Reader comments · Update: Investigation suggests serious flaws in the Coalition For Marriage petition · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Update: Investigation suggests serious flaws in the Coalition For Marriage petition

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Craig Denney 8 Apr 2012, 8:51pm

    At last!

    1. Craig Denney 8 Apr 2012, 11:49pm

      I apologise to PN for getting shirty.

      I don’t need to add anything to the comments that’s not being added below.

      Although perhaps Edmund Broch could possibly document the findings so that we can crash & burn (in HELL) the anti-LGBT press comment sections of those anti-LGBT newspapers?

  2. This is a good article. The author should send the link or a copy of the article to David Cameron’s office.

    1. Absolutely!

  3. Great article. Excellent journalism. Would like to see it covered in other outlets such as the Guardian and Times.

    Would be good to include concerns about false information being sent to the Information Commissioner and seek their response?

  4. Check out this connection for proof about how NOM is using blacks to attack gays,, now see this news about blacks beating gays in a recent hate crime trial,

  5. So what we’re saying is the C4M appear to be utter lying scum with no particular ethics or morals (typical christian then). Or they are spectacularly incompetent. How many times have we heard that click counts to their site are a fraction of the number of people who supposedly “signed”? Do they really think that people cannot find that information?

    Not bearing false witness is in the “big ten” that makes sky daddy very angry. The gay thing is a few random verses here and there, and yet they focus on one and not the other. Usual cherry-picking hypocritical filth.

  6. I don’t like this. One could say this about ANY web petition. We can say that theirs is less legitimate because it has more signatures than seems plausible, or because they are headed by people with an agenda (so is C4EM, by the way! Pinknews is hardly an unbiased party!). Ultimately, if the government wants a true for/against statistic, it should go by a referendum. “I believe that marriage should be between two people, not just a man and a woman. Yes/No”. We’d all have to go by that.

    1. Edmund Broch 8 Apr 2012, 9:41pm

      Actually, the article clearly points out that C4EM adopts the same petition format — and accepts that both are flawed. But, C4EM does not use that to guide or campaign for public policy.

    2. Stockycub1973 8 Apr 2012, 9:44pm

      The rights of people should not be put to a popular vote. After all how do you think a referendum would’ve gone for Black civil rights in the Southern US states.

      Its up to legislators to do the right thing and vote for marriage equality

    3. Alli

      So your defense is to say – well you’re unbiased rather than demonstrate that the claims are wrong and how they can be reasonably and ethically explained?

      Of course, the reason you whinge and moan at being exposed is because the deception and lies of the C4M are crystal clear.

    4. Can I vote on your civil rights? What we are asking for should not be determined by what is POPULAR, but by what is RIGHT. And there is simply no cogent legitimate secular argument to oppose marriage equality

    5. The Home Office Survey limits one response per IP address, it’s an incredibly simple solution to the problem. Not only does the user not have to bother confirming email addresses when done, but it’s a lot more costly to use multiple devices to make multiple responses than it is to use multiple email addresses.

      Having said that I’m considering going round all the University of Manchester PCs and filling the form in :-P

  7. Good points and if true, it needs to be exposed as much as possible. I was quite amazed how the number of signatories became inflated in a series of huge jumps after passing the 250,000 mark especially. Don’t be too in awe of the numbers. C4M has had saturation coverage for weeks on end and also through a lot of organising by church leaders. The figures went up by about 60,000 after a massive drive in over 2500 catholic churches across the country. That is a tiny proportion of catholic churchgoers. The people behind this really hate us for who we are, beyond definition of marriage. They would sooner we had no rights at all. The Media have never bothered to probe this at all. Remember that 400’k is about 0.8% of over 16s in the UK. it still means little.
    NB Tippetts has 3t’s in it ;-)

    1. This needs to be reported widely across the mainstream media.

    2. There are petitions in CofE parishes too. The ‘jumps’ reported are the irregular adding of numbers from paper petitions. It is harder to fake paper lists. I fear that there are indeed a great many in whom the Christian Institute has been able to install fear of gay marriage. We don,t need as many in order to show that a substantial number are in favour. But we must ‘get the vote out’ as mush as possible
      Realistically we need a 6 figure number too.

      1. Another point, at the end of the day, this is not a vote. We do not vote on people’s rights. Profoundly undemocratic. The numbers should not matter. The principle however, does.

        1. As Hillary Clinton said:

          “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them. … Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same.”

          Human rights are inate and not given by government but can be suppressed – those rights still remain they are just prevented from being exercised. It is govts responsibility to ensure they can be exercised. Its not a numbers game.

  8. So the Coalition For Marriage petition is flawed and unsafe – what a surprise?

    This is the same organisation who have been reported to the ASA for misleading advertising.

    This is the same organisation that the Womens Institute said that the C4M campaign “could offend many of our members” when they explained why they would not carry advertising for them.

    The same organisation who denied the faith basis of their leaders – despite it being obvious – denying their faith (thats a sin?)

    There is a strong whiff of an offensive smell about the C4M. There is a murky and slimy appearance to them and a lack of any public accountability or sense of honesty, integrity or compassion about the coalition. There is a sense of the mafia about them with the underhand and subvertive measures they are using. Clearly the petition itself does have SOME genuine signatures. Clearly there is good reason to have cause to be concerned about others being added by deception or deliberately to try and mislead.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 12:22pm

      The offensive smell Stu is HATEMONGERING! It’s a HATE GROUP. Opposition to equal civil marriage is more of a front for their hatred. They want the UK to become a theocracy. They already have direct contact with 40 MPs and Peers.

  9. Lumi Bast 8 Apr 2012, 9:51pm

    Of course C4M Marriage is crooked in practice, like their views are

  10. Great article Ed, the only problem I see is that the real fundamentalist Christians have this awful thing called a conscience.

    There is no way that they would deliberately cheat on the C4M petition because their lives would be blighted for weeks even months until they confessed their sin and had their extra votes expunged from the tally.

    You see, I understand that they have this weird belief that their God will only help them in life if they act with integrity, and if they cheat they would be levelling the playing field.

    I remember hearing a story years ago about this Christian fundamentalist who played snooker with his heathen friend. The Christian was losing so he prayed to God, “why is he beating me”, the reply came back, “He’s better than you”. The heathen then knocked the white ball and denied doing it. The Christian went on and wiped the table with him. The moral of the story. Don’t cheat against Christians or they will win.

    1. What a load of christo-babbling cr@p.

    2. @Zoon

      Those indoctrinated and infatuated with their purpose and call do damage and destroy (what they perceive as) the ungodly – dont always let little things like morals or a conscience get in the way.

      You are naive if you think they all do that.

      Think, RC church and their cover up of child abuse.

      Think, Stephen Green from Christian Voice and his assaults on his ex wife

      Think, the Christian Institute being reprimanded by the Charity Commission for breaching charity law

      Think, Westboro Baptist Church

      Conscience doesn’t matter to all fundamentalists – the end result sometimes justifies the means.

      C4M need exposing for their underhand and bogus methods.

      1. sorry, stu. i just accientally flagged u the wrong way.

        1. I think we have all done that at one point or another – …

          No prob!

    3. @Zoon — you’re saying that ‘true’ christians don’t cheat. Are you then saying that all signatures on the c4m petition are from ‘true’ christians ? Is there any test we can apply ourselves to determine if someone is a ‘true’ christian ?

      Is winning at snooker so important to this christian fundamentalist that he needed to pray from victory ? Is god so concerned with the minutiae of peoples’ lives that he would alter the course of a snooker match ? Really ?

      The moral you draw — cheating a christian will cause them to win — is along the same lines as Stephen Green’s claim that a rat infestation at Tesco’s was caused by their support of a Pride event. Using words like ‘heathen’ suggests you are a fundamentalist christian.

  11. Isn’t the government consultation survey a bit dodgy as well. I know someone said that it looks at your computer and you can only submit it once from a particular computer but I live in Australia (there are a lot of British citizens with CPs who don’t live in the UK – so we should be allowed to fill it in!) and I was able to go on one of the public computers in a library over here and submit an application. No name, no postcode, nothing needed and yes you don’t have to live in the UK. I also completed the C4EM petition from Australia but gave a UK address I think.

    The govt consultation is the most important thing and yet isn’t that a bit flawed. It appears anyone from anywhere in the world can complete it!!!! and I don’t really want someone criticising that and saying it was all flawed becuase there were no security checks.

  12. GingerlyColors 8 Apr 2012, 9:58pm

    400,000 signatures = 0.6% of the UK population. In Switzerland in order to force a referendum about a major issue, of which there are an average of four a year, 100,000 people have to sign a petition out of a population of < 8,000,000, 1/8 of the UK population. People normally sign a petition if they feel stronlg about an issue. The vast majority of people in this country do not give two hoots about the subject.

  13. Ryan Macdonald 8 Apr 2012, 10:01pm

    I wouldn’t hold your breath. They won’t get back to you, they certainly didn’t with me and all i did was ask them a few polite questions. Their tactic is a ‘hit and run’ way of doing things. They’ll shout really loudly about something, then run away from the inevitable debate that follows. A complete and utter sham of an organisation.

    1. Totally!

  14. I’m not sure whether the c4m petition complies with the Data Protection Act, as I think it includes handwritten signatures as well as those directly from the website.

    1. It does not comply with the Data Protection Act in my view.

      I know complaints have been made about storage and use of peoples private details without their consent to the Information Commissioner – others who are concerned their details may be being abused by C4M should also complain to the Information Commissioner and declare it to friendly media eg PN

  15. “ has contacted C4M for comments/reply in this regard. But has been unable to reach them by phone. We will post their reply as soon as we have received any.”

    Like, good luck with that (lol)

    1. Good to hold the moral ground and give them the opportunity of the right of reply.

      They won’t take it – they are too cowardly.

      They are running scared because they know they are manipulating people and lying.

  16. When running scared, make fun and pick at the opposition that are winning…

    Their 400,000 signatures are made up of online signatures, AND paper signatures which are added to the website. I have called and asked them. They have verified this, they are bery open when asked, they are hiding nothing, once again its the militant homosexuals who cant stand anyone going against them.

    ComRes is one of the largest and most respected market research agences, they have been used by many big organisations.

    The ‘system’ is very accurate and reliable. Edmund Broch appears to be just another whining militant homosexual jumping on the bandwaggon and making a witch hunt and being hatered to religious people.

    On more thing, I could say the very same about C4EM, as they have the VERY SAME looking website, with the very same set up.

    So maybe we could look at how they got all the signatures? Oh wait no we cant, as they would be be homophobic and discrimination if we were to dig into that….

    1. Ryan Macdonald 8 Apr 2012, 10:24pm

      Oh hello Ken. For people who don’t know, ‘crazy ken’ here thinks some forms of child rape are better than others. Avoid like the plague.

    2. He usually uses the name Matthew …

      He claims to be able to contact every media outlet in the country or press office to verift anything. Yet one of the claims Matthew made a few months back (I did not disclose this) was on a day I was giving a statement to Lothian & Borders Police in Edinburgh. I saw the update and commented on it but Matthew persisted – so I went with the Sergeant who was taking my statement to the press office and control centre and we spoke to both duty officers who stated no calls had been received of the nature Matthew had described and that if such calls were received they would be given “short shrift” and told that their attempts to lie about their contact online would be considered by the head of media. No contact was received from Matthew – he just lied about it.

      As for “running scared” not in the slightest. This isnt a game of numbers – its about human rights and morals.

      However, Aiden/Matthew/Ken … has said before “minorities do not matter” – in

      1. … which case fundamentalist Christians do not matter. Black people do not matter. Disabled people do not matter. I disagree with all of these points – but Aiden/Matthew/Ken has such moral cowardice he refuses to respond to such questions.

        So the C4M being investigated by the ASA, Information Commissioner and potentially others given the duplicity that is evidenced here and more that is suggested.

        The hypocracy and fabrication of the petition render it meaningless – which it was in the first instance.

        1. Religion and Disabilities are not lifestyle choices. Homosexuality is and thankfully one Country is on the way to making it fully illegal to promote it.

          1. Sexual Orientation is no more a choice than skin colour.

            How does one promote a choice of something that is not a choice.

            What is a choice – your bigotry.

            Religion is a choice, don;t you have to ask Jesus into your life in order to be saved? You have to make that conscious choice.

            Your homophobia is a choice and a one you will be held to account for.

          2. By what stretch of the imagination is religion not a lifestyle choice?

            What planet do you live on?

          3. Actually I agree. Religion is not a choice — religious people invariably have religious parents and invariably belong to the same sect as their parents. If it was a true choice, there would be little correlation between an individual’s beliefs and those of their parents.

            Religious indoctrination: you have no choice.

          4. Harry

            They can choose to seek help (those who are maliciously indoctrinated) and some do

          5. Dr Robin Guthrie 9 Apr 2012, 1:21pm

            Drop dead f~cker

    3. “I conducted a simple experiment. I used the same name, and same post-code, but three different e-mail addresses, and they all went through, adding to the signature count. Note that none of these e-mail addresses were genuine or authentic. One e-mail address I added was homophobic-c4m at googlemail, which as far as I’m aware, doesn’t exist.”

      How reliable eh?

      “ComRes is one of the largest and most respected market research agences, they have been used by many big organisations.”

      I don’t recall the agency being questioned, more the question.

      I asked this before for someone else, perhaps you can answer me. If I have a poll conducted asking “Do you agree or disagree that prison sentences are too lenient?” and I achieve a majority agree. Is it acceptable for me to use this to call for the death penalty? Much like the ComRes poll my question doesn’t mention what I claim it calls for but the majority agreed

      1. I would say it is acceptable for you to use.
        Just as the majoriaty of people who have signed to say keep Marriage 1 man + 1 woman, will have an effect on Dave and Lynne Featherbrain.

        1. “keep Marriage 1 man + 1 woman”

          Why? What’s going to happen that will prevent 1 man + 1 woman marrying?

      2. Question for you love. How do you know this market research company is credible?? Just because other companies have used it?? That doesn’t mean anything. Have you contacted the Market Research Society to ask if the company is credible? I could give you the number if you like.

        And another thing, if you’re so against us homosexuals, why then can I ask are you reading a paper WRITTEN for homosexuals and supporters of our rights? Could it be that there is a little bit of hypocrisy going on here? It wouldn’t surprise me, since there is hypocrisy behind every BIGOT that ever lived.

        I tell you what, why don’t you spend your time working out the CRACKS in your own existence, and I use that term very loosely, before condemning people on things they can’t control. If gays are legal to get married, exactly how does that impact on your pathetic existence? Oh, that’s right… IT DOESN’T! The world is evolving without you sweetie, so if you can’t keep up then GET OUT OF THE WAY!

  17. Could we have some evidence that Edmund Broch exsists please…

    1. Can we have some eveidence Aiden/Ken/Matthew exists?

      What sort of evidence would you find acceptable?

        1. Do not tweet this account any abuse. It will just be used against us

          1. @Kris

            Don’t worry “Aiden” is so cowardly his account won’t allow access to what he has written – it is protected.

            It does display “Pet hate: Militant whining bullying homosexuals.”, my pet hate militant aggressive bullying UKIP homophobes who claim to be Christian but whose behaviour is unscriptural.

            It also has a photo on it – I won’t touch him with a bargepole!

        2. Twitter accounts can easily be faked.

          Your real identity?

          1. As i said you will find me at the above.

          2. Means nothing to me.

        3. You look as camp as christmas in that photo aiden. My pet hate are closet homos who are homophobic.

          1. @James E

            Well said. Aiden is your classic closet case. Or so it appears….

          2. I was just thinking that too.

        4. @Aiden — “Pet hate: Militant whining bullying homosexuals. Follow in support and agreement. No to ‘same sex marriage’ – homosexuals are not a direct equal to one man & one woman”.

          I am unsure what you mean by militant: please clarify ? Please tell us how you have been bullied.


    2. Oddly he appears to joined the last few weeks, and appears to have only one friend, that of Benjamin Cohen of Pink News.

      1. Benjamin Cohen 8 Apr 2012, 11:52pm

        Edmund is our late reporter. We have only had this position for a few weeks. The writer doesn’t use Facebook and joined specifically to post stories to our Facebook page as it’s a requirement of the job

        1. Nawal Husnoo 9 Apr 2012, 1:21pm


  18. Under the headline, ‘Exclusive: regulator to assess claim Coalition for Marriage ad “misleads” readers’, Pink News accuses ComRes, an award-winning polling and research consultancy and member of the British Polling Council, of a “dodgy” poll.

    ComRes, whose clients include the BBC and many of Britain’s best known companies, has written to Pink News asking it to remove that allegation (and that quote has now been removed). In its letter, ComRes also complains that it was never given a chance to respond to the extraordinary allegations prior to publication.

    Pink News article by Edmund Broch of 9 March, which makes a lengthy, valiant but ultimately unsuccessful effort to cast doubt on the poll’s methodology.

    Taken from:

    1. Just because they are reputable does not mean this poll is reputable and its methodoogy has been criticised by experts in polling.

    2. I’ve looked at the link you posted. Contrary to your warped belief, this is not some high school debate. You people are arguing for the right to control people’s lives. With no firm basis to prove your claims. How can you think toying with someone’s basic human rights is something to be proud of? It’s immoral, sick and wrong. If you ask me, I think your god would condemn THAT more than he would homosexuals

      1. Marriage is not a Human Right.

  19. Exactly as I suspected.

    It’s only going to get worse for them as more of their trickery is uncovered.

    1. Jesus will look after them, resurrection today and will protect them.

      1. LOL. Jesus was most likely a fictional person and even if he was real, he wasn’t God and didn’t raise from the dead. The fact that you believe in such fairytales is sad.

      2. Do not tell false witness – wasnt that one of the ten commandments

        Isnt that exactly what C4M are doing – giving false witness.

        1. How can you give false witness when they use paper petitions, and add them to the website.

          I have called C4M many a time, and they talk to me. Aditmidly I support what they are doing and donate to them, but they are not doing anything wrong or underhanded.

          1. If you support C4M you are a sad excuse for a human being

          2. Because there are numerous peoples “signatures” on the petititon that did not authorise it and some have not been removed when C4M were requested to.

            So, thats why the Information Commissioner are investigating them for breach of data protection and information governance and why the propriety of the petition is in significant doubt.

            Its merely one example of how the C4M are lying.

          3. Why do you donate to them, isn’t Jesus’ protection enough?

      3. What does Jesus’ erection have to do with it?

      4. What is particularly disappointing is that some Christians (including those who comment on here from time to time) have seen Aidens vile homophobic, racist, sexist and xenophobic rhetoric and feel they can ignore it. That is tacit approval. Clearly they choose to comment on the issue to same sex couples marrying and seeking to perpetuate disequality and denial of human rights but are happy to see racism, homophobia, sexism etc continued by an idiotic demented white supremacist like Aiden.

  20. @ Aiden

    1. I don’t hate religious people. I just hate the fact that they can allow themselves to be brainwashed by their chose religion and I hate the fact that they want to deny me equal rights and marriage because I’m homosexual
    2. militant- vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause
    Of course I’m going to be, I want my rights

    You are not the one that’s persecuted. You have equal rights, you have no place to say anything.

    1. I have plently of place to say lots of things, you militant homosexuals persecute people,and being militant, and bullying, of people who do not agree with you is not the way to be, it will and does, has, bring hostility on yourselves.

      Homosexuals, lesbians, whatever you say you are, are not equal to hetrosexuals, and or 1 man + one woman, you are not equal, you cannot produce offspring, therefore you are not, and should not be given equality and or classed as equal to those very people that you are not.

      1. 1. Yes we are equal. Our love is no less.
        2. We can have children if we want to, but I have zero desire to have children and am never going to so it doesn’t affect me. Also, not every heterosexual couple has children.
        3. We don’t persecute people. You have equal rights, you can’t be discriminated against, you can get married wherever you want to and have it be fully equal. You usually don’t get beaten for being you. You usually don’t get fired for being you. You usually don’t get denied housing for being you. The only thing we do is take up issue with you speaking out against us when there’s nothing wrong with us and because we deserve equal rights.
        4. Funny, back several decades ago, they said African-Americans weren’t equal to white people. Your views will be ancient someday soon. :)

        1. You say that you are equal. Can you explain how you are equal to 1 Man + 1 Woman?

          Take up issue? There is everything wrong with you, in the way that you and homosexuals, lesbians behave, bully people people. If people dont want to accept you, they dont have to.

          1. Ah I understand now, Aiden

            There is a choice … we can accept who we are and be the real people we are … or we can do what you do – become bitter twisted angry vexacious and bigotted as a failing disguise for our own denial that we are gay.

            Thats what you appear to be doing …

            Not working though, trying too hard, darling.

          2. Of course I’m different, and not the same, but that doesn’t mean I’m any less. I only do monogamous relationships, and the love I have for a woman is no less than another woman can have for a man. I want to make a lifelong commitment to the one woman of my dreams, it doesn’t affect you in any way and there’s nothing wrong with that.

            Yes, people do have to accept me in order to have me treat them 100% fairly, and if they don’t, I’m going to take up issue with that, just as an African American would take offense to a racist person. I’m not going to tolerate you having an issue with a part of who I am.

          3. Aiden, I also don’t bully people. I just take issue with the fact that you homophobes call me names, harass me, attack me physically, spread lies about me, and deny me rights.

          4. 1 man + 1 woman = 2 people
            1 man + 1 man = 2 people
            1 woman + 1 woman = 2 people.

            EQUAL. Get it?

      2. you militant homosexuals persecute people

        Oh really? How exactly?

    2. Not to mention, if homosexual marriage is allowed, heterosexual marriage still will be allowed and will not be changed at all. Religious buildings/people will also not be required to perform marriages (I believe they should choose to if they want to, but there’s no point in marrying in a religion that’s against homosexuality).

  21. swansea1973 8 Apr 2012, 11:24pm

    and put a thin veil on it to pretend you are doing it for the greater good of everyone else. I am probably double your age, I have worked in a Hospital Enviroment both Mental Health and Accident and Emergency Department, I see life and death going on around me a good number of times a day. Whilst you are on here playing at ‘handbags at dawn’ you need to get into a proper relationship where you devote your time and do something meaningful for your other half (part 2)

    1. What’s this all about? Isn’t it the ultimate in “handbags at dawn” to attack another poster rather than contribute to the discussion in a constructive way?

  22. swansea1973 8 Apr 2012, 11:26pm

    and put a thin veil on it to pretend you are doing it for the greater good of everyone else. I am probably double your age, I have worked in a Hospital Enviroment both Mental Health and Accident and Emergency Department, I see life and death going on around me a good number of times a day. Whilst you are on here playing at ‘handbags at dawn’ you need to get into a proper relationship where you devote your time and do something meaningful for your other half

  23. swansea1973 8 Apr 2012, 11:27pm

    and if you are in a relationship right now it must be in a bad place because, A. You are always, always on here spewing out your bloody opinion as if everyone should follow your lead, you are passive aggressive, which is nothing more than a childish bully, who is not fighting the cause for everyone, you are on a personal crusade as an outlet for your mixed up views and emotions.
    B. If you are in a happy, loving relationship why are you on here 24hours a day??
    Instead of being on here you should get a life and devote some of your time and love to your partner, because I don’t know about same sex marriage, you will be a sad lonely guy who needs his P.C. surgically removed as any man who has self worth would not be happy to have their partner welded to their I-pad instead of paying them the proper attention they deserve.

  24. swansea1973 8 Apr 2012, 11:29pm

    This is not an attack on you for being gay, because I am too and that would make me a hypocrite, which I’m definitely not. Is an observation over the past months, that you are a sad pathetic individual, who has a high self opinion and does not speak as a voice for the entire homosexual community (which you do think you are) you are a angst filled person, with some serious personal issues that need to be addressed as you are manifesting this as ‘everyone’s opinion’ when it is just yours

    1. While Stu doesn’t speak for everyone (nobody does), I would rather have him speak for us than have you speak for us. He seems like a pretty cool guy and the fact that he has the most thumbs upped comments this week (usually every week) says at least something about him on this site.

      1. Thanks Lumi.

        Its nice to be appreciated.

        I certainly dont speak for everyone. Just me. I hope what I say usually makes sense. You do usually too – although we have disagreed – and thats the point of these forums – you will debate and sometimes agree, sometimes not.

        1. Ooh a homosexual popularity contest now, better get the awards ready, in form of Tesco Value Cucumbers.

          Stu has all the ‘thumbs up’ most weeks as he spends most if not all his unworking life on here moanng, whining, and generally forcing his opionions onto others, and picking fights with those that go against them, and calling them homophobic when they are just expressing their views.

          This is a clear case of bullying, something which, if a paramedic, ought to know about and cease from doing, as could be putting the NHS in a bad light from associating his views with his position.

          1. You would know all about bullying as a militant and arrogant bullying homophobe.

            I have nothing to be ashamed for. Standing up for my rights is a matter of honour.

          2. @ Aiden

            If you’re criticizing Stu for being on here so much, while he’s a gay man, then I wonder why you and your homophobic crew are on here, an LGB news site, so much, I guess you have nothing better to do when you have free time from signing homophobic petitions. Stu also hasn’t forced his opinions onto me (I’m a regular visitor), even though we disagree on certain things. He’s also not bullying people, you are the one bullying people.

            @ Stu

            Exactly. I would say Amen but that’s too religious for my liking :P.

          3. Unsurprisingly you sound envious, Aiden.

          4. Aiden, why are you so desperate to prevent LGBT people getting equal rights? Your post made you sound really wound up by it. Would it be easier for you personally if gay people were invisible? Much less temptation that way, I’d imagine….

  25. swansea1973 8 Apr 2012, 11:29pm

    I am not some moron who does not know what I am talking about, come and spend a day with me and see people who have serious issues in life, like dying of cancer, brought in from an RTA, dead on arrival, the families of children dying 2-3 days after being born, these are serious life changing matters in life, not your pathetic gripes, you stupid little boy.
    And you can say what you want about me in your response, as I’m not playing tit for tat with you, I know what is important in life, my life and helping others in life, Stu just get off your soap box you stupid, opinionated idiot.

    1. What do you do for a living swansea1973, I am a paramedic.

      So people in RTAs, dying and delivering babies – my scene too.

      1. swansea1973 8 Apr 2012, 11:37pm

        I’m a male nurse in A & E

        1. SO I have them nicely packaged and in a clinically acceptable condition by the time they reach you.

          Right so your point is?

      2. Further

        When have I attacked you, swansea1973 … until this little set of outbursts I don’t believe I have seen you on here … perhaps you should jog my memory …

        As for my relationship – which frankly is none of your business, but to humour you, my boyfriend is working in Cape Town for 10 weeks on a contract.

        I will be hopefully going out to see him in 2 weeks for a little break – can’t wait.

        1. swansea1973 8 Apr 2012, 11:47pm

          I read these comments pretty frequently, and I dont post any back as I have more important thing to do with my life than be stuck on here forcing my opinions down peoples throat, if you are over 18, you are an adult, you make your OWN choices in life, you do what you want, but don’t speak for the whole gay community with your opinions, one voice does not speak for the 4-5% of the population who are gay, I think that I have been ‘Gay@ a lot longer than you. and maybe in your working life you are doing a good job, but so am I too, and it goes to show that 2 people who are gay, in a similar job role do not share the same opinions on everything else, my point proved, I think.

          1. Absolutely

            I do not pretend to speak for every gay person – or indeed any other.

            I speak for myself.

            I will reinforce my opinion with facts and statistics (including those where others agree with me) that does not mean I speak for the entire LGBT community – the fact I regularly disagree with people on here (and agree with others) demonstrates that there is a range of opinions.

            These are comments forums for debate – that means giving opinion and agreeing and disagreeing.

            We clearly disagree – not quite sure on what,as you seem more interested in telling me about working at RTAs or with dying people or casting doubt on my relationship than actually addressing any of the facts you disagree with me about.

            But we disagree (and it appears you do not want to address the issues and debate them) … The nature of these forums is that people will agree and disagree.

            You may do a good job, I do not know.

            Your ability at work does not give you the right to limit what I say.

          2. guys, how about not bitching each other in front of the homophobes. It only gives them more ammunition.

  26. Gotcha! Guilty!

  27. “Let’s remember that ‘freedom of speech’ is the very foundation of our democracy. And freedom of speech is not limited to making nice comments.

    People of Britain, wake up! You are sleep-walking into a liberal-PC Marxist police state. Don’t believe me? Get yourself on Twitter today and start posting something ‘inappropriate’. How long before YOU receive the knock on your door?

    What next, police grasses informing on the things you said in the pub? People whispering when they’re out, just in case they’re overheard by the state’s watchers? This is exactly what the former East Germany was like. And if we’re not careful, this is what we’re heading for here.

    he British National Party.

    We defend freedom of speech. Whether we agree with it or not. It’s what our forefathers fought and died for during the civil war; it’s presumably what we fought the Two World Wars for and it’s what we in the British National Party will continue to fight for!”

    Taken from todays Newsletter – Nick Griffin MEP

    1. The BNP? That’s all we need to establish your credentials, Aiden my poor sweet.

      1. Aha – he isnt even bothering with the charade that he is part of BNP Lite or BNP for people with mortgages/CRB clearance ….

        He tried pretending he was UKIP….

        That was old!

        “People of Britain” – was a laughable way to start some vitriol.

        Oh, Nick Griffin – thats the man who made a laughing stock of himself and his “party” on BBCQT isnt it?

    2. So you don’t like blacks as well as puffs Aiden ?

      Some reading for you:

      “In two large-scale, UK data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology.”

      1. Perhaps Aiden and others could get some help here too:

        Intolerance and Psychopathology: Toward a General Diagnosis for Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia
        Mary H. Guindon PhD, Alan G. Green PhD, Fred J. Hanna PhD

        American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
        Volume 73, Issue 2, pages 167–176, April 2003

        Abstract: Racism, sexism, and homophobia do not fit into any current diagnostic category. The authors propose that those who engage in such behaviors display a form of psychopathology deserving of its own category. The common denominator seems to be intolerance. The authors explore the possibility of an intolerant personality disorder, outline likely symptoms, and suggest some possible treatment considerations.

        1. Thanks Nathan – interesting link

  28. Lumi Bast 9 Apr 2012, 1:01am

    @ Aiden

    Just because you have freedom of speech it does not make it right for you to be anti-gay and bi/homophobic (it’s not right)

    1. “Let’s remember that ‘freedom of speech’ is the very foundation of our democracy. And freedom of speech is not limited to making nice comments.

      1. Lumi Bast 9 Apr 2012, 1:10am

        I never said that you shouldn’t be allowed to say those things but

        1. If you ever threaten violence against homosexuals/bisexuals, then your rights to free speech should be taken away
        2. Just because you are allowed to say things, doesn’t make it right. Being racist is wrong and so is being anti-gay/anti-bi
        3. If you’re anti-gay/anti-bi you shouldn’t be commenting on an LGB news site
        4. The reason people take such issue with you is that your viewpoints are wrong, because there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and we deserve rights

        1. There is everything wrong with homosexuality.
          And you do not deserve the same rights, as you are not the same as the majoriaty.

      2. No indeed. Please, as an experiment, take up a public stance denying the Holocaust.

        1. @Rehan

          He doesnt seem to like it when freedom of speech is used to voice observation over his closeted status, does our Aiden …

      3. @Aiden — freedom of speech not freedom from consequence.

  29. Lumi Bast 9 Apr 2012, 1:12am

    @ Aiden

    Also, no religion owns marriage so they have no say in what happens in civil marriage. The time is inevitable that same sex marriage will be legal in countries with religious freedom.

  30. One of the major organisers of Coalition for Marriage is the so-called Christian Institute and their habitual modus operandi of shameless misinformation and distortion of facts &reality is again exposed here.

    “Peers attack Christian Institute for lies about sex education proposals,”

    “Two peers have condemned a “cruel” and “vicious” campaign against them by the Christian Institute which claimed they wanted to make personal, social and health education (PSHE) compulsory for five-year-olds. This includes education about sex and relationships.”

  31. “The Christian Institute issued misleading and inaccurate information in an attempt to derail the amendment. This included writing to members of the House of Lords, trying to manipulate the Bill debates.
    During the debate, Lady Massey said: “Never in my time in this House have I known such a sinister and vicious campaign that has sought to misinform others. Noble Lords will have received hundreds if not thousands of letters, sent to your lordships taking up your time and energy and I find this deeply regrettable.”
    Lady Walmsley added that: “The Christian Institute recently sent out a letter in which they claimed that I would be laying an amendment to make PSHE compulsory. As your lordships can see, this is not true. They also claimed in a subsequent letter that my fictional amendment and Lady Massey‘s amendment would force schools to teach five-year-olds about sex. Also not true.
    “There have been wicked insinuations that we would want to do something that would harm children…”

  32. (cont’d)
    “There have been wicked insinuations that we would want to do something that would harm children and their innocence. … So we had a so-called Christian organisation telling lies and being both uncharitable and cruel.”
    The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds subsequently apologised for the behaviour of the Christian Institute during the debate on Lady Massey’s amendment. Bishop Packer said: “While I have no responsibility for the Christian Institute, I want to apologise for any errors or false accusations made in the name of Christianity. ..
    The Institute itself has not responded or issued any kind of apology.”

    The so-called Christian Institute has no qualms about lying to achieve it’s thoroughly dodgy ends, the C4M petition is just the latest deception it’s helping to promote.

  33. • Coalition For Marriage are basically being run and bankrolled by five shady and sinister evangelical Christian groups.

    • They work out of the same building as the Christian Medical Fellowship – here’s how much they hate queers.

    • Directors include: Dr Don Horrocks, the head of public affairs for the Evangelical Alliance “which in its latest annual review boasts 300 conversations in the corridors of power and regular contact with 40 MPs and peers”.

    • Nola Leach, the head of the cash-rich Christian Action Research and Education (CARE) “which, according to its annual report, spent £338,000 last year influencing public policy”.

    • Andrea Minichiello Williams, a barrister and founder of Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre, “which funds high-profile cases ‘to protect the freedoms of Christians in society'” – like that mad crucifix lady.

    • And Norman Wells, a director of Family Education Trust/Family And Youth Concern who tell lies in schools.

    • Colin Hart, C4M’s

    1. campaign manager, also runs the Christian Institute, “a charity which has been criticised for its overt political campaigning. Adoption experts condemned its organ donor-style cards which read: ‘In the event of my death, I do not want my children to be adopted by homosexuals.'”

      Stonewall’s Ben Summerskill comments wrily: “We remain confused about who is behind the so-called Coalition for Marriage and equally confused about their motives. It would be much more refreshing if they just admitted that they didn’t like homosexuals*.”

      (* or (BS did not add this) admit they did not like being closet gays in some cases!)

  34. What other deceptions/strange ideas have the Christian Institute tried:

    They support Adrian Smith the housing association manager from Trafford who was disciplined for breach of his employers code of conduct. They tried to use a human rights argument, which a senior judge rejected in court saying the human rights claim was “bogus”.

    They supported Dr Raabe; Dr Raabe, lest we forget, was dropped like a hot knife from the government’s Advisory Council For The Misuse Of Drugs in February after it emerged he’d written a paper suggesting a link between homosexuality and paedophilia.
    Or to put it another way, his “scientific advice” was shown to be so infected by bigotry as to be useless.
    The Mail On Sunday runs the obligatory hysterical quote from The Christian Institute; “His removal is worryingly like some sort of anti-Christian McCarthyism.”
    Raabe claims there has been “a witchhunt” against him.
    Though it could be argued that witchcraft has a better claim to scientific rigour than

    1. Dr Raabe.

      The Charity Commission criticised the Christian Institute for breaching the terms of its charitable status in a published letter. It ordered the Institute to change its subtitle, “influencing public policy”, and accused it of engaging in politics. Following complaints and a formal investigation, the commission told the institute that its aims of furthering and promoting the Christian religion and the advancement of education in accordance with certain Christian doctrines and principles have not been obvious in its campaigns. It criticised its 1998 publication Homosexuality and Young People for failing to articulate a Christian view. The Commission also criticised the publication Bankrolling Gay Proselytism: The case for extending section 28, which in isolation, it said, “could be viewed as overtly political for a charity publication”. “It is not acceptable for a charity to declare particular purposes which stray from [its] stated objectives. Normally a charitable research

    2. body is required to analyse and assimilate all the evidence … there were occasions when the link between the charitable object and the publication was not always clear.” The Commission met the Institute after complaints that it was a political lobbying association for conservative Christian values, and that some of its publications were “of a political or propagandist nature”.

  35. @swansea1973 — go away.

    Stu, stay.

  36. STOP FEEDING THE TROLL, the more you respond to him the more it spits nasty vitriol over the shiny new floor, poor old PN had to remove the report button because they became inundated with reports against this one in particular (well he sounds like keith to me) trust me ignore him and he will go away and get a new id that we can also ignore

  37. Paddyswurds 9 Apr 2012, 10:24am

    I know it is very difficult to ignore xtian or religious cretins like Aiden et al, but I believe as an a-theist that one shouldn’t engage with with these deluded creatures, as to do so lends their argument the tiniest legitimacy, by dint of the argument itself,. That is to say for instance, we don’t get into arguments as to whether there is organic life on the Sun. I apply the same principle to people who believe in non existent deities, who wish to argue their beliefe.

  38. Another one of the C4Ms “backers” is the Christian Legal Centre:

    The Christian Legal Centre (CLC) is a legal organization which was set up in December 2007 to provide legal support for Christians in the United Kingdom and lobby on their behalf. They are linked to the Christian Concern campaigning organisation. (They have been involved in many of the cases that the well known, alleged wife beater (such a law abiding bunch!) has also been involved in).

    Their case failures (almost all, if not all, of their court cases seem to end in failure) include:

    Emily Mapfuwa, a Christian who launched a private prosecution against the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead for exhibiting a statue by Terence Koh depicting Jesus with an erection. In a BBC Essex radio interview, Michael Phillips (a solicitor working for CLC who is also a member of The Lawyers Christian Fellowship) admitted that Ms Mapfuwa had never actually visited the exhibition. In fact she lives over 250 miles away in

    1. Brentwood, Essex. The case was eventually discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service.

      Eunice and Owen Johns, a Christian couple who applied to become foster parents with Derby City Council. They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable. The two parties jointly agreed to take the case to the High Court, for clarification of the law, but the court sided with the city council; stating that laws protecting people from discrimination, because of their sexual orientation, “should take precedence” over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

      Hybrid embryo research: The CLC and Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE) were refused permission to apply for a judicial review to overturn the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s decision to allow laboratory testing of hybrid embryos. Mrs Justice Dobbs at the High Court in London ruled that the application

      1. Paddyswurds 9 Apr 2012, 10:54am

        Is it not time we deemed these court cases by religious as to the legitimacy of their belief or faith, frivolous or contemptuous and either just refused or prosecuted for wasting court time; because that has become the nature of their actions, …. and is not likely to be otherwise.

        1. @Paddyswurds

          I agree. I mean, there is probably a rare case whereby freedom of religion is grievously harmed without justifiable reason (bear with me – I can hear you grumbling that there does not need to be a reason!) but this will be very rare eg preventing something that is legal and moral at a church (and I can not think of such an instance). We should not stop people the right to seek recourse where there is breach of their freedoms but where it is malicious or vexacious (which many of the CLC cases appear to be) then there should be a consequence for that.

    2. was “totally without merit”, and ordered the CLC to pay costs amounting to some £20,000.

      Gary McFarlane, a counsellor for Relate (a relationship support charity) who was sacked for refusing to offer counselling and therapy to same-sex couples. The charity admitted to a charge of wrongful dismissal, conceding that he should have been served notice instead of being fired immediately for ‘gross misconduct’. Further claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of religion were dismissed. His appeal against this ruling was dismissed by the High Court in April 2010.

      Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was supported by the CLC in an unsuccessful bid to sue the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust for discrimination because it had moved her to a desk job after she refused to remove a crucifix on a chain when asked to do so on health and safety grounds (hospital dress code prohibits front-line staff from wearing any type of necklace in case patients try to grab them). The hospital had

    3. offered Chaplin a compromise of wearing her cross pinned inside a lapel or pocket. An employment tribunal ruled they acted reasonably in April 2010, rejecting Chaplin’s case.

      Duke Amachree, a homelessness officer who was sacked by Wandsworth Council for subjecting a client to a “30-minute barrage” of evangelism when he was simply supposed to be offering her housing advice. The client complained to the Council, leading to an investigation. The Council complained that Amachree revealed “sensitive personal information” about the client to the media, namely an interview with The Daily Mail after the CLC had become involved. The CLC supported Mr Amachree in an unsuccessful legal claim for unfair dismissal, religious discrimination and breach of contract.

      Given the evidence of the “legal acumen” of the Christian Legal Centre, and given their links to C4M – is there therefore any surprise when the C4M do not get advised by their legal team of the illegalities and immorality they do.

  39. Paddyswurds 9 Apr 2012, 10:46am

    I commented on this very scenario when their count stood at 30,000. I don’t think any compos mentis human being takes their “poll seriously.

  40. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 12:28pm

    I agree with Edmund Broch in regard to organisations not teaming up with the C4EM. Where exactly are these supporters. Shouldn’t this be something StonewallUK should be involved with? We need an aggressive campaign of videos with celebrities participating; more advertising, not just on buses but on the London tube, railway stations and a prominent display of the C4EM and Government petition throughout. Why aren’t the Guardian, the Times becoming more proactive? It seems the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph are constantly giving coverage to C4M. How disappointhing to see the Sunday Times siding with that traitor Bradshaw.

  41. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 12:29pm

    Edmund Broch, why don’t you send this article to the Guardian and the Times?

  42. Heteropride.. Great 2B Straight!.,, 9 Apr 2012, 3:15pm

    @ Luni Basket
    1. If you ever threaten violence against heterosxuals, then your rights to free speech should be taken away
    2. Just because you are allowed to say things, doesn’t make it right. Being racist is wrong and so is being anti-hetero
    3. If you’re anti-hetero you shouldn’t be commenting on a hetero news site
    4. The reason people take such issue with you is that your viewpoints are wrong, because there is nothing wrong with heterosexuals and we deserve rights

    1. Lumi Bast 9 Apr 2012, 3:41pm

      1. I don’t threaten violence against heterosexuals based on their sexual orientation, I only threaten violence against someone who has could very possibly use violence against me or someone around me.
      2. I’m not racist, so that doesn’t mean anything. I’m not anti-hetero either.
      3. I’m not anti-hetero, and there’s no such thing as a hetero news site. I guess you mean anti gay, and I don’t comment there.
      4. My viewpoints aren’t wrong, and yes you heterosexuals do deserve rights and you already have them.

    2. “Straight” people don’t spend all their time on gay blogs. They also don’t spend one second concerning themselves with “straight pride”. You’re the kind of “straight” person that was studied and reported on in another post on PinkNews. You, and you friend (lover) Aiden are more likely than not, anti-gay closeted gay men.

      I don’t know whether to laugh at you or mourn for you.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 4:31pm

        Secure, well adjusted heterosexual men and women wouldn’t bother to troll a gay site nor would being gay be an issue for them. I suspect this one is a deeply closeted self-loather.

    3. @heteropride, An interesting statement. However there is a very obvious bigoted subtext to your comment – trying to use a marginalised minority’s validated defensive stance to justify your frenzied crave to hate is moronic to say the least! There is no record of a heterosexual ever being victimised, beaten, harassed, bullied, murdered or otherwise assaulted solely for being heterosexual or unlike their heterosexual peers, banned from giving blood or legally marrying the consenting adult that they love due to the gender of their partner. When you use the word heterosexual in your post above I suspect that you actually mean homophobic or even racist, because you come across as both.

      GLBT are not and never have been anti heterosexual. GLBT are proud opponents of bigotry, oppression, inequality and hatred – sadly you seem to be pro bigotry and hatred. Sadly I suspect that you are a racist homophobic fundamentalist bigot so you have nothing to be proud of!

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 4:30pm

      What are you doing trolling a gay site anyway? Prurient interest? Heterosexuals have all their rights under the law so your argument is deeply flawed and ridiculous. Heterosexuals never have to think about their basic rights, but we do. We have to fight for ours, they have none to fight for because they already enjoy full equality and never have to question it. You’re nothing more than a dumb hatemonger.

  43. Lumi Bast 9 Apr 2012, 3:46pm

    Oh wow, I have a nickname from Keith, I don’t know whether to laugh or be proud….. so I choose both!

  44. I’ll say it again and Again and AGAIN, if you scratch the surface you’ll find that a HUGE number of the online petition signatories are AMERICAN. The petition has garnered a LOT of attention on right wing religious and anti-gay websites/television/radio in America.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 4:23pm

      American signatories would need a legitimate post code when signing the C4M petition. Unless they had family and friends in the UK, how would they get access to one? What they’ve probably done is have people sign online by using more than one computer using fictitious user names . Most petitions of this nature can identify someone who has signed more than once and the duplicate signature would normally be removed automatically. But, since this is C4M, I wouldn’t put anything past them. Lies and deception are driving their campaign and gives the impression they are winning the argument, sadly. There are a lot of gullible ignorant people out there who will fall for C4M’s message and run with it.

      1. Google an address in the UK eg 10 Downing Street – it gives a post code …

        Would be interesting to see how many signatures relate to each individual post code

  45. I am one of the people who signed the c4m petition but I would be mortified if anyone had falsified the figures.

    I don’t believe there is hard evidence this has been done. Knowing some of those involved, I would be surprised but also devastated if that were so.

    I would like to see some independent verification of the figures and C4M organisers would be wise to allow this.

    Fyi, I have visited a number of churches recently and seen the petition in their lobbies. It makes me think that most would have signed via the paper rather than electronic route.

    1. There is clear evidence of the C4M fabricating signatures, refusing to remove those added without the person whose name it is wishing to do so, issuing misleading advertising, and (as per usual for the so called-Christian Institute (perhaps better named the anti-gay Institute) failing to be open, honest and transparent in dealing with criticism.

      Would C4M permit such a similar debate on a website linked to them as occurs here? No

      Do C4M respond to complaints or criticisms that are directed towards them by email or telephone? No

      Is the evidence used in their advertising regarded as doubtful and lacking integrity by eminent media lawyers and polling experts and regarded as misleading? Yes – sufficient enough to cause the ASA to begin investigating the C4M for breach of advertising law and guidelines.

      Are there concerns about the integirty of the C4M information governance? Yes – sufficient enough for some to state they are reporting the matter to the Information Commissioner.

      1. Stu
        I must admit that I have not looked in detail at the evidence either way.

        Just as with our earlier discussions re. CI, I can’t speak for C4M. I can only say I agree with the petition and have signed it accordingly.

        I don’t regard myself as homophobic or anti-gay and don’t believe that charge applies to most on the C4M side of the fence.

        Personally, I would like to see an investigation and hope C4M will be exonerated.

        Btw: while I believe CI are key movers in the C4M initiative, there are many others too. I am also believe that many, probably most, who share my views on key doctrines, would also be supportive.

        As for C4M not permitting debate or responding to complaints, you may be right and this is regretable.

        1. @John

          We have chatted many times and I know you have thought long and hard about these issues.

          I have to say that anyone who supports treating gay people as having lower value than heterosexuals (and those seeking to prevent civil marriage are endorsing such devaluing of gay people) are by their actions homophobic.

          It is disappointing that some people can not see this homophobia in themselves or others.

        2. Hi John

          I agree with Owens comment that some people do not recognise their own homophobia.

          Its disappointing to see that some of the comments on here from some Christians are so thoughtless.

          I recognise that there are some Christians who support gay rights and humanity eg Quakers, Unitarians, Bishop of Salisbury, and some prominent evangelical Christians (see

          Its disappointing others prefer to believe they have a right to interfere in registry office marriages and seek to impose theocratic views. Its seems sheer arrogance.

        3. Sister Mary Clarence 9 Apr 2012, 11:43pm

          @ JohnB

          I fail to see how you can be a Christian when you fail to follow, or a very best cherry pick, the teachings of Christ.

          I am not aware that the Bible made any reference to take the bits you like the sound of and discard the rest.

          The Bible is seldom clear, however there are the odd few occasions where a bit of clarity surfaces:

          Luke 6:37

          “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

          James 4:12

          There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

          Matthew 7:1-2

          “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

          I could go on …..

    2. @JohnB — could you tell us why you don’t want LGBT people to have the same rights to marriage as straight people ?

  46. We saw this back when the homosexual law reform bill was being passed here in New Zealand when the Salvation Army collected signatures. Quite aside from the abusive/coercive bullying tactics used, it was revealed that many, many signatures were fake with everything from children, the family dog, made up names to Mickey Mouse… didn’t make it any less insidious though.

  47. It would be interesting to see if the C4M are prepared to explain the time lags demonstrated in the graph in the story by PN.

    I doubt they will.

    If they do, can they provide hard copies of these signatures to be examined?

    I doubt it.

  48. Sister Mary Clarence 9 Apr 2012, 11:34pm

    Cherry plucked 3 names off the signatories list and goolged them.

    Out of the 3, not one of them sprung up as a living breathing person in the UK.

    Not entirely scientific, but 3 out of 3 with no internet footprint whatsoever is odd

    1. I don’t doubt that a lot of the signatures are invalid. However, if you assume the typical age of the people signing it is 50+ then the fact that most of them don’t have an internet footprint isn’t that odd.

      1. But you do have to provide an email address.

  49. gerry leddy 10 Apr 2012, 9:54am

    even if the figures are correct this is fantastic news,
    It means that fewer than 1% of the UK population is against, 99% are therefore in favour.

    remember we are 62 million

  50. There’s an interesting discussion following from this at rationalskepticism.

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.