … for sectioning … has never been stronger”.
            The (in my view deliberate) manipulation of my comments, such as suggesting that I am defending the Muslim men convicted in Derby (which could not be further from the truth), such as accusations of lying (how else is “reveal your true hand” supposed to be taken) when I am merely offering my opinion and observations (which is what you seek for yourself – strangely its ok for you to be able to do so, but not me).
            These are merely comments from this story that I have selectively taken (I could have chosen others), there are some other significant examples from elsewhere such as:
            “Delirious”, “Ranting”, “Disingenuous”, “Irrational”, “Deluded”, “Paranoid” – in one string (and then had the temerity to claim they were not insults!).
            “… dare I say [your] insane stance on all things …”
            “deplore your cult of apartheid”
            … and these are just some examples …
            You call me antagonistic … can you not see how all of the comments above are …

          11. … severely antagonistic?
            I agree it would be useful if PN invested in the technology so that either real identities were displayed on the forum (or at least verified and stored by PN). This may well encourage more respectful conduct on the forums and more considered debate. That said, whilst we all (and that includes both me and you) make errors of judgement in how we apply ourselves on the threads. Thats why I prefer to operate with evidence based decisions than “gut feelings”.
            I am going to say this for the umpteenth time (consistency!) I merely say what I observe, raise concerns where I have them and make opinions where I have them. There are forum topics which I do not comment on because either I do not have the requisite level of knowledge, interest or motivation. I apologise where someone demonstrates I am wrong (and on this thread I have done that at least three times, including once to you – which you have yet to acknowledge! – apologising to me is an adult approach…

          12. … approach to debate, which thankfully we both engage in – I have accepted your apology for you erroneous conduct). I also am willing to go away and rethink when someone makes me see a perspective I have not considered before. I do not set about dictating what others think – thats for the other person to work out for themselves. Equally, when I comment I do not expect people to say that I am not permitted to offer and alternative viewpoint or seek clarification on their position when I am uncertain of it. I do not set out to offend, I try to use measured language – and have been complemented for that on PN. I am a strong defender of my own views and for that I will not apologise.
            The is some air clearing going on, but in order to do that the evidence needs to be shown – and this series of posts from me –demonstrates (to my mind) that as much as you may feel you have good grounds to criticise me there are many issues of your conduct towards me (and others) that are wanting. …

          13. … Equally I find it concerning that there appears to be double standards in that you seek to restrict my ability to make observation and offer opinion – because somehow my doing this prevents you from offering yours?
            I am here purely to offer opinion and observation – which we are both entitled to do. If my opinion or observation is different to yours and we wish to explore it, we should debate – not seek to restrict the others ability to speak – which is how I perceive you seek to address your concerns about me. Everything you accuse me of doing, appears to be what you do to me.

          14. @ Stu

            Thank you for taking the time to put together your last postings, it comes to something when you have to go to such lengths just to try and defend your position.

            I am no saint, but I know I have not used as many antagonistic terms to describe others, where I have I have felt bullied and needed to retaliate.

            I totally agree with a more secure method for those making comments, the anonymity seems to give some individuals carte blanche to make extremely personal and aggressive comments, and they can get away with it.

          15. Stu, it was your use of the words “laughable” and “risible” that set this whole ball rolling. You started with the insensitive comments; don’t expect the rest of us to take such sniping lying down.

            If you really cannot see how words like “laughable” and “risible” are incendiary and likely to throw the tone of a debate off course and lead to a ricocheting of put downs, then you need a few lessons in online etiquette.

            I have to ask, how long did it take you to put that checklist of perceived insults together to try to prove your point? Rather childish in retrospect, especially considering that a list containing the combined insults of yourself and W6_Dalek would be at least twice as long. But I just don’t feel the need to indulge in petty displays of oneupmanship quite as much as you seem to need to do.

            How can anyone be measured here when their views are constantly attacked, or when an armistice I requested of yourself and W6 two days ago was curtly rejected?

            I can’t win, it seems.

          16. The reason you refuse to provide proof of the insults that others have used against you is because you are by far the biggest aggressor here.

            I am quite right to refuse your “armistice” because the comments and accusations you have posted about me have been so nasty and personal. I don’t often take a dislike to people but in your case that dislike will never change, and quite frankly your recent comments with Stu have only confirmed that you are a bully fair and square.

            I would advise anyone to take your apologies with a big pinch of salt as they are not genuine, just playing to the gallery.

          17. @Samuel B

            Noticeably continues on the attack and refuses to accept his risible and insidious comments (many of which were made prior to my use of the words laughable and risible on this forum) and perfers to concentrate on my use of the words laughable and risible …

            I would contend Samuels insults are personalised, whereas my observations are about the text not the individual …

            Samuel appears blind to this and will not listen to reason …

            He has the gall to accuse me of providing evidence of his wrongdoing as childish … no thats substantiating my point …

            What is childish is suggesting people who hold opposing views should be sectioned or suggestion that whilst you can make observations, those who make observations contrasting them should not be able to in a manner that you find uncomfortable …

            If there is sniping, I would not expect anyone to take it lying down – which is why I will not tolerate it from you Samuel …

          18. “I totally agree with a more secure method for those making comments, the anonymity seems to give some individuals carte blanche to make extremely personal and aggressive comments, and they can get away with it.”

            Ah, “W6_Dalek”, so you DO have a sense of humour after all! :)

          19. @ Samuel I note that you are now trying to pass off your bullying as “humour” – you really are a piece of work, you really are.

            There is nothing humorous about the way you treat people who dare question you. Most probably think “what an idiot” but there comes a time when bullies need to be exposed, and that is what this thread has done.

            I am pleased you have been exposed as the horrible person you are. You have insulted me from day one, and I was beginning to doubt myself because your insults have been relentless and extremely personal.

            You are here to troll its very simple

          20. Well if I am, W6, it is interesting to note how you make a bee-line, nay, a veritable nose-dive, for the bait

            EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. :)

        2. “But I just don’t feel the need to indulge in petty displays of oneupmanship quite as much as you seem to need to do.”

          LOL! Yeah, is that’s why you used the childish response of calling W6_bloke “W6_Dalek” instead? Don’t this this is petty, do you?

          Yeah, you’re not a bitch at all.

          Delusional & hypocritical fool that you are Sam B.

          1. Thank you Rob …

            I’m not perfect … but I will stand up for myself (Samuel doesn’t seem to like that)

          2. My reference to W6_Dalek sums him up perfectly in the way he rants and the tone of words he uses, with little inflection to be deciphered.

            I read the words in my head and it is like a dull, emotionless, gutteral monotone. Add a croaky, squawking effect and what do you have?

            Yep, that’s right, one of Davros’s little helpers!

            Sorry, only saying as I see it, and being non-PC I CAN, so there :-p

          3. I write very clearly which can be more than said of you Samuel, have you not heard of plain English? Often you use words just to leave yourself an escape route when challenged because many of your postings are ambiguous – this is deliberate and shows you lack the courage to put forward a clear point that can be challenged.

            Man up and out your views on the line so they can be scrutinised. This makes for good debate, rather than Samuel is always right and has the right to bully and should never be questioned.

            Your views are extreme and will never gain any traction with any reasonable individual.

          4. Of course not W6, that’s why some of your postings in this debate are so unpopular they have disappeared from view entirely, exactly where you and all of your inarticulate monotone gutterings – which bear all the hallmarks of a soulless, steely system server – belong.

            Ahhh, for the nostalgia of those pre-W6_Dalek days on PN when this was such a happier, nicer place, slanging matches were a rare thing indeed, contributors demonstrated eloquent elocution and we knew who our real enemies – ala Keith, the despicable David Wotsisname et al – were.


          5. Lol…………as I have siad many many many times, I am not here to be popular, just here to put my well researched opinions forward and to counter some of the utter rubbish that you post on subjects you know nothing about Samuel.

            It is obvious that you like to manipulate those reds and greens as you mention them all the time. Only when you are involved do my comments get more than 10 negative votes, and given that you accused me of logging on to many different devices to rig the voting system I think it is fair to say that you are the individual who manipulates this comments board, no one else!

            I will continue to contribute to PN and you will not put me off Samuel. It is odd that you seem to think you are so popular on this site – I see no evidence for that, but then again you don’t do evidence do you! You need to get some manners never mind “eloquent elocution”. Manners cost nothing Samuel and I would rather know how to conduct myself in an adult way than pretend to be Tory Boy

    2. This is what you claim passes for good debate Samuel?

      As always spectacular headlining with no substance, well thought out arguments or opinion.

      If there is a “latently repressed gay boy” it is you Samuel.

      Do carry on with your splendid commentry, it speaks volumes!

  23. The story was reported on Channel 4 News and BBC News at Six, but not on the BBC’s later national News at Ten

    1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 21 Jan 2012, 2:15pm

      Ahh, the biased BBC. With Mark Thompson at the helm, gay people are invisible and any story linked to gay issues vanishes without trace. I mean, haven’t they covered the boat story enough?!

  24. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 21 Jan 2012, 1:28pm

    A huge sigh of relief that these men have been brought to justice of the human kind! Well done to the Crown and the Police for actually bringing this to court (like Mr Guthrie, I didn’t think there would be a conviction as Britain seems to lie down to this religion).

    I don’t accept the privileged right of special treatment for ANY religion to peddle hatred towards groups of people identified as ‘lacking integrity’ in a questionable book (and its variants), led by questionable people with an agenda. Well done.

  25. I am happy that these thugs were convicted. The conviction increases my already great admiration for Great Britain. In the U.S. there would be outrage from the religious right that this conviction is an attack on the holy books of a religion that they routinely denigrate and insult. Of course, what they really worry about is someone calling them to account for inciting hatred. In any case, the UK and Canada have become beacons of light for glbtq people across the world.

    1. Really? Who do Evangelicals hate more – gays or Muslims?

      1. As if that wasn’t blindingly obvious, gays of course.

        1. I don’t know if it is blindingly obvious actually. New mosques seem to be a no-no within a large radius of Ground Zero, existing mosques have been firebombed and protested against, and the discourse on Islam in the US is openly hostile.

      2. Well they hate Muslims, but their hatred for homosexuals is even greater. At least, they routinely say things very close to what the convicted Muslims say. But in the US we do not have hate speech laws. People like the Phelps’ of “God Hates Fags” fame have been given free rein by the US Supreme Court to say whatever they hell they want to say and to incite as much hatred as they desire.

        1. Hi Jay, I’ve only watched the Crime channel, so forgive me for my ignorance on American issues.. I’m sure there was a case in the US where a racist murder took place, where it was proved in court the guy was influenced by some KKK propaganda and that it was shown to incite hatred?

          Is there nothing along those lines that are equivalent ‘hate speech laws’, or at least some court precedent?

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jan 2012, 6:10pm

      Jay, wait until our marriage equality consultation begins in March. They’re all be crawling out of the woodwork to vent their venom along with the right wing christo-fascists, especially those of the roman persuasion alon gwith a few Tory back back-bench nutjobs.


    1. That sounds a bit extreme. Should you also be imprisoned for wanting to violate someone’s human rights to be religious?

      1. No, lets not ban religion (its not workable – that requires thought police!) …

        Lets demand responsibility from those exercising their right to religious freedom …

        These men clearly did not demonstrate any understanding of responsibility so they need to be punsihed and shall be …

        If others decide they wish to act similarly they too should be punished …

        Whilst religion is entirely illogical in my view, I do not support thought police (because a) its unworkable and b) its immoral).

        I do hope that society has the common decency, will and determination to engage with responsibilities whilst respecting others rights. We have a long way to go, but we have come a long way in the last 10 years, and the 40 before that, and the 200 before that (aboliton of slavery, racism, some LGBT issues and other issues) … Its an evolving story of varying success …

        For the record, Samuel B, that is not me preaching etc – that is me commenting on my views – others are entitled to others

        1. Spanner1960 22 Jan 2012, 3:24pm

          The bottom line is one can have whatever views one wishes. (It is not illegal to be racist for instance) – however, it is when one attempts to impose those views on others that the law should be able to take effect.

          That should apply equally to politicians, bigots, religious leaders and Jehovah’s Witnesses knocking on your door.

          1. Absolutely …

            Anyone can have whatever views they want – it is the putting (of some views) into practice or imposing of them that the law should (where necessary) be used to protect us …

            Its impossible to stop someone who holds views, whether they be Jehovah Witness, BNP, Communist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic etc etc from having those views – that requires thought police … but it is possible (and arguably desireable and wise in some circumstances eg inciting hatred) to take action when they seek to impose ideas or engage in threats, harassment etc

  27. Once again, the BBC buries another story which is ‘unflattering’ to Muslims.

  28. Another Hannah 21 Jan 2012, 5:54pm

    There’s aplace for people who advocate murder, and it’s in gaol with the other criminals. No hate when they advocate murder!!!! Nobody is that stupid – they have norespect for our culture, send them to a great country like Pakistan or Afganistan.

    1. I agree that jail is an appropriate place …

      I wish we could remove all people who advocate murder from our society – alas that is not possible …

  29. Sister Goodlove 21 Jan 2012, 7:31pm

    Pakistanis are lousy in bed, and have small pinettes. I can understand these men retaliating against homosexuals. Ricky Gervais is the same.

    1. Can’t believe this was thumbed up…

      1. Sister Goodlove 21 Jan 2012, 10:16pm

        Stop being silly… unless you’re one of the few people who’s dealt with an out gay Muslim. Otherwise, they’re just hating, embittered turdlets with zero integrity. Like this lot in the case.

        1. Are the only muslims you respect out gay ones? It’s ok for them to be muslim, but not for straight people?

    2. LOL “smallpinettes” and deformed by mutilation.

      1. Sister Goodlove 22 Jan 2012, 4:51pm

        Rapture, why are they marking us down? Have we been infiltrated by the cliterectomie brigade, do you think?

        1. Being marked down by the wishy washy brigade on here is a good thing,

          1. Or in converse being marked down by other elements on here (as I am being on this thread) is also a good thing …

          2. There is also the fact the thumbs can be manipulated due to the software used on this site …

            It has been admitted by some posters that they have deliberately manipulated the thumbs up and down …

            So whilst it can be great to be appreciated, reassuring that you have raised such a pertinent point that some feel they wish to malign your comment by manipulation; ultimately the thumbs up and down are an irrelevance …

  30. Chester666666 21 Jan 2012, 9:12pm

    homosexuals arent pedos
    So quit repeating them lies

    1. Don’t feed the sad little Keith troll. He’s only seeking attention.

      1. pathetic, paranoid neurotic… drinks to excess too.

        1. Hush, now drunkie-keith. At least TRY make an effort to hide your anger at this wonderful news, its making me laugh too much that you’re back frothing at this….. loser.

          All your comments deleted. You getting your drunken knickers in twist over this. It’s all good stuff, really it is….

          LOL – what an abject failure you are! I am just loving this!

    2. Keith is gay 22 Jan 2012, 9:29am

      The report demonstrates being a church priest is the biggest risk factor indicating an abuser.

      1. “Moral and STD free”?

        LOL! Another example of Keith’s brilliant gift of writing when drunk!

        Yeah, you got that right, drunkie, you ARE free of any morals. And intellect free. And med free. And sobriety free. And sanity free.

    3. Keith is very gay 22 Jan 2012, 7:22pm

      No. The vast majority of child abusers have deep personal issues. Like claiming to be straight, moral, and disease free, but obsessively posting on gay websites.

      1. Keith is in the closet 22 Jan 2012, 11:12pm

        So you admit you are homosexual and have personal issues.

      2. I have long suspected that Keith is a closet case heavily into fisting and scat

        1. If I may refer you to an early put down, Stu:

          “This is what you claim passes for good debate Samuel?”

          Please note the above is interchangeable with many other Stu “deposits” on these boards, but I am not so anal that I would choose to wade through all said deposits in order to dig them out…

          1. That is because you know that your “deposits” are way over the top and show an extreme worldview that is very odd to say the least, perhaps if we could understand your ideology it might put things into context somewhat, as it stands I have the “gut feeling” that your ideology is to bully, and in your view it is perfectly acceptable for me to “jump to this conclusion” as it makes perfect common sense to me! (what a ridiculous way to view the world).

        2. If I may refer you to an early put down, Stu:

          “This is what you claim passes for good debate Samuel?”

          Please note the above is interchangeable with many other Stu “deposits” on these boards, but I am not so anal that I would choose to wade through all said deposits in order to dig them out…

          1. No you don;t like evidence do you …

          2. Above directed to Samuel when he said he couldnt be bothered to find the evidence for his gut feelings …

      3. Keith wants to be fisted 23 Jan 2012, 5:40pm

        Is this true Keith ? Are you a disease-ridden closet case, with disturbing desires for fisting and scat ? I think you must be.

        1. Whilst scat and fisting are not fetishes I feel any particular fascination for … I am aware that some people do – and provided it is consensual and those involved do so on an informed basis then (whilst not wanting to have any involvement in it, I do not condemn them for it) …

          Nor do I go seeking out scat or fisting discussion groups to condemn them for something I do not participate in …

          Strangely this is a gay news site, and some people seem determined to pollute it with irrelevant trolling …

          Fortunately, from time to time their comments are removed to oblivion …

          There comments being in breach of the PN terms and conditions and not acceptable use are removed …. I hope this measure will have to be used less frqeuently, but as some people unfortunately do not understand responsibility I suspect it may continue for some time

          1. You may not have any “particular” fascination for scat and fisting, yet (and this is inevitable really when you post on here on average every 10-12 minutes of every waking hour single day, AND have time to read the newspapers!) amid a welter of sensible comments you do come out with a fair bit of cr….p.

            I don’t think even YOU would deny THAT!

            Solution? Be more discerning and cut your postings on here down from 400+ a week and aim for a more moderate 100 or so. That way you can fine-tune your contributions and check and cross-check before posting, which would also avoid you having to apologise quite so often, as I myself have found is inevitable when you start to become addicted to posting on PN forums.

            You may suffer a little cold turkey at first, but it will do you good to ease back and not be seen to b judge, jury and executioner of just about everything that appears on PN, and in turn allow others’ views to rise and shine a little more.

            It really ISN’T all about you, dear.

          2. ……’s all about you Samuel. You are the one who is stifling debate, you are the indvidual who is totally isolated in your extreme worldview.

            I do not see anyone coming to your defence on this site, apart from the additional identities you hide behind. And as you say “because I am not PC I can say what I like”.

            There is only two words that can be used to describe you: Coward & a Bully.

            I wonder who next will have to endure your continuous bully boy tactics?

          3. If you say so …

            With your level of evidence and reasoning, it must be true …

            So reliable … such integrity … such honour …

            No I would refute all you say about the quality of my postings (in the main) – of course, you will be able to demonstrate a small number of posts which I would not be as defensive of as others …

            I could equally (and have done) demonstrate your bullying and offensiveness …

            The reason I apologise is because someone explains something to me that makes me either see an error or new perspective …

            Even though you bully, harass, harang and ALWAYS make assumptions – you rarely apologise or answer questions …

            and your rather humerous suggestion of addiction, is not advice I will take from you … thank you …

            Its not all above you Samuel or all abiding by your decisions or standards

          4. I HAVE apologised to you 3 times so far in this debate for making erroneous assumptions. What more can I do? Kneel and beg?

            As others have commentated here and elsewhere, you have set yourself up as some sort of deity:- he who must not be questioned lest allcomers want to be incessantly challenged on their viewpoint until they trip up and fall in the gutter, or worse, be harangued off PN by your vicious pet Dalek.

            No, it is time YOU came down off your lofty perch and exercised some humility and respect for the (supposed) impartiality of these boards.

            That is how OPEN forums work; where people are equally allowed to be heard. I don’t ever recall a clause saying that anyone had the right to blitz such a forum every 10 minutes of every day morning, noon, night and day:- unless they are on there of course to subvert and stymie debate to suit a particular agenda – in your case a PC one that reeks to high heaven and is so blatantly transparent only you pretend not to see it!!


          5. @Samuel

            I have totally accepted your apologies …

            Yet when I have apologised to you, you continue to focus on there area where either I was wrong or left myself open to misinterpretation … that seemed to me unpleasant and disingenuous and deliberate …

            I have not set myself up as any deit … it is you who have made those comments …

            If I had set myself up as a deity, then I would never be wrong (and I apologise when I am), I would never seek to question others opinion (as I would already know the answer – all seeing, all knowing … )

            No, I am a fragile human with limited knowledge, like you …

            I have strong opinion … and those who feel threatened by opinion seem to lamblast more about someone questioning them than provide evidence to substantiate their point … I however, choose to present evidence (and where necessary hold my hands up and admit my errors) …

  31. carrie baker 21 Jan 2012, 10:23pm

    This is a nationwide clarion call and britain and europe have been doing positive iplementations against racism an bigotry , there is still much more to do , so continue, In the united states NOM must be dismantled , the bigots are hate klan groups so bad, that the head of their organization removed himself after he said he had seen the monster he had become and the lives he had helped hurt and harm , happy families and children harrassed and mistreated , he then said he opened up a charity just for the lgbt communtiy to show his remorse, an was trying to help restore because of the destruction NOM was about , hate groups and klans are klans people mostly from the south of crimianal history of slavery backgrounds , other hate groups are gangsters and witchcraft satanic worshipors in underworld groups also logded in religions posing as churches , but polluted by hate and malice and sex crimes and acts against children an families mostly women, The slpc said they are watching almost a thousand hate groups mostly anglo and african who are causing the most problems, they have arrested some in missisipi, and their hate klans orgs, both the hate klans african and anglo hate each other , bu;t will work together to do evil to women and children, especially sex crimes, their root is hip hop, regae, church of gods, they pose as angelicans and evangelicals and are totally the opposite, thier evil, continue to monitor an take it down and out, for all families, are victums of it, one way are another, hate is evil, its wrong, its atrosities, are un countable, human rights and full equality, a national reconstruction of civilized people treating other right and fair and safe socializing among humane people , which hatred and bigotry destroys, relations , and bad for b;usinesses as well, The nation must adapt to the rightful character of kindness, or be reprimanded for hurting others thru spite an malice,

  32. Ah, Keith – you rabid protestations here at this news is an utter delight to read.


    In every sense of the word.

    (See how many of your comments were deleted in the end? WOW! Loads.)

  33. Ah, Keith – you rabid protestations here at this news is an utter delight to read.


    In every sense of the word.

    (See how many of your comments were deleted in the end? WOW! Loads.)

  34. Poor, Keith – his rabid protestations here at this news is an utter delight to read, no matter how many aliases he uses, the anger is evident in all of them! Love it.


    In every sense of the word.

    (See how many of your comments were deleted in the end? WOW! Loads.)

    1. Anger and alcohol!

      1. But no education… I doubt the fool could read the labels, hence the anger :)

        Isn’t it great to see all his comments deleted?

        1. Great indeed! :D

          1. No idea why that appeared down here – it was a response to Will 6 posts above mine. Maybe the troll excision messed with the formatting :D

        2. “Isn’t it great to see al his commnets deleted?”

          Sure is . . . and one of those delights to savour all week

  35. In a heated debate that has been raging as a continuation of Diesel Balaam’s thread, Stu has challenged me as to what my “solution” would be to the “Muslim problem we have” (unbelievably, these are the very words he used to provoke a response).

    So what would be my solution? Multiculturalism was sold on the premise that people of all colours and creeds would live happily side by side, popping in and out of each others’ houses for cups of sugar.

    Of course that was never going to happen, as common sense dictates that where there are many cultures, conflicts between those cultures will invariably emerge, as highlighted by the very court case this debate discusses.

    The reality is that cultures stick together and form ghettoes, and rarely mingle or converse with other cultures, let alone the indigenous population.

    So, how to ease those conflicts and tensions and bring people together?

    Disenfranchised, ghettoised ethnic communities need more community centres…

    1. that enable them to escape ther ethnic bubbles and converse with other cultures in shared interests and hobbies.

      Their kids need more outdoor spaces where they can be encouraged to play indiscriminately with kids from all cultures, where they can learn to respect and embrace each others’ diversity.

      Ironically, instead we find that at the same time that ministers introduced multiculturalism, they were also closing down such community centres. playing spaces and meeting places. Where else to converge?

      Muslims don’t go to pubs and bars, so where do they have to go to experience other cultures? The Tesco checkout is all I can think of. No wonder they form their own ghettoes where they can feel safe from eyes that are as scared of them as they are of us.

      Fear plays into fear, and fear of the unknown is a major catalyst for community breakdown. Without community centres and open spaces for kids to play, a lot of energy is being pent up and it is inevitable that some of that energy…

      1. will be negatively harnessed into activities such as the offending flier campaign.

        To tackle the problem we need to address the symptoms, and to challenge the failures of government to adequately plan and cater for the mass incoming of cultures.

        Instead successive governments have thrown all of these cultures into an open cauldron, allowing them to simmer and seeth until the undercurrents of discontent explodes. Last summers riots, in part, were the price we paid for such failures.

        It isn’t rocket science to form the idyllic kind of society espoused by wishful embracers of multiculturalism and diversity. But without the necessary tools and resources in place the opposite – community breakdown and disenfranchisement – will always prevail.

        Perhaps there is a clue in there also to how our own community may perhaps try to at least start to break down some of the boundaries that exist between itself and the Muslim community.

        A Herculean task, granted, but we’ve got to start somewhere.

        1. ….and what would be your advice to the spanish government on how to integrate english emigrants into spanish society, hopefully it will be more complex then the one you proposed in your exposé above

          1. Stu repeatedly challenged me as to how I would solve the “Muslim problem”, and eventually I succumbed.

            Like most people on here I would not usually want to inflict my worldview on near enough subject being debated on PN and risk boring and alienating people, as some apprea to relish in doing.

            After all, who am I to assume that everyone wants to hear Samuel B’s views on life, the universe and everything anyway?

            Quite frankly I am not that far up myself and neither am I working to any preset agenda. Oh, and I do have a full time job and social life to think about.

            But in response to you, Kane, what would you suggest, and please stay on the subject of Muslims in the UK (I don’t recall Spain being a part ofg the debate).

            Thank you

          2. i can assure you it wasnt my intention to take the debate away from the subject in question, rather to point out simplicity of your response to the stu’s challange

          3. ….and i doubt that stu is efficiently qualified to address this issue at the professional level

          4. @Kane

            I have an opinion and however well qualified (or not) in a public forum, I am entitled to comment …

            Whether others find it boring (thats fine) … disagree (thats also fine – tell me why and be prepared to give evidence) …

            Others can also do the same – sometimes I will be right, sometimes I won’t …

            Sometimes others will be right – sometimes they will be wrong …

            Where is the problem?

          5. expressing an opinion is one thing, no problem with that, but to give an impression that your are some sort of think tank on the matter is another

          6. @Kane

            Where do you think I have suggested that I am a think tank?

            Now I am really intrigued …

          7. stu i never said that you have suggested to be a think tank, i said one might get impression of you being some sort of authority on the subject when reading some of your comments, its just a impression not a suggestion

          8. @Kane

            Sorry if you don’t like my style …

            Its not going to change at my age …

            When I am sure of my opinion, I speak with authority – if other people don’t like that, then either they should challenge what I say or find some other way of dealing with it … I am not about to change my style …

        2. Interestingly, I just came across this piece of data:

          “Feltham youth jail: A third of inmates are Muslims”

          Clearly a vast proportion of Muslim youth are disaffected, and incidents such as the leaflet campaign wll be just the tip of the wave unless we find ways on integrate and improve community cohesion.

          I, as I am sure anyone reading this keen to see further assaults on our community pre-empted, should write to their MPs pointing out the problems that their policies have implemented, and bring forward strategies that will break down the barriers of fear to enable the Muslim community to feel that they belong.

          That they will want to integrate and live side by side with all creeds, and to live by our laws which include the recognition that gay people are lawful and equal citizens.

          1. @Samuel

            Its an interesting article …

            Before we jump to the conclusion that a vast number of Muslim youth are disaffected (which is probably the case but not evidenced by this story alone) we need to understand if the situation is unique in Feltham and what the situation is in other YOIs.

            We need to understand what proportion are converts inside as alluded to in the story (whether for food, radicalisation or otherwise) … if the number of converts is high then perhaps the external number of disaffected Muslim youth is lower than it appears ….

            That said, I do think some sort of action is needed and some of your comments elsewhere about community centres, playing space etc would be helpful …

            I wonder what you mean by “further assaults on our community” …

          2. By “further assaults on our community” I quite clearly mean “further assaults on our commuity”.

            Sorry, not meaning to sound facetious, but I think that is pretty self-explanatory (ie:- any behaviour that assaults gay people, be it on a physical, verbal or psychological level).

            I understand the PC line is to assimilate all evidence and run feasibility studies and commission more scientific data and academical studies and perhaps even the odd risk asessment (sorry, couldn’t resist throwing that one in!), but the more compassionate response, surely, is to act intuitively.

            We KNOW the problem exists; now let’s stop talking about it and twiddling our fingers and just get on with it!!

            Simple really.

          3. @Samuel

            Ah see how little you know me …

            Whilst i value evidence for making decisions (after all I was a police officer and courts rely on evidence …) … and I also believe its better to act appropriately on the evidence than jump in make a mistake and have to deal with the consequences …

            In both jobs I have done and do – the consequence to people of me jumping in and making a mistake can be significant … thats why I prefer evidence … but equally at times, I have to act on what little I have – and we all have to do that …

            I HATE risk assessments – although the reality is we all make them all the time – ie checking for traffic when we cross the road, putting the light on before we go into a room in darkness so we dont trip over etc … but I hate the formalised ones …

            It was the word “our” that I was particularly intrigued by – there are both positive and negative implications attached to what you could mean by our community.

          4. Stu: “Before we jump to the conclusion that a vast number of Muslim youth are disaffected …”

            But why not jump to that conclusion when the number of inmates in Feltham youth jail alone represents a vast number of disaffected Muslim youth?

            Therefore it is reasonable to conclude, is it not, on an intuitive let alone common sense level, that many more also feel disaffected and alienated from mainstream society?

            Just because they feel disaffected or alienated does not mean they will also turn to criminal behaviour as a vent for their frustration. I am sure just as many Muslim youth channel all their frustrations into worthwhile pursuits.

            I do question your need to reinforce a PC slant on almost every topic of discussion. Not every problem requires scientific or statistical evidence to prove it exists.

            The PC line is always to commission endless studies to prove the problem exists before taking the necessary action, but by which time it has only worsened. Counter-productive or what?

          5. @samuel B

            You say “but why not jump to that conclusion” …

            Simple (to anyone who understands logic and analysis of data and information) … its not the only explanation …

            Of course, it is one of the explanations – but I offer several questions which would help test your hypothesis – it may be right, but without further examination it remains purely hypothetical and unproven

          6. @Samuel B

            So you prefer to rely on guy feeling?

            Evidence and testing of hypothesis doesnt matter?

            Would that be a fair sumary of your views?

          7. Clearly gut feeling is all that matters to Samuel

            Evidence is unnecssary and irrelevant to him it would seem …

          8. Evidence and fact are seem as part of the established order as far as Samuel is concerned, so gut reactions and “common sense” are the only tools he uses, factual information cannot be trusted or is always selectively filtered in his view.

            This just confirms to me that the opinions of others, even where backed up with clear evidence are not valid, and he is the only one that has valid opinions.

            Jumping to conclusions has been shown on these boards to be damaging to free and open debate.

          9. [Adopt rasping, squawking voice]



            And Davros, sorry, Stu, where is your evidence to show that evidence, testing of hypothesis, risk assessments, etc. etc. are any more likely to yield satisfactory, nay, effective results than our own built-in fight or flight response, or, to use your rather romantic phrase, “guy feeling”.

            Can I remind you that a long time ago, pre technology, man relied on his “guy feeling”/fight or flight response to navigate him through life’s maze and protect him from danger.

            Science is now able to measure man’s innate ability to sense danger, but you are too busy ticking boxes and being self-opinioted and righteous, as PC apparatchiks invariably are, to be in touch with your sensitive side.

          10. Oh, one more thing:

            “Jumping-to-conclusions-has-been-shown-on-these boards-to-be-damaging-to-free-and-open-debate.


          11. I know Samuel B will say I am baiting him and bullying him …

            But looking at his last ridiculous comment with dalek impersonation where he seeks (badly) to ridicule …

            I don’t laugh with him, I laugh at him …

            All of his own doing … there is no need to be as unpleasant and nasty as he continually and consistently is …

          12. @Samuel

            So you continue with you need little stereotype box of who I am without knowing me …

            I ask you to produce evidence to substantiate your claims and all you can do is deflect or abuse …

            For the record, I hate tick boxes …

            I prefer scientific evidence – you produce none …

            We may have relied on gut feeling many eons ago, and in some emergency situations have to rely on gut instinct (usually on an informed basis from a level of experience or expertise in the area) … but generally, we now are more sophisticated and able to evidence and support our judgement calls (and admit where we are wrong when the evidence is contrary) … or at least some of us can …

          13. I am sure gut feeling saved the lives of more of our forefathers centuries ago than the so-called sophistication (by that I assume you are referring to yoru wretched tick boxes?) that you claim supports your judgment calls does today.

            What is our biggest emergency service – the NHS’s – record on saving lives today?

            Whoops, silly me. Palliative care is the new buzz term where older patients are deliberately being deprived of life-saving treatments and simply being left to die; that’s AFTER they have been near-starved to dead or allowed to ferment in their own excrement and pee because our once-moral NHS has been over-run by cost-saving, overpaid consultants and managers wo no doubt share the same, PC beliefs as Stu, W6_Dalek et al.

            What never fails to amaze me is that, one day, the little old lady they are starving or leaving to die will THEIR OWN MOTHER!!! Evil personified.

            Now, wriggle your way out of THAT one, matey!

          14. …if you dare.

            And by PC beliefs I mean anything that coarsens who we are as inherently loving and loveable human beings – ie:- that which makes us dispassionate and devoid of empathy and all moral boundaries.

            That is the world you espouse and are creating, Stu, W6 eta al.

            And guess what? That is a world that you and all your loved ones will one day have to wake up and face the reality of what you have created.

          15. @Samuel

            Given that you are twisting a thread about inciting hatred based on homophobia to a right wing manifesto on hating the emergency services, why the NHS is wrong and restricting speech of those who disagree with you …

            Whilst having remarkably odd conspiracy theories of people waiting in ambush for you, and colluding in a plan targetting you …

            I shall treat your NHS and emergency service comments as bile and with the contempt they deserve.

          16. So you are in denial of the major report of just a few days ago that calls on the government to implement new procedures to ensure that NHS trusts stop killing their patients?

            That’s not just callous, it’s downright deplorable, and you claim to be an angel of the emergency services? Any connection to being off work on unpaid sick leave?

            And you constantly accuse me of spouting right-wing propaganda when the fact is I am a humanitarian who sees through the deceit of the left/right paradigm, ie:- both sides of the same coin, which, roughly translated, it means not a jot who gets in because it will be the same sh@t, just a different hole.

            That’s why New Labour were interchangeable with today’s Tories; in fact Blair was the personification of Thatcher compared to what Cameron is today!!!

            So please don’t try to make this political, Stu. That WILL offend me. The system’s broken and people are waking up and seeing the treason and betrayal that has gone on in their name these past 50 year

          17. @Samuel B

            Double standards again … you are allowed to make things political … you are allowed to offend people … but of course, no one is allowed to do anything (however honest and inoffensive) if it might offend you …

            Yes the system is broken and it needs some repair – you mediicine is not necessarily either the right or only solution

          18. @Samuel

            What smite are you trying to throw at me now “any connection to being off work on unpaid sick leave” …?

            I am not claiming to be any angel of the emergency services, merely painting an informed view of emergency services in the UK … demonstrating an understanding of the job as it is, rather than the rheotoric you prefer to perpetuate … you see, unlike you I prefer to deal in facts and evidence … real tangible things ….

          19. @Samuel

            Please show me where I have supported tick boxes …

            Again you lie about my comments to try and spin your own biased rhetoric …

            I hate tick boxes…

            When at work, I make plenty of quick decisions …

            I never fill in any paperwork until my patient(s) are safe and either do not need constant monitoring or have been handed over in hospital …

            So your assumptions and barracking about paperwork and tick boxes are not something I recognise from my practice in the rescue services … people come first … in some extreme circumstances, my safety and that of my colleagues does come first – for example I will not go into a building where there is an armed person (thats the police’s job), I won’t go into a chemical incident without a protective suit (or we probably have another casualty) etc etc …

            So, your rheotic is fine – but thats all it is, rheotric … and baseless at that …

            The public come first … but by protecting the rescuers (we often protect the rescued) …

          20. … by which I mean, if the rescuers need rescuing then we need two sets of rescuers (probably coming a much further difference and the rescue gets delayed and more complex). It makes more sense to not take extreme risk. Some risks are worthy and correct, and we all make them in the job that I do – but some will actually make the incident more difficult to deal with and delay the rescue of the person who urgently needs help further – because the risk taken is too high and makes the situation worse.

            Its not about health and safety (although the law could be used to prosecute or criticise us) – its about common sense …

            Eg if a car has petrol leaking and is smoking with an unconscious person in it, most 999 workers would do all they can to drag the person out of it (extremis) …

            But, if the car is surrounded by spilled chemicals which are giving off a gas … then most workers will back off and awake assistance from those with appropriate proctection kit – that is common sense ..

          21. For the record, certainly the police and ambulance service do not have tick box forms for arrival at an incident to decide whether or not to enter a scene and what to do first – that is usually a quick but carefully thought out decision by crews quickly scanning the scene of the incident they arrive at and making judgements (which they are prepared to change if evidence pushes them towards concerns about their own or others safety) …

            The ONLY times I have written a risk assessment has either been in the office (when assessing a new piece of equipment and the hazards involved) or after an incident where something went wrong.

            Your implicit suggestion that rescue workers in the UK are not prepared to take risks and prefer to fill in paperwork (the sort of which you allege being non existant in my experience in working in rescues) is at best wilful ignorance – although I suspect you know the illegitimacy of your comments and relish in maligning people upon who your life could depend!

          22. Zzzzzzzz…..

          23. @Samuel

            Sleeping is about the most intellectual and positive contribution you have made to any discussion on here …

            Its not surprising that you have nothing consturctive to say

    2. de Villiers 22 Jan 2012, 5:07pm

      The English system for some reasons does not wish to assert the primacy of England and English culture. In France, the promotion of the the French Republic and of being French comes first. Hence the restriction on the wearing of religious symbols in schools or public buildings to promote the fundamental principle of secularity and equality as French citizens – and also the law requiring all signs, notices and advertisements to be written in French, whether they are written also in English or Arabic.

  36. @Samuel
    Firstly, thank you first of all for taking the time out of your maligning me and my character, style and approach (and offering some very strange theories that I am conspiring with others in terms of what I have to say and what my opinions are) to answer at least one of the questions that I have posed to you.
    You seem to see this as a heated debate and if you are heated I suggest you take time out to calm down. I am very calm and laid back in this debate. Certainly not angry or irritated by you – confused as to how you have reached the unseemly conclusions you have. Mildly alarmed at how you seek to malign me, but not upset, agitated, angry etc … There are better things in life to get upset and angry about.
    I have already apologised for the clumsy use of words that I used in the question that I posed, yet (for whatever reason you seem determined to hang onto those words). Interesting how I can accept your apology but you choose to ignore mine.
    Now, in terms of the ….

    1. … content of your actual answer to the question unsurprisingly there are some parts which I disagree with, but predominantly I agree with you.
      Lets start with what we have in common. I agree that more community centres and outside places where adults can meets and interact and where kids can play together with children of all cultures would be a very beneficial thing. Some areas this is already happening to an extent (but could be improved upon) and some areas are sorely lacking in the sort of community involvement I perceive we agree on.
      The current government policy (whether that be local or central instigated) of closure of some community groups etc etc does not help community cohesion (if that is a sociological theory its one I am unaware of, and all I mean by community cohesion is an ability for communities to begin working together and seek to grow together).
      Whilst I agree that there are some areas where it appears that different cultures are ghettoized (and for some …

    2. … its not just an appearance), there are also areas where there is fairly good integration. We need to learn lessons from those areas that have achieved well (and still seek to improve) – whether in the UK or elsewhere, and utilise them in all communities. Communities need to have a sense of ownership of their areas.
      I strongly agree with you that fear is an issue in terms of supporting communities – particularly fear of difference (whatever the difference may be). We need to work to break that down. Some of that can be done in the manner you suggest (and there is good evidence that this can be successful) but it should not be the only measure that we seek to use. Some of the methods of communities growing is organic and from within (but often this comes either from communities that are already well supportive of each other or who have faced a crisis and are almost shocked into relying on each other to improve things).
      I am relieved to hear that you do agree that we should …

    3. … break down barriers.
      My view is not one of “multiculturalism” in the manner you describe it. I view society as being ideally a collection of both communities and individuals. Each individual will have different beliefs, attitudes, desires etc etc and they should be respected but sought with a sense of responsibility to one another. Difference should be celebrated where that is constructive. Where someone seeks to damage society by inciting violence or imposing ideology etc then that should be challenged.

      1. But doesn’t your idea of a sort of community collectivism necessitate the imposition of yet more controls and endless bureacracy to ensure that each individual from whatever ethnic background is respectful of another individual’s ethinicity?

        How on earth do you implement this?

        Far easier, surely, to empower ethnic communities to feel good about their adopted country and, in turn, to want to live by that country’s laws and to respect its culture while also practising its own traditions in a way that is respectful of its adopted environment and is not imposed on the indegenous population?

        And where people are empowered, responsibility and mutual respect naturally follow.

        1. you address the issue of immigrants what about people who were born in this country, please concentrate

        2. @Samuel B

          I have no idea what you mean by community collectivism …

          As for imposition of controls and endless buereaucracy … I am all for reduction in bureaucracy wherever it is possible, rather than making life difficult …

          I certainly do not believe in imposing bureaucracy on the individual …

          Have equality laws in place (which we have) and fairly and effectively enforcing them whilst empowering people from across all strands of diversity seems the best way of encouraging society to work together with each other … but that has to be a choice each individual makes …

          I certainly would never want to see any imposition of any form of tradition on the UK.

          I thinks its a good thing to welcome other cultures and for them to be able practice the traditions that are passed down from their ancestors, provided both they are respectful of the UK and others are respectful of them … It can be interesting to experience other cultures …

          I agree that empowerment often results…

          1. … in mutual respect and can assist in promoting responsibility …

          2. Some good points Stu, but too tired now to respond. I look forward to continuing the debate tomorrow.

            Good night!

          3. “I have no idea what you mean by community collectivism …”

            Erm, a collective of different cultures living as one community.

          4. Stu, we are not paid to stay fixed to these screens 12 hours a day as you seem to be, posting every 12 minutes of every day if the latest PN stats are correct. How on earth do you manage that??

            To be honest I have barely enough time to come on here twice a day to defend myself against your incessant challenges (see elsewhere) and have no time to enter into debate on other topics.

            I gave you a lengthy but concise explanation after you challenged me about the “Muslim problem”, and if you disagree and challenge or request I enter into new levels of debate then you are frankly either winding me up, baiting me or seriously think the world revolves around them and that no one else has a living to earn.

            You and your sidekick W6_Dalek, please get your kicks elsewhere. The topic of this debate is over for me as it is for most everyone else. It is now off the main page and I am not going further for Stu, and Stu alone’s benefit, when no one else is watching.

            Good night!

          5. Well I guess if you can’t stand the heat Samuel I guess it is time you got out. You are a bully, just because you do not happen to identufy as a bully this does not mean to say it is not a fair description of you. In your own words – its a gut feeling and why should I not jump to conclusions that you are a bully – when all is said and done there is a great deal of evidence scattered around these boards to prove that you are the aggressor -unless you can prove different, which you have been challenged to do, but either cannot or dont choose to, either way I believe your extreme worldview is not viewed by many commentators as something they wouls aspire to or want to “wake up to” again using one of your phrases.

            Pink News are watching you (just to add to your paranoia) as they are still investigating my complaint, and I hope they are looking at the wider context of your conduct on here!

            See you on the ice, if not before!

          6. In other words Samuel can not provide evidence … facts do not matter to him, just his gut feeling …

            The lack of evidence and consistent bullying show him for the piece of work he is

          7. Stu, W6 and the rest of your pack of hyenas, we are not all brainwashed PC obsessives with nothing better in life to do that to troll these boards and clutter them up with your devout opinions.

            Ever thought of getting a life or a hobby? You should at least think about getting out a bit more and seeing a bit of the real world instead of the one formed reading The Grauniad and, in W6’s case, The Beano.

            Really, who’s bullying who here? When you have to drag out the usual dodgy suspects to fight your corner, Stu, it far behooves you to accuse anyone else of bullying.

            Just don’t think you can bully, intimidate, harrass me off these boards. I have been contributing off and on to PN for 5 years and will continue to do so as my voice is as entitled to be heard as yours. So accept it.

          8. Given that you claim to have been contributing over the last 5 years, I am very surprised by the lack of support you are getting from your fellow veterans…they obviously view you in high regard – NOT!

            You need to learn that there are responsibilities that go with freedom of expression – this is something you have no understanding of & it has resulted in this & other comment threads degenerating into “it’s all about Samuel”.

            You are stifling free speech on these comments threads, some very important discussions have been blighted by your constant crusades against organisations & now individuals.

            I & others have the right to comment here without the fear of being intimidated, bullied & abused. Where it is deserved I give as good as I get, so if you want to debate do it in a responsible & adult way, it really is that simple.

            I will not tolerate your totally inaccurate accounts of me, so be careful with your personal comments as I will highlight your bullying every time!

          9. At last Samuel admits my voice is entitled to be heard

            All comments should be open to scrutiny – mine and Samuels included …

          10. @Samuel

            You really do misunderstand me …

            Not only do you stereotype me but you think I want you to leave PN …

            Well, no … I’m happy for you to stay …

            Not trying to get rid of you …

            You won’t be forcing me away either …

            I suspect you will continue to speak from the hip without evidence .. and thus will continue to be held to scrutiny …

          11. “At last Samuel admits my voice is entitled to be heard

            All comments should be open to scrutiny – mine and Samuels included …”

            At least we agree on one thing, then.

        3. @Samuel B

          So what were the good ideas of mine you wished to discuss?

          As for community collectivism … have never heard of the phrase – sounds oddly PC to me … beyond my level of PC invovlement anyway – several steps too far

          1. So, clearly Samuel was too tired to response previously, now chooses not to, despite acknowledging that I have some good points …

            Ah, well if thats how he chooses to handle reasoned debate …

          2. Well, using the term “PC” is usually an excuse to defend right-wing nut-job views, and SammyB is just chock full of them. Civil discourse is wasted on him Stu.

          3. Sorry Stu, too busy getting my leg over and having red hot sex to give a fig about humouring you. You should think about giving these boards a rest and getting some in also, if nothing else then to relieve some of that tension and let go some of that steam so evident in your baiting postings…

          4. @Samuel

            Sigh …

            No steam here of any sort other than that of superb sex …

            You may get agitated and wound up by comments on here … but I’m comfortable in my skin and my views … I know not everyone will agree with me, and sometimes I am wrong and sometimes right …

            If someone says something I disagree with, I will say … or if it could be interpreted in a way I find concerning, I will say …

            If you find that a problem – show me where I am wrong … otherwise – I will continue to say what I think when I want … thats one of the good things about democracy and free speech – when exercised responsibly

  37. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jan 2012, 6:05pm

    If any of them weren’t born in the UK, I hope they are deported immediately after their sentences have been served.

    1. and why immigrants should face harsher treatments?

      1. Did you know it is another well-known tactic – I call it sleight of hand – of the agitating left-wing PC shill to challenge, weaken and stymie an argument or straightforward opinion such as Robert’s by turning it back in on itself in the form of a question.

        The trouble is, we are beginning to see through this agenda all too clearly now. Zzz…

        1. yours is another well-know tactic of presenting pseudo rhetoric in order to avoid answering legitimate question

          1. WHilst I agree with the deportation of non UK citizens convicted of imprisonable offences … .I also agree Samuel avoids or evades legitimate questions!

          2. Stu, dear, the question wasn’t aimed at me in the first place. Do keep up.

          3. Kane, apologies for my tetchy remark. I should have said why not respond to Robert by simply saying you disagree with his stance and then explain why you beg to differ?

            Wouldn’t that be more helpful to this debate, surely? All you seem to be doing is challenging people’s opinions and not actually adding to the debate in any way.

            I know this is in order to continue challenging them until they feel cornered and give up the fight, allowing the PC argument to win out in the end, but I would like to see proper debates on here where both sides of the argument are aired properly and discussed, not debates where only the non-PC argument debate is constantly challenged and stymied.

            Thank you.

          4. Which legitimate questions have I evaded or not yet got around to answering, Stu?

            If the latter then please understand that I don’t have an office job and therefore do not have access to a computer around the clock.

            I answered in some depth to your constant request for my “solution” to the “Muslim problem” (again emphasis on your words, not mine), and I took some considerable time out of my Sunday schedule to do that.

            What I will not do is respjd to questions where the answres are already self-explanatory or obvious on an experienctial or intuitive level to anyone not grounded in PC training, which I presume to be around 90 per cent of PN visitors, most of which unfortunately are not challenging your PC line as myself and several others are doing.

          5. @Samuel B

            It is you who chose to engage in questioning my motives, so when you do – you can expect to be challenged in turn to either evidence the claims you make or evidence your own motivation or other factors (depending on what you are raising) …

            There have been so many comments that I have made that you are either unable or unwilling to answer that I am not going to expend time and energy (even my time on the sick, which clearly is less valuable than your time).

            Why do you insist on returning to my choice of vocabulary when I have apologised and admitted my choice of words was clumsy? You yourself have been clumsy (and admitted so) with word choices in the past – why do you feel the need to constantly niggle on that point and stick the knife in?

        2. It is interesting watching this thread unfold, and I have been interested to learn of Samuel talking about his “world view” and also “conspiracy theories” – I wonder from where does his Weltanschauung originate from? I could profer to speculate, but I prefer to base my argument on factual information.

          I thought this quote may sum up his idology as it seems to fit very well with the arguments he puts forward!

          “While the programme of the ordinary political party is nothing but the recipe for cooking up favourable results in the next general elections, the programe of a Weltanschauung represents a declaration of war against an existing order of things, against present conditions, in short, against the established Weltanschauung.”

          1. It is very hard to argue against this sort of Weltanschauung, clearly proven factual information is condemned as being part of the established order – the problem with this ideology is where does the constant condemnation end?

          2. I think the case for sectioning W6 has never been stronger.

          3. @ Samuel more personal attacks – as someone who suffers with a variety of diagnosed mental health difficulties you are incensitive in your remarks about a case for me being sectioned…….but of course you believe you have the right to make such remarks because to be sensitive to others would in your distorted worldview be PC.

            People with mental health problems do have the right to comment and are perfectly capable of making rational assessments, despite what your view is on mental health.

            I didn’t realise your talents extended to psychiatry – if they did I guess you would realise your own mental health difficulties!

            You have no shame!

          4. “Conspiracy theorist is one insult you and W6 have, at least thus far, refrained from labelling me.”

            Unbelievable! I mention the term “conspiracy theorist” once in this entire debate and in the above context and W6_Dalek seizes on it and writes a full blown essay around it, all about…no, I don’t understand what he is spouting on about either.

          5. If you don’t know Samuel educate yourself and find out! – As we know you are full of headline much like the Sun and the Daily Wail, there is never any substance to your argument & when challenged to back up your assertions with material facts you resort to insult and bullying.

            You pose many quesyions, make wild assumptions yet you are the mysterious person here – never answering questions directly & always deflecting away from the central point. What goes around comes around Samuel & by my reckoning you have a great deal of brown stuff to come your way – as you have dished it out by the ton!

            Your “worldview” is very screwed up & shows a mind in termoil which is full of contradictions & does not know how to have an adult reasoned debate! (you accuse me of cognitive dissonance – take one of your tips, look in the mirror), or better still take some time out to reflect on the printed copy of this comments thread you have for “safe keeping”. You should be ashamed!

          6. You were a bit slow to catch up with the “conspiracy theory” but there again you were too busy speculating about my mental health to notice the words…………….

            You may have only used the phrase once, but many many of your comments show that in your mind you feel there is conspiracy all around you, waiting to ambush you at any point. Seems to me you are the one suffering from a paranoid personality disorder, together with delusions and psycosis. All very serious mental illnesses, so perhaps you should take some time out if only for your sanity!

        3. “the agitating left-wing PC”

          Yeah, as opposed to your rightwing-uneducated-hissy-fits? Oh, yes, they make much more sense. Much more mentally well balanced.


          1. Rob

            Your forget, Samuel is right EVERYONE who disagrees with him is totally wrong and deserves to be ridiculed

            Of course, thats not double standards – it’s just how it is …

            Of course, others need evidence to support their arguments, gut feeling is sufficient for Samuel to be right …

            Samuel would find it offensive if I called him fool I think, so I usually try and use more intemperent language such as odd … but on this occasion – I think your choice of word is more accurate (and arguable mild)

    2. @Robert

      I would agree that if someone is not a UK citizen (whether birth or naturalised) then they should be deported …


      Its a provision of the UK immigration law to be able to deport anyone convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment.

      This offence is punishable by imprisonment.

      I would argue, its reasonable and appropriate for the UK to use this power where those committing the offences are not UK citizens

      1. so you expect higher standards from migrants?

        1. No, as a British person would expect to be deported from many countries on conviction – and the justification being to protect the safety and security of the nation the British person had mitgrated to – so I expect Britain to seek to exercise responsibility for those who offend in this country …

          I have no problem in (for example) Britain deporting those who are not citizens, who murder, rape, commit armed robbery, are involved in terrorism, or incite hatred (and other offences) …

          Do you, kane?

          1. provided that they have legal bases to be here (regardless of whether they are a british citizen or not) i do, i dont see any difference between british killer and foreign one and to punish one of them harsher (deportation at the end of sentence) on the bases of not being in a possession of a british passport is a clear example of double standards

          2. @Kane

            I think on either illegal entrants or visa overstayers we would both agree that they should be deported on completion of any custodial sentence?

            It appears we would disagree on others …

            I would point out that if I go to live in (for example) Australia on a medium term basis with a visa (not full migration) then part of the acceptance of the visa is an understanding that I will abide by Australian federal and state law and if I do not, then I run the risk of both being punished for the offence and deported …

            I accept that as reasonable and would expect anyone coming to the UK to expect a similar approach

          3. I don’t see it as double standards, kane. If any person is in the UK on a visa then that has to be renewed and approved. If that immigrant has committed a crime then they can hardly be surprised if their visa renewal application is refused as they’ve changed from when they first made their application. Entry into the UK and all other countries of course is a privilege not a right, and every country should be able to monitor who they allow to remain.

            We couldn’t deport UK citizens who commit crimes anyway as what country would take them? Therefore they stay here. I can’t see how that’s discrimination.

      2. I couldn’t have put it better, Stu. (Did I really say that??!) :)

        1. Thank You …. did my views surprise you?

          1. Well, certainly from left-field compared to your general stance, that’s for sure. Let’s just say I didn’t see that one coming…

          2. @Samuel B

            It seems you have seen some (perhaps many) of my comments and then formed an impression of me and put me in a box labelled PC …

            Thats not the simple and full story as far as I am concerned …

            Fairness is the important issue to me, nothing more, nothing less …

          3. Aaaargh typing at a different speed to my thinking again …

            That was meant to be …

            It seems you have seen some (perhaps many) of my comments and then formed an impression of me and put me in a box labelled PC …

            Thats not the full story and over simplifies me and my views as an individual, as far as I am concerned …

            Fairness is the important issue to me, nothing more, nothing less …

          4. This surprise should be a lesson to Samuel not to always follow his gut feeling … it could be wrong …

  38. This will be heading straight for the Appeal Courts, it will be overturned, on basis that it violates there human rights, watch this space…..

  39. Richard Stewart 23 Jan 2012, 1:10am

    “This case was not about curtailing people’s religious views or preventing them from educating others about those views; it was that any such views should be expressed in a lawful manner and not incite others to hatred.”

    Well, for one, how is describing homosexuality as wrong “educational”? And why should that kind of “education” be allowed?

    “You can think of it as a little vigilante thing.”

    For it to be “vigilante” a crime must have taken place, are we to assume homosexuality is a type of crime, in some people’s eyes?

    Ahmed had told the court he saw it as his “duty as a Muslim to spread what God says about homosexuality. The references on the leaflets are historical facts and quote from the Koran.”

    Does that “duty” go as far as spreading what God says about intolerance? – no I don’t think so! Or about what Mohammed says about sin? (That it is the sin that should be condemned not the person)

    These, so called “Muslims” aren’t anything like the Muslims I know. They’ve got more i

    1. IMHO, part of the problem is that Muslims have never had a Reformation where “The” Qur’an was superseded by individuals thinking for themselves.

      Also, extensive studies have gone into the Bible, but only recently has study into the Qur’an been allowed.

      A bigger problem is that their scholars and Imams say that the Qur’an is 100% the word of God (Allah) and refuse to believe that different versions of it could possibly exist, and that it could not possibly contain errors.

      Only when and if the Qur’an is treated like any other historical document will it be interpreted sensibly.

      There is also the possibility that contact with the West will help Muslims to see that the Qur’an is a myth.

      1. …or that it could possibly contain errors…

  40. Richard Stewart 23 Jan 2012, 1:12am

    They’ve got more in common with the Republican Christian right of America!

    “This case vindicates Stonewall’s long fight to secure specific legal protection for gay people against incitement to hatred. Witnesses told the court they felt threatened and deeply fearful in their own homes.

    This case still worries me; it proves there are people, out there, that would like to kill me. If Imams and prominent Islamic spokespeople expressed the need for tolerance, as a result of this case, I would feel a lot safer. Christianity and Judaism has moved on, why is Islam so scared of change?

    1. We do have cause to worry.

      As long as Muslims believe that the original text of the Qur’an is written on golden sheets in heaven and that the word of God in immutable for all eternity, there is little chance that they will acknowledge the various interpretations of the Qur’an that have existed here on earth.

      To admit that words in the Qur’an have been changed in any way is inconceivable and blasphemous in the mind of Muslims.

  41. justice at last . the coran itself should be put on trial for inciting hate

  42. I am glad those homophobic scumbags got found guilty!

  43. Lets all hope that the punishment fits the crime!

  44. Interesting when Samuel has his conduct evidenced in detail he chooses not to respond …

    Amazing that he expects someone to accept and acknowledge his apology but not only does he not acknowledge apologies made to him, he continues to comment and emphasize the where an apology has been made and the error accepted

    Seems you are allowed to make observations and have debate as long as you do not disagree with Samuel …

    Shame … I like honest and fair debate

    1. He’s too busy frothing at the mouth to debate. The man’s clearly damaged.

      1. What’s the betting Sammuel accuses me of being Rob – he has suggested this before I might add – more conspiracy against him – surely not.

        Rob I think it was you who referred to SamB as the “harmless village idiot” Im not so sure you were right when you said he was harmless!

        1. Wouldn’t surprise me. Paranoia is usually the recourse of the desperate.

          1. LOL, soooooo predicatable. A bit late for rallying the shrilling Sheilas now, isn’t it, and getting Mork & Mindy to flag you up? God knows if having W6 onside isn’t damaging enough.

            Girls, everyone else moved on from this debate hours ago when it got knocked off the front page. How hard you must have looked to find it, poor dears (“thanks Stu”)!

            Now, if this schoolyard rabble rousing and girly put downs came from anyone I actually respected, (although anyone I respected would know how to retort properly)…

            Desperate, much?

          2. The only “desperate much” individual here is you Samuel. And whats with the ridiculous portrayal of contributors being “girls”. Childish much!

            You may identify as an effeminate gay man, but do not tar everyone with your very tarnished brush! FOOL

          3. @Samuel

            Firstly, I have not rounded anyone up … anyone supporting or opposing my comments (and both are welcome – although I prefer people to be civilised and to use evidence to support any attack on my comments) is because thats what they wanted to write (well, it certainly has nothing to do with me) …

            Secondly, it seems odd that at one point you are lamenting how my position is irrelevant as no one (other than w6) is supporting me – then when others join – all you can do is say their support is irrelevant (would that be because you disagree and therefore you think it is irrelevant, its not all about you, you know …).

            Thirdly, yet again rather than us evidence or facts you choose to ignore these (or admit there arent any to support you) and turn to childish insults (shrilling Sheilas, Mork and Mindy, Girls, schoolyard rabble) …

            I didnt look for them, they came of their own accord …

            I am struggling to see anyone repeatedly supporting you, Samuel …

          4. “Secondly, it seems odd that at one point you are lamenting how my position is irrelevant as no one (other than w6) is supporting me – then when others join – all you can do is say their support is irrelevant…”

            I have said it before and I will undoubtedly say it many more times: Stu, you take the biscuit, you really do. Well, take it, otherwise I’ll have to accuse you of having a raw nerve.

            I mean, the usual left wing PC shilling suspects, Rob and Will, spring to your defence two days after this debate left the main page. I mean, you couldn’t make it up, you really couldn’t!!

            And if you really didn’t rally them to your aid, how tragic, then, that in this entire debate you have had – sorry, I can barely type their names without bursting into hysterics – W6_Dalek, Rob and, OMG, little Willie!!

            Now, I have no problem with being a camp man, and if you are suggesting campness has no place on a site called PINK News (the clue’s in the name), then that is bigotry of the highest order…

          5. and I deplore you for it, though of course I am not in the least bit surprised because PC revisionists consistently show themselves to be the most bias, prejudice, unaccepting rabble that society has ever spawned whille presenting themselves to be evangelical liberal do-gooders in order to manipulate themselves into positions that enable them to erode society’s moral boundaries unnoticed (doublespeak in all its glory).

            Baiting and heckling is a stock in trade for you girls, and if Rob and Will (and W6 by default, of course) come across as bitchy schoolgirls then I will address them in the gender that befits.

            Now, if you don’t mind, I have to collect my pink feather boa from the dry cleaners.

          6. Pink feather boa sounds very suitable for you Samuel

            Fluff rather than substance

          7. I’ll have you know pink feather boas are the height of fashion right now, well, at least in the circles I mix in!

          8. @Samuel

            Pink is a bit too lurid …

            If you had gone for apricot or turquoise, I might have accepted it as desireable … lol

          9. Actually, you may have a point. Will check it out.
            Thanks, and any other fashion tips warmly received… :)

  45. It never ceases to amaze how one minority will happily persecute another without seeing the hypocricy. Have your Religious Freedom, Just don’t expect a ‘belief’ to trump the laws off the land. The Incitement to Hatred law protects YOU too. Now, stop being so selective with your choice of persecutory texts …and go be nice to EVERYONE. I’m sure your god would like that better than advocating death for minorities.

    1. I entirely concur

  46. The above double posting, of course, made in reference to Stu’s “fisting and scat” debate…

  47. I’m rather ashamed to think I live in the same city as these people. Personally, I never actually encountered any of these leaflets, but I did hear quite a bit about them.

    I do truly hope that it turns out they aren’t British nationals, because they are a disgrace to their race, their religion and their country. They have no moral right to be here, and it is the silly laws imposed by the UN and EU that force us to prevent such vile people from being removed from our society.

    PS. Don’t take what I’ve said as anti-religion. I am infact a gay Christian and am proud to be so. Take what I have said as anti-extremist instead.

    1. I hope they can be deported too, Mark

      Anti extremism is something I subscribe to ….

  48. We await the penalty on the guilty verdict, but why have the Muslim Council of Britian been so totally silent over this issue ? Is it because that some Saudi funded muslim school material and books were being distributed to Mosques, telling its readers that homosexuality is wrong and that they should be punished by stoning to death or pushed over a cliff? Perhaps they are now affraid that this material (Highlighted in a BBC Panarama exposure last year) will now also be used as evidence that could be used ‘in a threatening manner intending to stir up hatred against gay people’ – part of the summing up statement from the judge in Derby! If this material is still being used, then another trial of all those Mosques and Immans that use this type of material must follow!

  49. In Canada we have a gay group called Gays against Israeli apartheid.
    It would be interesting to hear their response to what is happening in Britain to their fellow gays at the hands of their muslim buddies.
    All I can say is either God has a wicked sense of humour or he is trying to send a message to our homosexual friends about the perils of supporting Israel’s enemies.

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