Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay MP Stuart Andrew: ‘Ben Bradshaw is the one playing politics’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Ben Bradshaw is an irresponsible scumbag for throwing the LGBT community under the bus, for no reason other than to score some points against the Tories.

    Ben Bradshaw’s selfish opportunism must not be forgotten.

    No LGBT person (or anyone who believes in equality can vote ever again for Ben Bradshaw.).

    The scary thing is that the Labour Party has not condemned Bradshaw.

    Does this mean that Labour endorse Bradshaw’s reckless views.

    If that is the case then it’s clear that Labour has officially become fhe most homophobic of the 3 main politicial parties and must not be supported by the LGBT communities.

    1. All the hopes and dreams of gay people and the hours of work and huge sums of people’s money that have been selflessly poured into the pro-equality campaign could all be wrecked by a nasty ignorant comment from an uncle Tom idiot. We all need to redouble our efforts and ask all those we know to help support the campaign.

    2. As long as the Condems are in power I’ll be voting Labour, it is a matter of principal over a gross reaction over one pillock.

    3. de Villiers 10 Apr 2012, 7:23pm

      That is quite florid language – I have not heard that expression of throwing someone under a bus and it made me chuckle to read it. The image of Mr Bradshaw throwing a community under a bus seemed almost funny.

      That said, I agree that Mr Bradshaw’s comments were pure, partisan politics. It is obscene the way politicians cannot bring themselves to speak positively about something with which they agree but feel compelled to paint their agreement as disagreement on party-political grounds.

  2. I like the way Andrew tries to make it seem like the Tories support marriage equality, when only the Lib Dems (and the Greens) have it as party policy…

    1. Indeed.

      But that dioes not alter the fact that Ben Bradshaw is a reckless, homophobic a$$h0le

    2. Benjamin Cohen 10 Apr 2012, 4:02pm

      Didn’t the Tory Home Secretary say the Government support it? http://p.ink.cx/wEGZwP

      The Conservative Equality Manifesto says the Tories would ‘consider’ it http://p.ink.cx/9aA603

      I think the issue is that the Conservatives don’t have the same ‘official policy’ thing that the other parties have. I think Cameron just decides them, rightly or wrongly. So that would explain why Ed Miliband supports marriage equality but it’s still not yet official Labour Party policy. Isn’t it really the case that aside from Ben Bradshaw, no one is making this about party politics? Obviously though, I’d expect there to be more Tory MPs voting against it than Labour MPs if Cameron makes it a free vote. One of PinkNews’ few official beliefs is that the practise of free votes on LGBT equality is wrong, the MPs who vote against it, should be considered as ‘rebels’ http://p.ink.cx/cKyggz

      1. Well its a free vote and there will be no whips, so they can vote how they like, hopefuly they will vote against it, or dave will be off at the next election…

        1. They can vote exactly as they like and the majority believe it will become law.

          If it does not become law then the Tories will be out of power at the next election as no right thinking LGBT person would vote for them again after such a breach of trust (and the number of LGBT people in the UK vastly exceeds either the number of regular church goes / or white supremacists (like you Aiden))

      2. The Government support it. That’s not quite the same as Tories supporting it – the Tories don’t support raising the income tax threshold for low earners, yet it’s Government policy.

        The reason I mention party politics is exactly because of your “rebels” suggestion. If it’s not a party’s policy to support equal marriage, it makes it harder to pressure that party’s MPs to support it, or that party’s whips to impose a line on the vote.

    3. The Tory policy seems pretty clear to me !

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCLF2ji0rZI

      http://goo.gl/2JuCG (scroll down about about 80%)

    4. @ Dave Page

      OT I hope Delga received my email about Alan Turing, sent earlier today.

  3. Ben Bradshaw is an eejit! At least Stuart Andrew has commented that it was covered in their manifesto, something MR. Bradshaw had clearly forgotten or could not be bothered to do his research on. A bit like his knowledge on Civil Partnerships and same sex CIVIL marriage!

  4. Even if Labour does condemn Ben Bradshaw for his recklessly stupid homophobic bigotry, it does not alter the fact that Ben Bradshaw has willingly handled the churches and the right wing a huge stick with which to beat our campaign for full legal equality.

    It really is quite breathtaking how cravenly irresponsible and treacherous Ben Bradshaw has been.

    He really is the dregs – someone so out of touch with his LGBT constituency that he will allow our fight for legal equality be used to score cheap points.

    Ben Bradshaw is a truly awful person – completely lacking in any sort of integrity or principle.

    And Labour’s deafening silence on Bradshaw’s homophobia should be sounding loud alarm bells among our community.

    Labour cannot be trusted to do the right thing by our community.

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 10 Apr 2012, 4:56pm

      “Even if Labour does condemn Ben Bradshaw for his recklessly stupid homophobic bigotry, it does not alter the fact that Ben Bradshaw has willingly handled the churches and the right wing a huge stick with which to beat our campaign for full legal equality. ”

      I absolutely agree. He will be quoted until the cows come home on this issue to indicate that the gay community isn’t even decided on what it wants.

      He did it no doubt because there is a real danger of the Conservatives stealing Labour’s thunder on equality. In years to come who is going to remember civil partnerships as a huge step when we have full marriage equality.

      At the next election I’m sure if no one else, Labour thought they had the gay vote, but that looks less certain now. They can either support they opposition initiative to bring in marriage equality, when I’m sure supporting the government on anything utterly affronts them, or they can torpedo it and kiss goodbye to our votes for a very long time.

      1. Bradshaw’s failure to support equality closely mirrors that of Stonewall – the positions of Labour and that supposedly-neutral charity are rarely far apart.

        Stonewall and Labour’s opposition to marriage equality has done enough damage. Stonewall have at least partially retracted on this issue, though they still betray the bisexuals they ask for money, and the trans people on whose behalf they offer opinions.

        Labour in Government were forced into much of their LGBT equality measures by the European Court of Human Rights, which insisted on overturning the armed forces ban, on the Gender Recognition Act and other things. It’s time for the party to step up to the plate and fully support equal marriage and civil partnerships.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Apr 2012, 6:38pm

          And forced into introducing CPs too. It did nothing voluntarily out of the goodness of its heart. Tony Blair at the time even said that “we didn’t want to go that way”, in terms of legalising equal civil marriage aided and abetted by StonewallUK because of the backlash we’re now witnessing from the religious nutters who by no means represent the majority of public opinion. Those MPs in opposition are completely out of touch and hopefully are among the minority when it comes to a vote.

  5. Ben Bradshaw is an Uncle Tom. An anglican suck up who is willing to throw the rest of us under the train so that he can feel happy in the pews.

    He makes me feel sick.

    1. He really is a terrible human being.

      And a hypocrite.

      Let’s not forget that Uncle Tom Bradshaw was in favour of marriage equality in 2009.

      In 2012 suddenly he believes that CP Apartheid should be enough for the uppity queers.

      He really is a revolting excuse for an individual – a slimy, dishonest, opportunistic little no-mark.

      No-one from the gay community should ever vote for him again.

      1. de Villiers 10 Apr 2012, 7:31pm

        David, I really wonder sometimes how you manage to leave your home every morning. If you see stupidity as treachery and really do see the world in such stark terms as you describe on these boards then not only must it mean that you are unable to work with or get-along with others with whom you disagree but also that living your life must be almost unbearable.

        — This is not to criticise but is written really in amazement at how you manage to do. I should say that was genuinely touched by your kind message on the adoption story.

        1. This wasn’t stupidity. It was in part calculated, in part arrogant. Maybe this man is happy with his CP, but young gay people growing up today are getting hurt by bullies who have the justification of knowing the law treats gay people as second class cirizens.

          Whatever one thinks of marriage, there must be true equality in the law for sexuality. This is why this is THE priority.

  6. Spanner1960 10 Apr 2012, 4:05pm

    If it is “not the priority”, why is everyone making such a big deal about it?

    Bradshaw should explain his REAL objections, or allow the government rubber stamp it and move on.

  7. If Ben Bradshaw has not “yet heard an explanation as to how what the Government is proposing would be different or better” than civil partnerships then he has been hiding under a rock and his ignorance is his own fault.

    If he cared about the LGBT community he would bother to listen to them. He should be ashamed to call himself gay. What an idiot and traitor.

  8. I am disappointed with Mr Bradshaw’s comments. However, some with longer memories will recall the vicious homophobic abuse Bradshaw was subjected to from the then Tory candidate, Adrian Rogers, in order to win his seat. If I had been subjected to that with no censure or apology from Tory HQ, I’d be more than suspicious of the party’s Damascene revelation with respect to LGBT rights.

    It’s curious that Bradshaw, in his opinion piece,made no remark about the extremism from C4M supporters, which is every bit as vile as what he had to endure. I wish he would put more focus on where the real intimidation is coming from.

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 10 Apr 2012, 5:17pm

      Yes, and we also remember him flicking us off with his expenses claims too. Aside from doing very nicely out of keeping a roof (or roofs) over his head I note he was also buying Kleenex facial tissues by the crate (at £26.33 each) at a rate of about 1 crate a quarter, and even charged us for copies of Attitude magazine. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against Attitude, but is it really needed to help an MP do his job?

      The guy was never an asset, and not he’s clearly shown he’s a liability

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Apr 2012, 6:14pm

      Notice not one word of condemnation coming from Miliband or anyone else in the Labour party. Bradshaw is a disgrace and a detriment to his party and a traitor to his fellow gays. What he did was nothing more than enabling the case against equal civil marriage. If Miliband had any guts, he’d rebuke him, censure him and call for him to issue an apology. I hope all of his gay constituents vote him out. He is not fit to represent us let alone speak for us.

      Thank you, Stuart Andrew for pointing out Bradshaw’s hypocrisy and harmful comments.

      1. Labour’s silence on this is deafening.

        I think we can draw our own conclusions from that – namely that the Labour Party is now the most homophobic of the 3 main political parties.

        They did some good work in the past – but when it comes to LGBT equality the Labour Party are no longer fit for service and no LGBT person should vote for them.

    3. So if the guy understands what it’s like to be bullied for being gay, he should be shouting from the rooftops for ANY change in the law that will remove second class status for gay people, not carping on the sidelines for some obscure political advantage.

  9. Pink News = gay wing of the Tory Party.
    Give voice to everyone but Tories + Boris always in a glowing light, Ken and Labour always emphasise the negative

    1. Which will be why PN gave a platform to Yvette Cooper in her strident piece supporting equal marriage?

      I don’t see PN as playing party politics (at least not on this issue) and being pro LGBT rights – not specifically pro any party. They support the governments plans to ensure equal marriage – but thats because they support equal marriage, not because they necessarily support the government.

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 10 Apr 2012, 5:24pm

      Okay, so nothing wrong with what Ben Bradshaw said then mate?

  10. Whilst I thought it would have been appropriate for the “duty senior spokesperson” of the Labour party to issue some comment rebuking Bradshaw for the hurt and distress that he caused by playing politics with the issue of same sex couples being able to marry – over the Easter holiday weekend. I did think it would be a reasonable excuse (the holiday weekend) to delay a statement of rebuke till today.

    No such statement arrives today in the media.

    Disappointing.

    Feel that Labour are not treating this with the respect they should.

  11. Nurse Happyweather 10 Apr 2012, 4:42pm

    I think with people like Joyce and Bradshaw in their midst, Labour are going to become as extinct as the Tories were for 13 years (and even their comeback was on another party’s coat-tails). Labour’s pandering is now almost exclusively to the Muslim sector of the population, which is really not good news for us.

  12. Both Stuart Andrew and Ben Bradshaw should get a hotel room for themselves. I say they should because I assume they haven’t done that before:

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/tory-battling-in-marginal-criticised-for-switching-sides-1-2570486

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 10 Apr 2012, 5:28pm

      Yes, I see, so he found out that the Labour party had nothing to offer a gay man some years before the rest of us. Well done for digging that up.

      Do you have anything to say though on the venal backstabbing antics of Mr Bradshaw recently. He should be ashamed to call himself gay, I’m sure you’d agree.

      1. $tuart has been making his pitch around different political parties for some time now. At the moment he thinks the Tory party has a lot to offer to a gay man like him. One thing is for sure, now he can pay for the hotel room with money stolen from grandmothers … Isn’t that nice?

        1. de Villiers 10 Apr 2012, 7:36pm

          Pensioners as a class in England have the lightest tax-treatment. The decision of the Chancellor was to require pensioners to pay tax at the same rate as everyone else. No money has been stolen from grandmothers.

          1. Their tax treatment isn’t getting worse, it’s merely that the rest of us are being allowed to catch up.

            Other MPs have changed sides of the house including Winston Churchill, not many people call him treacherous.

  13. Really don’t understand gay tories. Ah well, each to their own!

    Disclaimer: I obviously agree with him on this point. Although, one could just as easily argue that he’s exploiting the situation to make HIS party look good.

    1. Equally hard to understand are anti-gay homosexual Christian Labour MPs.

  14. I agree with his sentiments, but by copying and pasting LGBTory soundbites does he not think he too is coming across as playing politics?

    Let’s all agree that bad-mouthing marriage equality is bad, supporting it is good and whether your Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green etc. does not matter!

    1. Exactly, there are some issues that are too important to get bogged down in party politics about and equal access to marriage is one of them!

  15. Peter & Michael 10 Apr 2012, 5:11pm

    Seems as if the pensioners will not be backing the conservatives at the next election, because of keeping tax allowance frozen indefinitely and thinking of taxing the government pension at 20%, the students will not back the liberal democrats either, so it seems that labour have been handed an all out victory at the next election. Can this mean that the labour party will legalise Same-Sex Marriage, when they fudged the issue when last in power? We hope that Ben Bradshaw loses his seat.

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 10 Apr 2012, 5:30pm

      Ha-Ha. Labour are dead in the water.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Apr 2012, 6:26pm

        And Miliband not doing any damage control, yes, I absolutely agree, dead in the water where Labour belong. My only hope is that those Tories in opposition to equal civil marriage will exercise a bit of pragmatism when it finally comes to a vote for the sake of the party. Can they really be prepared to see it defeated in 2015 if it fails over this one issue alone, an issue that really only affects gay people? As for the Tory constituents who support C4M, staying home on election day as a protest against the party would be giving their votes away to Labour. I don’t think they realise how irresponsible that would be given the outcome of the last general election.

  16. ‘… I’d have thought Mr Bradshaw would welcome it, after all 98% of Pink News readers said they wanted it…’

    oh so this is a popularity contest now?! and saying that tories were the only party that was committed to ssm in pre-election manifesto (when thats not strictly true) is not playing politics?

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 10 Apr 2012, 5:31pm

      Okay, did Labour then?

      1. it is not about what labour did or didnt, this is about tory poster (gay)boy playing politics by making inaccurate claims in order to discredit someone else by accusing them of engaging in an activity for a political gain

        1. Bradshaw made the false claim first. Andrew was merely correcting a lie – sorry, mistake.

        2. @Kane

          Why can you not set aside party politics and accept that Bradshaw has caused harm and distress, recognise his failures (and those who have failed to condemn him) and then move on with equal marriage as the priority (not partisan politics)?

          Or do you think that party politics are more important than marriage?

          I don’t.

          1. im not here to defend bradshaw or labour part, but to pointing out disingenuous and hypocritical behavior of tory poster (gay)boy, who uses party politics to accuse others of doing the same

          2. I think its legitimate to identify that the “party politicizing” that Bradshaw is alleging, is what Bradshaw is doing himself.

          3. you would think that andrew could do just that without doing bradshaw

        3. I don’t think the term (gay)boy, said in a derogative manner as here is appropriate frankly.

  17. It is a bit annoying how some on here have a “What did Labour ever do for us?” mentality.

    In gay rights terms, Labour built the foundations, layed the bricks, put in the windows and did the pointing. Now the Tories come along and are thinking about putting a roof on the top and try to claim credit for the whole house.

    Ben Bradshaw might be an idiot, but let’s be clear, when gay rights were not trendy and fashionable, there was only one party that ever got gay rights bills through Parliament, and that was Labour. And the Tories were the ones who were most vocally against those bills going through.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Apr 2012, 6:32pm

      James, there is such a thing as evolving on issues. Clearly, David Cameron and others have and that is to be applauded. Don’t forget, Tony Blair was committed to not having equal civil marriage when CPs were in consultation. Now several years later, look what happened. Even he has evolved and supports equal marriage. Labour didn’t enact CPs of its own volition either.

    2. de Villiers 10 Apr 2012, 7:41pm

      It must be true that the Left did the heavy lifting, often against the opposition of the Right. It is nearly always the case on social issues. However, the Right have a habit of embracing and defending whatever becomes part of the existing system – and that appears to have happened here.

    3. Though it’s worth remembering that under the last Labour Government, many LGBT policies from lifting the armed forces ban through the Gender Recognition Act were imposed on the unwilling Government by the European Court of Human Rights – and now Labour are trying to claim credit for the stuff they were forced to do. Oh, and Civil Partnerships was originally a Lib Dem Private Member’s Bill…

  18. I suspected at the outset that Bradshaw’s statement was little more than politicking itself. It’s worth bearing in mind that in his attempt to court controversy he doesn’t speak for all gay people. A mediocre attempt at publicity by someone who is a mediocre politician, at best. More worrying than his irrelevant musings is the failure of his party to pipe up and voice their commitment to equality.

  19. “Changing the words civil partnership to gay marriage…”

    Will people stop saying ‘gay marriage’. My brother doesn’t go around introducing me as ‘my gay brother’.

    When Will Young, on Question Time, declared “If I get married… I want now to say that I’m having a Gay Marriage…”
    I just cringed… what does he mean a ‘Gay Marriage’???? Why can’t you just say marriage. So many people don’t even understand the concept of equality, including those fighting for it.

  20. Yes, we do need the word marriage. Just because some people don’t want to be married, doesn’t mean that some of us don’t.

    I personally want marriage not a god damn civil partnership, it’s a priority to me to be equal by law. I also don’t want it changed to gay marriage, I just want it to be called marriage.

  21. Stu is actually a pretty smart guy and not a deviant, dunderhead, deluded freak. If anyone here fits that description, it’s you/Aiden/etc.

  22. Keith, I’d say it would be very difficult to quote many of your posts given your bigotted statements tend to mean they are deleted fairly quickly every day.

    But here’s a quick question. Care to comment on this quote:

    “There are hundreds, if not thousands a month you don’t see! He makes it hard to police his comments.”

    Do you deny this statement? If not, why do you feel the need to post so many comments to this site? Seems a bit more than just wanting to interact don’t you think?

    1. Dave North 10 Apr 2012, 9:54pm

      The more he opens his mouth the deeper he digs himself in.

      Its pathetic to watch.

  23. Dave North 10 Apr 2012, 9:55pm

    “Carry on with your delusions by all mans and I shall carry on taunting you as the deviant, dunderheaded, deluded freak you are!”

    That one for starters.

    1. As the number of internet trolling cases securing convictions are growing (One more detailed below) then maybe (although this would require an element of self awareness, of which Keith seems sorely lacking) he might begin to recognise that he will be held to account.

      I don’t have to prove my career to Keith (more than happy that my securing several promotions and professional qualifications demonstrate that).

      I don’t have to prove the police investigation to Keith (he will find out about it in detail when the police decide, not when he stamps his feet and demonstrates his petulence). My chats to the police reassure me that they are making progress and that he will be brought to justice. If he wants to remain deluded and pretend he will not be caught – so be it. I continue to enjoy watching him squirm (although I would rather he just disappear). His desparation and arrogance are almost pitiful but these days I just laugh at him.

      1. Bought a dictionary have you, or just not drinking as much tonight – as usually your spelling is abysmal.

  24. Ah yes – you can cut and paste Keith – thats three times you have posted the same message (that I have noticed!).

    Originality (nor spelling) never your strong point (or facts, or evidence, or humanity,…. yadda yadda yadda)

    Keep looking for the knock on the door. It’s coming.

    I notice another internet troll has been convicted today of sending by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing message or matter.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2127848/Agoraphobic-recluse-threatened-children-Tory-MP-Louise-Mensch-sinister-email.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mp-sent-threatening-email-165819306.html

    Read over the story – it reminds me of someone – I wonder who – ah yes, that will be the insecure, shallow, callous, selfish, dishonest, arrogant, aggressive, impulsive and irresponsible troll who accepts no responsibility for his behaviour and lives in delusion that he won’t be held to account (Keith). Its sounds psychotic to me.

    1. So you’re clearly still here. Still waiting for a reply to the above so I’ll post it again;

      “There are hundreds, if not thousands a month you don’t see! He makes it hard to police his comments.”

      Do you deny this statement? If not, why do you feel the need to post so many comments to this site? Seems a bit more than just wanting to interact don’t you think?

      1. @Kris

        The troll is lying again.

        I believe PN (who have provided evidence of all of Keiths trolling to the police) more than I believe an arrogant psychotic idiot like the troll.

      2. The irony of claiming to not wanting to be psychoanalysed whilst at the same time replying in the same conversation under a different identity.

        And I see no need to insult you, I will call you a homophobic bigot as a factual statement of your behaviour and that will be all I will call you. And just so I’m clear, you are denying that statement then yes?

      3. @Stu

        I’m more inclined to believe PN too. I note he says “most” in his reply to the question. I’d like an outright denial of the statement if it’s not true. If he truly believes in the Bible like he says then he can’t be bearing false witness can he so I want him to say he denies it or admit to it.

      4. @Kris

        The idiot troll has already admitted in previous discussions (in police custody) that PN have blocked him previously and he finds ways to get around it.

        Now, that sounds like deliberate harassment to me?

      5. To clarify – he admitted the provocation in raunts on these comments. Those comments the police now have in their possession.

    2. Well, there will be no egg on my face.

      The police regard your behaviour as criminal. You might be in denial about it (a bit like your denial of your orientation) but that does not stop your behaviour being criminal merely because you believe it is not.

      You have threatened to make a complaint about me before – Go ahead. Do it. You don’t have the balls.

      I did. I made a complaint – you are just too cowardly. In any event I would love to see the evidence that you allege is hate crime from myself. Do I need to book surgery because my sides split so much from laughing at your idiocy?

      If you have the balls, make a complaint.

      1. Keith

        In the multitudes of messages shouting and screaming Bible messages, abuse and faeces – I havent personally kept a record of every single one. However, I am sure that in the information that the police have of EVERY message you have made on PN (including those deleted) that the one I recall of you threatening to report me to the police and the subsequent juvenile comments you added will be within the data they have.

        As I said, if you have the balls and the evidence – make a complaint.

      2. Your lack of motivation to report me, is linked to the fact a) there is no criminal conduct on my part – whereas there is continuing and serial offending on your part and b) you are chicken and do not have the balls to do it

        I am more than happy to go to the police in connection to you again!

        Go on, bring it on.

        Oh – you;re not man enough are you.

    3. You might know the Bible – total irrelevance, but I have know but you can pick and choose which verses you pluck out to try and justify your bile.

      Your clearly have no knowledge of the law.

      Sharper than me. I doubt – you are pretty blunt and impotent.

      “Butt buggering” – why do you always come down to sex and be fixated on it? As it is not all gay people engage in anal sex … you merely presume that I do. I doubt we have had sex before – I think I would remember someone as vile as you.

      Sock puppetry – you are the pantomime dame – darling.

      Lying – thats your forte too.

    4. By the way its keep not kepp – I thought you said you were sharper than me … not from where I am sitting, blunt as a bag of wet mice – thats our Keith.

  25. Hasn’t Ben Bradshaw heard of the expression “you don’t look at a gift horse in the mouth”

    Here we have a Tory MP in a coalition govt with the lib dems offering us equal civil marriage. You don’t criticise that even if you are jealous that your own party didn’t have the balls to do it when they had 13 yrs of a majority govt.

  26. @ Hetero–pride.. Great 2B Straight!.

    Thankfully the Bible isn’t the law! By the way here are some Bible verses for you to read-

    LOTS of verses about not lying
    Mark 12:31- And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these
    Luke 6:31- Do to to others as you would have them do to you
    Romans 12:3- For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith
    12:18- If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
    Hebrews 12:14- Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

    Thankfully the Bible is false so it doesn’t matter :)

    1. To add, there’s nothing wrong with hating a religion that’s full of evil, homophobia, sexism, murders, racism

      1. I thought you were a pantomime dame – and you liked rubbing Aladdins lamp, Keith?

        Well if you prefer cross dressing and sexual gyration on stage in public – happy to come and laugh at you in that too!

      2. My opinions on this matter are correct

        If someone wants to talk about being insightful and wise, they shouldn’t be the least intelligent person that comments on this site

        If you’re going to use the buggering butts line, it doesn’t work when you use it against a lesbian

        I never said there wasn’t a creator, I believe very strongly that there could have been an intelligent creator though I know for a fact that the Christian God isn’t real

      3. PN.. For CHRISTS SAKE GET THIS F***CKER OFF OF THESE FORUMS.

  27. “There are hundreds, if not thousands a month you don’t see! He makes it hard to police his comments.”

    Keefy-weefy. You never gave me an outright answer to my question about this statement. Your reply said “most”. That would imply not all. So therefore can you please state whether you accept or deny this statement? I won’t psychoanalyse you, so feel free to reply under which ever username you feel like.

    1. Dave North 11 Apr 2012, 9:30am

      Given that you are on your umpteenth name is it any wonder that some of your poison gets through.

      You are a thoroughly hateful individual and quite frankly a waste of skin.

      I can not even imagine going through life living as you do.

      Now do the world favour and die.

    2. Again with the “most”, also we now have “couple” in there. Terms which can mean 1 to one person or 100 to another depending on the volume in question. And I can take that as a denial? Why can’t you write either you admit this statement is correct or this statement is not true? It may not be relevant but I’m let’s just say I’m curious. I’m only asking a simple question, why the big issue about it?

      1. Haha Don’t try to treat me like I’m a moron and don’t notice your sidestepping of the issue. If we’re discussing hundreds of something and you say well a couple then that would mean a couple of hundred no? At no point did I say it meant 1 person to 100 people. I said it can mean 1 unit to 1 person or 100 to 1 person depending on the volume in question.

        So again can you state plainly that the comment from PN is either true or a lie. If you wish to make it relevant then ok – You seek to lecture us on morality based upon your Biblical beliefs. Consider this a test of your morality. Either you can admit the truth or you can bear false witness, which would be against your biblical views. No “most” “couple” or “error” Which can can just be you saying “well actually it was only 99 so it wasn’t a hundred” It’s a very simple request Keith. Is it true or is it a lie?

        1. No you muppet. OK, let me paint a wee picture for you, help you understand. Say we take 1000 people. We ask them a question. We then break them down into groups of 100s. I say to you, OK we are going to disregard a couple of these. That would be a couple of hundreds yes? This statement is regarding hundreds, if not thousands of comments. So if we’re saying a couple, do we mean a couple as in 1 or 2, or a couple as in 100/200.

          Again though. I don’t understand why you can’t state that the statement is either true or a lie. It’s not that difficult. And as I say I see it relevant as to your moral standing to be able to judge others. You’ve questioned mine before, why can I not do the same to you? A claim has been made against you. Do you morally accept it as truth or do you state it as false?

        2. @Kris

          Keith is a muppet, a deluded and ignorant muppet.

          He keeps changing his comments (particularly when he knows that the other person has identified the lies he has spoken).

          Firstly he tried saying several months ago that he was not posting under different names, but when there was evidence from many other posters he (seemingly reluctantly) admitted he posted under numerous different names.

          Now he tries sidestepping or changing the weight of his answer of another issue. Typical troll. Ignorant, slippery and squalid.

        3. “I am not interested in you obsessions that have nothing to do with debate or discusion of the topic Go and annoy someone else!.”

          Again with the irony I must say. But that’s fine. We tell him to go away and he doesn’t , so if he won’t give a stated answer about whether the claim of PN is true or false then I won’t be going away either. I(and I encourage anyone else who wishes) to simply troll each post he makes from now on asking him to state whether the statement is true or false since he seems unable to give a clear answer

  28. Labour’s silence on this is deafening. And should be a matter of grave concern to the LGBT population.

    I think we can draw our own conclusions from this- namely that the Labour Party endorses Ben Bradshaw’s homophobia. As a result teh Labour Party is now the most homophobic of the 3 main political parties.

    They did some good work in the past – but when it comes to LGBT equality the Labour Party are no longer fit for service and no LGBT person should vote for them.

    It really is that simply.

    Ben Bradshaw is a disgusting, bigotted little minnow of a politician and his politicial party seem little better than he is.

  29. Why do people respond to the troll?

    Simply do not reply to him.

    If Pink News refuses to deal with these trolls then the only way of dealing with them is to COMPLETELY ignore them

    1. dAVID

      The police are actively investigating him. It is going to be a pleasure to see him be convicted! I hope the punishment includes a court order not to be able to use the internet for x number of years

      1. Is this statement true or false?

        “There are hundreds, if not thousands a month you don’t see! He makes it hard to police his comments.”

        1. Again – why are you replying to it?

          Ignore it.

      2. I dont need to prove it – the police are satisfied there is sufficient to justify an enquiry and likely to lead to a charge.

        They are capable of bringing forward a case where you are convicted and they have a wealth of evidence to choose from.

        1. Well the Police disagree they say you have committed serial offences.

        2. @Keith

          You denied using other names for quite some time and then had a temper tantrum when it was pointed out by many people that we all knew (and PN had proven) that you were changing names repeatedly. You lied about doing this repeatedly until you were caught out.

  30. @ Heteropride

    If you have such an issue with homosexuality then don’t go on Pink News, an LGB news site

    It’s obvious you come on here to lash out at the anger you have for being bisexual or homosexual, as you complain about gay men and not lesbians for the most part, I really hope someday that you grow up and realize the Bible was made up to brainwash you and that you accept yourself for the way you are

  31. Patience, that knock at the door is coming …

  32. I don’t know why you would deny it, it seemed entirely pointless (but then so does most of what you do on here) – but thats exactly what you did to much ridicule from many of the regulars on here.

  33. Produce the quote where I made that allegation and a reference to the story it is in.

    I replied to you at the time that your twisting of what I said was false and a lie.

    I don’t need to produce your illegal posts – there are so many of them that the police have in their possession and which will be used to convict you.

    You can live in your little insecure (but paradoxically arrogant) little dream world that you will not be caught for you hate crimes, its coming (and hopefully soon – there has been a change in gear with the police over the last few weeks and lots of evidence has been collated and they know quite a lot about you – most of which they are unable to share with me due to data protection etc, but they have assured me you shall be arrested).

    1. Yes I am saying you are lying again.

    2. If there is a village idiot here, then I am sure most of PN readers will agree – that idiot is Keith!

      1. You have the audacity to suggest you are the one with credibility – don’t make me laugh! It hurts so much when you make me laugh as much as that did, if you keep making me laugh this much my sides might literally split!

        You will be arrested – you are merely in denial. Look forward to speaking to police again today or tomorrow and see how the investigation is developing. The police agree with me there appears to be prima facie evidence of hate crimes based on malicious communications and harassment (and potentially other offences). Its not just me saying it – its the detectives who are looking for you

  34. You will find out who is on the case when you need to know – when they knock on your door.

    Your continued presence and hate filled comments does you no favours in terms of your case when it comes to court.

    1. Ah well …

      Live in your ittle world of fantasy where you do nothing wrong.

      No one is saying you’re being here is a criminal offence. However, your conduct whilst you are very much is.

      I prefer to take the view of a current police officer on whether conduct is likely to be criminal or not, rather than ask the person being investigated – they would tend to protest that their actions are not criminal.

      Ah well, when you have been arrested then the court case can come and we can allow the court to judge whether your conduct is criminal or not, and what the penalty for it should be.

      Penalty – could be a range of punishments. Criminal conduct – oh yes, thats what you are doing and I am certain you will be found guilty.

      Now, I think you’ve protested your innocence quite enough – and I will leave you and the PN readers in peace on this issue,, for now and look forward to hear from the police of your arrest.

      What a fantastic day that will be.

      1. Heteropride.. Great 2B Straight!.. 14 Apr 2012, 11:56am

        I amnot protesteing anything. You ar the one frothing at the mouth at my terrible crimes on ere and you are unable to show a singe instant or example. You cannot even paraphrase one!!
        I am calling you out monkeyboy, not protesting. Why the big delay on my arrest. Could it be tht you are a fantasist? I think we know the answer. We know aout you sock puppet arguments with yourself so we also know that you are not averse to a bit of lying!

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all