Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Soho: Woman ‘thrown out of bar’ over Hitler wine complaint

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Seriously?! It’s a picture on a bottle, not the man himself. I can understand if Hitler was getting V.I.P treatment in a gay bar but the past is in the past………. learn from the past, don’t live in it!!

  2. Jesus moran 11 Jul 2012, 4:21pm

    Hitler image in a gay bay , shame on you , am glad I know this now since am moving to London next year, I’ll never visit this bar , she deserves an apology and the entire gay community should refrain of visiting this bar for ever!!!

    1. I’m sorry I can only thumb-up you once.
      I agree wholeheartedly with you. It is not only crass and tasteless, it is cruel.

      1. Suddenly Last Bummer 12 Jul 2012, 11:22am

        Chaplin’s film “The Great Dictator”- crass and tastless? I don’t understand what people are complaining about. The guy lived and breathed, are we supposed to whitewash him from history? In which case can I request images of Christ be removed from galleries, churches etc?

        1. But The Great Dictator lampooned Hitler and his ilk, it in no way celebrated him. And it was made long before the enormity of Hitler’s policies and actions were widely known.

    2. You sound fun!

  3. David Campbell 11 Jul 2012, 4:51pm

    Sound like someone had their knickers in a twist. If she doesn’t like ‘the decorations’, she shouldn’t be there. I expect that she deserved getting booted out of the bar. Personally, I find an image of the Pope more offensive than Hitler.

    1. Suddenly Last Bummer 12 Jul 2012, 11:23am

      Or a photo of Boy George? (Just keeping it all topical)

    2. both specimens are deeply offensive and evil

  4. Pearl Wong 11 Jul 2012, 4:55pm

    Those bottles are meant as a joke. Get a funny bone. This lady is obviously overreacting to how the bar was using the bottles. They weren’t make patrons bow down to Hitler or drink from the bottle. They were simply displaying it whilst having a big old gay night.

  5. That There Other David 11 Jul 2012, 5:10pm

    Seriously, Pink News? You’re blocking the name of the Hitler’s political party even for this story?

    1. Spanner1960 11 Jul 2012, 6:11pm

      Apparently “N@zi” is a forbidden word.
      Wankers.

      1. Paddyswurds 11 Jul 2012, 8:51pm

        It can be written as Nazl Naz1 or Naz! without any problems .. … … There appears to be a huge lexicon of words banned on this website but that appears to reflect the mores of the owner and founder and doesn’t necessarily have any political or religious connotations, which seems to be rather childish on his part, as most of the restrictions can with a little ingenuity be circumvented……Phuck yea!
        .

  6. I would be offended. I probably wouldn’t say anything though just not go there again.

    1. Suddenly Last Bummer 12 Jul 2012, 11:25am

      Offended by what? Some of you guys are very sensitive. How did you feel at school when WWII was being discussed and your history book had photos of Hitler? You might as well argue kids shouldn’t be exposed to such images cause clearly gays aren’t allowed to.

      1. Isn’t context at the centre of this issue?

        1. Suddenly Last Bummer 12 Jul 2012, 2:17pm

          Clearly not. A pub has a picture of Adolf on a bottle of wine and all hell breaks loose. Priorities guys. Seems less people were offended by those “Gay Free Zone” posters slapped up around Tower Hamlets last year.

          1. I simply meant context in the difference between Hitler depicted in a history book or in a documentary, and as a “joke” on a “novelty” wine bottle.

  7. Dan Filson 11 Jul 2012, 5:26pm

    At first I read the story as saying the doorman was always gentile. Then I realised it said gentle!

  8. What an idiot that woman sounds.

    She should simply have walked out.

    I mean if the owner of the bar is half jewish and Hitler the bottle has been there for 15 years alongside other such evil creatures as Mussolini and the Pope then the patron was probably drunk.

    At what time did this incident occur. That should tell the likelihood of whether the ‘professional’ patron was drunk or not.

    Is it a slow news day?

    And why is the word Hitler allowed on Pink News whereas his party is censored?

  9. If someone finds an exhibit offensive the bar staff should consider the objection. Simply falling back on a position that it’s been there 15 years and no-one else has complained is not acceptable.
    Also just because the owner is half Jewish does not justify the display of an image of individuals who sought genocide based on such characteristics as being gay or Jewish.
    In some countries in Europe it is illegal to display images of Hitler.
    It seems from what has been reported that the display lead to some sort dispute so on balance I am with the complainant, I would find it offensive, sorry it’s not my idea of humour!

    1. But equally maybe the patron complained about it in a drunk and abusive manner in which case she deserved to be kicked out?

      Did anyone witness the altercation?

      What time on a Friday night did the ‘incident’ occur?

      1. what does the patron’s demeanor have to do with the offensiveness of the hitler imagery. There are two separate issues here. Don’t conflate them.

        1. The demeanour may be relevant in how the patron was escorted from the premises, if asked to leave.

      2. Nelly MANchester 12 Jul 2012, 7:35am

        YOU could be drunk by lunch time ?

  10. It’s the owner’s bar she can display whatever the heck she wants! Does the patron got to her friends’ houses and crticise their ornaments? Trisha Bergonzi’s gaff, Trisha Bergonzi’s rules. End of.

  11. Spanner1960 11 Jul 2012, 6:10pm

    Can we invoke Godwin’s law on Pink News for this one?

    1. LOL

    2. I thought we already had . . . .

  12. Spanner1960 11 Jul 2012, 6:13pm

    Storm in a wineglass.
    It’s a private club, so they can do as they please. If you disapprove of their decor, leave.

    1. oh right, let’s have white only clubs, and male only clubs, and non muslim clubs, so long as its private we can indulge in as much discriminatiion as we want to. You can’t privatize hatred except in your own head.

      1. I have no problem whatsoever with a private women-only club, so why should I object to any other type of private members’ club?

      2. Spanner1960 11 Jul 2012, 11:22pm

        Sure. Why not?
        It’s like throwing your own party at home and deciding who to invite.
        I’m sure you wouldn’t want gatecrashers muscling into your party.
        That’s what the term “private” means.

  13. How big was this wine bottle?

    A picture on a wine bottle is not usually something particularly obvious or in your face.

    So whilst it wouldn’t be my choice of decor, unless there were lots of other bits of offensive paraphenalia around the bar then I would not presume anything by it. I doubt I would have felt the need to raise it with bar staff.

    1. then you probably aren’t jewish

      1. No.

        Although, the guys I had dinner with tonight are – and they thought that this sort of reaction to a single wine bottle in a bar was highly oversensitive.`

        1. Sister Mary Clarence 12 Jul 2012, 12:17pm

          They are certainly entitled to their views on something they have heard second of third hand. However, it would appear the woman did find it offensive and seemingly we aren’t happy to respect her views because your friends are okay about it.

          I generally think your opinions on here are fairly sound, but you’re letting yourself down a bit on this one mate.

          We know very little fact about this issue other than there was an image of Hitler and there was a complaint. The stores then differ between the two sides.

          The fact that there was a picture of Hitler that someone found offensive enough to complain about show have been enough for it to be removed in my book.

          The West end is the focal point for tourism in London, it isn’t appropriate that we are displaying images of Hitler as a joke.

          1. Well personally my judgement was not based on what my friends thought – nor would I expect yours to be – but it was an interesting discussion point given that they might be expected to be offended.

            Generally I do not find photographs of a face to be matters that bring with them offensiveness.

            I would not want to censor photographs of historical figures.

          2. I’m with you Sister M C
            there are lapses in sensitivity on this site that can be alarming… often to do with articles that include women’s issues .. these seem to be pretty much marginalized or ignored by the readership.
            In this case its “just” an individual women whose sensitivities to anti-semitism have barely found one sympathetic response here.
            Shame on you guys.

          3. @ Stu
            I’m disappointed in the silliness of your response to Sister MC. It just doesn’t wash dear. Putting pictures of Hitler on a wine bottle may seem like campy humor to you, but don’t pretend to say its being historically neutral… its a celebration of a murderer and its stupid and sick.

          4. I didnt say that it was camp or silly, Skepchik – those are words you put in my mouth (and are not my opinion).

            Nor did I say or imply that it was historically neutral – nor is that my opinion.

            Whether it is stupid or sick is not an issue I have addressed. However, the owner of a bar should be free to display a photograph that is deemed by others to be stupid – if its that offensive customers will walk and take their custom elsewhere. I would not support censoring photographs unless pornographic.

  14. I don’t see aything wrong with reclaiming things humourously, just like words once used against us and now used also by us.
    Better than dwelling on them as a source of fear and offense

    Look up sh1tler toilet paper =P

    1. Gemma Gillon 12 Jul 2012, 12:34am

      Society don’t need to call us names anymore, we do it ourselfs. Who would want to reclaim the word poof ? What about claiming the word “Equal citizen” ? I forgot we ain’t got that right now.

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 12 Jul 2012, 9:39am

      That’s all very well as long as everyone gets it, but the likelihood of that has got to be zero surely.

      How many Jewish visitors to London are going to get the gag?

      Really, its just stupid.

  15. John Galliano loves the place!

  16. Loved this review of the place:

    “Keep your eyes peeled for this one: it’s sunk beneath Greek Street, accessed through a dodgy-looking doorway and a seriously scruffy staircase. If there’s a less salubrious introduction to a bar in London then, well, we’d like to see it. Or not.

    These days, the term ‘speakeasy’ is bandied about with reckless abandon by bar owners desperate to adorn their venue with an elusive, exclusive and illicit allure yet few are the genuine McCoy – not least because if you’re shouting about what you’re doing, then you’re not a genuine speakeasy.

    This downtrodden drinking den and sort-of members club (you may be asked to sign in), however, is refreshingly free of any such affectation. It was formerly called Trisha’s (aka The Hideout), and there’s a small bar, a scattering of tables and chairs and pictures of boxers, mafia types and Italian football teams adorning the worn walls.

    A friendly Staffordshire bull terrier slopes about the place, and the manager

  17. Love this review of the place:

    “Keep your eyes peeled for this one: it’s sunk beneath Greek Street, accessed through a dodgy-looking doorway and a seriously scruffy staircase. If there’s a less salubrious introduction to a bar in London then, well, we’d like to see it. Or not.

    These days, the term ‘speakeasy’ is bandied about with reckless abandon by bar owners desperate to adorn their venue with an elusive, exclusive and illicit allure yet few are the genuine McCoy – not least because if you’re shouting about what you’re doing, then you’re not a genuine speakeasy.

    This downtrodden drinking den and sort-of members club (you may be asked to sign in), however, is refreshingly free of any such affectation. It was formerly called Trisha’s (aka The Hideout), and there’s a small bar, a scattering of tables and chairs and pictures of boxers, maf1a types and Italian football teams adorning the worn walls.

    A friendly Staffordshire bull terrier slopes about the place, and the manager sits

  18. Great review for the place:

    http://www.cheapbars.co.uk/pub/trishas-aka-the-hideout-aka-evaristo-club/

    “Keep your eyes peeled for this one: it’s sunk beneath Greek Street, accessed through a dodgy-looking doorway and a seriously scruffy staircase. If there’s a less salubrious introduction to a bar in London then, well, we’d like to see it. Or not.”

    “A friendly Staffordshire bull terrier slopes about the place, and the manager sits on a stool sipping wine. There’s a very small courtyard out the back and only one proper lavatory. It looks like the kind of place where someone would get whacked in ‘The Sopranos’ – except there was an episode of ‘Emmerdale’ showing on our visit.”

    1. It sounds hideously squalid.

      “Novelty (“amusing”) wine bottles” indeed!

  19. Who else thinks she was totally blotto?

  20. Gemma Gillon 11 Jul 2012, 10:47pm

    As a point of law, the bar HAVE (although technically a judge will need to state this) broken the civil law. Under HM Equality Act 2010 it is an offense to end the service or refuse to serve a person for raising a complaint against based along discrimination lines. The act has no “fear or favour” with the accused. So if a gay half Jewish person DID do what this woman claims they would be treated like ever other person and held to account. Just because she is gay/Jewish dose not give her immunity. By ejecting her gently or violently for complaining, if that is all she had done was complain and not be abusive then, yes it may be the bar committed the offense of “victimisation of a service
    user who invokes the act” even if the grounds of her complaint are rubbish. They should have took her complaint, investigated it, and let her stay if she was peaceful.

    1. It is also an offence under licensing law to serve someone who is intoxicated.

      That may be the case, I do not know – I was not there. Perhaps you were and you can advise us?

      1. Gemma Gillon 11 Jul 2012, 11:54pm

        Her solicitor will and a judge will decide one thing is for sure, she has a case.

        1. I doubt she has a case if she was being asked to leave due to her level of intoxication

  21. A “novelty wine bottle” (whatever that might be)? With a picture of Hitler? How desperate do people have to be to have something to amuse them?

    1. Spanner1960 11 Jul 2012, 11:24pm

      It takes all kinds.
      Apparently some people find Marcus Brigstoke and Mark Steel amusing, but I have no idea why.

      1. That latter observation doesn’t surprise me in the least. But even if they were pinko/lefty/communists (as I’m sure you think they are) I hardly think they’d advocate putting the images of a genocidal psychopath like Stalin on the label of a bottle of wine as a “joke”.

      2. I feel very ignorant, who’s Mark Steel?

          1. Thanks, Rehan

            I now remember who he is – and found him endearing and funny when I saw him on TV ages ago – I had forgotten his name though.

  22. Gemma Gillon 11 Jul 2012, 11:04pm

    By ejecting her, even if her complaint had no basis or was vexatious, the bar seem to have possibly committed a civil offence by “victimisation of a service user who invokes the right to make a complaint” in regards discrimination under HM Equality Act 2010

    1. Not if they were exercising their duty under the licensing act

      1. Gemma Gillon 11 Jul 2012, 11:42pm

        It would need to be up to a judge to decide that on the facts of the case. She should go for a writ and/or to the police if she believes there was an assault. It’s this sort of crap in the gay that makes the LGBT look silly. We have enough discrimination without it happening in house.

        1. The Licensing Act 2003 includes an offence of selling alcohol, or attempting to sell alcohol, to a person who is drunk, or knowingly to allow alcohol to be sold to such a person. So, if the account that the bar owner has given in coverage elsewhere is true then the bar staff, owners and licensee could have been committing criminal offences by not removing her.

          A person who is drunk or disorderly commits an offence if he fails to leave relevant premises (defined as licensed premises, premises for which a club premises certificate is in force, or premises which may be used for a permitted temporary activity by virtue of Part 5 of the Act) at the request of either a police officer or •any person who works at the premises in a capacity (whether paid or unpaid) authorising him to make such a request or •the premises licence holder or designated premises supervisor (if any) or the premises user.

          If someone asked to leave licensed premises due to being drunk or committing an offence on the

          1. premises then refuses then the licence holder or their staff may use reasonable force to evict the individual. If they request the assistance of a police officer to facilitate this the police officer must assist them.

            My experience as a former police officer is that many people make allegations against licensees or bar staff over various issues when CCTV evidence and various witnesses demonstrate that the complainant was drunk and acting unreasonably and thus force used was appropriate and proportionate.

            If the person involved in this instance genuinely feels she has a case then I am sure the police would examine CCTV and speak to relevant people to decide if there is any case in her favour and then whether it is in the public interest to pursue it.

            She may have been treated wrongly and that is bad to her as an individual. She may have acted wrongly and she is bringing discredit on herself (and arguably wider communities).

    2. Gemma Gillon 11 Jul 2012, 11:34pm

      Sorry, that was not mention to be sent as it’s a repeat of what I sent

  23. friday jones 12 Jul 2012, 12:02am

    So I take it that the UK doesn’t have the laws against displaying National Socialist Party regalia that countries like France have? Considering what Hitler did to London, I’m surprised no one’s smashed that damned bottle yet.

    1. Gemma Gillon 12 Jul 2012, 12:25am

      You won’t find that kind of balls or spine in the UK

      1. I totally agree with you Gemma!

        It seems that the younger generation do not have any knowledge of the war in Europe and especially the hideous assault on London and the rest of Great Britain from 1939 to 1945. Those who think ‘Hitler on a bottle’ displayed in a London bar is quite acceptable, need a refresher course on the history of World War II.

        1. I don’t think that’s true. The punk movement used iconography from Hitlers party, but they weren’t all bad people!
          It may be in bad taste, but you can’t destroy things because it’s not culturally sensitive. If we did, we wouldnt have any pictures of Napolion at the Tate Gallery.

          I don’t have a problem with the bottle, but it sounds like it was delt with badly.

    2. I doubt a picture on a bottle of wine would have led to a successful case under incitement laws in France or Belgium

      Consider these cases:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9079587/Tintin-does-not-break-racism-law-Belgium-court-rules.html#

      http://www.hull.ac.uk/rca/docs/articles/yahoo-saga.pdf

  24. Blimey! I am really surprised at the sense of humour failure in some of these comments. The worst thing that happened to Hitler (apart from losing the war and killing himself) was that he is now lampooned across the globe as a figure of ridicule. Mel Brookes, Charlie Chaplin, Spike Milligan, all the Youtube clips of Downfall etc, cause endless amusement. Is anyone really saying that the Führer on a wine bottle (of all things) is really offensive? I wouldn’t patronise a bar where his portrait hung on the wall but on a wine bottle?? Please!

    1. I wonder if the view of the bar would have been the same if these items had been on display (all of which I perceive as lampooning and ridiculing H!tler with humour):

      http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Hitler_pincushion_IMG_1332b.jpg

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/hab3045/2253732110/

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 12 Jul 2012, 12:22pm

      “Is anyone really saying that the Führer on a wine bottle (of all things) is really offensive?”

      Yes, the woman who complained was.

      Have you seen the bottle?

      No?

      Then what makes you an expert?

      1. Cal is equally entitled to an opinion – whether or not they have seen said bottle.

  25. Sister Mary Clarence 12 Jul 2012, 9:36am

    Interesting that the ‘only’ person to complain about it can seemingly have her complaint discounted because she is drunk.

    Are we to believe that has she not been drunk they would have accepted the potentially offensive nature of the image and removed it?

    The owner questioned how the person complaining had gained access to the bar. Is this because she is worried about non-members accessing the bar (and filing the tills getting drunk there) or it is because a non-member was raising a complaint about a tasteless and potentially offensive piece of decor?

    Surely the most simple solution would have been for the person behind the bar to remove or turn round the bottle and say that he/she would speak to the manager about it.

    I think the likelihood is events were somewhere between the two accounts given but frankly a bar serving gay people is on dodgy ground displaying images of Hilter.

    1. If someone really has an issue with this bottle – then they should go to the bar when totally sober and raise a concern with the staff then.

      Intoxicated people can raise legitimate concerns (on many occasions) but their demeanour and manner of doing so may not be either appropriate or responsible.

      1. Sister Mary Clarence 12 Jul 2012, 12:09pm

        I an ideal world that would be fine, but we aren’t living in a bubble are we?

        If I was out and about and saw something I didn’t like and found offensive I would raise it at the time.

        We only have the bar’s account that the woman was drunk – why are you assuming that is the correct account. It may have been something they made up or embellished. She may have been sucking on a half pint of sandy all night for all we know.

        1. Sister MC

          I am not assuming that it is the case that she was drunk. I have said in a number of my comments that she MAY have been treated unfairly, however – she might not. I am merely accepting that it is an explanation – do you know that she was not?

          I am sure that if she was not intoxicated and the force used (if indeed it was, and we only have her word that it was used) was excessive then the police could seek evidence including CCTV to reach a conclusion.

          I have no idea whose account is correct.

          I do know that if I was as upset as she clearly seems to be, then my route to resolve it would not have been to pass a story to the media (which left my conduct open to question). i would have a) gone to the bar again when sober and with a sober witness to discuss it with the bar manager/owner and/or b) reported the matter to the police and/or licencing authority.

          Personally, I do not find the idea of the photograph of a repulsive historical character on a wine bottle in a bar to

          1. be a matter which would outrage me (whether it was H!tler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin or Chaechescu). I would not find it to be in good taste and I would accept others may be offended.

    2. Suddenly Last Bummer 12 Jul 2012, 11:20am

      So you don’t think imagery of Hitler should ever be shown in a public environment? Censorship was his schtick should we follow suit?

      1. Sister Mary Clarence 12 Jul 2012, 12:12pm

        I think if it is being shown in such as way that causes offense it shouldn’t be. How ‘funny’ do you think it would appear to a holocaust survivor or his/her family for example?

        If it is found to be offensive it shouldn’t need to degenerate to an argument.

        1. We do not know how the complainant to the management raised her complaint – maybe the complaint was reasonable and legitimate but the manner of delivery and attitude was not.

  26. I see people wearing Che Guevara t-shirts in gay bars. Some of the ultimate oppressors of homosexuality in history are easily forgotten it seems.

    1. I see the point you are making, but would you ask them to take their T-shirt off if it offended you because of the picture of a historical character?

      1. That might depend on how fit they are. :-)

        1. Suddenly Last Bummer 12 Jul 2012, 11:32am

          You b!tch Rehan, you got in there with that gag before me!

          1. You can say bitch, you know.

        2. Fair point … ;-)

  27. Jock S. Trap 12 Jul 2012, 11:16am

    Mmmm, tricky. Although I do think this woman was being a bit oversensitive however the bar Must accept that showing such a thing may well offend some and act accordingly.

    It may seem a joke to some because perhaps our generation don’t see the impact as much as those who lived and died at the hands of the Naz!s in the Second world war which in itself is a bit worrying if we hope history never repeats itself.

    1. I wouldnt want to censor non-pornographic photographs of people in history as though we are in denial of the horrific events occurring.

  28. Suddenly Last Bummer 12 Jul 2012, 11:18am

    Are we to totally wipe all mention and imagery of Hitler from everyday life and pretend he didn’t exist? What is wrong with people? Picket cinemas and tv stations that show “Downfall”? Blackball actors that portray him in films? Get a fruckin’ life. This woman sounds like an idiot who was drunk and looking to cause a bit of aggro.

    1. I’m sure you can see there’s a difference between celebrating a genocidal dictator and recording or publicising his actions. What do you think having his image on a wine bottle is meant to do?

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 12 Jul 2012, 12:19pm

      “This woman sounds like an idiot who was drunk and looking to cause a bit of aggro”

      Based on what? The account given by a bar that wouldn’t remove an image of a man responsible for the genocide of 6 million Jews?

      How would you feel about the ‘joke’ if your family was gassed?

      1. Suddenly Last Bummer 12 Jul 2012, 2:28pm

        The picture of Hitler on a bottle of wine is a dumb ‘joke’ and I don’t see the connection with Adolf and a bottle of Blue Nun but your argument is ridiculous. Re:”The account given by a bar that wouldn’t remove an image of a man responsible for the genocide of 6 million Jews?”. What are you suggesting? They the bar advocate what happened in Germany during WWII? Why should they remove something one person has an issue with when possibly hundreds of other people have not taken any offence against. And are you suggesting that as I don’t have a issue with a picture of Hitler on a bottle of wine I clearly can’t have an opinion as I may not be Jewish? Re: “How would you feel about the ‘joke’ if your family was gassed?”. I stand by my argument, the woman sounds like an agitating crank who got thrown out of the bar cause she was under the influence.

        1. I agree with the comments about the bottle.

          I agree that the woman may have been drunk – but I do not know for sure.

          It would be interesting to know if this woman either went back to the bar on another occasion to try and deal with the issue more calmly, reported the matter to the police or licensing authority or felt it appropriate to splash this over the media without attempting any of the other options open to her.

  29. I don’t think it’s an issue of how offensive the display was but that someone who takes offence should have their right to express offence respected.

    The discussion on this has been quite lively, almost like an episode of Perry Mason, enough court room shannaningans!

  30. de Villiers 12 Jul 2012, 3:56pm

    > The bar’s owner, Trisha Bergonzi, told PinkNews.co.uk this afternoon the wine bottles were a present to her late husband 15 years ago.

    > She said she was in hospital last week but bar staff confirmed they had “gently” removed a woman.

    I appreciate that I speak English as a second language but I found it hard to understand these two sentences.

    A colleague had to explain the meaning of the first sentence – which I had understood as saying that the woman had made a present of the bottles that afternoon to her husband who had died fifteen years ago.

    I could understand nothing of the second sentence. The conjunction seemed not to fit and did not refer to what had already been mentioned.

    1. The conjunction is “but”. They just mean she wasn’t at the bar when it happened but she is backing her staff up saying the woman was removed gently. :)

  31. Are the people complaining actually from London? We have an ironic sense of humor here. Having a collection of unusuall bottles with these images sounds quite kitsch to me.

    Some of these comments are sounding a little like book burning, and we all know who did that!

    1. Suddenly Last Bummer 12 Jul 2012, 8:17pm

      There’s nowt wrong with a bit of book burning, a pile of those bloody “50 Shades of Sh!te” books should be torched for starters.

    2. Kitsch and ironic aren’t the same thing. And you might consider it unwise to try to speak for 7-12m people.

      1. But they can be! I’m not claiming to be speaking for everyone, but if that’s the case then no one would ever comment on anything!
        Are you from London?

        1. Yes they can, but ‘ironic kitsch’ is very much an arch sub-genre; yes I am; and I’m afraid your use of ‘we’ suggests you are attempting to speak for everyone. There are other ways of making your point without resorting to sweeping generalisations (“many of us” might be preferable).

          1. Darling, you seem to be taking this awfully personally – it certainly wasn’t supposed to be an attack on anyone. I do hope that you are able to move on from this, x

          2. Taking it personally – hardly, why should I? You shouldn’t mistake impatience with silliness for anything else, sweetie-pie. But thanks so much for your concern all the same. x

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all