Reader comments · Tory MP issues fresh polygamy warning over marriage equality for gays · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory MP issues fresh polygamy warning over marriage equality for gays

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Just another mendacious addle-minded nitwit who doesn’t know what he is talking about so repeats the facile lies he has been told. Good puppet.

  2. Jennie Kermode 9 May 2012, 4:19pm

    One could argue with Whittaker’s logic here, but that would be missing a more important point: people who are kept awake at night by a terrible fear that somewhere out there a stranger might be enjoying a polygamous relationship, well, they really need to get out more.

    1. It depends if people wish to brainwash other peoples children by their polygamous defiled relationships.

  3. OK point one, we don’t want polygamy, however if that was made legal for straight couples then we would!

    Point two “civil partnerships offer virtually all the legal benefits of marriage”, this is the whole point, there is still inequality and that is what we are fighting for!

    Point three – marriage is adult centered, after all it is the adults who marry!

    I am glad that he has acknowledged that marriage predates the Christain Church, something we have knwon for sometime.
    When will these people realise that we do not want to redefine marriage as such, we are not saying it is only gay men and woman who will be able to marry we just want equality in the eyes of CIVIL law

    1. Keith Farrell 9 May 2012, 4:41pm

      you are so right, when will they learn, all we want is to be equal, and doe you know a lot of people who want more than one spouse, I don’t know any with enough Patience to put up with a shared relationship. 2 people = 1 couple, and they should all enjoy the same rights

      1. Absolutely Keith, I and I suspect almost everyone, making one relationship work can be hard work, only a sadist would want multiple husbands/wives!

    2. Exactly why is polygamy not wanted? Surely people who want it should be allowed to do it?

      1. THe point is people do not support polygamous relationships and that goes for both the gay and straight communities.

      2. I think he mean’t that on a social level it isn’t widely accepted as an idea that most would be comfortable or happy with, thus why it hasn’t been pushed through for legal acceptance. And if you want something you shouldn’t automatically be allowed to do it – in a lot of cases what some people would like to do can be detrimental to other people – such as theft, murder, arson, vandalism, GBH etc. Until society becomes a fascist state or society declares that on a democratic level they wish for this to go ahead or be accepted it remains either an illegal or a socially repugnant act. Right now society just doesn’t want polygamy and it is highly unlikely to go through in the near future because their is no public activism for it, little or no movement towards acceptance of it and practically no positive examples of it within the larger public sphere.

    3. Predates, please validate your claim by evidence… predate the church, perhaps, but the synagogue?

  4. dingledodie77 9 May 2012, 4:25pm

    Until he actually points out what is objectively wrong with polygamy, his words are empty (good luck with that). I only hope that the minds of those who listen to him aren’t as empty.

    1. Spanner1960 9 May 2012, 8:15pm

      Well, much that polygamy isn’t my bag, what *actually* is wrong with it?

    2. Supposedly it’s because you… are *very unlikely* to be able to love two people to equal degrees. Therefore a polyamourous relationship will be unequal and eventually one party will feel the need to withdraw. So a lifelong marriage would be less likely to actually occur.
      At least, that’s the problem the early muslims had with it. Yes, you could have multiple wives but they must all be treated and loved fairly and evenly.

      In modern practice? Who knows. It can’t be as bad as the perfectly acceptable vegas marriages.

  5. Iain Maxstead 9 May 2012, 4:27pm

    He has room to talk, Just how many Heterosexual marriages are subject to Polygamy …… typical no content comment from a man with no idea that Love respect and pride is found in all walks of life

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:10pm

      He knows a thing or two about redefining marriage, having been married twice which isn’t allowed in ‘traditional’ so called ‘christian marriages’. I’m surprised he’s not advocating a ban on divorce but being the hypocrite he is, he won’t. He’s an idiot.

      1. He’s DIVORCED?! What a total hypocrite – he doesnt even agree with the definition in the petition he signed! It clearly defines it as for life!

      2. Interesting that the most vocal ones (not including the religious lot) against equal marriage are the ones who have been married several times! I wonder why that is?

  6. Is Mr Whittaker one of those 80 Catholic MPs we were told about a few weeks ago who were supposed to be summoned to the Catholic church for their instructions on what to say about equal marriage?

    I can’t imagine he researched anything himself!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 4:45pm

      He’s an Anglican, not that it matters, they’re almost all the same in their bigotry.

      1. He’s probably one of the Anglicans who are going to go over to Rome when the C of E bring in women bishops

  7. Locus Solus 9 May 2012, 4:32pm

    Why are we letting the homophobic little … of Northern Irish MPs even vote in this? 29% of the votes confirming they are against the move are from the dumb mother … DUP. A party where Poots actually claimed that hemophilia can be contracted from a blood donation, and he’s the health minister (MLA). Really, a bunch of idiot farmer joes get to vote?

    1. bobbleobble 9 May 2012, 5:11pm

      I suppose if we don’t let the DUP vote then we can’t let any of the Scottish MPs vote either and since a lot of them are Labour and Lib Dem and likely to vote in our favour then we’d be shooting ourselves in the foot.

      It’s a Westminster vote so anyone who’s entitled to vote can. Even if it doesn’t directly affect the jurisdiction they represent. I suspect the SNP won’t vote though, they don’t tend to vote on non-Scottish issues.

  8. Ah, here we go again with the ‘slippery slope’ argument. what a plonker this man is.

    1. Indeed, I would like to push some of those idiots down the slippry slope to which they refer,!

    2. Redefine marriage and allow married women to own their own property (1882) and the next thing you know they’ll want the vote, next they’ll be going out to work, then they’ll want the same pay for the same work as men, then I suppose we’ll have women vicars and bishops, goodness knows where it will end, oh yes, the race will die out! It’s the end of the world!!

      He regrets decriminalising gay people because it led to social reform along a path to equality and fairness. What a homophobic toerag.

      1. Spanner1960 10 May 2012, 11:00am

        Well you said it. The planet has been in moral decline ever since women and their militant activists got in. Next thing they will want a female Prime Minister!

  9. Keith Farrell 9 May 2012, 4:37pm

    someone who wants to be treated with respect, but how can you respect someone who is so against equal rights for all, that is impossible. So Asshole, no respect for you, now please send your body on the same holiday that your mind went on.

  10. I Never knew Marriage was about a Child…’s me thinking it was about Love and Commitment .

    Craig Whittaker is an Idiot ………and this is without Religion ……wonder how many brain cells he would of had under the bloody voodoo act .

    1. Commitment is about faith, faith in your partner, and there was I thinking religion had nothing to do with it.

  11. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 4:41pm

    This is the same Whittaker who allegedly assaulted his son last December and got away with it.

    If he’s ok with CPs, then why isn’t he supporting them for straights and would he consider one if it were available and if not, why not? It would be interesting to hear his response and I can just imagine what it would be. By admitting that he wouldn’t consider it implies that he’s also admitting they are not equal to marriage. If they are, then why are pensions schemes different between a CP’d and married couple?

    Nothing is being redefined by equal civil marriage. All it does is expand the current law to gay couples, nothing more. It isn’t even traditional marriage by any stretch of the imagination. First of all it permits divorce and allows serial hetero adulterers to marry multiple times. That was the last time marriage was redefined in the 19th century. Now if he supported a ban on civil marriage for all then that would truly be a redefinition.

    1. Why did he assault his Son ?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:18pm

        Not sure, aparently the son was about to emigrate to Australia but I fail to see why that would provoke an assault. Either way, this idiot got away with it, the prosecution dropped the case. How convenient. I wonder how much he paid for that?

        1. Maybe the Idiot in Question misheard him ,when he heard is son wanted to go DOWN UNDER .

        2. Galadriel1010 9 May 2012, 8:02pm

          Presumably it was his son who dropped the case. It was on Boxing Day last year, at the post office or something.

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 4:44pm

    He’s a bold-faced liar saying his position was not based on any faith group. Well, he was formerly (1998–2003) a member of Heptonstall Parish Council. Who does he think he’s kidding?

    1. A Parish Council is a CIVIL body, nothing to do with the Church

  13. following his logic we should have by now CPs for those wishing to be in polygamous and three-way relationships

    it seems that tory party is saturated with all sorts of homophobic morons

    1. I’m beginning to think it’s a membership requirement, though I did just vote for Boris as the least bad of the options, plus he did good on the homophobic bus advert .

  14. Well Middle Eastern countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia appear to be setting the standard in the polygamy stakes.
    I wonder if it’s due to all those out and proud gay people they have?
    I mean it couldn’t be hetro marriage causing this, could it?
    Gays cause polygamy, that’s what I’ve been told, no other slippery slope is viable.

  15. You may as well say that heterosexual marriage will lead to polygamy. It’s the fallacious slippery slope argument.

    Anyway, polygamy is still legal or practised in dozens of countries, and 100 years ago it was the norm in 90% of the globe. Monogamy is not the traditional norm they would have us believe.

    It is also worth noting that the polygamous countries generally criminalise homosexuality, so they are not even on the same slope, slippery or not.

  16. They said the same thing about blacks trying to marry whites in North Carolina and made is against the law for a black person to marry a white person in 1875,

  17. Why gosh golly darn! Ever since them homos can marry out here in the colonies, we been seeing good ol’ Canadian men marrying three or four people at once, and the moose population sure are happy about finally being able to marry into the human race. Gosh.

    My god, do these people even LISTEN to themselves? They sound like freaking morons.

    “Marriage” as the institution we know now, does NOT predate Christianity. That is a common fallacy. The “marriage” that predates Christianity was a legal contract that was set in place to protect the inheritance of a family, and make sure there was always a son to whom that inheritance was handed down. Women were simply an inconvenient part of the equation. They were deemed “property”. A simple demonstration of this is the concept of “dowry”. Having to bribe a man with material gifts so that he will accept to take your daughter in marriage.

  18. As far as I can understand what he says, he thinks :
    – that simply being a homosexual used to be a criminal offence (as opposed to certain specific acts)
    – that he regrets that this was de-criminalised because of what it has lead to

    I presume that he must regret the Equality Act and all other equality laws that have in any way restricted the ability of people who agree with him to impose their views upon others.

    A very dangerous man

  19. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 4:54pm

    Look at the claims he’s made regarding the consequences of equal marriage.

    1. Paddyswurds 9 May 2012, 11:25pm

      So by Whittakers reasoning, Rosa Parkes should have been happy with the back seat of the bus as the seats were almost all the same. The man is an intellectually bereft, homophobic ignorant bigot……

  20. Craig Whittaker is both bigotted and stupid.

    In NONE of the countries where there is marriage equality is polygamy permitted.

    Yet ANOTHER extremist Tory bigot who by rights should be in the BNP.

    These neo-fascist scum seem to be all over the Tory Party.

    Yet the self hating Uncle Toms of LGBTory are deafening in their silence.

    Craig Whittaker should be expelled from the Tories.

    sadly he won’t be as the Tory Party is the party of homophobic hatred and extremism.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:03pm

      dAvid, I take it you read his statement in the link I posted above? i emailed him to provide the proof of his statement but I doubt if he’ll respond with the factual evidence. He’ll offer some lame excuse I expect.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:05pm

      I wish he’d identify the people who would demand polygamy. It’s illegal in almost every country, the UK notwithstanding. If he seriously believes the majority of MPs would support it, then he really is delusional and just stupid.

  21. @Craig_Whittaker is his Twitter account

  22. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:01pm

    Oh and by the way, he’s married twice, first marriage ending in divorce. I wonder who or what he blamed for that?

    1. Well I hope he’s got children from both marriages, it wouldn’t do for him to have an adult-centred marriage would it?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:54pm

        He has three from his first.

        1. So if marriage is for the children what was he doing divorcing from their mother? Their feelings should not have come into it

    2. Then how can he in all conscience sign a petition that clearly defines marriage as for life, I.e. the catholic position of no divorce?

  23. Since the absurd and unnecessary consultation on marriage equality, how many Tory MP’s have condemned equality.

    I think a list would be useful – it simply shows that the Tories are the scummy, hateful, moronic, bigotted party they always were.

    The Tories are a disgrace.

    And David Cameron is a slimy opportunist, playing the PR card when it comes to equality, seeing as he allows scumbags like Whittaker to incite hatred against our community.

    It’s quite clear that no LGBT person with any amount of self respect can EVER vote Tory.

    1. David – a list would be useful

      Check out the list on and let us know what your MP has said!

      1. One that is not on there that I know is supporting equal marriage is Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour) City of Durham

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:31pm

      And we all know if it’s defeated, we’ll have the Tories to blame won’t we? If they want political isolation, they’re asking for it. Labour will be back in 2015 so they’d better see to it that it passes or face the consequences for the next 5 to 10 years and beyond. I do wish Nick Clegg would pull out of the coalition, sooner than later.

  24. Yet more faulty logic from the bigotry brigade. Move along people, nothing to see here.

  25. What a fantastic website the C4EM has made. Thanks PN for letting us know about this.

    I can add at least 6 other MPs who have said they support/or likely to support equal marriage Tessa Munt, Stephen Williams ,Jonathan Edwards, Ann Clwyd, Guto Bebb and David Davies was likely to vote for.


      David Davies is saying because some Christians are pretending they’ll get sued, he won’t vote for equal marriage.

      1. That’s disappointing becuase he had earlier said he would decide on various replies he had.

  26. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:14pm

    His sort were saying the same nonsense when CPs were legislated. I don’t think there’s been one case of polygamy recorded in the UK since then. I wonder how he’d view heterosexual islamic people in polygamous marriages emigrating to the UK with four wives, assuming he’s aware that for some in the islamic faith it is ‘traditional’?

  27. Ian Petch 9 May 2012, 5:14pm

    I have just ‘mailed this:
    If, as I am, you are a practising Christian, you are entitled to hold the orthodox sacramental interpretation of Holy Matrimony as taught by holy Mother Church.

    However, do not please confuse those doctrines, in some vague and woolly way, with Civil Marriage, performed as a purely legal function in a Registry Office or similar suitable premises, under the ægis of a civil registrar, not ordained priest, for the purposes of a legal contract, which, incidentally, permits of civil dissolution (divorce) whereas the Church’s teaching does not of Holy Matrimony.

    Reading the superficial, incoherent collection of illogical non-sequiturs paraded in your article makes me embarrassed to be a Conservative, which I have been since the days of volunteering as an undergraduate at Leeds to help the Party in the run up to Edward Heath’s election victory in 1969.

    Ian Petch

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:26pm

      Nicely put. You could have also reminded him of his second marriage, his first ending in divorce.

      1. Ian Petch 9 May 2012, 5:31pm

        Thank U, Robt.-in-S.Ken.
        I chose not to be explicit about marital history.
        Verbum satis sapienti !

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:53pm

          Point taken!

  28. Just had a positive letter of support from my local TORY mp! Wow shocker! check the site for details.

    1. Ian Petch 9 May 2012, 5:54pm

      Which MP?

  29. Ooh, so right, Mr W! Indeed, after years and years of straight marriage we now have men marrying several women at the same time! All part of that slippery slope, isn’t it? Just like giving women the vote has led to suffrage for aspistras – I mean you just KNEW it was going to happen, didn’t you?

    Thank god we have intelligent people like you to protect us from all these so very very likely consequences of equality.


    1. *aspidistras!

  30. Michael N 9 May 2012, 5:21pm

    But polygamy is already rampant here and in America – unofficially and officially. Presumably it’s okay when straight people are doing it – just like everything else.

    1. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 6:02pm

      Just like he’s most likely okay with straight people bullying LGB people, even to the point of suicide. He might even be okay with physical harm or murder, I wouldn’t put it past him. As long as straight people do it! >_>

      (Polygamy is not okay by the way, I’m hoping you knew that)

      1. What is wrong with consenting adults wishing to formalise their relationship? I don’t understand why polygamy is considered such an abomination, what consenting adults do is entirely up to them.

        1. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 6:59pm

          The fact that….
          marriage should only be between two people
          sexual relationships should only be between two people
          polygamy is legalized infidelity
          married people make decisions and compromises together, it’s much more difficult with multiple people
          if you say you love more than one person you don’t love any/either enough
          if, say, a woman disagrees with her husband on something, he can just ignore her- he doesn’t need her, he has other wives
          the spouses might not receiver proper attention
          there’s an equal amount of women and men- if a guy that takes four wives, that’s four less women for other guys
          most of the time, it’s a man with multiple wives- polygamy is usually misogynistic
          polygamous marriages can lead to too many children, we don’t need tons more people on Earth
          it would be much harder for the IRS/etc to tax
          a lot of cults use polygamy- we don’t need to give them more power
          most polygamists are sex fanatics or overly religious and polygamy is usually about greed and dominance

          1. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 7:11pm

            I realize that infidelity is legal but polygamy glorifies it

        2. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 7:00pm

          While I disagree with polyamory, I still think it should be legal but polygamy- multiple marriages- should NOT be legal

    2. Spanner1960 9 May 2012, 8:16pm

      Actually polygamy is illegal in America as well.
      All this Mormon stuff is a myth.

      1. Custardpie 9 May 2012, 9:38pm

        Mormons used to be able to, until it was made illegal..

        Although I’ve seen one documentary that shows there are places in the US that still do it, illegal or not..

        1. Custardpie 9 May 2012, 9:43pm

          I maybe should have worded that better, because of course before it was made illegal everyone could, but from what I’ve heard it was a Mormon religion… like thing they did, lots of men having many wives :s then as soon as it was made illegal God changed his mind…

        2. Paddyswurds 10 May 2012, 12:23am

          There is even a breakaway sect of Moronism (sic) that still sticks to Polygamy and incest. Someone went to jail last year for both. There was a great article in the National Geographic mag a couple of years ago about this break away group mostly mambers of one family. It was the patriarch who was sent to jail last year.

  31. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 5:30pm

    Same sex marriage will not lead to polygamy because same sex marriage is between TWO people, the way marriage should be.

    Marriage IS adult based, not child based. It’s adults who are getting married, and not every couple wants to have children, and you can have children without being married. I personally am never having children, and I know of many straight people who feel the same way.

    1. “the way marriage should be” – again, I’ll ask “who says so”? It isn’t a law of physics, it is a matter of social tradition and taboo : i.e. artificial.

      Earlier above you were arguing that polygamy would lead to population growth, and yet now you acknowledge that a reproduction is not an inevitable outcome of sex : which is it?

  32. Imagine the nonsense that was being spouted many years ago when universal suffrage was being sought.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 6:47pm

      Exactly the same nonsense when CPs were up for a vote. The same morons from the lunatic right wing of the Tory party. Whittaker and his ilk are dunces with a capital D and not to be taken seriously. They want be too happy when they’re booted out in 2015 and it will be down to his sort for its demise.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 6:48pm

        …won’t be too happy….I meant.

  33. A common argument against gay marriage in Australia is that it is the thin end of the (gay) wedge that will lead society down a slippery slope to complete collapse. The argument holds that the “gay lobby” only wants gay marriage to be a starting point. Next will be gay adoption, IVF and surrogacy (all of which exist in Australia already). After that will come the lowering of the age of consent and polygamy/polyandry. After that, siblings will be allowed to marry. Once this agenda has been realised, the stage will be set for the legalisation of bestiality and “inter-species marriage”. The final step will be “inanimate object marriage. Once all of this is done, so the argument goes, naturally every single heterosexual person will have either turned gay or married an animal or object with which it cannot reproduce, and society will be forever destroyed. This argument overlooks several factors, including that: in none of the places where gay couples are able to marry has this occurred;

    1. gay marriage activists tend to stop lobbying once they have gay marriage rather than moving on to inter-species marriage; and that most heterosexuals are in fact heterosexuals, and are not simply biding their time until they can legally marry a person of the same sex/donkey/computer keyboard.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 6:00pm

      And if the thinks the majority of MPs in all parties would support polygamy, then he’s even more of an idiot than he currently appears to be. Delusional at best. It does make one wonder why these fools obsess so much about it, they’re the only ones who do. Thankfully, they’re the minority.

    3. Stu is a Plagiarizing deviant 9 May 2012, 11:21pm

      More plagiarizing by Stu(pid). ‘Accidentally’ forgetting to cite his sources and passing off bad faith.
      Here is where the deviant pervert stole it from.. Check the Subheading The “Thin End of the Wedge” or “Slippery Slope” Arguments on this page…

      1. Who cares?

        The quote was used yesterday on another thread.

        Whether it is lifted or not – does not change the strength and honesty of its comments.

      2. Stu could at least put the quote in quotation marks surely!

        1. For you, Jamesh, next time I shall.

  34. What a nut job

    I think Tories should not be able to get married, or to breed!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 6:02pm

      It’s all that inbreeding that produces all of the ugliness we’re seeing in more ways than one.

  35. He’s must be obsessed with threesomes. Dirty old bugger.

  36. My favourite article to explain why same sex couples marrying does not lead to incest is this one:

    Particularly these comments:

    “In 2008 the California Supreme Court distinguished polygamy from the right to same-sex marriage by explaining that polygamy is “inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.” Polygamist leaders like Warren Jeffs, who last year was convicted of multiple sexual assaults and incest-related felony counts, illustrate how polygamy is inherently conducive to power imbalances, sexual subjugation, and other abuses that do not inherently exist in the case of same-sex marriage.”

    “There isn’t a shred of modern sociological evidence to support the claim that gay marriage is harmful to society, whereas there is a plethora of historical and contemporary evidence to illustrate the dangers associated with polygamy

  37. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 5:42pm

    I’d like to say civil partnerships are NOT equal
    -They’re separate
    -They’re a different name
    -Civil ceremonies are not weddings
    -Partners are not wives/husbands
    -In some countries, CPs have less benefits

    It’s not redefining marriage for the rest of society. You can still get married, that isn’t changing! Nobody’s stopping heterosexual marriages here, we just want homosexual marriages.

    It IS discriminatory to deny us LGB people equal rights.

    Traditional marriage was
    -Between whites
    -Between people of the same race
    -A woman was the property of the man
    -A woman couldn’t deny her husband sexually
    No thanks!

    Well I doubt the people who decriminalized slavery were thinking about interracial marriage but times change for the better!!

    1. I think you’ll find that traditional marriage extended further that just “between whites”.

      1. Well, here in the US, in some states, black slaves weren’t allowed to get married and even in the states they were allowed to get married, they could be separated, sold, etc. Not sure what the laws were in the UK.

        In the US, interracial marriage wasn’t legal nationwide until 1967

        1. Pity you don’t expand that me-me-me demand for equality to others, hypocrite.

 you said:- “Transgender people don’t deserve equality because what they are doing is wrong and disgusting.”

          Indeed. Stupid egocentric cow.

    2. “It IS discriminatory to deny us LGB people equal rights.”

      It IS discriminatory to deny us LGBT people equal rights.

  38. But this man is an MP. Surely he knows that public opinion in the main supports equal marriage.

    However, and I am guessing here, the public won’t support polygamy and, as any democrat knows, it is unlikely to extend to such arrangements!

    Sounds like he is using fear to further his own prejudices if you ask me.

  39. NudeDancer 9 May 2012, 5:50pm

    Has it occurred to anybody that denying Gay marriage DOES NOT STOP FUTURE GENERATIONS CONSIDERING POLYGAMY????

    Since they are two entirely seperate issues, denying the one has no effect whatsoever on the other (and vice versa). I simply do not understand why these concepts are linked in some people’s minds…

    …in other news, I hereby announce my intention to marry my toaster…


  40. Craig Denney 9 May 2012, 5:53pm

    What is the point of this discussion when the coalition has drop-kicked marriage equality out the door?

    Is PN pro-Tory?

    1. Jock S. Trap 9 May 2012, 6:02pm

      Have they?

    2. I think someones been reading their right wing media too much.Consultation is still ongoing

    3. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 6:12pm

      Well I’ll suplex it back in :P

    4. Only if you believe the likes of Nadine Dorries or “upstanding” (not!) people like Aiden.

      Many ministers have made it clear that they intend progressing equal marriage after the consultation results are reviewed.

      It never was intended to be in this years Queens speech – right wing extremists like Craig Whittaker, Nadine Dorries, Karl McCartnery and trolls would have you believe otherwise and Craig has fallen into their trap!!

      1. Craig Denney 9 May 2012, 7:04pm

        Don’t you remember how tricky legislation was to change when it came to the vote in the Lords with the Labour Party in control?
        Now we are relying on the Nasty Party to do it and they “will” cave-in.

        Anybody who thinks they will not cave-in is delusional!

  41. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 5:58pm

    Voted against it? Shows how stupid you are. The consultation is ongoing, there has been NO bill to vote on, yet. Who cares if your MP votes against it?. His party will be voted out of office come 2015 and will be confined to the political wilderness for at least another ten years or more.

    1. Spanner1960 10 May 2012, 11:03am

      Agreed there is no vote. As for Tory’s being voted out, don’t hold your breath, lets see how the long game pans out.

  42. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 5:59pm

    Having morals would mean supporting same sex marriage and other LGB equality
    Not having morals would be being against it

    Most of us are asking for CIVIL marriage (and religious marriages should be up to the religious clergy/building) therefore it’s none of your business. Same sex marriage does NOT affect you if you’re heterosexual, Christian, etc

  43. Jock S. Trap 9 May 2012, 6:02pm

    Oh how the desperate are… A weak argument that gets nowhere and means nothing contributing to genuine debate of marriage equality.

    Oh and Mr Whittaker…. Virtually is not good enough. You and your like wouldn’t accept it if it was aimed at rights for yourself so don’t expect anyone else to put up with nearly and almost when only Equality in it’s entire form will do.

    Disgusting man!

  44. Jock S. Trap 9 May 2012, 6:03pm

    Says someone who clearly has No morals nor common sense.

    1. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 6:17pm

      He’s religious, it’s expected!

  45. Asinine.

  46. “Aiden” doesn’t actually exist so safe to say neither does his MP

  47. If MP’s and Church leaders want to stop gay sex just legalise gay marriage!

    1. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 6:15pm

      LOL! It took me a minute to get that. I hope I find a woman someday that has as much of an ‘appetite’ as me, that way that wouldn’t happen D:

  48. Aiden

    When was your MP given the chance to vote?

    Please provide a reference to this in Hansard.

    Oh, you can’t. There hasn’t been a vote.

    Is that like you cherry picked from the ECHR judgement on another thread.

    Is that like everything else you say – complete hate filled rhetoric, with not one piece of fact or credability.

    Perhaps the fact that you lie about your appearance and hide as a so-called “straight” man on a gay website, behind fake photos.

    Hypocrite, loser and liar.

    Probably a danger to society too.

  49. You must hate those Saudis then going by that logic of yours .

    And shouldn’t you be screwing your girlfriend instead of coming on here ?

    Or do you get more enjoyment coming on here ?

  50. Predictably here is yet again the yaping snarling neutered toy poodle closet case.
    No he cries I’m straight, wife and kids la la la. Just can’t stay away from the gays though. Come out or just fk off you are now so boring even birds are falling off trees having lost the will to live.

  51. So I’m left wondering… what’s wrong with polygamy?

    1. There is an article above which explains why polygamy is ethically problematic and why same sex relationships are not.

    2. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 6:57pm

      The fact that….
      marriage should only be between two people
      sexual relationships should only be between two people
      polygamy is legalized infidelity
      married people make decisions and compromises together, it’s much more difficult with multiple people
      if you say you love more than one person you don’t love any/either enough
      if, say, a woman disagrees with her husband on something, he can just ignore her- he doesn’t need her, he has other wives
      the spouses might not receiver proper attention
      there’s an equal amount of women and men- if a guy that takes four wives, that’s four less women for other guys
      most of the time, it’s a man with multiple wives- polygamy is usually misogynistic
      polygamous marriages can lead to too many children, we don’t need tons more people on Earth
      it would be much harder for the IRS/etc to tax
      a lot of cults use polygamy- we don’t need to give them more power
      most polygamists are sex fanatics or overly religious and polygamy is usually about greed and dominance

      1. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 7:11pm

        -I realize that infidelity is legal but polygamy glorifies it

      2. Oh Lumi, what an utter load of puerile garbage. Where are these facts you mention?

        marriage/ relationships should only be between two people? Except some religions (which I ignore as I’m an atheist) but others are ok with it. if everyone’s having fun (the point of most human sexual activity) it isn’t up to you (or me, or anyone else) to dictate to them.

        Marriage is about commitment to each other : I can see no reason why three people can’t be committed two two people apiece : many families and friendship groupings already sustain that number and more, so human beings can clearly cope with more numerous and deep relationships.

        How much love is “enough” .. quantify it. Your statement is nothing more than hot air.

        Disagreements occur in all sorts of relationships. If you believe it is EVER appropriate to indefinitely ignore someone . Doesn’t sound like you have a lot of experience to me.

        1. proper attention – not sure what that even means, but the odds of someone around to comfort / help are increased so that seems a plus to me on the attention front.

          polygamous couples could exist in all sorts of permutations of sexes, so your amusing point about “not enough women” to go around isn’t a truism, and discounts your point about population growth too.

          I’m not aware of the demographics of polygamy, but someone who is willing to surround themselves is unlikely to be misogynistic by definition, and there is more of this in existing religions than a little in any case.

          IRS — LoL. Getting a bit desperate here I think.

          In the same way gay does not equal pedophile, polygamy does not equal cult.

          sex fanatics – more power to them.

          If there is a problem with ‘overly religious’ people using polygamy for greed and dominance, the problem is with ‘overly religious people’ and not polygamy.

          1. You have to understand that Lumi is a total bigot, and proudly so – as if being proud of ignorance is something to be advertised. She is also somewhat unaware of the dictionary definition of “hypocrite”

            Here is an extract of what she think of trans people.

   – “Transgender people don’t deserve equality because what they are doing is wrong and disgusting.”

      3. “marriage should only be between two people” – Any particular marriage is only between two people even in a polygamous situation. Just each person may be in more than one marriage at the same time.
        “polygamy is legalized infidelity” – no it isn’t. It’s not infidelity if everyone involved knows, no faith has been breached.
        “married people make decisions and compromises together, it’s much more difficult with multiple people” – much easier with one person, thus ban marriage per se.
        “if you say you love more than one person you don’t love any/either enough” – and thus if you say you love your husband you shouldn’t say that about your child or your mother.
        “if, say, a woman disagrees with her husband on something, he can just ignore her- he doesn’t need her, he has other wives” Nobody ‘needs’ their wife unless they are in a rather unhealthy relationship.

      4. “there’s an equal amount of women and men- if a guy that takes four wives, that’s four less women for other guys” So women should get more than one husband to ballance the numbers, come on it’s not hard
        “most of the time, it’s a man with multiple wives- polygamy is usually misogynistic” historically true. Likewise same sex partnerships have historically been seen as mostly male. This isn’t inevitable
        “polygamous marriages can lead to too many children, we don’t need tons more people on Earth” … How? If each woman gives birth to the same nubmer of children the population increase will be the same.
        “it would be much harder for the IRS/etc to tax” … I’m not even going to respond
        “a lot of cults use polygamy- we don’t need to give them more power” lots of cults are vegitarian, thus ban vegitarianism
        “most polygamists are sex fanatics or overly religious and polygamy is usually about greed and dominance” replace “polygamists” with “gays”, both statments are backed up by as much solid f

  52. This guy is my MP!
    How dreadful that he is supposed to e representing my views.
    I think it’s time to book a visit to his surgery.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 7:03pm

      Be careful where he puts his hands! They may wander to parts he fantasises about. His sort are notorious for that.

    2. Galadriel1010 9 May 2012, 8:08pm

      He’s my parents’ MP too. And the representative for Hebden Bridge, which could make him suddenly very unpopular with the locals.

  53. What’s wrong with polygamy? I really don’t see how it’s such a big deal…

    1. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 7:12pm

      Read my post under Matt’s post (two up)

      1. I wouldn’t bother, myself

  54. Emotionally speaking, I don’t think I can take the opinion of a strangely tanned guy whose PR photo reminds me of an internet meme very seriously.

    This guy has the rationality of a rabid poodle, and only such credibility as has any other lap dog of the Catholic church.

  55. And I thought all the small minded, frightened little had moved to North Carolina…

  56. If polygamy is on any slippery slope at all, it would have to be on the one to do with religious liberty, and granting special rights to religious groups.

  57. GulliverUK 9 May 2012, 7:19pm

    Just ignore the cretin and LOL with this …

  58. Married but childless. That’s not difficult to understand, fancy waking up to that ugly mug next to you every morning.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 8:45pm

      He’s not childless. Has three from his previous marriage.

  59. Marriage, he said, “predates the English language and our nation, and it predates the Christian church. It is as old as the hills…”

    So does polygamy, for that matter. What exactly is his point?

    1. Lumi Bast 9 May 2012, 7:32pm

      Homophobes never have a legitimate point lol

      1. Very true.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 8:44pm

      Homophobia disguised behind religion. This sort is so stupid that they’ll say they have gay friends or family members to disassociate themselves from being labelled as homophobic, but we all know what that’s about don’t we?

      1. Yes, and oh Christ [sic] aren’t they BORING?

  60. GulliverUK 9 May 2012, 8:03pm

    Stuff this old fart – Obama is the real news – he’s just come out in support of equal marriage.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 8:43pm

      Its going to piss off the likes of Whittaker. Oh how I’m gloating and enjoying every minute. The leader of the free world, who would have thought? Maybe there is a god after all.

      1. There isn’t.

  61. The only consequence of allowing same sex relationships to marry is that – same sex couples will be able to get married.
    I hope his children are gay are disown him for being so bigoted and hateful. And isn’t this MP the man who was arrested for an alleged assault on his son in February………

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 8:41pm

      Exactly right. The case was dropped though, probably paid someone off. Incidentally, he’s twice married too.

    2. The only consequence of allowing people in poly relationships to marry is that those in poly relationships will be able to get married.

      The only consequence of allowing siblings to marry will be that siblings will be able to get married.

      1. Very clever Janice.

        Now for double money, using evidence, please display the direct link between granting marriage to same sex couples and those you have mentioned.

      2. You enjoy sex with you dad then Janice?

        Consequence of siblings marrying is growth in congenital disorders

      3. John Antrobus 9 May 2012, 9:38pm

        No-one’s proposing to introduce poly marriage or sibling marriage, Janice, so what’s your point?

        It’s same-sex marriage that’s proposed and the only consequence of allowing people of the same sex to marry is that same sex couples will be able to get married.

  62. I’m Dutch and resident in The Netherlands but I’ve never heard of the three-way co-habitation agreement mentioned by this MP. If some such legal set-up has occurred here, it isn’t newsworthy and nor does it have anything to do with our marriage or registered partnerships which are all two-person institutions. I can only conclude that the MP is using lies to scaremonger people.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 8:41pm

      Brian, maybe you should send him a letter. Obviously he knows something that the rest of us don’t.

  63. Three-way relationships? Does he mean the kind most married hetrosexuals engage in right now and have for generations –
    This closeted, self loathing tory really needs to shut up and do his job – representing the whole of his constituency rather than spending his work hours trying to grab headlines for his own despicable self promotion.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 11:06pm

      Yes, the serial adulters like Sir Roger Gale, three wives and another woman on the side.

      1. Do they go dogging?

  64. I am sure that Whittaker is referring to the case of Victor de Bruijn and his two female “wives” that was reported widely in the Netherlands after an inflammatory and inaccurate article in the Brussels Journal.

    ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while Mirjam and her husband divorced.

    When they presented themselves to the notary, a cohabitation contract was validated. This was mistranslated by the Brussels Journal as a civil union. In fact it is nothing of the sort. The mistranslation may have been in error or it may have been intended to give the false

    1. impression that the triple union had more legal weight than it did.

      Dutch legal experts have given complex legal accounts of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered partnerships. They have also verified that polygamous marriage is illegal in the Netherlands.

      Those pushing the argument that the events in Holland are more significant are predominantly led by the discredited Stanley Kurtz from the USA. Kurtz bring the person involved in the discredited study on gay marriage in Scandinavia.

      Many critics of same-sex marriage cite the work of Stanley Kurtz, a pundit at the right-wing Hoover Institution (which describes him in his official bio as an “outspoken combatant in America’s culture wars”). Kurtz argues that gay marriage in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden has destroyed the institution of heterosexual marriage. There are several problems with his work, most notably that:Same-sex marriage isn’t

      1. actually legal in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. These countries have domestic partnership laws, comparable to those of California and Vermont. NB when this says isn;t it wasnt when he wrote his report!
        Marriage decline in Scandinavian nations is comparable to marriage decline in other relatively affluent European nations that do not legally recognize same-sex relationships, such as France and Germany.
        Marriage decline has been ongoing for decades, and does not correlate to legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

  65. Nutjobsareeverywhere 9 May 2012, 9:04pm

    Since when was marriage child centred what centuary is this silly tory get living in does he not have un married mothers on Yorkshire no wonder this frigin countries in the state it’s in. What happened to we are all in this together ? Obviously some are more together than others.

    1. I’d like him to explain why if marriage is child centred his and his ex-wifes selfishness took priority over his children when they decided to seperate.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 11:05pm

      Obviously he hasn’t heard of childless hetero married couples, those who can’t procreate and those who choose not to. What a dumb arse.

  66. Nutjobsareeverywhere 9 May 2012, 9:06pm

    Polygamy!! Well he needn’t worry about that

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 May 2012, 1:02pm

      Never going to happen. Does he really believe the majority of MPs in all parties would support polygamyt? He’s delusional and doing nothing more than parrotting C4M, CI and others, pandering to fear where there isn’t any. People of his sort are an embarrassment to their party and to themselves. But, don’t worry. Those absurd illusions are going to sink the Tories in 2015, economic woes aside. It’s fast becoming the party of the looney right.

  67. If marriage, in his words, is child centred then can someone find out why this man and his ex-wife’s selfishness to seperate took priority over their children in a child centred marriage?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 May 2012, 12:58pm

      He’s a hypocrite. The threat to the stability of marriage is people like him, Sir Roger Gale and others who’ve committed serial adultery and married more than once something that most christian cults frown upon. In fact, divorced people can’t have a religious (traditional) marriage in the majority of the so called ‘christian’ cults. Prince Charles is another example, the future head of the CoE no less. We all know what caused his first marriage to fail and it certainly wasn’t equal marriage in other countries. It’s all hypocrisy.

  68. Has he voted against it like you’ve signed the C4M petition “Aiden” ?

    1. Maybe he voted for it in person at the C4M offices on a separate piece of paper (not computer recorded or recorded in Hansard) so that auditing was impossible and transparency a dirty word?

  69. Who cares what this bigoted idiot thinks?

    The most powerful man in the world thinks gay people should be able to marry and that it is a factor in human rights.

    Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, trolls!

  70. Just more proof that the Law and Justice Homophobic Tories are not about to change any time soon.
    If Call me Dave wants another term he needs to come on board with Marriage Equality, because waiting til next year or even til after the elections in 15 will just be too late and will just be a wasted opportunity for him because Milliband will bring it in anyway.
    If Call me Dave wants the GLB vote now is the time to show he deserves it ; not in a few years……

  71. Stu is a Plagiarizing deviant 9 May 2012, 11:24pm

    Stu(pid) said “common argument against gay marriage in Australia is that it is the thin end of the (gay) wedge that will lead society down a slippery slope to complete collapse. The argument holds that the “gay lobby” only wants gay marriage to be a starting point. Next will be gay adoption, IVF and surrogacy (all of which exist in Australia already). After that will come the lowering of the age of consent and polygamy/polyandry.”

    he said more than this but he plagiarized it, ‘accidentally’ forgetting to cite his sources and passing off bad faith.
    Here is where the deviant pervert stole it from.. Check the Subheading The “Thin End of the Wedge” or “Slippery Slope” Arguments on this page…

    1. Who cares – the point made in the comment (lifted or not) is entirely valid.

      I note you don’t argue against the valid facts in it, merely assert that it should have been referenced (would you prefer the Harvard method or the Vancouver method?). This is not an academic article so (in my humble opinion) complete referencing is unnecessary.

      1. Of course if challenged to produce evidence or reference arguments, one should be prepared to cite a source – something Stu has often been prepared to do.

        Whereas you, Keith, tend to be unable to produce reliable evidence for you vomit worthy evil comments.

      2. Thank You, Will

        I will make more effort to reference appropriate comments from now on ;-)

        Did not change the validity of the quote – although Keiths reference was largely correct – although rational wiki is not the only location it is available from.

        1. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 10:17am

          Perhaps yo could make a similar effort when falsely accusing peole of making criminal posts yet failing to cite them when challenged. Yes?
          Yours Keith (still not arrested)

          1. Keith’s obsession with Stu goes on unabated…. and he’ supposed to be “straight”.

            Hmmmm. We all know the sexuality of homophobes.

          2. There is a solution to this, Keith – you could hand yourself in at your location police station – the full contact details of Hackney Community Safety Unit were place on another thread for you (or anyone else who wished to join in the various people who have made criminal complaints about you) to make contact.

            I emailled the officer leading the investigations yesterday and they assured me they do intend to arrest you and they are actively pursuing the investigation.

            I have no apology to make in relation to the complaint I have made to police, and nor will I – you are the one acting unlawfully.

    2. Is that the first time you have encountered rationality, Keith?

      You certainly never manage to write anything rational or with intelligence.

      1. Whatever we think of Keith, Stu does copy and paste without references which makes it difficult to know when it is his words and when it is someone elses. He also uses ‘sock-puppets’ to reply to himself. ‘Will’ is probably Stu.

        1. Jamesh

          To respond to both your comments in relation to this.

          Perhaps I could have used quotes. Perhaps I was remiss in that. I apologise.

          Usually when I do copy and paste its because the content of the piece I believe to be relevant to the discussion matter. More often than not I will reference it either with a source name or a cyberlink to the source.

          As for sock puppets – you are referring (I presume) to a well documented falling out I had with someone on PN when I resorted to tactics others had used and made a mistake but admitted it and apologised for it as soon as I made the stupid error. I have not, would not and will not repeat said mistake and your accusation that I use “sock puppets” is only accurate to that event.


        2. Will’ is probably Stu.

          I assure you I am not.

          But don’t let the truth get in the way of demonstrating your paranoid in lieu of a decent retort.


      2. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 10:21am

        I do not pass off th work of others as my ownas Stu(pid) regularly does. How convenient that once again he ‘forgets’ to credit is sources. Just because you may not like my views does not mean that what I say about Stu(pid) is not true. He has ben busted o here for having multiple usernames i order to win arguments gainst himself and any thing you wih to charge against me, true or untrue merely deflects from the fact that the most outspoken, prolific LGBT sympathizer on here is a lying, plagiarizing, duplicitious individual of low character.

        1. You are hardly an acceptable character reference, Keith.

          Do I believe anything you say? No

          1. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 12:41pm

            Hi Stu!
            Yet another sock?

          2. Ohhh, look, the paranoia is back. How delightful.

            You’re an established fool Keith, and without question, mental health issues. So Mark is right, its only stating the obvious. Hardly rocket science.

    3. johnny.33308 10 May 2012, 12:39am

      I agree with Will….sorry…….

    4. Folks,

      This is Keith – seriously – he purely has a problem with Stu because of the police investigation and he has an axe to grind.

      Keith is a troll of the worst sort.

      Mark down, ignore and move on.

      What he wants is the attention and the replies – it thrills him. Ignore him and move on and the attention seeking idiot is deprived of the attention he lusts after

  72. johnny.33308 10 May 2012, 12:37am

    Marriage is “child-centered”? When did that happen? Why weren’t all of us told about this? I thought marriage was adult-centered as numerous couples neither wish to have, nor have children. So their marriages are invalid then? Someone is going to have to tell them the bad news……Any volunteers?

    1. I’m homosexual and I’m NEVER having children
      I must be doubly evil >:)

  73. I’m fairly bored so I thought I’d share this story-
    In a pro wrestling company, that’s lucha libre style with comic book type characters- there’s a group of wrestlers called The Colony, which are three guys dressed up as ants (actually very talented wrestlers). There’s a storyline where these three guys are in a group called The Swarm and they’re three evil ants, basically their opposites. One of the wrestlers is called DeviANT (all the names are puns) so I laugh when “Mister Homophobic Troll (various names)” calls LGB people deviants.

  74. If this was indeed the case then why haven’t civil partnerships led to polygamous civil partnerships? The logical holes with which these people attempt to justify their homophobia is astounding.

    1. Everything they’ve said equal marriage would lead to, bestiality, marrying a chair leg, polygamy, breakdown of society …. they said all this crap when Civil Partnerships were being introduced. Just search on Google … filter the dates (left-hand side) to just select 2004-2006.

      “The Scottish people must be aware that by the end of the year we will see the reality of marriage changed to the point that it is unrecognizable. We are indulging in an experiment which will always have huge social consequences.”Cardinal Keith O’Brien talking scaremongering BS nonsense about Civil Partnerships in 2005. Did the reality of marriage change? NO, it did not. Marriage has been in serial decline for decades, and whilst most marriages were conducted in church, now only 30% at the last count were, and that’s dropped from 50% in just a decade. Marriage is being shunned by many, who are absolutely happy to live together, and religious weddings are now very much the minority option.

  75. Did this MP get accused and charged (charges were later dropped) with assaulting his son?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 May 2012, 11:34am

      The prosecution dropped the charges.

  76. what a nutter lets look at the facts no equal marriage the tories are out end at the next election

  77. We talk about this a few months ago when a guy says he is in one now. He and his partner and flatmate.

    If marriage does not have a religious meaning, does it have a reproductive one: NO.

    Many of us gay men have been into group sex and more than one person. So it is natural for us to have a polygamy relationship, if one so chooses.

    Us gays were never meant to procreate. We are gay men.

    Being gay is being reformed again.

    1. Spanner1960 10 May 2012, 11:04am


  78. He also does not want to be a politician anymore. Your resignation is most welcome, Sir, and fully accepted. There may be a vacancy in the local kebab shop if you hurry.

  79. “Child centred marriage” from a man who had his own children outside of marriage and was arrested by police last year for assaulting his son outside a petrol station according to wikipedia. Do as I say, don’t say as I do.

  80. There’s just one word from people that espouse this nonsense:- fool.

    As are the people who put fools in positions of power.

  81. Heterosexuals have been operating a system of serial polygamy for years.

    Marriage – divorce – marriage

  82. I look at Craig Whittaker’s photograph and I see a man who deep inside is saying “I am NOT gay! I do NOT have ANY homosexual inclinations!”

    And that’s this poor man’s big problem.

  83. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 12:39pm

    “There is a solution to this, Keith – you could hand yourself in at your location police station – the full contact details of Hackney Community Safety Unit were place on another thread for you (or anyone else who wished to join in the various people who have made criminal complaints about you) to make contact.

    I emailled the officer leading the investigations yesterday and they assured me they do intend to arrest you and they are actively pursuing the investigation.

    I have no apology to make in relation to the complaint I have made to police, and nor will I – you are the one acting unlawfully.”

    What an idiotic post to suggest wasting my time handing myself in. To what end?
    Your failure to produce a shred of evidence to support your accusations coupled with the arrest that has not happened prove you to be a liar! Even your cohort deviants concede you are a deceitful duplicitous plagiarizing fantasist!
    If they intend to arrest me they must have a case. Why the delay?

    1. “Your failure to produce a shred of evidence”

      This forum and its archive is the evidence you idiot.

      1. Thats the simple fact that the idiot does not get.

        Nor does he get the fact that the police have ALL messages sent on here including those deleted following PN co-operation with the police.

        Nor does he get that I don’t have to provide a shred of evidence, the police already have it. All I (and others) have to do is make the allegation, which the police take seriously, and the police do the rest.

        I owe Keith nothing.

        I owe the LGBT community my duty to report hate crime and prevent incitement to hatred where I have influence, including using established methods – ie the police.

        The evidence is there, Keith knows what he has done. He doesnt like that I dont have to tell him and I wont – thats for the police to explore with him and I won’t give him the benefit of planning his answers. Although, if he has any intelligence (doubtful) he should know everything he has said, every time his messages have been deleted, all the concerns that others (and I) have raised with him and the

      2. communications that I understand that he has had with PN.

        All Keith is doing is harass, manipulate and trying to provoke response.

        He knows he is in the wrong. He knows he is the deviant. He knows he harasses. He knows he bullies. He knows he is inciting hatred.

        If he doesnt then he is even more demented than I thought.

        He will be arrested and he will be punished. I personally would rather it had happened by now, but I am being kept updated by police regarding their investigations and Keiths little foolish and evil games will come to an end in due course – and I will love to see him in court and being punished.

        He who laughs last – laughs best.

        Keith keeps trying to laugh, but his will not be the last one.

        1. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 2:18pm

          Keep it up big mouth. With every passing reminder and taunt, you look mor pathetic.

      3. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 2:15pm

        And out of all the archives he has not poduced a shrd of evidence. That is my point you deviant apologist and plagiarist sympathizer.

        1. The police believe otherwise. As do I. As have many other people on here.

          You are not entitled to be your own judge as to your own conduct.

          Your will be held to account.

          Society will have the last laugh – *at* you.

    2. “What an idiotic post to suggest wasting my time handing myself in. To what end?”

      Well clearly a police investiagtion is ongoing. If you truly believe you have not acted in a criminal manner then why not even just pop an e-mail off to the police with your details. If you truly have nothing to fear then the matter can be resolved very quickly and you will be vindicated in your claims of innocence won’t you?

      1. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 2:32pm

        Again I ask, to what end? I have nothing to resolve and nothing to gain by your suggestion.
        Are you in the habit of emailing the police every time you don’t commit a crime?

        1. But if police are investigating your conduct on these forums(do you accept this to now be the case?) then surely you would want that matter to be resolved as soon as possible?

          Your question is somewhat pointless though. Of course I don’t e-mail police every time I don’t commit a crime because at no point would police be investigating me would they? In your case they are so by contacting them you can resolve their enquiries quicker and as I say, have yourself vindicated as innocent if you are indeed so. I don’t see why it should be such an issue if you have nothing to fear.

          1. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 3:28pm

            I don’t believe tehre is any investigation so I do not believe there is anything to resolve. Stu(pid) s a lying plagiarist sock puppeteer regardless of how you view me.
            I do not have anyting to prove to anyone nd why would I want to speed up enquiries if they did even exist?
            I certainly have nothing to fear but you are certainly a gullible fool if you believe stu, a proven deceitful liar!

          2. Having raised one of your messages to me directly I don’t have to believe Stu about there being an investigation. I know for myself there is. Unless Stu has sock puppets outwith the forums on PN but somehow I doubt it.

            And I suppose you and I are just different. If I thought the police were investigating me for something I believed myself to be innocent of I’d want it dealt with as quickly as possible. Obviously you see it differently. That is of course your call, I’m sure you’ll be involved with the case at some point either way.

          3. Keith,

            I have not been involved in the police investigation into you – but your conduct over the past few weeks has made me decide to contact the police.

            I contacted Pink News around 6 weeks ago to complain about your hatred and attitude on here and voice concern that it was a potential hate crime. Pink News confirmed to me that there is an active investigation into the matter and gave me the contact details of the police officer leading the investigation and confirmed that Pink News are fully supporting the police.

            I am fed up with your hatred and criminality and am now contacting the Metropolitan Police, no doubt to join the queue of people wishing to make a statement against you and support your prosecution.

            You are your own worst enemy – it did not have to come to this.

    3. I know why the delay – and the reason for it is entirely reasonable.

      The officer in charge of the case makes great efforts to keep me informed.

      Am I going to tell you the reason – the subject of the investigation. Absolutely not.

  84. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 12:54pm

    A Stu(pid) deviant said
    ““There is a solution to this, Keith – you could hand yourself in at your location police station – the full contact details of Hackney Community Safety Unit were place on another thread for you (or anyone else who wished to join in the various people who have made criminal complaints about you) to make contact.”

    Soution implies problem yet the problem is yours not mine. I hav nothing to prove at all and I have no problem.
    You on the other hand have failed to show an shred of evidence for your accusations that I have made criminal posts. This undermines your credibility which is a problem for you, not me.
    The imminent arrest promised 5 months ago has not materialized despite your desperate insistence that the police are closing in on me, like I am some sort of underworld boss.. This undermines your credibility which is a problem for you, not me.
    Maybe you shold hand yourself in to the nearest mental health facility as I feel a sectioning is ‘imminent’!

  85. But marriage IS adult-centred, if you look at its history. All children need is a stable, loving family and they’ll be set, and a stable, loving family often coincides with marriage. But idiots like this don’t seem to be able to differentiate between the two concepts.

  86. -“If gays are allowed to marry, he continued: “What will our successors be discussing and have to legislate for in the future?; Polygamy?; Three-way relationships?; Who knows what else?”

    This ‘runaway’ argument is used time and time again by bigots to justify any argument. When woman were given the vote it was said “If woman get the vote then soon so will children and even babies” Did that happen, no?

    When black people were given equal rights the runaway argument was “What next? Equality for animals?”

    -“Marriage, he said, “predates the English language and our nation, and it predates the Christian church. It is as old as the hills, not a recent invention of society to be refashioned on a political whim.”

    Yes and no. Marriage used to be legal for a 6 year old girl. Why was it changed? Because our culture changed and we changed marriage rules. Polygamy USED to be legal, check out the Old Testament. Why did that change? – Because society/culture changed.

    1. Not cool. I can tell you are one of those people who dont think for yourself and just listen to what media feeds you. Can anyone say brainwashed hahaha.

  87. I just found out this guy has step children?! So much for unchanging rules of marriage. There is NOWAY this would have been excepted just a few generations ago when divorce was scandle. Sort your life out mate!

  88. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 4:05pm

    “I have not been involved in the police investigation into you – but your conduct over the past few weeks has made me decide to contact the police.

    I contacted Pink News around 6 weeks ago to complain about your hatred and attitude on here and voice concern that it was a potential hate crime. Pink News confirmed to me that there is an active investigation into the matter and gave me the contact details of the police officer leading the investigation and confirmed that Pink News are fully supporting the police.

    I am fed up with your hatred and criminality and am now contacting the Metropolitan Police, no doubt to join the queue of people wishing to make a statement against you and support your prosecution.

    You are your own worst enemy – it did not have to come to this.”

    Oh dear! Another of Stu(pid’s) alter egos?
    Suppose you show me a criminal post I have made?

    1. “Cyberstalking – The use of electronic tools such as email or instant messaging to harass or abuse a person or persons. Can also include particularly intense and/or coordinated incidents of trolling, especially when they occur repeatedly and specifically target a single person or group.”

      How many times have you had ID’s blocked by Pink News? How often are your comments deleted?

      Rather an indication that your comments are not welcomed here, yet you return constantly. Any reason why you’re behaviour couldn’t fall into the definition above?

      1. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 4:20pm

        You need a crash course on communications law Kris. Voicing opinions (even repeatedly) on a public comments section cannot be construed as stalking and criticizing people’s lifestyle choices cannot b deemed harassment, stalkig, inciting hatred on grounds of sexual orientation.
        Now please show me a post of mine which you believe criminal and I will explain to you why it is not. Or, you can go on beliving Stu(pid’s) lies which are now being supported by his sock puppets.

        1. Well there are a few people in prison in the UK currently for communications and computer offences including harassment which tell an entirely different picture.

          Do you think Keith will learn when he is in prison?

    2. I think the point is “Keith” that if you behaved in the way you do on these forums in public, for example by hectoring a group of people having a drink in a pub, you’d have been held to account a long time ago.

      Just because you’re posting on the internet does not absolve you of guilt or remove you from detection. This last is a little more difficult, but I am sure the police are methodically working their way to you.

      1. Stu(pid)is a Plagiarizing deviant liar 10 May 2012, 5:28pm

        I couldsay exactly the same things in a pub conversation and there would still be no criminal offence. I know the law Harry. Stu(pid) just thinks he does but do you not find it suspicious that he has declined my challenge to produce as single criminal post of mine. He says he doesn’t have to, I say he can’t.

        1. Its not just Stu who recognises the criminality of your actions.

          I am a solicitor in a firm in Liverpool. Based on the information I have seen of your postings there is a prima facie case of inciting hatred from your postings.

          Add together the offensive messages you post, with being told they are unwelcome, with your comments that you intend to taunt Stu (and others) and being asked to desist, with having your comments deleted and your names blocked by Pink News. A reasonable person would view that your conduct is harassing.

          Stu does not have to present any evidence to you.

          You taunt him. I am sure, like me he just laughs at you – because he knows that the people who need to prove the evidence already have it.

          In any event I would always advise my clients who had reason to take a matter to the police to not reveal the evidence they have to anyone who might be harassing them.

          As for your knowledge of the law, if you have undertaken a course in law – ask for a refund!

        2. Well, lets look forward to seeing that tested in court when the police catch up with you. I am sure your mistaken view that your actions are legal will be proven to be wrong.

          1. Sewer- News. 10 May 2012, 6:18pm

            Give me strength! The gullible idiots and sock puppets are comng out of the woodwork today!

          2. You think that just because you post under multiple identities then there’s someone else doing the same to you.

            Probably not. More likely that lots of people find your posts beyond the pale.

            Just go away.

        3. “I couldsay” [sic] exactly the same things in a pub conversation and there would still be no criminal offence.”

          Not sure that is actually true. However, you are not doing that. You are repeatedly interrupting a group of people and shouting them down. You are targeting some people in particular, and the group in general. You do this again and again, despite being asked not to. You have been ejected from the pub by the landlord, and you come back in disguise.

          And the question remains: have you got nothing better to do with your life ?

  89. Sewer- News. 10 May 2012, 6:27pm

    Let me lay it on the line once and for all for all the muppets here and fake solicitors.
    If someone disagrees with you, however unpleasant or unpalatable, that is noyt harassment. Any message posted on an open venue, such as a newsgroups, a web boards, forums or and chat room, are rarely truly harassment unless they’re forged to appear to come from you or contain direct thgreats or libelous statements. Harassment involve repeated communication through email,instant message or facebook or similar.
    Please assimilatea nd digest this ino that is supplie free of charge.

    1. It’s not a question of agreement or disagreement.

      It’s about repeated, offensive, harassment, which is what you are doing.

      Go away.

      1. Sewer- News. 10 May 2012, 6:57pm

        You do not have to read or reply yet you choose to.
        I am here to stay, complete with regulr taunts to Stu regarding his lies about my imminent arrest 5 months ago! He shan’t recover

        1. Further evidence that no doubt the police will obtain (since it is a new post) of your intention to harass Stu.

          Your intention to taunt when several times you have been asked by me and others on to stop is reasonably seen as harassment

    2. A lesson to the “muppets” who claim they understand or know law.

      Protection From Harassment Act 1997.
      (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
      (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
      (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
      (2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

      Offence of harassment.
      (1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.
      (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

      There is some anecdotal evidence that the police are more comfortable in bringing forward this law when dealing with issues of

      1. of cyberbullying. The police have successfully used the Protection from Harassment Act to prosecute for the sending of offensive e-mails, contributions to community websites, posting to public websites or social media interaction through the internet. Such messages will also constitute an offence under the Malicious Communications Act.

        Malicious Communications Act 1998/Telecommunications Act 1984
        Under this Act it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person. Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a similar offence to send a telephone message which is indecent, offensive or threatening.

        Both these offences are punishable with up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine. The Malicious Communications offences are wider ranging, but under the Telecommunications offences, it is likely that the Police will use the former Act to bring a charge.

      2. The Communications Act 2003
        The Communications Act 2003 is by far the most recent Act to be passed. Section 127 states that a person is guilty of an offence if he/she sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or causes any such message or matter to be so
        A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he/she knows to be false, causes such a message to be sent; or persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

        Section 74 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and Schedule 16 amend Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 to extend hate crime legislation to cover “hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to sexual orientation (whether towards persons of the same sex, the

      3. opposite sex or both).

        Here is just one example of a conviction under the Communications Act in April 2012, as reported in The Independent:

        “Political Blogger “Olly Cromwell” (real name John Graham Kerlen) of the Bexley area was today found guilty of sending a grossly offensive communication subject to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, at Bexley Magistrate’s Court. Cromwell posted two tweets which were the subject of today’s prosecution.

        Cromwell first posted a photograph of Bexley concillor Melvin Seymour’s home, accompanied by the text:
        “Which c*nt lives in a house like this. Answers on a postcard to #bexleycouncil”
        The tweet was later followed by another tweet:
        “It’s silly posting a picture of a house on Twitter without an address, that will come later. Please feel free to post actual sh!t”
        It appears to have been the prosecution’s assertion that Cromwell was encouraging his followers to post faeces through the letterbox of the address in the photograph.”

      4. Now far be it from me to point out the link to Keith, but the use of repeatedly offensive conduct – despite warnings (and the apparent fascination with faeces) appear somewhat similar.

        If the police require another person to say that they as a reasonable person find Keiths conduct amounting to harassment, then I am prepared to give evidence.

        1. Sewer- News. 10 May 2012, 7:27pm

          Yes, very far be it from you, imbecile.

          1. Well, you are so “knowledgeable” about the law that your only comeback was on my personal comments not on the law itself.

            Perhaps we should consider other cases which demonstrate that internet trolling (of various kinds – many – not all – of them similar to your behvaiour) have led to convictions.






            and I could give many more …

            Your messages are offensive, you have stated you will continue to taunt despite being asked not to do so,

          2. a reasonable person would see that their conduct was harassing if they were told that it was. You have been told numerous times. Yet you continue.

            Your messages are offensive and they are via an electronic communications means.

            Your messages are blatantly homophobic.

            The vast volume of them is an aggravating factor.

            One would hope a custodial sentence would be appropriate in your case.

  90. Sewer- News. 10 May 2012, 8:55pm

    AAron (Stu(pid))
    Why not present on here, an example of ONE single criminal post of mine if you can. This is a challenge.

    1. Not really understanding Aaron’s point are we?

      It’s not just a question of one of your posts being criminal. It’s more than that.

      1. Nicely put, Kris.

        As a deputy SIO in a midlands force – if the Met determine via DPA requests the location and identity of Keith and he is in my force area, I would take great pleasure in taking on the case.

        I would echo Aarons comment that he would not advise a client to disclose any evidence to someone whom the police are investigating. Thats for the police to decide how to handle – usually in a former interview under PACE conditions.

        1. Sewer- News. 10 May 2012, 10:12pm

          If there is more than one criminal post , that should make it easier to find one and post it should it not? However, if Aaron (Stupid) would like to post more than one, fine.
          Not one of my accusers has produced a shred of evidence..
          Hello Fiona and welcome to Stu(pid’s) world of transparent sock puppets.

          1. Aaron has made it quite simple(my vacant mind understood) why you’re behaviour could be considered a criminal offence. So instead of going on like some paranoid(everyone is Stu, everyone is Stu) and rabbiting on about evidence, try reading what he’s said and give evidence to why your behaviour doesn’t fall within what Aaron has said.

          2. I refer you to my earlier comments.

    2. You keep going on about sock puppets as though it is a crime. In candour I have no idea to what you are referring, nor am I interested.

      I am fairly sure I have used different name tags to make a point. Examples are “Keith is in the closet” and “Keith is in denial about his sexuality”.

      But you are still evading the question: what are you trying to achieve by posting your foul comments ?

      How have you made sure you’re not doing harm by posting on this forum ?

  91. Sewer- News. 10 May 2012, 11:03pm

    Two words
    ‘onus probandi’

    1. Someone objects to Latin?
      Common scum!

    2. Well as Aaron and Fiona have said, that’s not for us, that’s for the relevant authorities to provide under the correct procedures.

    3. I think you got that using the old ‘in vino veritas’, Keith, as with all your “insights”.

      Sewer name suits you by the way, you are unquestionably a piece of filth.

    4. The burden of proof is not mine or any person on Pink News.

      The burden of proof is on the police/CPS.

      It is clear to anyone with any modicum of legal knowledge that the actus rea portion of a crime is complete. It seems likely from your comments and continual comments that the mens rea is also complete.

      It is for the authorities to decide how to act and when to act.

  92. @Keith

    Whatever you imagine the law to be, why do you keep posting here ? Nobody wants your foul views, your comments are instantly down graded, and people have asked you again and again to stop. Why don’t you ? Have you any shred of consideration for your fellow creatures ? Just GO AWAY in the name of sanity.

    1. I have no tolerance for deviance

      1. I have no tolerance for idiot trolls who lie, manipulate, bully and taunt.

  93. homogameinophobia, an irrational fear of gay people marrying eachother, is curable.

  94. I see when confronted with genuine legal facts, Keith just splutters and taunts. Then tries to throw in some latin to make it look as though he knows what he is talking about – but which is easily commented upon to demonstrate that Keith has NO IDEA what he is talking about and doesnt care that he is acting criminally.

    Be careful when you drop the soap in the shower, Keith.

    1. Sewer- News. 11 May 2012, 9:19pm

      Well as it stands monkeyboy, nothing you predicted has transpired and you have declined my challenge to produce a single criminal post of mine so at present my word is true and your’s is just the wishful thinking of a deviant plagiarizing, lying . sock puppeteering

      1. Sewer- News. 11 May 2012, 9:21pm

        Dviant Stu(pid) said..
        “Then tries to throw in some latin to make it look as though he knows what he is talking about”

        But at least I do know what I am talking about and don’t have to plagiarize the work of others. Know what I mean Stu(pid)?

      2. “my challenge to produce a single criminal post of mine”

        Do you really not get it? Aaron’s summary explains it quite clearly where the potential criminal offence could be, and it’s not a single post, or more than one post. It’s the sum of all your behaviour on PN.

        1. Sewer- News. 11 May 2012, 9:54pm

          If it is more than one post the job should be easier. Just suppling one of the many posts that are criminal in content would suffice. An amalgamation of non criminal posts could not possibly constitute a criminal post. there would have to be criminal content in at least one post. Don’t make me have to use more latin phrases.

          1. Did Aaron not also make it clear that it is for the authorities to disclose to you evidence – not the person who makes the complaint to the authorities.

            Your taunts, and childish behaviour ring hollow, empty and full of irrelevance – but are still criminal.

          2. “Don’t make me have to use more latin phrases.”


            How very scary!

          3. “Don’t make me have to use more latin phrases.”

            How terrifying! Go read Aaron’s posts, and keep reading until hopefully you understand what he’s saying.

            If you’re as knowledgeable as you seem to think you are I don’t understand why you’re having so much trouble with this.

        2. Stu's personal Butt Plug collection 13 May 2012, 5:15pm

          Aaron’s summary???
          Talking to yourself again Monkeyboy?

          1. Paranoia is treatable – as is hatred.

            Perhaps you should get some help.

    2. Stu's personal Butt Plug collection 13 May 2012, 6:35pm

      Yes. the prison population is disproportionately homosexual. How astute of you!

      1. Not according to Ministry of Justice official statistics.

  95. Robert in S. Kensington 11 May 2012, 3:24pm

    This bigot responded to an email I sent him earlier in the week asking him to produce the official evidence to support his polygamy and three-way relationship claims.

    He avoided giving me an answer and instead, said…’I think you totally miss my point — my main point is the fact that by interfering with legislation on marriage now, who are we to predict what may come in the future? I highlighted the point that 45 years ago when homosexuality was legalised in our country, did our forefathers envisage that today we would have civil partnerships and indeed having discussions on same-sex marriage — I think not. On the same thread of thought, who knows what our successors will be discussing in 40 years time? I don’t know and would bea wealthy man if I did. I don’t accept that it is totally irrational and pandering to fear, but is a point that you and I disagree on.’

    What a total cop-out.

    1. Man’s an idiot. Not much else can be said I think.

    2. Follow his logic and you would not do anything, ever. There would be no change, no alteration, everything would be fixed.

      That’s taking conservatism to huge extremes !

  96. Sewer- News. 12 May 2012, 9:54am

    Well here we are Stu(pid). Today is Saturday and here I am still awaiting my ‘imminent’ arrest.

    1. Nothing is going to change until the police are satisfied that the time is right to arrest you.

      Neither you, Stu nor anyone else has any control over when this happens – that is for the police to decide when is the appropriate time for the integrity of the investigation. No doubt, they will need to have collated the vast amount of evidence against you that they will have forensically downloaded from the Pink News servers and indentify your internet footprints and clarified your identity. No doubt the team investigating you have other crimes they are also looking at, and progress will occur on a gradual basis.

      You can taunt but it achieves nothing other than continue to further harass and offend – further clear acts of criminality.

      If you want evidence of you criminality – merely read this thread – there is criminal acts from you on this comments page – and if you can not see that then your supposed knowledge of law is sorely lacking (as Aaron said earlier, ask for a refund!)

  97. Which part of Fiona’s comment is inaccurate?

    I have read and re-read and as a criminal defence lawyer I can find no point of law or breach of process issue that I would be able to successfully raise for a client.

    Of course, you are an “expert” in law – so you will be able to eloquently and concisely elucidate as to why my 22 years in legal practice has led me to miss something that you have identified.

    Please do share.

    1. There is no speculation in that you have broken the law.

      Information has been given as to contact details for the investigating officer in the police. So the investigation itself is also not speculation.

      I don’t have to cite any evidence. As I have repeatedly said to you (but you appear too thick to comprehend it) that is for the police and prosecution authority to disclose.

      Anonymity is no defence in law for criminal acts.

      Google are just one organisation that have been ordered to reveal the details of anonymous bloggers by UK courts in order to progress civil and criminal matters.

      As for lawyer – my correct full title is “Solicitor-Advocate” meaning I practice as solicitor but am able to represent clients in the higher courts without instructing a barrister. Myself and other solicitor-advocates (and other solicitors and barristers) use the phrase lawyer in general discussion for simplicity.

      Other legal organisations use the phrase lawyer too e.g. Law Society

      1. Yes it is and several people have been convicted of it – hopefully you will be soon too.

      2. Well that is where you are wrong, Keith

        I gave some cases above – where harassment on an ongoing anonymous basis was carried out via the internet and convictions obtained. Perhaps you should go and review those cases or I could supply some more cases for you to ponder.

        There is nothing in any of the pieces of law I referred you to above that requires the offender to know the victim.

        You are mistaken in your belief and you are culpable for your actions.

        You continued desire to taunt and offend demonstrate the mens rea of your actions and your risible harassment of Stu and the wider Pink News community continues. I have no doubt whatsoever that you will be held to account.

        I hope Pink News run a massive splash and syndicate it whether you are convicted and sentenced.

        Perhaps you should seek legal and psychiatric help in advance.

    2. I shall ask you again which part of Fionas statement is inaccurate – you tried deflection from my direct question before. Perhaps you will try and answer this time. Or are you too cowardly to answer – or perhaps you can’t because you are too weak?

      1. Yawn

        Given a choice of believing someone who repeatedly uses homophobia on a gay site and offensive language, and someone who clearly points out the error of the other persons ways – states they have reported it to police and gives the details of the police team that is dealing with it and confirms their contact details – well, I know who I believe and its not the homophobic troll.

        I do not doubt that Stu has used false names in the past (he has admitted it himself). I have no reason to believe that Keiths hysteria (particularly given the lack of logic and honesty in most of what he says) that Aaron, Fiona and others are Stu.

        Aaron has given a concise explanation as to why Keith is breaking the law. From my A Level law, this makes sense to me. Keiths claim that being anonymous makes someone not liable to criminal accountability is laughable.

        I think Keith is trying to convince himself. He certainly isn’t convincing me, and I doubt he is convincing anyone else!

      2. “I am smart, you are a fool.”

        Oh dear.

        Delusional too.

  98. How do you know Aaron was using the phrase “criminal defence lawyer” as a job title and not as a description ?

    Do you understand that different phrases can refer to the same thing ?

    Have you been diagnosed with autism ?

    1. How do you know Aaron was using the phrase “criminal defence lawyer” as a job title and not as a description ?

      Do you understand that different phrases can refer to the same thing ?

      Have you been diagnosed with autism ?

      1. Harry

        You have it spot on.

        In the same way that a general practitioner is a doctor, and an anaesthetist is a doctor – so solicitors, barristers and solicitor-advocates are lawyers.

        Some lawyers engage in criminal defense work.

        I personally am a solicitor advocate engaging in a criminal defense workload. I am a lawyer.

        Autism is one explanation of Keith being unable to comprehend some very simple aspects of law simply and patiently explained to him. Others on Pink News seem to fully understand. Perhaps extremism makes you lose the ability to comprehend simple issues.

  99. Do you think your compulsion to spill the foul slops of your mind on this forum outweighs the rights of all the LGBT people who visit it to enjoy it sans harassment ?

    How many people would it take to ask you to leave for you to go away ?

    1. Maybe the questions are making you a little uncomfortable …

      How do you know Aaron was using the phrase “criminal defence lawyer” as a job title and not as a description ?

      Do you understand that different phrases can refer to the same thing ?

      Have you been diagnosed with autism ?

      1. Lots of professions have words that are interchangeable in how they describe themselves.

        A secretary may also describe themselves as an administrator

        A Child Protection Professional may also be a social worker or a nurse or a police officer or a lawyer

        A publican may also be a bar manager or licensee or F&B manager

        A Captain in the army is also a soldier

        A manager in a leisure centre may also be a qualified fitness instructor etc etc

        Keith is just crackers!

    2. “I have to stay to taunt”

      Who told you that you have to?

      “Lies and duplicity”

      Look whos talking – and where are the lies that you accuse Stu of? If you mean the lack of arrest – I only presume he told you what the police told him about the timing of your arrest, he can not be held responsible for their decision of when to act, so they are not lies (that requires knowing what you say to be untrue – and presumably he told you of your arrest being imminent in good faith).

      “If he apologizes for his lives”

      Why should anyone apologise for their life?

      Will you apologise for you life and your lies, Keith?

    3. Too scared to use more latin phrase, Keith …

      I am sooooo relieved.


  100. Have you been diagnosed with autism ?

    1. I’d say its a lot more then autism, Harry. More than likely schizophrenia, compounded by a lack of education being from the lowest socio-economic class.

      1. Stu's personal Butt Plug collection 13 May 2012, 9:35am

        Thanks for reading deviant. Always good to know my thoughts resonate. Every little helps etc!

        1. Resonate? LOL! Like n empty bowel, you mean?

          Oh, bless.

          But thanks for reading my erudite analysis of you, I’m always here to educated the poorer and less fortunate like you.

          You’re very welcome.

      2. @Will.

        With all due respect, what on earth does class have to do with the behaviour of a noted sociopath on a gay site?

        What about his posts suggest he’s from the “lowest socio-economic class”? (And why should that matter? An idiot is still an idiot, no matter how much he can draw from the bank.)

        It’s offensive to claim that working class people “lack education”, and are therefore more likely to be nasty on the internet. (Have you *seen* the Daily Mail online?)

        Only 7.2% in the UK are privately educated, so presumably this means the rest of us are just scum chomping at the bit? The super-rich must be hiding the silverware as we speak!

  101. None of those other names are anything to do with me – except in your imagination. Thats why I suggest you seek help for your paranoia.

    I do agree entirely with what Aaron and Fiona say, in particular, and you could learn a great deal from studying Aarons wise words.

    1. Clearly you do not

  102. So having spoken with me several times the past few months you’re now deciding I’m in fact Stu in disguise. Paranoid much? And the irony of you referencing multiple personality disorder. It would be funny were it not so pathetic.

  103. @”Keith”

    Sixth time of asking: have you been diagnosed with autism ?

  104. This thread should be preserved as a case study in trolling.

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.