Reader comments · UKIP posts photo of man burning picture of gay mayoral candidate Brian Paddick in Soho · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Mayor of London 2012

UKIP posts photo of man burning picture of gay mayoral candidate Brian Paddick in Soho

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dear god, these loonies need stopping. Shouldn’t this be reported as a hate crime?

    1. it would be nice if you didn’t propagate mental illness disablism a la Gasper by using derogatory words like ‘loonies’. It’s not cool. Thanks.

    2. A gay politician burns a picture of another gay politician because they disagree on politics? A hate crime? Get a life

    3. I don’t think the sexuality of Paddick is relevant. It’s Lib Dem literature the most pro-EU party. It’s mindless, petty and ignorant. If you want that to be a crime you’re being more right wing than them. Don’t cry wolf.

      1. I find it hard to believe that burning a photo of a gay politician in Old Compton Street was not done deliberately to have homophobic intent.

        If it wasnt about gay issues – dont use Paddicks face (use Nick Clegg or Vince Cable) and dont do it on one of the streets with the most gay bars in London – use Hyde Park or Oxford Street or Parliament Square …

        If you are telling me that the gay connections were not deliberately chosen – then I consider you gullable, Damien

        1. It’s Mayor of London elections in LONDON. All the literature has Paddick’s face on. It was also a single activist who set it on fire, who’s also apparently gay.

          And if you’re going to call me something at least spell it correctly, or I’ll consider you stoopid, Stu.

          1. Damien

            Firstly, apologies that I had not read my typing in the last message for typos or spelling errors. Lets put that right, I consider you gullible.

            It may be the London mayoral elections – its also local elections. There are plenty of pieces of literature about Lib Dems without Paddicks face on – it was a deliberate choice which is reinforced by the choice of location.

            I know UKIP have claimed that it was the work of a lone gay activist. However, they also denied any official involvement but a UKIP spokesman (on their website and making comments on behalf of the party to the media in the last 24 hours) was tweeting pictures of it. Now, that sounds like UKIP approval of the stunt to me.

          2. I think you’re being a little paranoid. The Majority of Lib Dem campaign literature to be found in London will have Paddick’s face on. The most newsworthy election going on is not the local elections but the mayoral elections.

            I don’t think you have to see homophobia in every negative, stupid and moronic action against a gay man, there can be plenty of other reasons.

            I’m pretty sure UKIP have a bigger issue with the Lib Dem policy on the EU than they do with Lib Dem policy on equal rights.

          3. Spanner1960 3 May 2012, 12:46pm

            I think Stu is being totally paranoid.
            Had a straight person burnt Boris’s leaflet in Kensington High street you would hardly call it a heterophobic, would you? The connection is so tenuous that the only thing that springs to me about this incident and the comments on this page is “What a bunch of over-reactionary old queens.”

          4. @Spanner

            But it didnt happen in Kensington High Street.

            It happened on Old Compton Street.

            A deliberately chosen location.

            UKIP press spokesman tweeted pictures of it to publicise it before the hullabaloo in the press – it appeared from his initial tweets that UKIP endorsed the action.

            Call me paranoid – I don’t think I am. Couple this with the pattern of homophobic behaviour from UKIP and refusal to engage when concerns are addressed to them – then this smells rotten – like UKIP.

            I think Spanner sees an anti European, anti immigration party but realises they are homophobic and wants to support UKIP but he can not quite lower himself that far.

  2. Mark Healey 2 May 2012, 4:07pm

    My gut reaction is totally irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour – doubt they will lose many votes over it though as most people won’t be voting for them anyway.

  3. Wow, in the US maybe, but here? How very third Reich of them, which is somewhat ironic.

  4. An idiotic thing to do and I really do not care whether the person burning the picture is gay or not (I have to say I am doubtful over that claim itself)

    The actions are inflamatory and smell of homophobia! Can you imagine the furore if the picture was of a leading Mulsim policitian in somehwere like Brick Lane?

  5. BNP for the grunting troglodytes.

    UKIP for those who can string 3 words together.

    1. . . . and have a current CBR clearance!!!

  6. Gawain Towler, whose Lockerz album that image appears in, is UKIP’s Press Officer:

    What a charmer!

  7. Robert in S. Kensington 2 May 2012, 4:18pm

    UKIP & BNP = total failure! Two parties of losers, low information ignorant malcontents and bigots. The scum of UK society, thankfully both are minorities which they will always be.

    1. Hodge Podge 2 May 2012, 6:26pm

      looking to do better than the Lib Dems in the next general election sadly

      1. i wouldnt rely on stats conducted 3 years before the event

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 2 May 2012, 4:19pm

    I daresay Julia Gasper is cheering it on!

  9. Rhys Maroney 2 May 2012, 4:20pm

    Has no one read this article properly? The logical reasoning is far too gone to accept the conclusion being presented. They are pretty much saying “UKIP campaigners burn picture of mayoral candidate; candidate is ‘openly’ gay; UKIP must therefore be homophobic”. This is a clear case of straw person flaw, and you are thus drawing other wrong conclusions in your reactions. Just let it be and ignore it; if it truly offends you then ignore it as if you rise to the occasion all you are going to to is fan the flames and make it worse. Please think before you make comments based on a very poorly written article!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 May 2012, 4:26pm

      Really, not homophobic? Then why the need to say candidate is ‘openly gay’? To what purpose does it serve if not fomenting homophobia? One’s sexual orientation shouldn’t be an issue in any walk of life, especially politics. Does it ever refer to the hetero orientation of a UKIP candidate? NO! End of.

      1. Rhys Maroney 2 May 2012, 4:53pm

        The reason I placed the ‘openly’ so was to point out how this article has pointed that out as an appeal to emotion, it has been noted in order to provoke people into thinking it has been done specifically for that reason instead of thinking logically at all possible outcomes. Taking into consideration then your point, shouldn’t news be completely objective? This article is clearly sided to one point of view and thus a true conclusion cannot be drawn. I am neither defending the actions of the UKIP campaigners, no the person who wrote this article; this is merely a complaint of how now subjective articles pass off as “news” and we then complain as we’ve been drawn into a poorly written argument rather than listen to an objective fact and draw our own conclusions. Bringing some of my own subjectivity into this, as a homosexual myself, I am not offended by their actions as that would just make me bitter at them as people. It is better to just live my life then let others dictate it.

        1. All besides the point. It doesn’t matter that Paddick is gay, they shouldn’t be burning ANYONES picture. Its a very sinister thing to do. They are bigoted extremists, bigoted against gays, liberals, and anyone not considered British. They are disgusting.

      2. Spanner1960 2 May 2012, 6:58pm

        Yes. Really. NOT homophobic.
        Why is everybody obsessed with their fcking sexuality?

        1. Couldn’t tell you Spanner1960. Anyhow, how are you enjoying commenting on a lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender news site?

          1. Spanner1960 2 May 2012, 9:02pm

            I’m doing just fine thanks. Except I don’t keep going on about how my bloody sexuality and rights are being supposedly persecuted.

            PS. I’m gay, I’m happy, I am not “self-loathing” and I don’t feel in the least bit intimidated by a bit of political posturing by a second-rate party squabbling over who should be mayor of a sh|thole city like London.

    2. So burning political opponent’s pictures/effigies is the done thing now? I thought that was more of a tactic of the far-left but if UKIP wish to also lower the tone of political debate in this country so be it.

      Poor show indeed.

      1. Um.. Far left?

      2. Paddyswurds 2 May 2012, 7:01pm

        Don’t you mean far right, surely?

        1. Erm no, don’t you remember the Cameron/Clegg effigies burnt/hanged over the last couple of years?

          1. Paddyswurds 2 May 2012, 8:48pm

            ….Yes , but it was done as a stunt by the far right in order to discredit Labour and the left, but fortunately most people seen through the ruse and it only served to make the far right look desperate, much as this latest debacle by UKIP has.

    3. Hello World 2 May 2012, 4:50pm

      WTF is a ‘Straw Person Flaw’ ? Do you mean Strawman Fallacy? If so, say so, spanky. In any case, you’re wrong. The fact the effigy was burned in Soho makes it clear as day that this was homophobic.

      1. Rhys Maroney 2 May 2012, 4:57pm

        The straw person flaw, and the strawman fallacy are the same. Just that the former is preferred to eliminate political correctness of gender. Also, you have proved a case of a bad reasoning. Just because the image was burnt, and the image was of a gay person does not necessarily make it either an effigy or homophobic.

        1. ‘to eliminate political correctness’?!

        2. Did you participate, Rhys?

          You seem to know a lot about the motivation

          Burning an image of ANYONE is reprehensible

          It has no place in civilised politics or society

          Choosing deliberately to burn the image of a gay man in the gay centre of London MUST be to highlight the issue of orientation. It is clearly homophobic and abhorrent.

          It underlines the vile and insidious nature of UKIP.

          1. Rhys Maroney 2 May 2012, 6:17pm

            No, I didn’t participate. I am using logical reasoning to state that the article is poorly written, that’s all. Also, it may not be a simple “must” as there are many perspectives that have to be taken into account to be objective. Saying that it “must” is subjective as you have not regarded any other outcome. As I have said before, I am not excusing their actions, nor would I say it was right to do it, but it doesn’t change my original point that this article is badly written from an argumentative standpoint.

          2. Rhys

            Can I suggest if your complaint is about the language or use of grammar, that you raise this with the editors at the email address for Pink News.

            These comments are largely being contributed to by people who are alarmed at the homophobic behaviour of UKIP which is clearly evidenced in this latest event and multitudes of other episodes.

            I can only suspect that your repeated posting about the language is an attempt to divert attention away from the heinous behaviour of UKIP.

        3. What sort of a idiot defends the burning of effigies of anybody on the London?

          Its also somewhat obtuse to think that burning an effigy of a gay man in the middle of Soho wouldn’t be construed but some to have some sort of gay connection.

      2. Spanner1960 2 May 2012, 7:01pm

        Oh stop talking utter hogwash.
        Soho happens to be the smack-bang centre of London.
        The fact it is a gay ghetto and the candidate is gay is an unbelievably tenuous connection.

        You people will read into something whatever you want.

    4. It’s obvious UKIP wants it both ways… They want to garner the support of the anti- gay crowd, but plausible deniability of an anti- gay agenda. Hence their distancing themselves from the likes of Gasper while supporting her right to defame gays. It’s not a very convincing strategy. If they want to be recognized as a responsible party with a clearly defined ethical basis for their platform that should oust homophobes from membership in the party. But they don’t. If the issue of the candidate’s gayness was not an issue, why did they burn his picture in a historically gay district? Clearly a point was being made here to draw attention to the man’s sexuality in the hope of appealing to homophobes. No the UKIP tactic of plausible deniability just doesn’t cut it. Stop making excuses for them by crying “straw man” fallacy. Not good enough!!!

      1. Rhys Maroney 2 May 2012, 5:05pm

        Not once have I said that I am making excuses for them. I have merely commented on a poorly written article which is causing more tension between people. Please read what I have said clearly before you remark on what I’ve said.

        1. No one is attempting to interfere in your personal emotional choices Rhys. Where that is coming from I have no idea. You did cry straw man however which needed addressing, as it appears to be a charge that is not IMHO justified.

          1. Rhys Maroney 2 May 2012, 5:34pm

            Okay, to explain my point explicitly.

            A: They have burnt a picture of a mayoral candidate.
            B: That candidate was openly gay and it happened in Soho so they must have been homophobic to burn the picture.

            The fact that he was gay and coupled with it happening in Soho was misconstrued from the original point in order to create the conclusion of the article.

          2. Spanner1960 2 May 2012, 9:05pm

            I totally agree with Rhys.
            Yet another storm in a teacup brewed up by PN to discredit UKIP. (Which I may add, I do not support, but for other reasons)

          3. Spanner

            Are you trying to claim the incident didnt happen?

            That Paddicks picture was not burned?

            Or are you suggesting that PN actually burned it themselves?

            If not, then how is PN brewing this storm up in a teacup?

            This is of UKIPs own making.

        2. balloonable 2 May 2012, 5:41pm

          Rhys – I get what you are saying. Basically there is a picture of them burning an image of a representative of an opposing party. They might also have just burned images of the other parties’ representatives. The fact that this one is gay might be completely irrelevant to the intent. The article even states that the motive was political rather than homophobic.

          1. positivepessimist 2 May 2012, 5:51pm

            the key word here ballonable being “might” be irrelevant…
            and here we have it – UKIP playing the plausible deniability gambit mentiponed earlier. I for one think it would be foolish to buy into that.

        3. They ARE anti-gay, that is not up for debate. Gay people may well support them, but there are also gay republicans in the US. These people simply choose money and religion over their personal freedom and self respect.

    5. Really not homophobic

      Why burn it in Soho? – worldwide recognised as the gay centre of London

      Why burn a placard of Paddick – when a flag or symbol would have done?

      If it wasnt meant to target gay people then you would have not chosen these symbols.

      That with the recent comments of Glasper about sectioning gay people

      and the failure to support same sex couples being able to marry

      can only draw one conclusion UKIP is not only the BNP for those with CRB but it is also the natural party for homophobic bigots.

      1. Rhys Maroney 2 May 2012, 6:23pm

        Well, though you have presented very valid points here, you can present others.

        Why burn it in Soho? – It is a very busy public place that will easily draw a lot of attention.

        Why burn a placard of Paddick, when a flag or symbol would have done? – Burning a picture of a person has more effect than a symbol in most instances, and he represents his party.

        The last two points are weak syllogisms in a way, though they can strengthen your point, they are separate incidents which don’t necessarily have a bearing on this.

        You need to consider all possible outcomes before you can truly say “there can only be one conclusion drawn”. If you truly want my opinion, yes, what they did was wrong, but I don’t care as at the end of the day, they won’t get my vote; I’m not going to berate others when they haven’t been against you in this incident.

        1. How do you KNOW they have not been against ME or any other gay person, Rhys?

          I agree there are potential other explanations – but on the balance of probabilities I would consider that (considering circumstantial evidence about recent UKIP approaches to gay matters) this was a deliberately homophobic act.

          They certainly don’t have my vote – never did though!

          If they don’t have your vote, Rhys – I struggle to understand why you seem so impassioned to suggest other motivations for UKIP – why does it bother you so much that you need to seek to deflect attention from the suggestion of homophobia?

        2. Rhys

          I think that whilst some of the individual events (and I can quote more than 20 incidents that I perceive as recent examples of UKIP displaying blatant homophobia) might have alternative explanations. Some do not, and some of the alternate explanations are dubious in the extreme.

          Given the cumulative effect of the number of incidents – I find it highly unlikely that the motivation of UKIP corporately and of some members individually is extremist homophobia.

    6. I have to agree with Rhys on this occasion. However, I feel that burning any political campaingers photo is something that cannot be condoned. Any action that seeks to undermine other people running for a political position isn’t the kind of thing I like to see. It was what I didn’t like to see when Cameron was running for prime minister, nor was it something that I am proud that Ken Livingstone is doing currently by comparing everything to Borish Johnson. In my opinion, if you are going to win an election you should win it on your own merits, not your opponents’ faults.

  10. Dr Robin Guthrie 2 May 2012, 4:34pm

    As someone once eloquently put it.

    UKIP. The BNP for people with mortgages.

    1. BNP Lite

      BNP for people able to get a satisfactory CRB check

      BNP for people with an education

    2. Spanner1960 2 May 2012, 7:03pm

      Much like the Labour Party is Marxism for people that want to keep their money.

  11. Don’t agree with UKIP’s actions here. Would’ve thought they’d have at least a bit of courtesy for their fellow candidates, but apparently that was expecting too much… Still, I won’t be voting LibDem again in a hurry, unless they pull their socks up, stop letting the Tories walk all over them and start standing up to them and sticking by their own policies.

  12. It’s been said that UKIP are BNP-with-mortgages. Sure seems to from their behaviour.
    I just do NOT see what gay folk see in them!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 May 2012, 7:45pm

      Because there are actual gay racists who support BNP as well as gays who oppose equal marriage.

  13. Doesn’t the act of burning an image of someone strike anyone as rather sinister? It’s one thing to talk out against a person’s political positions, but to destroy an image of that person has a distinctly unpleasant and uncivilized odor to it. Or is that considered normal in English culture? Just asking…

    1. I shouldn’t think most English/British people would consider it normal, or even remotely desirable. Outside the context of Guy Fawke’s (“Bonfire”) Night, anyway.

      1. Typo alert – Fawkes’

    2. There are previous news paper reports of ethnic minorities doing this, I daresay its one of their cultural things rather then a British thing.

  14. wonkotsane 2 May 2012, 5:11pm

    If the picture of him was burnt because he’s a Lib Dem, not because he’s gay, why is it a hate crime? And why does this warrant an article in Pink News when it’s nothing to do with Paddick being gay? This is an attempt to portray UKIP as a party of homophobes and sadly several people here seems to be stupid enough to fall for it. This article is clearly politically motivated.

    Just in case you wondering, I’m not gay. Hopefully disagreeing with you or pointing out your stupidity doesn’t constitute a hate crime as well. I await your irrational rage with interest.

    1. Just out of interest, perhaps you could enlighten us why Soho was chosen for this charmless act?

      1. Spanner1960 2 May 2012, 7:07pm

        Because it’s the middle of Bloody London? Duh!
        Had they done it in Brick Lane you would have claimed it was Muslims doing it. You can’t win with some people.

        1. Duh yourself. Trafalgar Square is the middle of London, why didn’t they choose that as the venue for their stunt, do you think? Or do you think at all?

      2. Do you really think a lot of effort went into planning that tiny leaflet?! CONSPIRACIES EVERYWHERE!!!!

        *and yes I think a lot of the UKIP base are bonkers, I’m not here to defend them.

    2. You do realise that if you have come here to plead your case behaving like a ridiculous t0sser is a poor tactic?

    3. You’re a supporter of UKIP, and you have the audacity to call someone else stupid. Oh dear, the brains of some people. And I doubt anyone is wondering or cares if you are gay. I’m just wondering why you’d bother to comment on a website to try and justify your chosen parties ridiculous behavior.

    4. So lets look at the evidence:

      1) UKIP does not support marriage for same sex couples

      2) Dr Julia Glasper a UKIP candidate in Oxford believes gay people should be sectioned

      3) A picture of the gay LibDem candidate was burned by UKIP supporters in Soho (gay capital of London!). It was allegedly a political issue against LibDems, but specifically chosen was not a LibDem symbol or flag but a picture of a gay man and the locations was a gay centre. If it smells homophobic, it probably is.

      4) Roger Helmer UKIP MEP believes gay marriage leads to incest

      5) 2004 candidate for mayor said he would ban pride

      6) Godfrey Bloom UKIP MEP has repeatedly been accused (with verifiable evidence) of bullying LGBT groups in Europe

      7) Sean Gabb recently spoke at a UKIP rally. Gabb says that he would be happy for employers and pub landlords to be allowed to say “n!ggers and f@ggots need not apply”

      Now, does that sound like a homophobic party to you?

      It sure does to me.

  15. The Vatican will be impressed!

    1. de Villiers 2 May 2012, 5:15pm


      1. Yes. I’m certain they will be.
        Maybe you should look up irony,and then read your following post!

        1. de Villiers 2 May 2012, 7:40pm

          The point is too easy and too cheap.

  16. de Villiers 2 May 2012, 5:15pm

    That is appalling behaviour. The image of the burning of photographs or effigies is associated with the most authoritarian and theocratic regimes. It is an act which conveys violence, lack of regard for human life and the suppression of dissent.

    it is disgraceful and illiberal – which is often seen from those parties of the extreme right which are inherently anti-European.

    1. Craig Nelson 2 May 2012, 5:39pm

      It’s horrible, even for UKIP

  17. Not an issue. An unelectable party doing a minor unsavoury act. Yawn, and goodbye UKIP.

  18. I don’t even think the EDL or BNP would be as stupid to burn images of their opposition. But what do you expect from a party with a pound shop sign for a logo.

  19. He seems very excited that he got his lighter to work, Didn’t his mother tell him not to play with fire, or he might get his fingers burnt!.
    Back to the serious issue though, next he’ll be burning books, because he didn’t under the words written on the pages.

  20. First pictures. Then it’ll be books, and then we know the rest. UKIP is rapidly becoming a dangerous party.

    1. Its very dangerous.

      A recent report found that a significant portion of the Ukip base closely resembled that of the BNP: while less intense, they comprise a poorer, more working-class and more deeply disconnected wing within the party that is driven not simply by Euroscepticism but also their profound concern about immigration and dissatisfaction with the three main parties. Ukip denies these associations with the radical right, but both parties are pitching a far-right formula and rallying a radical right base.

      In the report Ukip supporters showed markedly less enthusiasm for conflict, although a majority believed that relations between different ethnic, racial and religious groups in the UK would inevitably end in violence.

    2. “A key difference between supporters of the extreme and radical right-wing is theintensity of their feelings about immigration and Islam. BNP supporters in our sample are overwhelmingly concerned about immigration and Muslims, and almost to the exclusion of other issues.

      “Large numbers of BNP and UKIP supporters in our sample endorse the view that violence between different ethnic, racial and religious groups in Britain is largely inevitable, but with much stronger agreement amongst the BNP group.

      “Beyond preparing for conflict, we also find evidence of support within the BNP sample for armed conflict, when defending the British way of life, with twice as many BNP supporters as UKIP endorsing this as always or sometimes justifiable. Similarly, twice the proportion of BNP supporters than their UKIP counterparts in our sample agreed violence may be needed to protect their group from threats.

      1. UKIP are as dangerous as BNP. There are clearly intentions from within the membership to prepare for armed conflict attacking racial and other minorities. Given the homophobia of UKIP its imperative that responsible and reasonable people expose the extremist undercurrent in UKIP.

  21. It’s hardly an effigy! It looks like an A5 leaflet! Hopefully though it’s not evidence of the increasing American approach to politics where your political opponent become your enemy.

    Nor do I don’t think this is a remotely homophobic act, they’ll have picked LibDem literature because they’re the most pro-EU party. This reporting seems a little sensationalist.

    1. i thought that was what ukip expected, more shamless publicity. so dont come up with “that’s reasonable” spin on it

      1. I never said it was reasonable.

    2. effigy (from the world dictionary)

      1. a portrait of a person, esp as a monument or architectural decoration
      2. a crude representation of someone, used as a focus for contempt or ridicule and often hung up or burnt in public

      1. It’s not primarily a portrait of Paddick, it’s Lib Dem campaign literature.

        I never said it was acceptable, I criticised the nature of burning your political opponents stuff, trying to turn then into an enemy.

        But people making out that this is homophobic are crying wolf and doing us no favours. Don’t make it a homophobic issue, it’s an issue of common decency.

  22. who let the pigs out

    1. Hodge Podge 2 May 2012, 6:29pm

      pigs are awesome, i have a couple of mugs with pigs on. UKIP aren’t

      1. i meant metaphor based on stereotypes not the lovely creatures

  23. UKIP I used to call BNP for people with a CRB check. Clearly with the likes of Dr Glasper and this episode in Soho – a CRB check is not necessary for membership!!!

    UKIP are clearly the homophobic party and the party of the (being generous) “eccentric”.

    It might not have been intended as being a burning of a gay man, but couple the burning of a placard of Paddick in Soho – then this is the message that is portrayed – especially when there has been high profile publicity of homophobic campaigning by some UKIP councillors in recent days.

    Paddick should make a complaint of a hate crime.

    UKIP should apologise and distance themselves from this matter (not that this will cause any self respecting gay person to vote for a party that associates itself with tactics that are more associated with the likes of Tehran and Kabul, or has candidates who believe gay people need to be sectioned or seeks to deny equal marriage).

    Whats Nigel Farages view on this?

    1. Good post.

  24. Lol, the party of “independence”, replacing one form of oppression with one from the fifties.

    Still makes a change from them spamming comments sections.

  25. Shouldn’t the police have a pretty good case for incitement to homophobia against the UKIP by now? I think so.

  26. So lets look at the evidence:

    1) UKIP does not support marriage for same sex couples

    2) Dr Julia Glasper a UKIP candidate in Oxford believes gay people should be sectioned

    3) A picture of the gay LibDem candidate was burned by UKIP supporters in Soho (gay capital of London!). It was allegedly a political issue against LibDems, but specifically chosen was not a LibDem symbol or flag but a picture of a gay man and the locations was a gay centre. If it smells homophobic, it probably is.

    4) Roger Helmer UKIP MEP believes gay marriage leads to incest

    5) 2004 candidate for mayor said he would ban pride

    6) Godfrey Bloom UKIP MEP has repeatedly been accused (with verifiable evidence) of bullying LGBT groups in Europe

    7) Sean Gabb recently spoke at a UKIP rally. Gabb says that he would be happy for employers and pub landlords to be allowed to say “n!ggers and f@ggots need not apply”

    Now, does that sound like a homophobic party to you?

    It sure does to me.

    1. Spanner1960 3 May 2012, 9:41am

      Evidence? Or the way you happen to perceive the situation?
      Two entirely different things I suspect.

      1. Spanner

        Which of the seven statements that I give above are incorrect?

        1. Spanner1960 3 May 2012, 3:31pm

          “If it smells homophobic, it probably is.”
          No. It is you making assumptions.
          The man in question was gay, and in no way connected to UKIP.

          1. Ah so you accept that all seven comments are accurate – you merely comment on my interpretation of one piece of evidence

            UKIP clearly sought to promote the stunt and encourage it. There was a clear connection to their press officer!

          2. Spanner, Stu has offered you evidence,. Why not try to back up your assertions with similar, if you can, rather then resorting to nit picking.

  27. Heinrich Heine, German Poet
    (13 December 1797 – 17 February 1856)
    ‘Where they burn books, ultimately they will burn people also.’

    And the Germans knew a thing about burning people!

    1. Spanner1960 2 May 2012, 7:02pm


      1. Check the dates, Spanner. Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply to the 19th century.

        1. Paddyswurds 2 May 2012, 8:55pm

          ….That may be so yardbird with regard to your initial point but you spoiled it by invoking Godwins law with your last line…….

          1. Paddyswurds 2 May 2012, 8:57pm

            oops that was addressed to dazzer

      2. Godwin’s law doesn’t apply when the reference is correct. In this case it is, ergo, your “Godwin law” bollox is just a lame effort to detract from the reality that these animals are doing EXACTLY what the ruling party of Germany did in Opernplatz in 1933.

        Try harder next time.

  28. Burning pictures of your opponents? Seriously? Are we, what, seven now? If you want to paint yourself as a serious, credible politician then there’s little that will harm your case more. Do the labour party burn effigies of tory candidates? Do the Lib Dems burn effigies of the Green Party? No, because they’re grown-ups who take this whole politics thing seriously, rather than petulent clueless morons. The only people who burn pictures and effigies as part of a political campaign are violent mobs in the middle east. Even our own moronic violent mobs consider it rather gauche and old-fashioned these days.

    I don’t actually care whether they were doing it because Paddick is gay or because he’s a Lib Dem. The fact they thought it was a good thing to do for ANY reason shows how utterly unqualified for political office these people are.

  29. wonkotsane 2 May 2012, 6:53pm

    And surprise, surprise, it wasn’t even a UKIP member –

    I take it this headline and article will be corrected to take out the incorrect suggestion than UKIP is homeophobic and to clarify that the person in question isn’t even a UKIP member.

    1. Gawain Towler is a spokesman for UKIP (quoted in one of their own press releases on their own website):

      He was quoted in recent news coverage (in the last ten hours) as a UKIP spokesman:

      So I believe that the comments publicising this came direct from UKIP.

      As for UKIP not being homophobic:
      Failure to support equal marriage for gay people.
      Supporting speakers who believe people should be barred from employment due to their orientation
      MEPs who bully LGBT groups
      MEPs who believe gays marrying leads to incest
      Prospective councillors who believe gay people should be secitoned

      And not one piece of disciplinary actions against any of those making these statements.

      Also, ally this with this comment on a Christian website condemning UKIP as they no longer supported removing sexual orientation

      1. from the Equalities Act:
        The following is a direct quote from the Christian Doctrine website ROFL
        “Before the last General Election we urged all Christians to vote for UKIP, because it stood for freedom of speech and expression of beliefs. … This commendation was spread by fellow Christians so that we had a hung-parliament, and I have no doubt at all that it was the Christian and ‘decency’ vote that helped in this cause. Sadly, and with much regret, we must now advise our readers that this option is no longer viable, given UKIPs recent acceptance of homosexual laws. Perhaps UKIP does not realise that it was the last resort for genuine Christians, and all who prefer not to be browbeaten by propaganda. Homosexual laws are not just designed to give ‘equality’. They are designed to silence Christians and anyone who will not accept what they say. It is not about ‘equality’ – gay activists openly boast that they are not interested in mere equality, but in superiority. But, first they

      2. must silence Christians. Already they have written laws, under the tutelage of Stonewall, that are so tightly written that people who cannot accept gay propaganda will be, and are, crushed, penalised, harassed and persecuted. For this reason, it is the single most dire issue for UK Christians.”

        In response some members of UKIP have stated that they will seek to:
        *State publicly that UKIP accepts that the homosexual laws exist, but will oppose it or seek amendments
        *State publicly that its members may hold differing views concerning homosexual laws, and that UKIP will not penalise members or MPs who do so.
        *UKIP need NOT perpetuate pro-gay laws or promote them in any way. In other words, UKIP is simply acknowledging that the law is on the statute books, but will not continue its immoral and destructive path as policy.

        Is UKIP homophobic, hell YES

        They need to be opposed and exposed.

      3. Spanner1960 3 May 2012, 9:32am

        But the man burning the sheet was NOT Gawain Towler, but somebody called Jayray Sisodia, who is a well known gay face in Soho.

        If you are going to accuse somebody, at least get the names right.

        Sisodia is not a UKIP member, just a gay man who thinks Brian Paddick is a disgrace to the gay community and picked a typically flamboyant way to express his opinion! He is helping Elizabeth Jones canvas because he knows her friendship with the gay community is real and not born out of a desire to get elected. She has been hanging out on Old Compton St for years before she joined UKIP, whereas Paddick only seen there come election time. Even Paddick has had the good grace to say it was just a childish prank with no sinister overtones. Apparently Sisodia is a pillar of the gay community in Soho/Mayfair.

        1. I did not say that Towler had been the person doing the burning, thats something you have interpreted into my words that was not intended.

          Towler did however publicise this BEFORE any media outlet released it and appeared in his early tweets to give the impression that UKIP approved of the event and encouraged it.

          That sounds like a deliberately planned and staged event BY UKIP to me.

          1. Spanner1960 3 May 2012, 3:36pm

            I agree it was a pretty bloody stupid thing to do, but it was not intended to be homophobic. It was simply saying “Paddick, where are you?”

            This entire affair is a storm in an egg cup – but as a famous gay man said “There is no such thing as bad publicity.” (I think he said that before he was jailed though…) ;)

          2. You don’t perceive it as homophobic. I disagree and unless you have evidence about the thought processes and planning that went into this stunt, you are not going to convince me otherwise.

            You state UKIP were not involved. The evidence suggests otherwise- given UKIP press officer making numerous tweets about it before the media furore began.

            We agree it was grossly stupid.

            You appear to be a UKIP apologist though.

        2. ‘A pillar of the gay community in Soho/Mayfair’? Gracious heaven, I live in central London and I had no idea there’s one gay community that encompasses both Mayfair and Soho, two of the unlikeliest bedfellows around.

          Would that be a Corinthian or a Doric pillar, would you say, O Spanner?

    2. You have been schooled by Stu. Now shoo.

      1. Valksy

        Thanks ;-)

  30. Did the Met attend this incident?

  31. Spanner1960 2 May 2012, 6:56pm

    Oh get over it, its just a bit of propaganda.
    Anybody that reads the ‘gay thing’ into this has a bloody screw loose.

    Had it been a picture of Boris or Ken, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

  32. Erm Guy Fawkes night anyone?

  33. There is a big difference between the BNP`s National Socialism and UKIP`s Libertarianism

    1. If UKIP is so libertarian, why are they all so against equal rights?

      1. libertarian towards prejudice and bigotry

        1. Libertarian to those who support their bigotry.

  34. It doesn’t matter WHY they did it,it is unacceptable in our ‘civilised’? country!!!!

  35. Iain Maxstead 2 May 2012, 7:45pm

    I can only agree with most of the comments, I have emailed Mr Roger Bird ( chairman of UKIP southeast) and asked him to explain his partys actions today, Dr Gasper has replied to an email I sent yesterday that is a incredible read !!! VOTERS WILL SHOW THERE FEELINGS, I hope the vote we have is used with wisdom …

    1. common sense 2 May 2012, 9:07pm

      What did she say in reply?

    2. commonsense 2 May 2012, 9:41pm

      What did she write in reply?

  36. Lumi Bast 2 May 2012, 8:01pm

    Disgusting. Immature too. If people lit up a picture of a priest or pastor it would be World War III. Maybe we should go with my idea and ship all the homophobes to their own island country and not let them off.

    Well, guess what homophobes- I’ll happily burn a Bible, Torah, Quran, etc anyday :)

    1. Lumi Bast 2 May 2012, 8:01pm

      any day*

    2. “Well, guess what homophobes- I’ll happily burn a Bible, Torah, Quran, etc anyday”

      Yes, you can put a swastika on your arm while you do it.

      What a repugnant woman you are.

    3. Lumi Bast 3 May 2012, 6:40pm

      I’m not a racist you idiot I just HATE religion

  37. Lumi Bast 2 May 2012, 8:05pm

    Maybe you should call the police and have yourself committed to a mental hospital

    1. Spanner1960 2 May 2012, 8:58pm

      Maybe you should get a life and stop reading into things that don’t exist and stop being so fcking self-concious.

      1. Lumi Bast 3 May 2012, 1:57am

        Maybe you haven’t faced as much homophobia as I have

  38. Why the hell mention that he’s gay? I doubt they could care less which side he bats for and are probably burning a picture because of what they see as nutty policies.

    1. Lumi Bast 2 May 2012, 8:08pm

      The party is homophobic, so it’s safe to draw conclusions

    2. Paddyswurds 2 May 2012, 9:02pm

      He wasn’t …he is just a member of the public they roped in. How many Asians are going to Come out during a UKIP rally….???

      1. there was one trying to join the bnp, but the chap in the pic is probably a tourist, thinking that burning leaflets is what locals do in london after they had a coffee

      2. Spanner1960 3 May 2012, 9:35am

        He is gay. This is a complete misrepresentation.
        You’ve got the wrong guy.

        1. UKIP planned it and publicised it massively on twitter afterwards.

          It was a deliberately planned stunt to be provocative in actions and location.

  39. A lot of the comments are very judgemental. Why are people assuming that they know the reason that this man decided to burn a leaflet.

    Just because it has a gay person on it does not mean that it is being burnt because for that reason. It was most likely being burnt because it was a leaflet of an opposing party.

    If the person doing the burning, who is according to Nigel Farage, gay himself. said something like “I hate gay people” when he burnt the leaflet, then yes, it would be homophobic.

    And as for the people saying that this is a hate crime. Grow up. If it is a hate crime to burn a leaflet with a gay person on it, then it should also be a hate crime to burn a leaflet with a heterosexual person on it.

    If Brian Paddick had burned a leaflet of Ken Livingstone, because Ken had avoided his taxes, would you accuse Brian of being hetrophobic?

    1. So by your reasoning, the desecration of a holocaust memorial isn’t a hate crime if nobody shouted “I hate jewish people!” at the scene?

      Vandalising a mosque isn’t racist because nobody shouted “I hate Muslims!” within earshot?

      A burning cross in the Deep South isn’t racist if nobody shouted “I hate black people!” on the victim’s lawn?

      The continued persecution of gay people by the Muslim community (and society at large) isn’t discrimination because nobody explicitly says “I hate gay people!” when putting the boot in?

      Your argument is flawed, given that symbolism has been used to hurt minorities for centuries (especially considering UKIP’s continuing dismissal of gay rights). Prejudice isn’t defined by language alone. If it were, we wouldn’t have nearly as many anti-discrimination laws, or successful prosecutions for that matter.

    2. Perhaps because UKIP have a strong history of homophobia

      Perhaps because burning the picture of a gay politician in Soho screams inciting homophobic hatred

      1. Absolutely, Stu.

  40. “The man burning the photograph of Mr Paddick was himself gay.”

    Let’s cut the s__t.

    The UKIP supporter burning the photograph of Paddick isn’t gay.

    Flagrant homosexuality in London’s Asian communities is about as welcome as a dose of the plague, and to have his “I’m coming out!” moment at a UKIP rally would be highly “inconvenient” to say the least…

    This was attention-seeking, impulsive political opportunism taken by a member of the public and used for gain by UKIP.

    To avoid prosecution, UKIP will have contacted the man in question and told him to say, for the record, that he is gay (the shame!). The mainstream media can’t speculate otherwise without spending valuable time on “gay issues”, something we’re reminded time and again is a fringe issue, and therefore unimportant to the wider populace.

    The police won’t bother to investigate given the man’s “airtight” alibi, and UKIP will rely on their traditional indifference to gay issues for the issue to go away.

    1. Hold on a second. There is no need to be so damn bigoted. Not all asian people are homophobic. In fact, if we look at the number of homophobic crimes perpetrated by white English people in comparison to asians- whilst even taking in to account there being less asian people you’d see it’s a much more regular occurance in white communities.

      Secondly, your mental assertion that ‘he is asian, so he cant be gay’ is again bigoted. Who are you to tell someone, based on the colour of their skin whether they can be gay or not? Come on, who are you?

      Clearly you yourself hold bigoted views, take a look in the mirror.

      1. @Derrick. Okay. I’ve “held on a second” and “looked in the mirror”, and I’m sorry to say I’m closer to perfecting my “Blue Steel” than concluding I’m a “bigot” for criticising Muslim attitudes towards homosexuality.

        Let’s look at the facts, shall we?

        It might interest you to know that according to a 2009 Gallup poll designed to measure attitudes to homosexuality in Europe, Muslims in Britain were found to have zero tolerance towards homosexual acts.

        From The Guardian, Thursday 7th May 2009:

        “The most dramatic contrast was found in attitudes towards homosexuality. None of the 500 British Muslims interviewed believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable. 1,001 non-Muslim Britons were interviewed.”


        1. In a 2009 article entitled “Liberal gays are scared to tell the truth about Muslim homophobia”, the Telegraph concurs that “a recent survey by Policy Exchange had showed that 72 per cent of young Muslim men thought that homosexuality should be recriminalised.

          “As the Channel 4 ‘Dispatches’ programme on Mosques showed, there are some pretty disturbing things being said by some Imans about what is best for gays, i.e. death. Given the rapidly increasing proportion of the population which is Muslim, [do politicians] not think that there might be some possible problem in the future?”

          Largely ethnic areas of London statistically have a higher rate of homophobic hate crime. Last year, Attitude magazine reported that East London has seen the highest increase in homophobic attacks anywhere in Britain, and some of the worst in Europe. “Everybody knows why, and nobody wants to say it.”


          1. (continued): “It is because East London has the highest Muslim population in Britain, and we have allowed a fanatically intolerant attitude towards gay people to incubate there, in the name of “tolerance”.”

            As you say, not all Asian people are homophobic, but given the facts, to then accuse me of being a bigot for pointing out that Asians are more likely to be homophobic is somewhat disingenuous.

            Cultures that continually reinforce negative attitudes towards gays are destructive and deserve to be openly criticised.

            I never made the “mental assertion” that the man in the picture can’t possibly be gay and Asian, I merely pointed out that the likelihood of him being openly gay (and an EDL supporter!) is virtually non-existent.

        2. apart from generalising, using statistics to prove the point is a lazy job of relying on half truths. recent ComRes poll for catholic voices is a good example of how polls can be manipulated. anyway subsequently there were other polls showing very different picture. im with derrick on this one

          1. Given the above sources (barring the Telegraph) all support traditional left-wing values, I’m inclined to believe their reportage comes without covert racist scaremongering.

            Or do the Guardian, Channel 4, and Attitude magazine now harbor secret right-wing sympathies?

            If my method of using verified statistics from four separate sources is, as you suggest, a “lazy job of relying on half truths”, literally ANY data polling is now rendered null and void.

            That you simply don’t believe the data doesn’t make it any less credible – or parts of London, as the “Gay Free Zone” posters and leaflets suggest, any safer to live in.

          2. all news outlets quoted by you referred to the same poll.

            but here is another poll if you are such fan of them


          3. “All news outlets quoted by you referred to the same poll.”

            No they don’t. (Unless Gallup, Channel 4 ‘Dispatches’, Policy Exchange, and the extensive research and testimonials in the Attitude magazine article ‘Can we talk about Muslim homophobia now?’ has all been part of a wickedly clever conspiracy to deceive the public.)

          4. Why? Has Muslim culture been completely overhauled in the past 3 years? Has the indoctrinated, pathological hatred of gays stopped being a cornerstone of Muslim religious identity?

            Obviously gay Muslims exist, but while ever community and religious leaders promote the fallacy that homosexuality is not only a sin, but a disease, young people will continue to view gay people through the prism of what civilised societies would call religious extremism.


            “It is…true there has been a slight fall in the homophobic violence [in Tower Hamlets] over the past two years, but this is almost certainly due to the fact that lots of gay people (like me) have moved out of the area. Horrific gay-bashings, posters calling for gay people to be killed, and people handing out leaflets demanding the death of gays will have that effect. To claim the driving out of gay people as evidence for a fall in homophobia is pretty perverse.”

          5. from PN article 27/6/11

            ‘…According to the research by think-tank Demos, 47 per cent of Muslims agreed with the statement: “I am proud of how Britain treats gay people.”

            as to johan hari wasnt he sacked from the independent for plagiarism?
            This figure was slightly higher than the average and just higher than the 46.5 per cent of Christians who agreed with the statement.

            Thirty-four per cent of Muslims said they did not agree or disagree, while 10.8 per cent said they strongly disagreed.

            The number of Muslims who strongly agreed with the statement was higher than the number of non-religious people who did, at 14.9 per cent compared to 7.9 per cent…’

          6. from PN article 27/6/11

            ‘…According to the research by think-tank Demos, 47 per cent of Muslims agreed with the statement: “I am proud of how Britain treats gay people.”

            This figure was slightly higher than the average and just higher than the 46.5 per cent of Christians who agreed with the statement.

            Thirty-four per cent of Muslims said they did not agree or disagree, while 10.8 per cent said they strongly disagreed.

            The number of Muslims who strongly agreed with the statement was higher than the number of non-religious people who did, at 14.9 per cent compared to 7.9 per cent…’

            as for johan hari, wasnt he sacked from the independent for plagiarism?

          7. ONE survey debunks all the other sources I’ve mentioned?

            What gives Demos more authority than Gallup, Policy Exchange, Channel 4 ‘Dispatches’, etc?

            Of course their findings should be taken into account, but the overwhelming evidence clearly suggests that Muslim culture is intolerant of homosexuality.

            Clearly any objective reasoning is falling on deaf ears, as you seem to believe I’m pushing some kind of underhand racist agenda, despite a cartload of testimony to the contrary.

            Interestingly, you constantly dismiss data comissioned by news outlets that traditionally sympathise with minorities and celebrate diversity.

            If our friends are too inconvenient to bother with, might I suggest joining the BNP? Their half-baked ‘facts’ stand in as much good stead as yours, and their pathological ignorance towards other cultures should appeal.

            As the old saying goes, “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance”.

            I suspect you already do.

          8. first, good news, tory, ukip and bnp had a cr@p night

            now back to your last post. clearly, your aim from the start was to simplyfy and to generalise the issue at hand just to suit your dislike of muslims and the way you have gone about it clearly wasnt based on objectivity. it was based on selective statistics and articles that suited your generalising. you have even deliberately ignored the recent statistic i presented in my response to your posts on more then one occasion just to carry on with your charade. i have never insisted on the statistics for reasons i have set out in my earlier post, that was your idea and it was you who selectively defended the statistic that suited your generalising. and resorting to condescending insults actually says more about your character

    2. How can you be so certain the man in the photograph is of Asian descent? He could just as easily be of North African or Sicilian or Maltese descent.

      1. His Name is Jayraj Sisodia,which is Indian and he is a complete idiot.

    3. According to the no doubt highly reliable authority of Spanner1960 and others, the man in question is someone called Sisodia. If so, you’re right, he’s Asian – but Sisodia is an Indian name, and is not a Muslim one.

  41. Not gay or otherwise, the sexuality of an individual should not be the subject of a political debate.

    The desires and actions of an individual in the bedroom, should stay in the bedroom. Likewise for those frowning upon such actions, such discussion should be kept at a minimum, in order to fully conduct a represented political debate.

    Therefore with PinkNews in mind, this news outlet does not conform with the above infallible statement, and as such blends sexual desires and political news forming a distortion from the truth itself.

    1. Its those who seek to oppress that seek to suppress.

    2. “Likewise for those frowning upon such actions, such discussion should be kept at a minimum”

      This isn’t Germany circa 1933, so we’ll talk about what ever we want to. Its why you party is a fringe bunch of lunatics with no power and and IQ to match its political clout.

      You posts are the comments of the losing side and your anger only belies your desperation to post this nonsense on a gay news site. Grow up and get an education, it’ll serve society better.

    3. True enough, provided an individual’s sexuality doesn’t render him or her a second-class citizen in terms of rights. As long as the playing field is uneven, so to speak, your statement is fallible.

  42. friday jones 2 May 2012, 11:51pm

    Isn’t burning effigies something that would happen during a riot in the West Bank? Doesn’t this appear to be an application of extremist tactics? What’s next, bashing a picture of the Opponent with their shoe heels?

  43. Caped crusaider 3 May 2012, 12:35pm

    How did the gay tories use crusaids charity money to pay off a police panel member in 2004 to destroy the dodgy nasty emails?

  44. Caped crusaider 3 May 2012, 12:42pm

    Why did the gay tories running crusaid threaten a police panel member with a high court injunction then quickly claim ‘long closed’ all covered up can brian paddick explain;-)

  45. Caped crusaider 3 May 2012, 12:52pm

    Did brian paddick know the gay tories running crusaid aids charity used charity money via a compromise agreement to pay off a police panel member? If they destroyed dodgy emails did the gay police know? Who will b honest and tell the truth?:-D

  46. Caped crusaider 3 May 2012, 1:56pm

    A police panel member offered their resignation to the chief inspector of mps aftr being sent multiple medical data off another police panel member by london aids charity all hushed up

  47. Caped crusaider 3 May 2012, 1:59pm

    A police panel member withdrew frm police panel after london aids charity emailed them client database of gay men wjith aids in london

  48. UKIP’s leadership are often heard to claim that the party is libertarian. That this is said firmly tongue in check is evident by the dictatorial stance taken by the leadership when it comes to gagging their own members.

    UKIP’s own party forum is one such case in point. Jonathan ‘Frightened Rabbit’ Arnott has been busy removing any criticism of Derek Clark after some members had the audacity to express discontent over the fact that Clark had lied to his own regional committee about misusing his allowances to pay staff.

    Another example of their intolerance can be found in the following two articles. The articles in question concern anti-homosexual comments made by Roger Helmer MEP and a UKIP candidate. That UKIP’s corrupt leadership have failed to condemn their comments can only be taken as an endorsement of such views.

  49. Caped crusaider 3 May 2012, 2:05pm

    A police panel member helped aids charity crusaids staff regain benifits after termimating contract when gay staff made to have aids diagonosis in staff appraisals in 2004 ! All hushed up surely a award from brian paddick:-)

  50. Caped crusaider 3 May 2012, 2:13pm

    A police panel member came up with idea staff should not have their blood tests cd4 count and aids diagnosis in crusaids staff appraisals congratulations from brian paddick ? :-)

  51. According to some members of the UKIP page this never happened and is a stitch up from Pink News. They also say the are not anti gay although there is evidence which suggests otherwise..!/TheUKIP

    1. How many other media outlets have reported it?

      Why did the UKIP press officer tweet pictures of the event before ANY of the media coverage?

      Me thinks UKIP doth protest too much

      Just like their claims that its too sensitive to handle Dr Gasper at this time

      They are just homophobes

    2. “According to some members of the UKIP page this never happened and is a stitch up from Pink News”

      Is it really a surprise paranoia runs like a torrent through these medieval bigots?

  52. whats up with these so called protestors burning things?

  53. The idiot is JayrajSisodia and is a member od UKIP and works for their press office. He seems more dilusional than disillusioned. Worked with him at Harrods, he’s nothing more than a council estate boy trying to live the high life!!

  54. The idiot is Jayraj Sisodia and is a member of UKIP and works for their press office. He seems more dilusional than disillusioned. Worked with him at Harrods, he’s nothing more than a council estate boy trying to live the high life!!

    1. caped crusaider 6 May 2012, 10:21am

      Its all covered up The Chairman of Charity UKC wrote to The Chief Inspector of The Met Police requesting “support” for a Police Panel Member who due to “difficulties” withdrew from a Police Panel…..The Gay Press have been trying to keep it all hushed away from Gay Community LOL – Its the Gay Press we cant trust !!!

  55. I don’t care if he is gay or straight, you don’t go around burning images of your opposing candidates and to do it in the heart of Soho meant he was really trying to stir up the gay quarter. UKIP are a disgrace !

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.