Reader comments · UKIP Councillor: Businesses should be allowed to turn away gays and women · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UKIP Councillor: Businesses should be allowed to turn away gays and women

  • Holly

    Don’t you ever feel bad twisting peoples words to sound like hate speech?

    There is a massive difference between ‘anyone can refuse service to anyone’ and ‘businesses should be allowed to turn away SPECIFICALLY gays and women’.

    • That There Other David

      Yeah, you’re right. UKIP business owners would welcome women, as long as they weren’t lesbian or black of course.

    • Tim Hanafin

      Maybe you would like us to return to the 1950s when people could put signs in their B&B windows ‘No Blacks, Irish or dogs’. It is not twisting people’s words to point out the logical conclusion of random discrimination.

    • GulliverUK

      It’s hate speech to suggest any group of people should be denied services – and we’re intelligent enough to know exactly what she was saying. Skirting around it with wooly language doesn’t deny her real intention. It is not a topic of conversation which others MPs or candidates ever raise in relation to other groups – I have never heard an MP, in my entire life, suggest that Irish people should be denied services, or women, or Jews. Not ever. It only ever comes in to play with our group. No MP has ever suggested, in my life time, allowing businesses to refuse services to Blacks or the Polish. Not ever. We are the only group, the last group ever, where people still feel they can get away with suggesting this.

      • de Villiers

        It is stupid speech. It is not hate speech.

        Save the term hate speech for hate speech.

    • Marksy

      She feels she can say this safe in the knowledge that the people to be discriminated against would never turn out be white, middle-class, heterosexual women.


      • Marksy

        To clarify, I was calling her a bigot, Holly, certainly not you.

        Hope there was no confusion.

        • Holly

          I should point out, that I’m not suggesting for a moment she is right in what she’s saying.

          What I AM saying is that I’m getting tired of seeing Pink News repeatedly reporting things that are either exaggerated or just plain false!

          I realise this is a source for ‘gay news’ but I think it’s important to report things accurately. Her view ‘discrimination’ is abhorrent, BUT it is universal. She didn’t pick ‘women and gays’ out like the article headline suggests, she just made a blanket statement saying anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. There are SO many people this kind of thinking could affect, not just women and gay people.

          Think about it, every day LGBT people are accused of making things up and deceiving people and then we get stories like this come up where something stupid is said, and someone decides to report it as like it was a specific attack at us.

          • Marksy

            I can see your point about the headline, Holly, it doesn’t necessarily reflect exactly what she said, though it would be the likely outcome. I do agree that sometimes the headlines can be written to provoke outrage not unlike some other newspapers we all know. ;)

            However, I believe she was trying to be careful in what she said to fake an equality standpoint. We all know that if we allowed such discrimination there are certain groups that would be disproportionately on the receiving end and that would certainly include LGBT people. She knows that too, it wouldn’t be her that would be discriminated against, she would still have full access to the whole market.

          • TiggyTiger

            And I don’t suppose her libertarianism extends very far.

    • Thomas F. Lopez

      If you’re right and she did say the former, this paper should issue a formal apology.

  • factsandfigures
  • factsandfigures
  • Lee W Dalgleish

    One thing I don’t understand is someone’s desire to refuse service due to sexuality, gender, skin colour or religion. Surely if you run a business you want to make money, not turn it down? My parents ran pubs and the ONLY time they refused service was if someone was too drunk, aggressive or disruptive because they were concerned about the welfare of other customers.

    • Andrea_Rae

      I agree with you but it does happen. Years ago Christians, in the US, turned out in droves to support Chick Filet for publicly espousing their anti-gay beliefs.

      • TiggyTiger

        That can’t have been ‘years ago’! Surely it was only last year or at the most the year before? You make it sound like it was about twenty years ago!

  • So bored of people pushing for rubbish like this. Oh so you would still serve gay people yourself? But yet you feel everyone else should be allowed to refuse gay people and you want to push for this? Your an ignorant homophobic who is faking your own denial about it to avoid people wanting to lynch you. Hey why not let shop owners refuse serving women with long brown hair and a slightly pale complexion? Or maybe lets stop shops serving people under 5ft6? Oh wait .. no that would be stupid and a brainless thing to do now, wouldn’t it.. People like this woman should be prosecuted for hate speech, if she said this about a certain race people would go nuts, but because its referring to sexuality, its suddenly OK.. pathetic.

    • de Villiers

      Daniel, I agree that this UKIP politician has bad political views but your post supports her without you realising it.

      You said why not let shop owners refuse to serve women with long brown hair and a pale complexion or people under 5ft6. As I understand it, if the shop owner refuses to serve on the basis of brown hair or long hair or height then that is not unlawful.

      It is only unlawful if the shop owner refuses to serve a person because of a protected ground – sex, age, race, sexual orientation, disability, religion, pregnancy, marriage / civil partnership, gender reassignment.

  • Paul’s

    In fairness she was not just targeting LGBT, she is advocating being allowed to refuse blacks, Muslim, Jews in fact anyone. A truly horrible evil bigot!

    • Gazza

      A truly predictable reply. read it again. She wasn’t advocating such views. She was just saying in a free society its wrong to suppress them. You can’t oppress people simply because you don’t agree with them. Religions tried that through the ages and look where that got everyone.

      • Mike Dalgarno

        But surely allowing this kind of discrimination (which it is) would allow religions (and others) to start oppressing the views of others because they don’t agree with yours.

        Swings and roundabouts really?

      • speedgeek

        I am (just) old enough to remember signs saying “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs” in windows of B & B’s and guest houses…….

    • MOA

      Imagine she is right, what would be the result of the
      society? Totally fragmented society, I imagine, no cohesion, hatred between social

      is that a good idea?

    • Jones

      Is this 1930s Germany? Oh no, just UKIP again.

    • mark reid

      Don’t be stupid!!!!! its everyone democratic right who they want to work in their firms….

    • mark reid

      Don’t be stupid!!!!! its everyone democratic right who they want to work in their firms….

  • Robert W. Pierce

    It’s so transparent when any UKIP loon makes such a crass statement and their party always claims it’s not the party view? Yes it is the view of the party which is why they kicked out Olly Neville for supporting equal marriage. Libertarian my arse. What a joke that is. If UKIP were truly libertarian, they, like their much larger American counterparts would support equal marriage. Such a bunch of disingenuous liars and hypocrites.

    • Gazza

      Marriage is a religious ceremony. Most religions condemn homosexuality. Its not a state secular organisation. UKIP simply want to avoid the situation where a gay couple could take a church to Strasbourg for refusing the marry them, which can technically happen, albeit unlikely.
      There are plenty of gay priests. Why don’t they start a gay church?

      Its very easy to froth at the mouth at these sorts of things but if you try and see it from the other side every now and then you might be less angry.

      • dtnorth

        Try saying that you are married without a “state secular organisation” supplied marriage license.

        Legally you would NOT be married.

        And the concept of “marriage” was around long before “religions” got their poisonous fingers on it.

        Try educating yourself.

        You just come across as ignorant.

      • Pauls27

        Marriage is not a religious ceremony, most marriages in this country do not take place in a church! Even in a church the legal state function of marriage happens in a little room, the rest of it is nothing more than a show for the audience.

      • michael anthony

        Gazza can’t see the forest for the trees. A “free” society also has rules and regulations in order to prevent lawlessness. Along with that, a free society allows its members to partake in society. However, those who open “public” businesses have to open them to ALL members of society. Otherwise you have signs saying no gays, no blacks, no Muslims, no politicians, etc. If your religion or conscious has an issue with that, then you should not open a public business!! If your religion is more important than fairness, then move to a country that will embrace your stance. Of course, you can kiss your personal freedoms aside. You can’t have it both ways!

        • Michael Grima Seychell

          & who is going to decide who is gay or straight,or muslim/jewish etc.?

      • Don_Harrison

        There are already LGBT friendly churchs
        Have a look at

      • de Villiers

        How can a gay couple technically take a church to Strasbourg? Technically, they can’t. The only organisation a person can take to Strasbourg is a country – and even then only a country that is a signatory to the convention.

  • wildseas

    This woman’s career is over. Goodbye and please don’t come back

  • Richard

    Hold on.. She explicitly stated she opposes people who would refuse to serve people based on gender/religion/sexuality – but it should be the person’s choice to do so. If they did, many people would refuse to shop there and they’d go bust?

    • Anna Hayward

      What you’d actually get is the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ whereby shops would discriminate against minorities they didn’t approve of, and therefore get support from the bigots. They wouldn’t go bust. German shops who refused to serve Jews didn’t go bust in pre-WWII Germany.

      • gazza

        They refused to serve Jews at the government’s behest. It wasn’t an natural evolution of that society. Nutters got in charge and made things happen. I can hardly see a business asking each customer if they were gay or not. Nor can you seriously be suggesting that society will somehow rise up and have a pogrom against gays unless you suppress everyone who is against homosexuality? Nonsense. Its just the gay thought police trying to demonize people who don’t hold their world view.

        • Anna Hayward

          It’s happening in Uganda, Nigeria, Russia… why wouldn’t it happen here? I hope not, but I’m not at all confident.

          • de Villiers

            > It’s happening in Uganda, Nigeria, Russia… why wouldn’t it happen here? I hope not, but I’m not at all confident.

            Are you serious?

            I am very confident.

        • TiggyTiger

          Yes, they were able to identify who was Jewish because of the yellow star. Here they would have to ask their customers about their sex lives. Would they serve bisexual people or gay people who are not in a relationship or who are currently celibate?

  • soapbubblequeen

    I cannot believe that she’s is a woman would advocate that businesses refuse service to women!! What is wrong with these people?!

    • gazza

      SHE IS NOT ADVOCATING IT YOU MORON! Try reading what she actually said .. oh I give up …

      • soapbubblequeen

        Gazza, please don’t shout at me and call me a moron darling. The only moron is this woman who is advocating discrimination based on prejudice.

        • TiggyTiger

          I think Gazza is quite moronic too, actually. ‘UKIP simply want ….’ How does he explain all their other bigoted views? And she was not just advocating that anti- gay views are not suppressed – she is advocating that people running businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose, including on the basis of race, sexuality and gender. That’s totally impractical, like much libertarian thinking, and leads to an unjust society where groups are suppressed and oppressed, both economically and socially like the Jews in Nazi Germany or the B & B signs saying ‘No dogs or Blacks’ or the 1950s and later.

      • Debs_n_soots

        Of course she’s advocating it – she’s standing up for people’s right to be bigoted – there’s no practical difference between that and advocating bigotry… effectively she is saying it’s ok to be a bigot…which is at the core of UKIP

        • Thomas F. Lopez

          Oh for Pete’s sake! I am so tired of people trying to argue by name-calling! There are a minority of ‘bigots’ in every party, but bigotry is not at the core of UKIP, if that were so I’d never be a member.

        • de Villiers

          I don’t agree with that, Debs. I think that it should not be illegal in England to deny the holocaust but that does not make me a holocaust supporter.

          That said, I cannot agree with the libertarian analysis that this UKIP person supports. It offends the notion that everyone is entitled to be treated as an individual.

  • GulliverUK

    Protected classes have been expanded, but I think it’s still ok to deny services to UKIP supporters and candidates, and I personally wouldn’t have anything to do with anything connect with, or supporting the BNP / EDL / UKIP (pretty much they’re all the same thing). Queue: Farage (the charismatic nutter) disowning this hideous vile putrid extremist.

    Besides, our laws are clear, they’ve been challenged and found correct, even in the socially Conservative ECHR, you cannot discriminate based on same-sex attraction. I’d suggest she f%$k off to Iran or some other god-forsaken place, but she hates foreigners, so it would fall on deaf ears. Even suggesting this is incitement to hatred. Change it to Muslims, or Irish or Jews or Gypsies, and it’s all the same – incitement to hatred – people expressing such views should be prosecuted.

    • TiggyTiger

      I so hope that some of her local businesses hear of her views and refuse her service.

    • de Villiers

      > Protected classes have been expanded, but I think it’s still ok to deny services to UKIP supporters and candidates, and I personally wouldn’t have anything to do with anything connect with, or supporting the BNP / EDL / UKIP (pretty much they’re all the same thing).

      I dont think that is correct. There is now protection on the basis of “belief” which encompasses political beliefs.

  • Truth

    If you run a ‘business’ presumably you want to make money? So, why would you want the legal right NOT to make money … unless, of course, you are a bigot? If memory serves me correctly, Hitler made it legal to refuse to serve certain people. This woman’s reasoning is muddled; muddled thinking from a muddle-headed party. Best avoided at all costs, in my opinion ……!

  • RBrown

    Let’s all open businesses across the UK and refuse to serve UKIP members and see how they then feel.

    • Thomas F. Lopez

      ‘They’? You say that like we all agree with her.

    • Ross Snior

      I don’t agree with her and I’m pretty sure the 15,000 member LGBT arm of UKIP does not agree with her also. But then we have known papers/reporters to lie and twist words. She probably said something completely different.

  • Julian Morrison

    The libertarian-understandable reason we can’t allow people free association in commerce and services is that although it would be harmless for ONE person to be bigoted, the problem is that MANY people are bigoted all in the same way, and they act as a coordinated group to economically blockade minority groups. By forcing shopkeepers to sell and landlords to rent on an equal basis, we avoid a situation where people in marginalized groups can be shut out of the economy even while nominally free to partake in it. We need society-level laws against society-level biases.

    • GulliverUK

      very well put.

    • TiggyTiger

      But landlords don’t rent on an equal basis – they frequently say No DSS.

  • Gazza

    Take a chill pill everyone. Why so reactionary? If you actually read what she said you will see her point is that the state should not dictate your personal opinions. If someone runs a private business it is their right in a free society to be a bigot or a sexist. That is what a free society is. You are welcome to disagree with them and condemn them but that is the price you pay for freedom. A free society is not where mainstream opinions are allowed only. Do we really want a gay rights activist with a clipboard or a sexual equality officer grading us all on our acceptability. If a bigot runs a shop, don’t shop there. let them go bust. The greater evil is when you try and impose your world view on others.

    If you want to turn it around, devout Christians and Muslims believe homosexuality is sinful. I wouldn’t support them suppressing gay people. But I would try and silence them either. Everyone have an opinion. Its your right.

    Oh and by the way, at least she is honest and you know where she stands. I’m tired of politicians blurting facile PC rubbish just to get votes.

    • GulliverUK

      No such thing as a ‘private’ business in the context of PUBLIC space. IF you sell in the PUBLIC marketplace, you abide by all sorts of regulations. Health and safety, public insurance, corporate tax, PAYE, trading laws, etc. Markets are heavily regulated for a reason, to ensure fair play, equal playing fields, adherence to required standards – to protect the public. There are lots of ‘Devout’ Christians and Muslims would disagree with you stereotyping their views – when you haven’t a clue. Apart from WHITE Evangelicals, most religious groups in the US have followers which don’t view homosexuality as chosen, abnormal, and do believe in equality, fairness, employment protections, goods and services protections, equal marriage.

      We DON’T want people expressing THEIR personal bigoted views in public, period. Not through whom they serve, nor through saying things which are discriminatory. It causes problems for the peaceful co-operative and fair operation of the whole of society. I absolutely disagree with you 100%. And kindly cut out the “take a chill pill” crap – it’s disingenuous to say the least.

  • Pet

    I guess she is not a Councillor because only white straight screwed-up men voted for her. Many a woman must have voted for her too… I can’t beleive It.

  • Ray

    The only people that should be ‘barred’ are those behaving to cause damage or genuine distress to other customers eg: drunk etc or members of the Bullingdon Club et al.
    What she advocates ; businesses to bar people on bigoted grounds- albert excused as a supposed ‘right to’; could lead to muslim business owners barring women (veiled or not) for instance; or obviously gay etc. Or jewish businesses refusing muslims or anyone without out a straggley beard and wife several steps behind. Or Christians barring anyone merely saying they are/known to be atheist… ETc Etc..
    Time to vote this local Cllr out and stop her getting to MEP….

  • sd

    Do you think that all UKIP email accounts come with a pre-saved template along the lines if “The comments of [enter name of UKIP member] are purely a personal opinion and do not represent the views of the Party.”
    They could save time by sending out a blanket notice to say the comments of all UKIP members are the ramblings of small-minded bigots and rarely represent the views of anyone else in their right mind.

    • GulliverUK

      Most people do know that UKIP attracts the more freaky types. If people vote for them, or even sympathise with their views, they must expect to be considered freaky also. I know one person, I’d rather not say how, who supported Labour, then the Tories, and now UKIP, and he’s … quite freaky. Rants on about immigration, the EU, foreigners, traditional ‘English’ values … hasn’t mentioned gay marriage or gay rights …[quite wise !] .. and whose logical thinking is often … out on a limb.

      Good suggestion, but they seem to often post in forums, UKIP ‘fruitcake’ forums, where they get together and discuss blacks, gays, foreigners, etc. Farage said he was going to put a stop to that. Obviously can’t even manage – or didn’t want – to do that.

      • soapbubble

        Gulliver, I know one as well, a friend of my parents, and he’s just the same. He told me once that people have the right to tell gay people about Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of fairy stories. They are the ‘angry old man’ brigade most of them. They want to take us back to some rose-tinted idyll of the 1950s i.e. when women knew their place (tied to the kitchen sink) when there were supposedly no ethnic minorities, and when landlords could put offensive signs saying ‘No blacks, Irish, dogs or qu88ers’ etc. The funny thing is, he’s married but he’s very camp in his speech and mannerisms. It would be really amusing if he walked into a pub and they refused to serve him because they thought he was gay, based on that stereotype!

        • mark

          wot a cock!

        • mark

          wot a cock!

      • mark

        Gullableuk most people vote for ukip because of their common sense policies . Not because they are freaks? You have Harriet Harman of the Labour party(apologist for pedophiles)… Do you think thats freakish???There are more important things going on at the moment then marriage for Gays …open your eyes and look at the big picture.

      • mark

        Gullableuk most people vote for ukip because of their common sense policies . Not because they are freaks? You have Harriet Harman of the Labour party(apologist for pedophiles)… Do you think thats freakish???There are more important things going on at the moment then marriage for Gays …open your eyes and look at the big picture.

  • Jesus_Mohammed

    How did Donna Edmunds get so quickly out of the pram and into the position of councillor? Does UKIP truly let in any old dumbo, any nutter, any juvenile?

    She really believes that our homosexuality is a “position” that we adopt? (“I wouldn’t refuse to serve gay people. I’m not saying their position is a correct one”.)

    Remember the robot in “Lost in Space”?

    “Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!

    UKIP creatures in vicinity! Danger! Danger!”

    • purple_s

      Not that I agree with her comments but I’m pretty sure that by “position” she is referring to the homophobes, not gay people.

  • hideho

    To me her statement fails in whatever context she wants to put it , or how we want to take it. Because it was not that long ago that women were not allowed the vote or stand to be an MP or councillor. I find most people in life stand up for freedom of choice in this instance , until it gets in there way of their life, or stops them from doing something.

  • andrew

    GO UKIP!! Come on – just laugh at them – they really are going nowhere, their views are bizarre and there isn’t a party line anyway – it is just a disparate bunch of nutters with nutty views – and we need some amusement from politicians.

    • Thomas F. Lopez

      Boring old name-calling. And it isn’t even accurate, we ARE rising in the polls, some have our support level at double that of the Lib Dems, at 19%.

  • Narrow

    Sure, separate us futher, make sure it gets easier and easier to isolate ourselves and in turn stay ignorant to the way other people live, do it if you want, it won’t work because the idea from religious people is that all homosexuals wear certain clothes, look a certain way and talk a certain way, basically they all wear thongs in public and nothing else, except maybe sunglasses, whats this going to lead to? shop owners who are so bloody desperate to refuse service to somebody have to ask if they are gay or not?

    I mainly talk about homosexuals because this is a topical homosexual site but if you want me to go to others okay, all Jewish people wear stupid hats and talk with a nasally voice, and plus they don’t believe that jesus is the son of god and that really upsets the poor christian folks, same with Muslims, all they want to do is blow everything up and they wear scary garments which make people feel uncomforrtable, and all christians are jesus freaks who just want to bicker at you about how amazing jesus was and how you are going to hell, what are people supposed to do when that happens? ignore it? [Sarcasm]SURE, i’m sure that will work[sarcasm]

    Infact these might truely be real problems… WAIT WAIT WAIT, I’ve got an idea, how about we make a law that…separates all classes and creeds and races and sexualitys into their own sections, give them their own water fountains and everything! then everyone will be happy!

  • Mark Y

    Another UKIP loony tune. They should all wear clowns makeup at the UKIP annual conference, if there is such a thing.

  • Joanne Cooper

    So lets say she walks into a shop and they refuse to serve her because of her views I wonder what sort of storm she’ll create because of it, and I’d quite happily watch it burn.

  • Sylvie Poulin

    This is plain discrimination…..Uphold your beliefs in your churches where they belong…leave the business world out of your belief system….

    • TiggyTiger

      Discriminatory beliefs don’t belong in MY church. The business world is full of beliefs. We should demand justice and fairness in both.

  • Adam

    Anyone advocating the right to refuse to server minorities such as LGBT should also be pushing for those who want to refuse service to clearly advertise as such. In all seriousness how are you to know walking into any business?

    But here’s the thing, how many businesses would do this? The simple fact is they want it written into law so their bigotry goes unnoticed rather than being highlighted. If you run a business you do so to make money, and holding an openly discriminatory view to how you run your business makes no business sense unless you want to operate at a loss. So my guess is none of them would want to do as such.

    It was interesting to see the letter sent to Governor Jan Brewer in Arizona signed by numerous large organizations (not surprisingly mostly big tech orgs) Urging her to veto the proposed law there. They knew what the wider implications were and the same applies anywhere in a reasoned, accepting and cohesive society

  • Tamlyn Ailsa MacPherson

    Oh for pity’s sake. Here’s my response, the language has a Trigger Warning which is why I post the link.

  • Rob

    That’s her career over with UKIP. Sack her !!!

  • Dave

    Meanwhile, elsewhere in loaded, politicized headline land, consumers still have the right to not fraternize gay and women owned businesses. Lib-Lab-Con refuse to do anything to prevent this outrage! What a load of crap. Its a freedom of association issue, not an anti or pro anything issue. Either you get it or you dont.

    • TiggyTiger

      What is this term ‘to fraternize’? What does fraternizing a business mean? Do you mean patronising a business? Are you American that you put ‘z’ instead of ‘s’? Is fraternize used in the US as a verb without the word ‘with’?

    • de Villiers

      No Dave, you are very wrong. Private clubs, such as mens clubs, can discriminate. Businesses that serve the public cannot.

      Further, those businesses who do cater for a particular group – women taxis or gay bars do so because their patrons are not always safe elsewhere or want to meet like people. It is a safe space carved-out of mainstream society to avoid being totally dominated.

      Where else would gay people find others with whom to have sex? Your local bar?

  • Stephen MOLE


  • Glen

    There is a worrying trend in the way “pink news” reports the news and this article is a perfect example! You say that this woman says it’s okay not to serve gays and women – a statement which is sure to raise the hackles of your readers. What you do not say is hat she thinks it’s all right not to serve anyone you don’t like – heterosexuals, Jews, blacks, Christians, homophobes, nazis, Boy Scouts whatever! This is dishonest reporting and is worthy of the Daily Mail – stop doing it!

  • Thomas F. Lopez

    As a UKIP member I don’t agree with her comments, at least in the way that they are portrayed here. If she was saying that you can turn away people because of their sexuality, race etc then that’s wrong. If she was saying you can turn away people regardless of their sexuality, race, gender etc then I fail to see the problem. The main problem I see is that if all parties were judged the same way, the scandals involving Diane Abbott and Harriet Harman would have destroyed the Labour party. I don’t want to be on the back foot and try and finish my comment saying that UKIP isn’t racist, homophobic, this that and the other- you can do the research yourself and you’ll find it isn’t these things at all. Of course there will be a few interesting characters in a party as new as UKIP, but I think it’s a double standard to say that UKIP is the only party with these people, not to mention it is a tiny minority of our membership.

  • dobaral

    well…That could be arranged…as long the same law allow businesses to turn away stupid UKIP councillors….

  • Anthony, Solihull

    “Nigel Carter, chairman of Brighton and Hove UKIP, told The Argus that Ms Edmunds’ views did not represent the majority of those involved with UKIP.”, adding ‘the rest of us would have you stoned in public and sent for some of that wonderful gay-cure therapy you all need’, and ‘woman, I said 2 sugars in my tea’. The sooner we wake up and start prosecuting these idiots for insighting hatred, the quicker we can get back to improving all the issues in our society.

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.