Reader comments · UKIP Scotland spokesman under fire for saying ‘selfish’ gays want to ‘destroy our society’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UKIP Scotland spokesman under fire for saying ‘selfish’ gays want to ‘destroy our society’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Show of hands? Anyone actually surprised by this latest hysterical outburst of bigoted drivel from the swivel-eyed bonehead party?

    …didn’t think so…

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 May 2013, 1:28pm

      The UKIP will do nothing about it because they endorse it. Silence always gives consent. I think Haseler should come forward with the irrefutable evidence to substantiate his vile, mendacious statement.

  2. I did PE all through primary and secondary school, worked in a physically demanding and damaging industry for most of my adult life and it didn’t turn me straight…

  3. UKIPpers love to say they aren’t making a big thing out of marriage equality and that they certainly aren’t anti-gay.

    Yet their own words, time and again, prove otherwise. We don’t want to destroy society, we want to be a part of it.

  4. Does he mean “destroyed” like Canada? A country that has survived the economic crisis better than most developed countries? We even have to enlist the services of one of their bankers to run the BoE, that’s how much Canada has been destroyed by equality.

    Listening to some of these guys is like listening to Alf Garnett in a bad mood.

  5. casperthegood 5 May 2013, 7:37am

    They just can’t help themselves – it’s called foot in mouth disease, sadly not the funny variety though.

  6. Marcwebbo3 5 May 2013, 7:40am

    Oooh he must be feeling brave after last weeks elections….I didnt even know we had a branch of UKIP up here….THATS how unimportant he and his party are….how dare he say society made us proud to be ourselves…I and others make ourselves proud as we are fed up being treated like 2nd class citizens, discriminated against , called all the names under the sun and being blamed for all the worlds woes…we are pround of ourselves because we are fighting back….we have a large voice which is growing stronger and we know how to bloody use it!!!!!!

  7. Well I am certainly deeply hostile to him.

  8. UKIP Energy Spokesman for Scotland…….

    I think my nan has more political clout.

    1. and more political nous as well!!!

  9. “I’ve become less sympathetic to gays”. No, you never had sympathy at all. Bigot.

  10. ukip; bottomless pit of idiots

  11. UKIP are totally irrelevant in Scotland where their petty bigotry and BNP-Meets-Thatcherite agenda holds no sway whatsoever. This man is a non-entity and doesn’t deserve the oxygen of legitimacy that writing an article about him generates.

    1. No, but it does shed light on what’s going on in the tiny minds of the rest of his party.

  12. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 9:17am

    Well, I do have a little sympathy, the man has obviously encountered some of the more crackpot contingent of the gay lobby, but that said, he also needs to realise that equality really is “one size fits all” and that it is quite the opposite of selfishness, it is inclusion.

    The problem is, I have seen some of the rabid responses of LGBT people on here who are totally unwilling to even contemplate any kind of compromise and simply slander, attack and insult others that do not agree with their perspective. Anybody that doesn’t follow the socialist directive is automatically branded homophobic, unless you happen top be gay, in which case you are “self-loathing”, whatever the hell that is.

    1. “unwilling to even contemplate any kind of compromise”

      When it comes to being treated equally in the eyes of the law and my country, I will not accept any type of compromise.

      1. Well said V.

    2. Is it not the case that a spanner fits nuts?

    3. Compromise on what?

      I want to b treated as a full and equal member of society, with the same respect, the same rights, the same privileges and the same position as straight people. I want to walk down the street without being mocked, mocked, attacked or harrassed. I want our youth to grow up in a world where they are neither invisible in the media nor face a barrage of hate that drives them to suicide.

      Which of these elements should we “compromise” on?

      1. If we compromise on equality will any political party compromise on the amount of tax we pay to reflect our 2nd class status?

      2. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 11:43am

        I think the compromise they are seeking is regarding marriage vs Civil partnerships.
        Don’t shoot the messenger here, I believe the same thing, but sometimes it is not what is said, but how you say it.
        Just look at the responses at my post as an example. People cannot even have a simple debate without hurling ad hominem insults and abuse.
        No wonder we get such bad press.

        1. You begin by calling people “crackpot”, “rabid”, and “unwilling to even contemplate any kind of compromise”, then *you* start complaining about “ad hominem insults and abuse”? Neville’s post (“Is it not the case that a spanner fits nuts?”) is the only one so far that even comes close to personally attacking you.

          It sounds as though the main point you are trying to make is a “you catch more flies with honey” kind of platitude, but be realistic – this guy is not going to listen to LGBT people whether we insult him or try and reason with him (he sees us as “perverse”, “selfish”, and “hostile”). Just about everyone with any importance disagrees with him, and he is simply generating more bad press for an already irrelevant party.

        2. Why use the word “socialist”? If wanting all citizens to be treated in the same way, with equal opportunities and freedom from discrimination makes me a socialist, I will be proud to wear that label!
          Socialism, however, is a system, one that goes beyond economics, gender and sexual issues, even religion. I read Marx at college, and do not believe in Socialism (as in Communism).
          I believe in people!

          1. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 6:25pm

            I assume that was Groucho rather than Karl.

        3. 6 May 2013, 10:20am

          You told somebody to “f*ck off” the other day Spanner, you insult people all the time on here.

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 5 May 2013, 1:34pm

        But would he compromise and opt for a CP for himself, in fact all of them if they were able to? I think we know what the response would be, a resounding NO. What would he do if Parliament decided to introduce a bill to abolish civil marriage entirely forcing all divorced heteros to downgrade to a CP and just continue cohabiting without the benefit of marriage?

        1. Spanner1960 6 May 2013, 10:57am

          Well, the French have already done that. If the religious establishments continue to keep kicking up a storm in a teacup, then they should have all legal marital status removed entirely, so they can only administer blessings. That would throw a major spanner in their works.

    4. You can’t compromise on equality. Because if anyone were to give up on their rights to stroke another person’s ego, would have the law continue to see them as legally inferior. Which goes against the very definition of “equality”.

      1. de Villiers 5 May 2013, 12:57pm

        I agree to a point – but the question is not equality itself but why it should be extended to protected characteristics and the identify of those protected characteristics.

        In England, the protected characteristics entitled to equality are:
        1. age;
        2. disability;
        3. gender reassignment;
        4. marriage and civil partnership;
        5. pregnancy and maternity;
        6. race;
        7. religion or belief;
        8. sex; and
        9. sexual orientation.

        Of these, age does not have the same protection as you can discriminate against someone on grounds of age where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim e.g. compulsory retirement ages.

        Combined characteristics are not protected. So a shop could refuse to serve a person who was muslim and male by arguing no religion discrimination as they would serve a muslim woman and no sex discrimination as they would serve a white male.

        The compromise is that if a characteristic does not fall within one of the nine groups then it is entitled to no equality at all.

        1. You cannot discriminate on grounds of age – compulsory retirement at 65 is now illegal. Sadly too late for 2 workmates who were given their P45’s 18 months before the law changed….
          Also discrimination where multiple “identities” are involved is illegal. In fact ALL discriminatory behavior involving ANY or ALL of the “protected statuses” is illegal.
          I have recently gained a level 2 qualification in Equality & Diversity.

        2. de Villiers 9 May 2013, 11:51pm

          You are wrong Neill. Equality Act 2010 section 14 has not been brought in to force. In any event, direct discrimination of age is still permitted where there is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

          I think you need to take level 3.

    5. Spanner confesses he does “have a little sympathy” with Haseler.

      No need for the confession, Spanner. Time and again, over the course of many years, you have returned to these threads to tell all of us that we are “the most selfish, vain, egotistical bunch of gits on the planet”.

      We know what you think, and now we know another reason why you support UKIP.

      What a very queer queer you are.

      1. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 6:31pm

        I have no intention of retracting that statement, and it has been my belief for many years, which is why I continue to make it.
        As I also said in that same thread, which you omitted to mention, is that I think UKIP are the best of a bad bunch; they are by no means perfect, but at least they don’t pussyfoot about making hollow promises, and they tell it like it is. You know me well enough from many comments on here that I do not pull my punches and if I want to say something, I will. UKIP seem to also have that direct approach, and it is a quality most other politicians could do with adopting, instead of their mealy-mouthed excuses and lies.

  13. Ukip’s manifesto states civil partnerships are enough and that we shouldn’t want equality as it’ll upset the religious. So much for libertarian values. These people ARE clowns. The truth will out!

    1. That There Other David 5 May 2013, 12:20pm

      As usual, when someone says they’re politically libertarian what they actually want is for people just like them to be able to behave how they want, and anyone who is different in any noticeable way should be forced to allow that.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 5 May 2013, 1:13pm

      The UKIP are by no means libertarian. They claim they don’t want big government, yet they want big government to keep the ban on equal marriage in place, bloody hypocrites and bigots. If they think CPs are so equal, why aren’t any of them, the straight ones especially including Farage himself advocating for them for straight couples as an alternative for those who don’t believe in marriage, just so they can gain some rights and benefits without the baggage? The Libertarian party in America supports equal marriage, part of its platform and policy. The UKIP is just another branch of the BNP in disguise.

      It may have won 25% of the votes, but it still hasn’t been able to get one MP to Parliament. Even then, it would need a significantly high number in Parliament to have any impact. Not going to happen.

  14. UKIP do seem to have an astonishing array of deeply unpleasant characters. The never ending reports of their bigoted behaviour suggests that these people should be watched very carefully.

  15. “Why are gay people so selfish that they cannot see the benefit of long-term couples for the many people who are not gay?”

    Huh? Is this supposed to make any sense? A confused man.

  16. You know what, I still cannot understand how marriage equality could possibly damage heterosexual marriage. Is gay marriage expected to bring an automatic ban on straight one? If I marry, will my neighbour immediately file for a divorce? Will straight people suddenly stop falling in love and lose all desire to marry? What the f- do they mean by saying that marriage equality will destroy marriage?!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 May 2013, 1:26pm

      Exactly. Heterosexuals have always been the ones responsible for the breakdown of marriage throughout its history and that hasn’t changed and will never change. It’s uniquely their creation yet the equal marriage opponents don’t seem to be aiming their bogus concern about family and marriage at them? Getting their own house in order has never been a priority. Some are serial adulterers sitting in Parliament and the Lords voting no. Doesn’t get any more bigoted and hypocritical than that does it?

      In the American state of Massachusetts, hetero marriage is on the rise apparently, the first state to introduce equal marriage nine years ago. If equal marriage were truly the reason for the decline in hetero marriage elsewhere, then everyone would stop marrying and stop having children, not that you have to be married to have children.

  17. As I can count the number of openly gay friends and relatives I know on one hand, I would be pretty lonely if I were hostile to heteros!

  18. UKIP Scum – Gay men ALL pay single mans Tax – we contribute pound for pound far more to society than our breeding hetero counter parts. We don’t for the most part bring unwanted children into the world – and less GAYS end up in Prison than our hetero equivalents – So how exactly are we destroying society?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 May 2013, 1:19pm

      Hetero adultery, much of it serial adultery and philandering are at the heart of the breakdown of marriage and fewer heteros marrying. That’s been going on long before equal marriage was a reality and long before the Netherlands introduced it 12 years ago. They can’t even concede that fact. Then they use equal marriage as a contributing factor to their election success last week when in reality it had more to do with the economy and austerity cuts. If it were equal marriage, Labour would have suffered bigger setbacks when in fact it gained 291 seats. More than two thirds of its party voted for equal marriage. It wasn’t exactly devastating for the Tories either, only 9 councils routed and UKIP didn’t win all of them? It’s all spin!

    2. don’t forget that lesbian couples both pay a MARRIED MANs rate as well – so a lot more then their married female counterparts – surely there should just be a married couple rate? rather then a married man (straight, gay and lesbian) and a married woman (straight only) rate.

    3. Lol – what the hell is this all about??

  19. You’re either on drugs, drunk, or just a total dckhead. I reckon its the latter.

  20. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

  21. Shouldn’t that read “selfish” right wing people are “deeply hostile” to intelligent people, and that they are trying to “destroy our society” with bigotry?

    UKIP, the party of neo-n.a.z.i fools.

  22. I see this buffoon is off the meds again. Pity its so witless, you could forgive a fool like him a little if it was at least somewhat entertaining…

    1. We should try and make some allowances for his obsession which seems to have flared up again. Having said that, probably best ignored otherwise his obsession is fed.

  23. Inspector Generals are a dime a dozen the world over. They rant and rave against homosexuals in public and suck dick and take it up the bum bareback in meth fueled kinky sex marathons when they know no one is watching. Then back to the church for confession the next day and back to the homophobic soap box the next and so on and so forth…

    It’s really a miserable life.

    The only energy that should be wasted on him is pity.

  24. Robert in S. Kensington 5 May 2013, 3:47pm

    I challenge Farage to include CPs for heterosexuals in its party manifesto since they are so enthusiastic about them and claiming they are sufficient. He should be championing CPs for straights in support of that other delusional fool, Lord Tebbit. Come to think of it, the Tories in opposition to equal marriage should be the first. Come on Tim Loughton and David Burrowes, why aren’t you leading the charge with Lord Tebbit? Why doesn’t C4M get on aboard with that? We’ll have an extremely long wait won’t we and we all know why?

  25. Lol, what an obsessed prat.. He should spend more time with his wife/lady friend?

  26. Robert in S. Kensington 5 May 2013, 4:35pm

    Wouldn’t surprise me if they are all the same person, cakemaker. They’re not that bright thinking that we wouldn’t figure out that they use different aliases. It’s the same m.o. C4M used for the petition to ban equal marriage. You can have several accounts using different aliases and sign a petition to inflate the numbers, something that ComRes fails every time to take into account and refused to divulge it’s methodology claiming client privacy. A load of mendacious tosh.

    1. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 7:33pm

      What’s up Robert, is democracy working against you? Are you getting the odd niggling remark that goes against your socialist sensibilities?
      Well tough shit sunshine, not all of us think like you and your leftie cronies on this mutual back-slapping society.

      Just as a suggestion, try using a different alias to log in and change things, you will find it doesn’t work, because WordPress identifies you by IP address, (which is how PN bans people) – so unless you have a way of changing it constantly, dare I suggest the other alternative explanation might be that there are other people out there that actually don’t agree with you and your little pinko clique?

  27. Sex education is only for basic understanding of how girls can be impregnated and how to avoid STDs. This is a hysterical rant by an uneducated and obviously hateful man.

  28. I have obviously been labouring under the impression that my gay friends are more sinister than they look and actually pose a great threat to me and my wife. I shall obviously have to be on my guard against this plot to destroy society (which society?). Seriously, in my line of work I treat kids and teenagers who have been sexually abused. The vast majority of these abusers are STRAIGHT and I resent the contention that one of the many ways in which gay people pose a threat, is based on their danger to children. This is dangerous nonsense as it demonises gay people and even more scary, moves the spotlight away from those who really DO pose a real threat to children.

  29. Spanner1960 6 May 2013, 10:06am

    May I remind you that a disproportionately high percentage of gay men are smokers, including myself, so we’ve been there, done that, so please stop trying to martyr yourself.
    ‘Get down from that cross, somebody needs the wood.’

  30. billforsyth 12 May 2013, 2:28am

    UKIP Scotland ,what ? all three of them.

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.